southwest missouri water resource study – phase...
TRANSCRIPT
US Army Corps of Engineers ® Kansas City District
Southwest Missouri Water Resource Study – Phase II Regional Supply Availability (2010-2060)
March 2014 Final Report
US Army Corps of Engineers ® Little Rock District
State of Missouri
This page intentionally left blank
i Final Report
Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Regional Water Demands ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Supply Availability .................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Supply Availability and Gap Analysis Approach ..................................................................... 3
1.6 Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.7 Future Infrastructure Needs .................................................................................................. 8
1.8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Study Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 15
3.0 Physical, Institutional, and Legal Setting ................................................................................ 17
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Groundwater Sources .......................................................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Physical Setting .............................................................................................................. 19
3.2.2 Institutional and Legal Setting ....................................................................................... 23
3.3 Surface Water Sources ......................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Physical Setting .............................................................................................................. 25
3.3.1.1 Missouri River Basin ............................................................................................ 27
3.3.1.2 White River Basin ................................................................................................ 28
3.3.1.3 Arkansas River Basin ............................................................................................ 29
3.3.2 Institutional and Legal Setting ....................................................................................... 30
4.0 Drought Planning .................................................................................................................... 33
5.0 Water Demand Forecast 2060 ................................................................................................ 35
5.1 Study Summary .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Demands ........................................................................ 37
6.0 Supply Availability ................................................................................................................... 42
6.1 Groundwater Sources .......................................................................................................... 43
6.1.1 Ozark Aquifer West ........................................................................................................ 45
6.1.1.1 Quantity ............................................................................................................... 46
6.1.1.2 Quality ................................................................................................................. 48
6.1.2 Ozark Aquifer East .......................................................................................................... 49
6.1.2.1 Springfield Area ................................................................................................... 50
6.1.2.2 Branson Area ....................................................................................................... 51
ii Final Report
6.1.3 Osage Plains ................................................................................................................... 52
6.1.4 Groundwater Summary ................................................................................................. 53
6.1.4.1 Ozark Aquifer West ............................................................................................. 54
6.1.4.2 Ozark Aquifer East ............................................................................................... 54
6.1.4.3 Osage Plains ......................................................................................................... 56
6.2 Surface Water Sources ......................................................................................................... 56
6.2.1 Surface Water Availability ................................................................................................ 56
6.2.1.1 Quantity ............................................................................................................... 56
6.2.1.2 Quality ................................................................................................................. 59
6.2.2 Surface Water Summary ................................................................................................... 60
7.0 Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 61
7.1 Scenarios .............................................................................................................................. 61
7.2 Assumptions ......................................................................................................................... 62
7.3 Sub‐region Gap Analysis ...................................................................................................... 63
7.3.1 Sub‐region 1 ................................................................................................................... 63
7.3.2 Sub‐region 2 ................................................................................................................... 67
7.3.3 Sub‐region 3 ................................................................................................................... 73
7.3.4 Sub‐region 4 ................................................................................................................... 76
7.3.5 Regional Summary ......................................................................................................... 77
8.0 Corps Reservoir Overview – Lake Yield Study ......................................................................... 83
8.1 Purpose of Yield Study ......................................................................................................... 83
8.2 Pertinent Lake Data ............................................................................................................. 83
8.2.1 Stockton Lake ................................................................................................................. 84
8.2.2 Pomme de Terre Lake .................................................................................................... 85
8.2.3 Table Rock Lake .............................................................................................................. 85
8.3 Dam Safety Action Classification ......................................................................................... 86
8.4 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 86
8.5 Conservation/Multi‐Purpose Pool Yields ............................................................................. 87
8.6 Flood Control Pool Yields ..................................................................................................... 88
8.7 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 89
9.0 Supply Infrastructure Summary .............................................................................................. 91
9.1 Treatment Capacities of Public Supply Systems .................................................................. 91
9.2 Peak Day Demands .............................................................................................................. 91
9.3 Water Quality Supply Compliance Issues ............................................................................ 93
9.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 94
10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 95
10.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 95
10.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 97
11.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 99
iii Final Report
AppendicesAppendix A Estimated Future Water Demands by Sector, Source, and Year (2020 ‐2060)
Appendix B Stockton Lake Withdrawals (1996‐2012)
TablesTable 1‐1: Gap Evaluation ‐ Regional Summary .............................................................................. 5
Table 1‐2: Summary of Storage at Corps Reservoirs in Southwest Missouri ............................... 10
Table 3‐1: Southwestern Missouri Major Reservoirs ................................................................... 26
Table 5‐1: Estimated Water Demands by Sector in Southwest Missouri ..................................... 36
Table 5‐2: Percentages of Groundwater and Surface Water Withdrawals in Southwest
Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5‐3: Groundwater and Surface Water Estimated Water Demands in Southwest
Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 40
Table 5‐4: Baseline Estimated Water Demands by Source and Sector in Southwest Missouri ... 41
Table 6‐1: WHPA Study Findings ................................................................................................... 46
Table 6‐2: USGS Hypothetical Scenarios for Groundwater Availability ........................................ 44
Table 6‐3: USGS Hypothetical Scenarios for Groundwater Withdrawals and Resulting
Decline ......................................................................................................................... 51
Table 6‐4: Shoal Creek Monthly Flow at Joplin, Missouri ............................................................. 59
Table 6‐5: 303(d) Listed Water Supply Designated Water Bodies within Southwestern
Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 59
Table 7‐1: Shoal Creek Flows Converted to mgd at Joplin, Missouri ........................................... 63
Table 7‐2: Gap Evaluation, Sub‐region 1 Scenarios 1 through 4 .................................................. 65
Table 7‐3: Springfield City Utilities Water Production by Source 2010 and 2012 ........................ 68
Table 7‐4: Gap Evaluation, Sub‐region 2 Scenarios 1 through 4 .................................................. 70
Table 7‐5: Gap Evaluation, Sub‐region 3 Scenarios 1 through 4 .................................................. 75
Table 7‐6: Gap Evaluation, Regional Summary ............................................................................. 78
Table 8‐1: Storage Required for a Given Yield .............................................................................. 87
Table 8‐2: Flood Control Pool Storage Required for a Given Yield ............................................... 88
Table 9‐1: Comparison of Public Supply Peak Day Demands with Total System Design
Capacities (mgd) .......................................................................................................... 92
Table 9‐2: Number of 2010‐2012 Water Quality Supply Violations ............................................. 94
Table 10‐1: Summary of Storage at Corps Reservoirs in Southwest Missouri ............................. 96
FiguresFigure 1.1: Regional Summary Scenario 1 Groundwater Gap in 2040 ........................................... 6
Figure 1.2: Regional Summary Scenario 1 Groundwater and Surface Water Threshold in 2040 .. 6
Figure 1.3: Regional Summary Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2040 ............ 7
Figure 1.4: Regional Summary Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2060 ............ 7
iv Final Report
Figure 2.1: 16‐County Study Area of Southwest Missouri ............................................................ 15
Figure 3.1: Map of the Underlying Ozark Aquifer and Overlying Plateus .................................... 18
Figure 3.2: Major River Basins of Missouri ................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.3: Statewide Major Reservoirs and Rivers ...................................................................... 19
Figure 3.4: Springfield Plateau and Ozark Aquifer ........................................................................ 20
Figure 3.5: Groundwater Level Decline from Pre‐development to 2006‐2007 ............................ 21
Figure 3.6: Illustration of Cone of Depression .............................................................................. 22
Figure 3.7: Illustration of Well Interference ................................................................................. 23
Figure 3.8: Sensitive and Special Area Regulations for Drilling in Missouri ................................. 24
Figure 3.9: Southwest Missouri Surface Water Resources ........................................................... 26
Figure 4.1: Average Summer (June, July, and August) Precipitation – 1895 to 2010................... 33
Figure 4.2: Monthly Precipitation Departure from Average – January 1952 to December
1956 ............................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 4.3: Monthly Precipitation Departure from Average – January 2008 to July 2012 ........... 34
Figure 5.1: Public Water Supply Source by County ...................................................................... 38
Figure 5.2: Southwest Missouri Baseline Total Regional Water Use by Sector ........................... 39
Figure 5.3: Total Estimated Baseline Surface Water and Groundwater Demands by County ..... 40
Figure 6.1: Billion Gallons of Storage in the Ozark Aquifer .......................................................... 43
Figure 6.2: Billion Gallons of Storage in the Springfield Plateau Aquifer ..................................... 44
Figure 6.3: Pre‐development Confined (blue) versus Unconfined (yellow) Ozark Aquifer. ......... 44
Figure 6.4: Recent (2006‐2007) Confined (blue) versus Unconfined (yellow) Ozark Aquifer ...... 45
Figure 6.5: USGS Tri‐State Groundwater Study Boundary ........................................................... 46
Figure 6.6: Groundwater Hydrograph at Noel, Missouri .............................................................. 48
Figure 6.7: Location and Extent of Mining Operations ................................................................. 49
Figure 6.8: Greene County Vicinity Study Area Boundary ............................................................ 50
Figure 6.9: Freshwater and Saline Water Break in Missouri ........................................................ 52
Figure 6.10: Golden City Seasonal Groundwater Fluctuations and Well Interference ................ 53
Figure 6.11: Monthly Surface Water Withdrawals from Stockton Lake 2007 to 2012 ................ 58
Figure 7.1: Study Area Sub‐regions ............................................................................................... 62
Figure 7.2: Sub‐region 1, Scenario 1 Groundwater Threshold Exceeded in 2030 ........................ 66
Figure 7.3: Sub‐region 1, Scenario 1 Sufficient Surface Water to Meet Demands in 2030 ......... 66
Figure 7.4: Sub‐region 1, Scenario 3 Supply Availability Gap Under Drought Conditions 2010 .. 67
Figure 7.5: Fiscal Year 2010 Springfield Water Use by Source ..................................................... 69
Figure 7.6: Fiscal Year 2012 Water Use by Source ....................................................................... 69
Figure 7.7: Sub‐region 2, Scenario 1 Groundwater Gap in 2050 .................................................. 71
Figure 7.8: Sub‐region 2, Scenario 1 Surface Water Threshold in 2050 ....................................... 71
Figure 7.9: Sub‐region 2, Scenario 1 Combined Groundwater and Surface Water Threshold in
2050 ............................................................................................................................ 72
Figure 7.10: Sub‐region 2, Scenario 3 Surface Water Gap in 2050 .............................................. 71
v Final Report
Figure 7.11: Sub‐region 2, Scenario 3 Combined Surface Water and Groundwater Gap in
2050 .......................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 7.12: Sub‐region 3, Scenario 1 Groundwater Threshold in 2040 ...................................... 76
Figure 7.13: Sub‐region 3, Scenario 2 Groundwater Gap in 2060 ................................................ 76
Figure 7.14: Regional Summary, Scenario 1 Groundwater Gap in 2040 ...................................... 79
Figure 7.15: Regional Summary, Scenario 1 Groundwater and Surface Water Threshold in
2040 .......................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 7.16: Regional Summary, Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2040 ....... 80
Figure 7.17: Regional Summary, Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2060 ....... 80
Figure 8.1: Pertinent Lake Data .................................................................................................... 83
Figure 8.2: Stockton Lake Storage Allocations .............................................................................. 84
Figure 8.3: Pomme de Terre Lake Storage .................................................................................... 85
Figure 8.4: Table Rock Lake Storage ............................................................................................. 86
Figure 8.5: Storage Required for a Given Yield ............................................................................. 87
Figure 8.6: Flood Control Pool Storage Required for a Given Yield .............................................. 88
Figure 9.1: City Utilities of Springfield Peak Day Analysis ............................................................. 93
vi Final Report
Acronyms
B&V Black and Veatch
CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation
cfs cubic feet per second
Coalition Tri‐State Water Resource Coalition
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC Clean Water Commission
DSAC Dam Safety Action Classification
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY fiscal year
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HEC‐ResSim Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Reservoir Simulation Program
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
mgd million gallons per day
PAS Planning Assistance to States
PWS public water system
RESOP Reservoir Operations Study Computer Program
Rule groundwater rule
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TCE tricholoroethene
TMDL total maximum daily load
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WHPA Whittman Hydro Planning Associates
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Background In the past decade, there have been a significant amount of water resources monitoring, investigations, and evaluations completed in southwest Missouri. Numerous federal, state, and local agencies and organizations have completed these studies not only to better understand the resource but also to acknowledge and prepare for estimated water shortages in the not too distant future. The studies applied in this evaluation are referred to in the subsequent report sections and provided in the List of References. Building upon this decade of significant studies, this planning-level evaluation will analyze the known groundwater and surface water availability of southwest Missouri to determine if current sources are sufficient to meet future regional demands. This study is a companion document to the Southwest Missouri Water Resources Study – Phase I: Forecast of Regional Water Demand (2010 – 2060). Both Phase I and Phase II of this study have been conducted in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under a Planning Assistance to States (PAS) agreement and in coordination with the Tri-State Water Resources Coalition (Coalition).
1.2 Regional Water Demands During Phase I of this study in 2012, the Corps and CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) completed a regional demand forecast by water use sector (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, livestock, and agriculture) through 2060. In the demand forecast, three growth scenarios were considered as well as the implementation of conservation measures in the future. Demand projections for the medium-growth scenario for the region would increase over 50 years from 339 million gallons per day (mgd) to 464 mgd, an increased demand of 125 mgd, which is nearly 40 percent. A review of these estimated water demands by sector, county, and source (groundwater and surface water) is presented in Section 5 of this report.
1.3 Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate current and future supply availability through the year 2060 in 16 counties in the southwest Missouri area as demanded by primarily municipal, agricultural, and industrial/commercial sectors. This study provides a planning-level evaluation addressing both the short-term and long-term water supply availability as well as a preliminary investigation of supply infrastructure capacity for the region. The 16-county region, as shown in Figure 2.1, includes Barry, Barton, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Greene, Hickory, Jasper, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, Polk, St. Clair, Stone, Taney, and Vernon counties in southwest Missouri.
This planning-level evaluation of supply availability is based on past studies of the groundwater and surface water resources for the 16-county region. This is a planning level investigation with no additional groundwater or surface water modeling. Supply availability will be compared to
1 Final Report
the projected demands for the region as presented in the Phase I study. The Phase I study was conducted by the Corps, both the Kansas City and Little Rock districts, with support from CDM Smith. Both Phase I and Phase II are conducted by the Kansas City and Little Rock Corps districts with support from CDM Smith at the request of MDNR. The purpose of these studies is in keeping with the mission to “ensure that the quality and quantity of the water resources of the state are maintained at the highest level practicable to support present and future beneficial uses” (RSMo 640.600) as well as the Coalition’s goal of seeking sustainable solutions to southwest Missouri’s water resources challenges. This study will evaluate the ability of the region’s surface water and groundwater resources to meet future water demands.
1.4 Supply Availability The upper Springfield Plateau aquifer levels respond to annual precipitation and thus show some stress in drought years but generally are estimated to provide sufficient water for self-supply domestic uses for the foreseeable future. The underlying Ozark Aquifer, separated from the Springfield Plateau aquifer by a confining layer, has ample storage estimated to be around 113 trillion gallons; however, vertical recharge is slow, particularly west of the Springfield area in Carthage, Joplin, Monett, and Noel where confining layers are less permeable. Even in the karst topography of the Springfield, Missouri area, the localized cone of depression continues to grow with growing municipal and industrial demands assuming the trend identified by MDNR in 2007 of continued groundwater declines as shown in Figure 3.5. The growing tourist area of Branson, Missouri has placed demands on the groundwater supply that have been significant enough to cause the town to seek and secure Lake Taneycomo as the primary public supply water source. Groundwater declines are a localized issue, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) models indicate continued declines to the point of some model cells potentially going dry in the west under continued growth and drought scenarios while reflecting the Ozark Aquifer less than 50 percent saturated in the east.
Similar to groundwater, southwest Missouri has a significant amount of surface water available from the widely distributed White River system as well as Shoal Creek of the Spring River system on the west and the James River on the east. Likewise, there are several large reservoirs in the region, including three operated by the Corps. Regional Corps operated reservoirs include Stockton and Pomme de Terre lakes in the Missouri River watershed and Table Rock Lake in the White River system. The region also includes Lake Taneycomo, operated by Empire District Electric Company and located between the Corps reservoirs of Table Rock and Bull Shoals. Additionally, there are several municipally owned lakes within this region. Regional surface water bodies currently being utilized for public water supply include Stockton Lake, Shoal Creek, the James River, Fellows and McDaniel lakes, and Lake Lamar. Many of these surface water public supply sources and agreements were secured as a result of regional groundwater limitations. These include Lake Lamar, constructed following the historic drought of the mid-1950s; Stockton Lake allocation, acquired by City Utilities of Springfield (City Utilities) in the
2 Final Report
mid-1990s to supplement dwindling supplies from Fellows and McDaniel lakes; and Lake Taneycomo agreement, acquired by the City of Branson after declining groundwater levels made it no longer financially feasible to rely solely on groundwater sources.
The 1954 drought of record put significant strain on regional water suppliers. Though most drought periods are not as extreme as 1954, the substantial increase in demands since this period has added significant pressure on both groundwater and surface water resources. During the drought of 2012, City Utilities relied heavily on their surface water allocation from Stockton Lake to replenish their falling municipal lake levels. Similarly, the City of Joplin’s water provider, Missouri-American Water Company, was forced to adjust supplies in 2012 by adding 2 feet of emergency dam to Grand Falls to offer an additional 68 million gallons in times of drought. Many communities within the Southwest Missouri Region were on the threshold of taking drastic measures in 2012, indicating that future drought periods will lead to significant strain on the regional water supply.
1.5 Supply Availability and Gap Analysis Approach Where available surface water and groundwater do not meet future forecasted demands, the term “gap” is used to identify the deficit. The difference between the future demand from the current capacity to treat and deliver is referred to as the future “need” in order to supply the available water. This report does not address the constraints or capacities of infrastructure (e.g., pumps, treatment plants, and distributions systems) to pump, treat, and deliver this available water.
First, to address surface water and groundwater availability in both normal and drought conditions, the following four management scenarios are applied in this gap analysis and are further discussed in Section 7 of this report:
• Scenario 1. Normal weather surface water flows or withdrawals. USGS groundwater models with current rate of growth reflecting continual declines.
• Scenario 2. Normal weather surface water flows or withdrawals. Sustainable groundwater management option (fully saturated Ozark Aquifer).
• Scenario 3. Drought condition surface water flows or withdrawals. USGS groundwater models with current rate of growth reflecting continual declines.
• Scenario 4. Drought condition surface water flows or withdrawals. Sustainable groundwater management option (fully saturated Ozark Aquifer).
These are the four management scenarios selected for this study. Other management scenarios may be applied in future analyses beyond the scope of this study.
3 Final Report
In an effort to accurately reflect the unique differences in demands and sources of supply, as well as to align with past Coalition and USGS study boundaries, the 16-county region was subdivided into four sub-regions. A map of the sub-regions is shown in Figure 7.1. The counties within each of the sub-regions are as follows:
• Sub-region 1. Barry, Barton, Jasper, McDonald, and Newton counties
• Sub-region 2. Christian, Greene, Lawrence, Polk, and Stone counties
• Sub-region 3. Taney County
• Sub-region 4. Cedar, Dade, Hickory, St. Clair, and Vernon counties
The sub-region gap evaluations allowed a comparison of forecasted demands by county to the supply availability, particularly groundwater, as modeled by USGS for two of the four sub-regions. These comparisons include the water use sectors of public supply, self-supplied residential, and self-supplied industrial (as applied by USGS studies). The assumptions, methodologies, and subsequent gap evaluations by sub-region and scenario are provided in Section 7.
The most immediate need identified was in Sub-region 1, where during a extended drought there is neither sufficient flow nor storage in Shoal Creek to meet baseflow requirements and sub-region demands. This was observed during the drought of 2012, and based on drought of record conditions, the gap in supply and demand is estimated to be 19 mgd in August of 2020 and could potentially grow to over 50 mgd in August of 2060. Gaps in supply are also projected in Sub-region 2 under severe drought conditions and may occur in the summer months as early as 2040. Groundwater supply gaps are projected by 2050 under current rates of withdrawal in Sub-region 3, assuming only the City of Branson receives surface water from Lake Taneycomo.
1.6 Gap Analysis As a region, there are sufficient available surface water supplies to supplement localized declining groundwater. However, the infrastructure to capture, store, treat, and deliver this water is not in place currently to meet the impending demands particularly during severe drought as noted above in Sub-region 1.
Evaluation by sub-region limits surface water sources to their respective sub-region; however, when evaluating the 16-county region in total, surface water availability is distributed throughout the entire region. As a result, viewing the gap from a regional standpoint will be slightly different from viewing the gap by sub-region. This study does not take into account infrastructure and contractual agreements that may restrict the regional distribution of these available surface water supplies. Therefore, in some cases local groundwater supply may no longer be ecomically viable due to decline ; however, regional surface water supply can serve to fill the gap and to meet demands. While it may appear, in this case, that there is no apparent gap in overall supply and demand, infrastructure and contractual limitations could cause unforeseen gaps. This situation is shown in Table 1-1, Scenario 1, where under normal weather
4 Final Report
conditions and a groundwater management option that anticipates continued declines at current rates of growth, the region is estimated to have a sufficient combination of groundwater and surface water to meet future demands through 2060. However, the groundwater threshold is hit by 2040 as shown in Figure 1.1 while surface water supply availability as shown in Figure 1.2 makes up for the difference through 2060. Therefore, under normal weather conditions, there is no projected deficit in supply availability for the region.
However, as shown in Table 1-1, Scenario 3, under drought conditions and a groundwater management option that anticipates continued declines at current rates of growth, the region only has a sufficient combination of groundwater and surface water to meet future demands through 2030 with increasing deficits appearing after 2040. The groundwater threshold is hit by 2040 as shown in Figure 1.1, and surface water supply availability, as shown in Figure 1.3, can no longer make up the difference during a drought. The supply gap during the summer months grows from 3 to 6 mgd in 2030 to as much as 83 mgd in August of 2060 as shown in Figure 1.4.
Scenarios 1 and 3 are discussed here in more detail in the Executive Summary as they are the most likely scenarios for Southwest Missouri’s foreseeable water future. However, the supply availability gap projected under the sustainable groundwater management option of Scenarios 2 and 4 are also shown in Table 1-1 for comparison and future consideration.
Table 1-1: Gap Evaluation - Regional Summary
Scenario 1
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2060 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scenario 2
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - - - 20 20 - - -
2060 - - - - - - - 49 49 9 - -
Scenario 3
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - 3 6 - - -
2040 - - - - - - 3 27 29 - - -
2050 - - - - - - 28 54 54 8 1 -
2060 4 9 14 20 - 25 55 83 82 31 23 11
5 Final Report
Table 1-1: Gap Evaluation - Regional Summary (continued)
Scenario 4
2020 - - 4 7 - 1 24 45 48 13 11 1
2030 10 13 19 23 - 19 44 66 69 30 26 16
2040 27 31 37 41 - 40 66 90 92 49 44 34
2050 46 51 56 61 - 63 91 117 117 71 64 53
2060 67 72 77 83 - 88 118 146 145 94 86 74
Figure 1.1: Regional Summary Scenario 1 Groundwater Gap in 2040
Figure 1.2: Regional Summary Scenario 1 Groundwater and Surface Water Threshold in 2040
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
GroundwaterDemand
GroundwaterSupply
050
100150200250300350400450500
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
Surface WaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
Total Water Supply
6 Final Report
Figure 1.3: Regional Summary Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2040
Figure 1.4: Regional Summary Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2060
By 2030, groundwater resources in the region will be locally limited and likely stress purveyors economically to drill, pump, and deliver groundwater. The flows in Shoal Creek during average monthly weather conditions supplemented with the allocation of 30 mgd in Stockton Lake are sufficient to meet demands through 2060 for the 16-county region, making up for the groundwater deficit. However, to take advantage of these flows in Shoal Creek in support of regional demands, storage and delivery infrastructure would need to be constructed as offered as an alternative in Freese and Nichols study (2009). While there are not regional deficits in supply estimated under normal weather conditions, there are significant anticipated gaps in supply during drought.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
Surface WaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
Total Water Supply
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2060
Surface WaterDemand
Groundwater Demand
Total Water Supply
7 Final Report
Based on limited storage capacities of Shoal Creek water supply at Joplin, Sub-region 1 would currently have a deficit if conditions occurred similar to those during the drought of record (1954). The baseline (current) drought scenario gap is estimated to be approximately 10 mgd, growing to over 50 mgd by 2060. If the drought of record were to occur, there is no infrastructure in place to fulfill the water needs during drought of Sub-region 1. Sub-region 2 reflects a slight supply gap as early as 2040, even with City Utilities Stockton Lake allocation. For Sub-region 2, the drought scenario gap begins at 4 mgd in 2040 and grows to 30 mgd by 2060. As noted above, the regional gap is calculated separately from the sub-regional gaps; therefore, as a 16-county region, the drought scenario is estimated to first have a gap by 2030 of approximately 3 to 6 mgd, which increases to over 80 mgd by 2060.
1.7 Future Infrastructure Needs A planning level assessment of the existing treatment capacities by county as well as drinking water violations were completed to understand the alignment of future supply source considerations with known infrastructure needs. Alignment of supply alternatives with infrastructure needs would lend to more efficient and effective use of capital investments.
The gap in supply to meet demands as presented above aligns with future infrastructure needs necessary to meet peak day demands as early as 2020. Peak day demands were estimated to be twice that of average daily demands as presented in the demand forecast. Existing treatment capacities were published in the Census of Missouri Public Water Systems (MDNR 2011). In Sub-region 1, Jasper, McDonald, and Newton counties reflect deficits to meet peak demands as early as 2020. Similarly, in 2020 in Sub-region 2, a peak day demand demonstrates a need of an additional 6 mgd of treatment capacity in Christian County while Greene and Polk counties are in need of additional treatment capacity by 2030. Barry, Lawrence, Stone, and Taney counties need additional capacity by 2060.
Alternative sources of supply and the necessary infrastructure to treat and deliver the water should be looked at simultaneously to make informed and economically efficient capital investment decisions within this decade.
1.8 Conclusions The supply availability study is a planning level evaluation of supply sources for Southwest Missouri as compared to projected demands to identify future water availability gaps. No additional groundwater or surface water modeling was conducted for either the Ozark Aquifer or for the primary municipal surface water sources. However, as part of this study, the Corps did evaluate supply availability for Stockton, Pomme de Terre and Table Rock lakes. The findings of these evaluations are summarized in the following sections.
As a region, there is sufficient quantity of both surface water and groundwater in Southwest Missouri to meet future demands through 2060, particularly during years of normal weather, provided the infrastructure and contractual agreements are in place to capture, store, treat,
8 Final Report
and deliver the available water. However, during times of drought the combination of existing sources are challenged to meet demands region-wide and fall short of demands as early as 2030 by as much as 6 mgd in September growing to a deficit of 83 mgd in 2060. In either case, the necessary infrastructure to capture, store, treat and deliver the available water is insufficient in a number of communities, particularly for the peak day demands beginning between 2010 and 2020 as discussed in Section 9.
Although there is an estimated 113 trillion gallons of groundwater in the Ozark Aquifer, there are local challenges and limitations to the availability and production of the aquifer. Likewise, though there is ample surface water during times of normal weather, the municipal infrastructure to capture and store the water is insufficient to meet demands during times of drought. Given these local constraints, the 16 county study area was divided into 4 sub-regions to provide a more focused evaluation of water availability in support of the most likely options to meet future demands.
The cone of depression in the Ozark Aquifer underlying the Joplin area still persists despite Joplin’s primary source of supply being surface water. Additionally, there are groundwater declines throughout many communities within the remainder of sub-region 1. Likewise, although Springfield utilizes surface water as its primary source of supply, yet there exists a cone of depression in the Springfield area and declines among the surrounding communities within sub-region 2. It is recognized that there are annual groundwater level fluctuations during the drought years of 2005, 2006 and 2012 and during the wetter years of 2008, 2011 and 2013. The MDNR real-time groundwater level monitoring well network measures groundwater level fluctuations and will provide data in support of future USGS evaluations of the Ozark Aquifer. In sub-region 3, the City of Branson in the past decade has converted to surface water from Lake Taneycomo after experiencing the need to drill more and deeper wells to meet demands during the tourist season on which their community’s economy depends. All other communities in sub-region 3 rely on groundwater, which is projected to become strained by 2050. Sub-region 4, the northern most counties within the study area, is experiencing overall declines in population and has had relatively few issues with quantities of groundwater to meet demands; although quality may be a growing concern with the potential for brackish water to migrate further east.
Shoal Creek and the Spring River system are located in the southwest portion of the study area, sub-region 1, and have the potential to provide sufficient supply for Joplin and the surrounding area if the necessary storage facilities are constructed in the near future. There have been studies to evaluate alternatives to capture these flows, but the capital and mitigation costs are high. City Utilities supplements its two lakes with an allocation of 50,000 acre-feet (30 mgd) from the Corps reservoir, Stockton Lake. The allocation was secured by City Utilities, however, there are no restrictions on City Utilities supplying water to surrounding communities within sub-region 2. The City of Branson has an arrangement with Empire District Electric Company that allows them to pump water from Lake Taneycomo to meet their demands for the
9 Final Report
foreseeable future. This agreement is only with the City of Branson. It is likely that there is sufficient storage at Lake Taneycomo to meet additional public supply demands in sub-region 3 and beyond; however, this supply availability would need to be evaluated among competing demands and authorized by Empire District Electric Company.
As noted, a number of studies have been completed in the past decade to look at alternatives for additional surface water supplies including construction of new reservoirs or requesting new and additional allocations from federal reservoirs. The Corps owns and operates three large reservoirs in Southwest Missouri; Stockton, Pomme de terre and Table Rock lakes.
As part of this study, the Kansas City and Little Rock Districts of the Corps evaluated storage that would be required at each reservoir to provide a given firm yield through the drought of record. This storage is currently allocated to other authorized purposes such as hydropower or flood control. Table 1-2 presents the amount of storage allocated to flood control and the conservation and multipurpose pools at each of the Corps reservoirs.
Table 1-2: Summary of Storage at Corps Reservoirs in Southwest Missouri
Reservoir Stream Dammed Flood Control Storage (AF)
Conservation / Multipurpose
(AF) AF needed to Yeild 35 MGD
Table Rock White 760,000 1,181,500 49,100
Stockton Sac 774,0001 875,000 >50,000
Pomme de Terre Pomme de Terre 407,000 237,000 46,300 1 Flood storage is unavailable due to the Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC)
Per the Corps evaluation, it would require 6,600, 7,600, and 7,000 AF of storage from Pomme de Terre, Stockton and Table Rock lakes, respectively, to each supply a yield of 5 mgd during the drought of record from the conservation and/or multipurpose pools. The storage required from these pools to supply 35 mgd would be 46,300, 50,000, and 49,100 AF from Pomme de Terre, Stockton and Table Rock lakes, respectively. For other supply amounts refer to Section 8.
Again, this storage is currently allocated to other authorized purposes. A change in the use of storage in an existing reservoir project from its present use to water supply (i.e., reallocation) is authorized by the Water Supply Act of 1958. However, reallocations or addition of storage that would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or which would involve major structural or operational changes, will be made only upon the approval of Congress.
1.9 Recommendations In the past decade, there has been a convergence of studies, monitoring data, and investments to secure the future of water resources in Southwest Missouri. As part of this study, the Kansas City District Corps completed an evaluation of available reservoir storage for water supply purposes for both Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes. Similarly, the Little Rock District Corps
10 Final Report
completed an evaluation for Table Rock Lake as part of the White River system. Beginning in 2014, the USGS will be conducting a new modeling effort for the Ozark Aquifer that will be completed in 2017.
The following recommendations address science, technical and policy needs as identified during the Southwest Missouri Water Resources Study – Phase I and Phase II. Also, next steps to secure water sources to meet future demands are offered for future consideration..
• Consider beginning discussions of local and regional groundwater management options that are appropriate for Southwest Missouri’s water future while leveraging USGS’s ongoing Ozark Aquifer modeling efforts.
The Ozark Aquifer contains over 100 trillion gallons of groundwater, yet there are localized declines and several documented cones of depression at Joplin, Springfield and Branson indentifying a physical and economic constraint even to such a large and seemingly infinite supply source. Currently, groundwater withdrawals in Missouri are governed by the Reasonable Use policy. In recent years, significant well interference with competing wells in close proximity has been documented. The area of unconfined (i.e., less than fully saturated) Ozark Aquifer continues to expand underneath the southern portion of the study area. There has been an expressed interest in a groundwater management alternative seeking a sustainable groundwater source for future generations. It has been seen in Branson that the Ozark Aquifer has the capacity to recharge and recover relatively quickly. Most wells throughout the region drawdown in the summer season and recover in the winter season.
Offered here are investigative steps in defining ”sustainable” groundwater level conditions.
- First, identify what is the desired management goal for the community or region. This should include input from water users and other stakeholder groups.
- Second, provide to USGS the Phase I water demand forecast to apply in their latest Ozark Aquifer modeling effort.
- Third, identify groundwater management strategies employed by other states to balance groundwater resource management with emerging water uses
- Finally, identify potential groundwater management strategies, with stakeholder involvement, that seek to meet the desired management goal or another agreed upon threshold (e.g., annual feet of decline or percent saturation) for management of the aquifer.
11 Final Report
• Evaluate stream flow needs in partnership with water users, stakeholder groups and other local, state and federal agencies. Determine the desired and necessary stream flow conditions needed to meet all beneficial uses, especially during low flow periods and drought conditions.
• Align future infrastructure with supply availability gaps to leverage capital investments for efficient and effective use of regional dollars and resources.
• Evaluate and implement drought management planning throughout regional utilities. Such planning has been proved critical to the area. The city of Springfield was able to avoid mandatory measures during the drought of 2012 through education and outreach of voluntary conservation measures.
• Consider and incentivize water conservation and water use efficiency programs to reduce demands.
• Consider and model outcomes of various climate variability scenarios.
• Begin exploring water supply reallocation opportunities in Corps of Engineers lakes to help reduce communities' dependence on groundwater supplies.
12 Final Report
2.0 Background and Purpose
2.1 Introduction In the past decade, there has been a significant amount of water resources monitoring investigations and evaluations completed in Southwest Missouri. Numerous federal, state, and local agencies and organizations have completed these studies not only to better understand the resource but also to acknowledge and prepare for estimated future water shortages in the not too distant future. Building upon this decade of significant studies, this planning-level evaluation will analyze the known groundwater and surface water availability of Southwest Missouri to determine if current sources are sufficient to meet future regional demands. This study is a companion document to the Southwest Missouri Water Resources Study – Phase I: Forecast of Regional Water Demand (2010 – 2060). Both Phase I and Phase II of this study have been conducted in cooperation with MDNR and the Corps under a PAS agreement and in coordination with the Coalition.
2.2 Background Past study projections show that portions of Southwest Missouri may experience future water supply shortages. The Coalition was formed to address concerns such as high localized water demand growth rates, localized decline of groundwater, and the potential for future limitations of surface water. The final report presented on July 7, 2009 (Freese and Nichols) concluded that additional supplies would be needed. Alternative possibilities included new reservoirs to serve the eastern and western portions of the tri–state region or water storage allocations from existing Corps reservoirs. The Coalition publicly stated that building new reservoir(s) is not currently their preferred alternative. The Coalition submitted official requests to the Kansas City and Little Rock districts of the Corps for reallocation of water supply storage within Stockton Reservoir and Table Rock lakes.
The Coalition was initially formed based on a 2002 commissioned study to investigate the adequacy of the groundwater to meet the future needs of the Joplin Metropolitan Area (Whitman Hydro Planning Associates [WHPA] 2003). This study generated widespread concern regarding the availability of reliable future water supplies for this regional area. The consultant determined that more water was being withdrawn from the groundwater (wells) than was being replenished. Missouri American Water Company, and many neighboring water suppliers, recognized that they could face a water shortage in 10 to 15 years. As a result of this concern, the Coalition was formed as a not-for-profit, 501 c (4) corporation. The membership includes cities, water districts, utilities, businesses, and individuals. The area served by the Coalition extends from Pittsburg, Kansas, and Miami, Oklahoma on the west to Springfield, Missouri on the east, Lamar, Missouri on the north, and the Arkansas state line on the south.
13 Final Report
The Coalition began leading an effort in 2003 to identify a long-term, sustainable water supply and develop an implementation strategy for the region. The Coalition completed two recent studies that identified potential water supplies consisting of existing and/or new surface water reservoirs. The 2006 PAS study (Black and Veatch [B&V] Project No. 41395) and a 2009 Water Supply Reservoir Screening Study (Freese and Nichols) both recommended that a more detailed analysis of projected water demands should be conducted. The Corps’ study identified six potential sources:
1. Grand Lake
2. Table Rock Lake
3. Stockton Lake
4. Truman Lake
5. A combination of Grand Lake, Table Rock Lake, and Stockton Lake
6. Construction of one or more new reservoirs
The Coalition has had limited conversations with Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) regarding the possibility of acquiring water from Grand Lake. The GRDA, which governs Grand Lake water, has shown limited interest in opening discussions with the Coalition, thus, the conclusion at this time is that the Grand Lake water is not likely to be available to the majority of Coalition members.
Truman Lake was not found to be economically feasible. Stockton Lake’s current discretionary water of 50,000 acre-feet was committed to Springfield City Utilities, but a congressionally authorized reallocation could provide additional water to the Coalition’s members from Stockton Lake. Table Rock Lake has discretionary water available, though not enough to meet the total needs determined by the Coalition, and thus also would require a congressionally authorized reallocation in order to provide necessary water to meet the needs of the Coalition. The Coalition desires to develop additional supplies and infrastructure in time to meet the critical future needs of the region.
The Coalition has also had reservoir site screening studies done, with 17 sites identified, but the Coalition prefers using existing sources. In order to meet this increasing regional demand for water, the Coalition believes it is essential to seek storage in Table Rock Lake and Stockton Lake to meet future water needs in the growing region. Preliminary data indicates that Stockton Lake and Table Rock Lake have adequate water supply available to meet the Coalition’s requirements.
The Coalition strongly believes it would be in the best interest of the area to use these two reservoirs rather than build new reservoirs. The Coalition prefers existing reservoirs because a new reservoir would only store what is already being caught in the existing reservoirs; it is almost impossible to construct a new reservoir, and using existing reservoirs can be implemented faster than constructing a new reservoir.
14 Final Report
While City Utilities has adequate supplies for the foreseeable future, it may be called upon to supplement surrounding communities’ supplies. If so, it could reduce the time in which City Utilities will need additional supply.
The Corps and CDM Smith completed a regional demand forecast by water use sector through 2060 (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, livestock, and agriculture) in 2012. Three growth scenarios were considered as well as the implementation of conservation measures in the future. Demand projections for the medium-growth scenario for the region were estimated to increase over 50 years from 339 mgd to 464 mgd. This estimation shows an increased demand of 125 mgd, nearly 40 percent. Water demands by sector, county, and source (groundwater and surface water) are presented in Section 5 of this report.
2.3 Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate current and future supply availability through the Year 2060 in 16 counties in the Southwest Missouri area as demanded by primarily municipal, agricultural, and industrial/commercial sectors. This study provides a planning-level evaluation addressing both the short-term and long-term water supply availability and preliminary investigation of supply infrastructure capacity for the region. The 16-county region, as shown in Figure 2.1, includes Barry, Barton, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Greene, Hickory, Jasper, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, Polk, St. Clair, Stone, Taney, and Vernon counties in southwest Missouri.
Figure 2.1: 16-County Study Area of Southwest Missouri
15 Final Report
This planning-level evaluation of supply availability is based on past studies of the groundwater and surface water resources for the 16-county region. There was no additional groundwater or surface water modeling performed during this evaluation. Rather, this study builds on the past decade of study and USGS modeling in the region. Supply availability will be compared to the projected demands for the region as presented in the Phase I study. Both Phase I and Phase II were conducted at the request of MDNR in keeping with the mission to manage the state’s water resources and the Coalition’s mission to seek sustainable solutions to Southwest Missouri’s water resource challenges. This study will evaluate the ability of the surface water and groundwater resources of the region to meet future water demands.
Section 3 presents an overview of the water resources of southwest Missouri. Section 4 offers a brief review of drought planning in the region. Section 5 provides a review of the Phase I projected water demands by sector, county, and source (groundwater and surface water). Section 6 presents past study findings of groundwater and surface water availability. Section 7 presents the evaluation of known water availability as presented in Section 6 and future water demands by source presented in Section 5 to determine the sufficiency of existing sources to meet future demands of the region. Section 8 shares the findings of the Corps evaluation of supply availability in Stockton, Pomme de Terre, and Table Rock lakes. Section 9 offers an initial evaluation of infrastructure capacity to supply water to meet future demands. Lastly, Section 10 presents conclusions of the study and offers recommendations for future activities to secure southwest Missouri’s water future.
The findings of this investigation will also serve as a basis for further resource discusions such as instream flows, policy discussions including defining sustainability, future regional infrastructure evaluations, and potential reallocation decisions of Corps reservoirs specifically Stockton, Pomme de Terre, and Table Rock lakes.
16 Final Report
3.0 Physical, Institutional, and Legal Setting
3.1 Introduction Southwest Missouri and the Ozark area are known for clear spring-fed streams, beautiful vistas, and ample outdoor recreational opportunities offered at numerous state parks, conservation areas, federal reservoirs, and forests. A significant component of the economic vitality of the region is outdoor recreation based tourism. These outdoor opportunities are afforded the region by a temperate climate, rolling to hilly geography, and the underlying geology.
Southwestern Missouri has a humid climate with long term annual precipitation averages from 40 to 46 inches throughout the study area. Evapotranspiration removes 28 to 30 inches of the annual rainfall. Thus, surface water runoff averages from 9 to 15 inches annually (MDNR WR 63 2003). Most of southwestern Missouri is within the Ozark Aquatic Faunal Region (Pflieger 1989) where most rivers and streams have permanent flow that supports fish and wildlife throughout the year. However, some upland drainages may become dry during drought conditions.
Southwest Missouri has three distinctive physiographic regions: the Salem Plateau of the Ozarks, the Springfield Plateau aquifer, and the Osage Plains, as shown in Figure 3.1. The Salem and Springfield plateaus are hilly with thin erodible soils, abundant in groundwater with numerous areas of karst topography characterized by sinkholes and springs. The Springfield Plateau aquifer has on average 10 sinkholes per square mile; whereas the majority of the remaining study area is less than 1 sinkhole per square mile. One of the largest paleo-sinkholes is in Jasper County, Missouri. These sinkholes sometimes contain and are mined for iron, lead, and zinc ores. The Oronogo Circle sinkhole in Jasper County is 1,000 feet wide and has been mined to depths of nearly 200 feet (Beveridge and Vineyard 1990 – as reported in Environmental and Hydrologic Setting of the Ozark Plateaus Study Unit, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma [U.S. Geological Survey WR Investigations Report 94-4022]). Extensive surface and sub-surface mining prior to 1945 in Newton and Jasper counties has negatively impacted surface and groundwater quality and still poses a threat today if not properly managed.
The Osage Plains are unglaciated and are characterized by gently rolling topography. Study area counties found mostly in the Osage Plains are Barton, St. Clair, and Vernon, with parts of Cedar, Dade, and Jasper counties.
17 Final Report
Figure 3.1: Map of the Underlying Ozark Aquifer and Overlying Plateus. Source: MDNR WR 63
The 16 counties of the study area drain into three major river basins: the Arkansas River Basin, Missouri River Basin, and the White River Basin as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Major River Basins of Missouri. Source: MDNR WR 59
All of these basins have pristine stream reaches, which allow for significant river recreation and generate tourism, business, and industry for the region. Much of the base flow of these streams is spring-fed groundwater. The surface and groundwater interactions in the region are critical to the resource.
Within the Missouri River Basin, the Sac River flows north from Springfield, Missouri as the primary source of water for the Corps’ Stockton Lake. The Pomme de Terre River also flows north to feed Pomme de Terre Lake. Both lakes eventually flow to the Lake of the Ozarks. Within the Arkansas River Basin, Shoal Creek of the larger Spring River system, the primary source of drinking water for Joplin, Missouri, flows northwest from Neosho, Missouri through Joplin, Missouri, then into Kansas eventually turning south entering the Grand Lake O’ the
18 Final Report
Cherokees, Oklahoma. Within the White River Basin, the James River, flowing south from Springfield, enters into the Corps’ Table Rock Lake. Bull and Swan creeks flow south from Christian County then east of Branson, Missouri to enter Lake Taneycomo, which is also fed by the White River through Table Rock Lake as shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Statewide Major Reservoirs and Rivers. Source: MDNR WR 48
3.2 Groundwater Sources This section presents the groundwater physical setting of the 16 counties and the institutional and legal frameworks for management of groundwater in Missouri. This is an overview of current studies of the region’s aquifers. A detailed review and evaluation of the state of groundwater is presented in Section 6.
3.2.1 Physical Setting There are three primary aquifer units in the 16 county study area: Springfield Plateau aquifer, Salem Plateau, and the Osage Plains. The majority of the 16 counties of southwest Missouri reside above the Springfield Plateau aquifer. The Springfield Plateau aquifer is an open aquifer recharged primarily through precipitation from the surface. The depth of the aquifer ranges from at the surface to a depth of 450 feet, as shown in Figure 3.4. Yields from the Springfield Plateau aquifer are typically less than 20 gallons per minute (gpm) but vary by location and serve primarily private domestic wells. It is estimated that the Springfield Plateau aquifer holds nearly 6 trillion gallons of groundwater.
19 Final Report
Figure 3.4: Springfield Plateau and Ozark Aquifer. Source: MDNR Water Resources Center
The Springfield Plateau aquifer is largely hydraulically separated from the Ozark Aquifer by a confining layer. Thus, the Ozark Aquifer is referred to as a confined, artesian, aquifer. There is an additional layer of Chattanooga shale reducing vertical interchange of the two aquifers in McDonald County and portions of Barry and Newton counties. The Ozark Aquifer thickness varies from 600 to 800 feet in parts of Barton and St. Clair counties to as deep as 1,600 feet in Stone and Barry counties. Most wells in the Ozark Aquifer yield between 600 to 800 gpm and can vary widely from as little as 200 gpm in Joplin to over 2,000 gpm. The Ozark Aquifer is estimated to hold 113 trillion gallons of groundwater. The largest quantities of groundwater withdrawn from the Ozark Aquifer are primarily for public water supply by major municipalities (i.e., Springfield/North Christian County, Joplin, and Monett), irrigation (i.e., northern Jasper, western Dade, and Barton counties), agribusiness (i.e., poultry production and processing in Barry, Barton and McDonald counties) and electricity generation in Jasper and Greene counties.
There is a critical divide in the Ozark Aquifer with respect to recharge. The divide in the Ozark Aquifer extends northward through west-central Barry County and through Lawrence County and northwestern Greene County. Groundwater east of the divide moves toward either the City of Springfield pumping area or to the White River Valley. Whereas west of the divide, the Ozark Aquifer moves toward Kansas and Oklahoma, thus, receiving no recharge from the Salem Plateau and dependent upon downward leakage from the Springfield Plateau aquifer.
20 Final Report
Depth to groundwater varies seasonally with higher demands in the summer for residential irrigation, agricultural irrigation, public water supply and energy generation based on higher demands for electricity. Depths can fluctuate from 10s to 100s of feet. Overall, from predevelopment to 2007, there is documented decline in the Ozark Aquifer throughout the 16 county study area. Note that the snapshot in time reflected in Figure 3.5 reflects groundwater pressure after the drought in 2005 and 2006. Large portions of Lawrence, Dade, Cedar, Vernon, and Hickory counties have seen less than 100 feet decline since pre-development. One hundred to 200 feet declines were seen for much of Barton, Jasper, Newton, McDonald, Barry, Greene, Christian, Stone, and Taney counties, with 200 to greater than 300 feet declines around Springfield, Branson, Joplin, Noel, Cassville and Monett, Missouri as well as southern Barton County (pivot irrigation) and eastern Newton and northeastern McDonald counties (poultry), as shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5: Groundwater Level Decline from Pre-development to 2006-2007. Source: MDNR Water Resources Center
One topic of importance for understanding the nature of groundwater extraction and recharge is the cone of influence. The City of Springfield and industrial well users are shown to have multiple cones of influence interfering with one another causing a localized cone of depression. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 illustrate the cone of influence and the well interference, respectively. USGS in the late 1980s indicated a cone of depression in the center of Springfield, Missouri with a 500 foot decline.
21 Final Report
Other issues, constraints, and opportunities related to groundwater use that are discussed in greater detail in Section 6 are as follows:
• Interstate groundwater use impacts in Jasper, Newton, Barton, and McDonald counties
• Mining impacts to water quality and concerns of introducing polluted groundwater into the Ozark Aquifer particularly around Joplin, Missouri
• Branson, Missouri declining groundwater levels and the economic decision to forego the cost of drilling deeper
• Stream and aquifer interactions
Figure 3.6: Illustration of Cone of Depression. Source: MDNR WR 63
22 Final Report
Figure 3.7: Illustration of Well Interference.
Source: MDNR Water Resources Center Springfield Plateau Groundwater Province report
3.2.2 Institutional and Legal Setting This section is presented to discuss current state statutes and policies that have implications on the management of groundwater for domestic, agriculture and commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. At present, there are no restrictions on the quantity of groundwater withdrawn by any sector or user.
Reasonable Use Doctrines Both surface water and groundwater in Missouri are governed by the reasonable use doctrine. Courts decide reasonableness on a case by case basis. As such, the State of Missouri does not allocate surface water or groundwater but requires the reporting of the amount of water withdrawn from all sources per the Major Water Users Law.
Major Water Users Law The Major Water Users Law (Sections 256.400 – 256.430 RSMo) was passed in 1983 and requires water users having the capability to produce at least 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) to register their use each year with MDNR
Water Well Drillers Act A database of all wells drilled since August 1985 has been kept per the Water Well Drillers Act (Sections 256.600 – 256.640). Monitoring well data have also been housed in the database since January 1994.
23 Final Report
Missouri Well Construction Rules The Missouri Well Construction Rules (1987) are designed to ensure that surface contamination does not enter a well, contaminating it and the aquifer. There are several sensitive areas in southwest Missouri having requirements tailored for the local geology and groundwater availability, as shown in Figure 3.8. Sensitive Area B reflects areas in close proximity to reservoirs. Sensitive Area C is the surrounding Springfield area. Special Area 2 reflects mining concerns in the Joplin area.
Figure 3.8: Sensitive and Special Area Regulations for Drilling in Missouri. Source: MDNR WR 63
An unintended consequence of the new rules is in northeastern Greene County, which is requiring new domestic wells to seal out the upper aquifer and draw from the Ozark Aquifer from which municipal and large industrial users are already withdrawing and contributing to the growing regional cone of depression. Well interference has been reported by domestic well users to the point that some wells have been rendered useless (Brookshire 2003).
Groundwater Rule The groundwater rule is applicable to all public water systems in Missouri (community and noncommunity) using groundwater. The groundwater rule includes systems that mix surface water and groundwater if the groundwater is added directly to the distribution system and provided to consumers without treatment. The groundwater rule was published in the Federal Registrar in 2006 and requires frequent inspections of systems, triggered source water monitoring, corrective action to resolve significant deficiencies or source water fecal contamination, and compliance monitoring to ensure treatment technology reliably achieves inactivation or removal of viruses. When a system has a significant deficiency or a fecal indicator positive source water sample, the system will be put on a compliance schedule and must implement one or more of the following actions:
24 Final Report
• Correct all significant deficiencies
• Provide an alternate source of water
• Eliminate the source of contamination
• Provide treatment that reliably achieves at least 4-log treatment viruses (using inactivation, removal, or a state-approved combination of 4-log virus inactivation and removal)
As of December 1, 2009, all public water systems are subject to the groundwater rule. Violations by public system and violation type are presented in Section 9.
3.3 Surface Water Sources This section presents the surface water physical setting of the 16 counties as well as the institutional and legal frameworks for management of surface water in Missouri. A detailed review and evaluation of the state of surface water is presented in Section 6.
3.3.1 Physical Setting Missouri is generally known for having an abundant and high quality water supply. However, of the approximately 125 reservoirs currently in use in the state as public water supply sources, all but 8 are located in west-central and northern Missouri (MDNR 1995). In the 16-county Southwest Missouri study area, groundwater is typically used for private and public water supply; and in many parts of the region, the emphasis on surface water shifts from drinking water to recreation. Most streams in southern Missouri receive substantial groundwater inputs from groundwater inflow so even during dry weather they have well sustained base flows.
The overall quality of surface water in Missouri is relatively good. There are few inputs from agricultural practices in this portion of the state due to rolling topography, thin soils, and poor soil fertility (MDNR 1995). This reduces the risk of high suspended sediment loads, pesticides, and nutrients such as nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and phosphate reaching area surface water bodies. Most of the dissolved constituents found in surface water are from soluble earth materials such as calcium, magnesium, iron, chloride, and potassium. Most elements that are dissolved in the water are within recommended drinking water parameters.
All or parts of five major reservoirs lie within the 16-county study area. These include Stockton Reservoir, Pomme de Terre Lake, Table Rock Lake, Truman Reservoir, and Lake Taneycomo. Each of these reservoirs, with the exception of Lake Taneycomo, are constructed, owned, and operated by the Corps. Lake Taneycomo is privately owned and operated by the Empire District Electric Company. The vast majority of ponds and lakes in Missouri are privately owned and used for agricultural and recreational purposes. Evaporation is a major loss from reservoirs in the study area. Southwestern Missouri lake-surface evaporation ranges from approximately 40 to 46 inches (MDNR 1995). Evaporation during May through October accounts for 74 to 78 percent of the total amounts. Major reservoirs of the region are shown in Figure 3.9.
25 Final Report
Figure 3.9: Southwest Missouri Surface Water Resources
As shown in Figure 3.1 in the introduction to Section 3, much of the 16-county study area lies within the Ozarks region of the state. In this region, much of the runoff from upland areas percolates downward through permeable surficial materials such as dolomite and limestone and is channeled underground by losing streams and sinkholes. The high rate of groundwater recharge particularly in the karst locations in the Ozarks greatly affects the area’s rivers and streams. Much of the groundwater in the Ozarks flows through cave-like systems to springs where the water surfaces. In places, this cycle may be repeated two or more times before the water enters a stream with permanent flow. This interaction between surface water and groundwater is widespread throughout the Ozarks but is not present in most other areas of the state. Most groundwater recharge in other parts of Missouri is by relatively slow downward movement of water from precipitation into shallow aquifers. Because of these hydrological characteristics of this region, surface water and groundwater in the Ozarks are generally not considered as entirely separate entities (MDNR 1995).
Table 3-1 provides the water source and storage amounts of each of the major reservoirs located within the southwestern Missouri study area.
Table 3-1: Southwestern Missouri Major Reservoirs
Lake/Reservoir Stream Dammed Flood Control Storage (AF) Multipurpose Storage (AF)
Truman Osage 3,999,300 1,202,700
Table Rock White 760,000 1,181,500
Stockton Sac 774,000 875,000
Pomme de Terre Pomme de Terre 407,000 237,000
Taneycomo White - 9,175 AF = acre-feet
26 Final Report
As shown in Figure 3.2 in the introduction to Section 3, the southwestern Missouri study area lies within the Missouri, White, and Arkansas River basins. These basins can be subdivided into smaller basins with specific characteristics.
3.3.1.1 Missouri River Basin The portion of the Missouri River Basin that lies within the southwestern Missouri study area is the Osage River Basin. Counties within the study area included in this basin are Vernon, Cedar, St. Clair, Hickory, and Polk and parts of Barton, Dade, Greene, Christian, and Lawrence. The southern and eastern Osage River tributaries, which generally fall within the study area, have high gradient and well-sustained base flows. The Osage River Basin has the largest number of major reservoirs and the greatest surface-water storage in the state. Four major reservoirs, including Lake of the Ozarks, Truman Lake, Stockton Lake, and Lake Pomme de Terre, impound water on the Osage or its tributaries. With the exception of Lake of the Ozarks, all or portions of the remaining reservoirs fall within the southwestern Missouri study area. Surface water quality in this region is good, with most streams containing water that is a moderately mineralized calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type. Sulfate, total dissolved solids, and chloride contents are typically low.
The Osage River Basin can be further divided into smaller basins. Of these smaller basins, portions of the Marais des Cygnes, Little Osage, and Marmaton River Basin, Sac River Basin, Pomme de Terre River Basin, and Main Stem Osage River Basin lie within the southwestern Missouri area of analysis.
Marais des Cygnes, Little Osage, and Marmaton River Basin The upper watershed of the Osage is composed of three drainages, the Marais des Cygnes River, Little Osage River, and Marmaton River. The Marmaton River rises in southeastern Kansas and drains parts of Barton and Vernon counties. The total drainage area is 1,150 square miles, and all of it is within the Osage Plains. The Marmaton flows into the Little Osage River in north-central Vernon County. The Little Osage River drains part of northern Vernon County. It joins with the Marais des Cygnes River in northeastern Vernon County. Productive aquifers in this river basin typically produce highly mineralized water; therefore, surface water is widely used for public water supply in this area.
Sac River Basin The Sac River is a major southern tributary of the Osage River. It rises in Christian and Greene counties and drains about 1,970 square miles. All but the lower pan of the basin is within the Ozarks Plateau. The Sac River near Dadeville, which is upstream from Stockton Lake, drains 257 square miles.
Stockton Lake is the largest surface water impoundment in the Sac River basin. The reservoir, constructed by the Corps, began impounding water in 1969. Benefits derived from the reservoir include flood control hydroelectric power, water supply, and recreation. Water supply was
27 Final Report
added in 1996 after the City of Springfield, the largest city in southwestern Missouri and third largest city in the state, constructed a pipeline to Stockton Reservoir that transports water to Springfield, Missouri. The flow of the Sac River below Stockton Dam is regulated by releases from the reservoir.
Pomme de Terre River Basin The Pomme de Terre River drains 828 square mile area east of the Sac River basin in southwestern Missouri. The headwaters are located outside of the study area, and it flows into Truman Lake near Warsaw, Missouri in Benton County. The majority of this basin is in the Ozarks. Part of it is in the Springfield Plateau aquifer, but most lies within the Salem Plateau.
The Pomme de Terre River near Polk, upstream of Pomme De Terre Reservoir, drains 276 square miles of the Ozark Plateau. The Pomme de Terre Reservoir near Hermitage, Missouri lies mostly in Hickory County. It is much smaller than Stockton Lake. The reservoir provides flood control and recreation benefits.
Main Stem Osage River Basin From the eastern portions of Barton and Vernon counties to Bagnell Dam, the Osage River flows through two large reservoirs: Truman Lake and Lake of the Ozarks. Truman Lake, a Corps facility, began filling in 1977 and is partially located within the southwestern Missouri study area. Upstream from Warsaw, Missouri, the gradient of the river is low and relief is gentle, as is characteristic of the Osage Plains. Thus, at full flood pool, Truman Lake covers about 209,300 acres, (327 square miles), nearly 4 times the area covered at normal pool level. Benefits provided by the reservoir include flood control, hydro-power, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. A utility in Henry County, located outside of the study area, uses Truman Lake as a raw water supply.
3.3.1.2 White River Basin The White River and its tributaries drain about 10,645 square miles of southern Missouri. The river’s headwaters are located in northwestern Arkansas, and it flows northeast into Missouri where it first enters Barry County. It continues flowing east and north through Barry and Stone counties then turns southeast and leaves Missouri through Taney County. No portion of the White River in Missouri is a free-flowing stream. The river enters Missouri in the upstream reach of Table Rock Lake then flows directly into Lake Taneycomo.
The upper White River basin drains part of the Springfield Plateau aquifer, but most of the drainage basin is located in the Salem Plateau. Most of this area of the Ozarks is rugged, forested land characterized by rolling hills and steep valleys hosting clear, spring-fed streams and rivers. Natural water quality in the region is generally excellent. During low-flow periods, area river flows are primarily derived from springs and seeps; therefore, water quality is mainly controlled by area groundwater quality. The surface water is typically a calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type, reflective of the dolomite bedrock from which the streams discharge. The
28 Final Report
main source of contaminants to Table Rock Lake and Lake Taneycomo is private and public wastewater discharges. Typically during the late summer and early fall months there are low dissolved oxygen levels below Table Rock Lake caused by organic materials.
Although there is an abundance of surface water available from the White River, Branson, Missouri located in Taney County is the only city in Missouri that uses the White River for its water supply. The City of Branson has a water intake located on Lake Taneycomo.
The James River is the largest tributary of the White River and drains approximately 1,460 square miles, including parts of Greene, Christian, Lawrence, Barry, and Stone counties. The James River flows into Table Rock Lake in Stone County. The James River supplies part of the water supply for the City of Springfield. The river also receives treated wastewater from Springfield, Missouri. Water in the James River is a calcium-bicarbonate type, reflecting the limestone bedrock in the Springfield Plateau aquifer. Below its confluence with Wilson Creek, the location of Springfield’s discharge, the water contains elevated bacteria and nutrients (Reed et al. 1993). Other White River tributaries in Missouri include Bull Creek, Swan Creek, Bryant Creek, and the North Fork River. These creeks drain into the White River at Taneycomo and Bull Shoals Lake much of which is in Arkansas.
3.3.1.3 Arkansas River Basin The Arkansas River begins in Colorado and drains into parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, and Missouri. Tributaries of the Arkansas River in southwestern Missouri drain into an area of about 2,900 square miles. All of the tributaries flow into the Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees located in Oklahoma.
Nearly all of the Arkansas River in Missouri is located in the Springfield Plateau aquifer with only a small portion in Jasper and Barton counties draining part of the Osage Plains. Most of the area is underlain by limestone.
Zinc and lead ores mined in the area prior to 1945 have greatly affected water quality. Additionally, industrial development and municipal discharges, especially in the areas surrounding Joplin, Missouri, have diminished water quality. Improvements have been made in the past 30 years due to ceased mining and strict water quality standards. Water from the mine working can contain high levels of sulfate, iron, and zinc.
The Spring River drains about two-thirds of the Arkansas River Basin in Missouri. The river rises in Lawrence County, and portions of Barton, Dade, Lawrence, Barry, and Newton counties drain into the Spring River. Shoal Creek drains into the southern part of the Spring River basin. The headwaters are in Barry and Lawrence counties and flow through Newton County. Three towns in the Spring River Basin use surface water for municipal water supply needs. Lamar, located in Barton County, uses a 180-acre lake, Lake Lamar, in the upper part of the North Fork of the Spring River. Neosho, Missouri, located in Newton County, and Joplin, located in Jasper County, also use Shoal Creek for water supply.
29 Final Report
The Elk River drains about 850 square miles of Newton, McDonald, and Barry counties fed by Big and Little creeks and Indian Creek. The Elk River begins in McDonald County and flows to the west to Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees. Most of the Elk River Basin in underlain by bedrock, and the area is located within the Springfield Plateau aquifer.
3.3.2 Institutional and Legal Setting This section is presented to discuss current state statutes and policies that have implications on the management of surface water for domestic, agriculture and commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. At present, there are no restrictions on the quantity of surface water withdrawn by any sector or user.
Federal Laws Federal Safe Drinking Water Act The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted in 1974 to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designated for drinking use, whether from aboveground or underground sources. The SDWA authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish safe standards of purity for specified contaminants and required all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with primary (health-related) standards. State governments, which assume this power from the EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary standards (nuisance-related). Contaminants of concern in a domestic water supply are those that either pose a health threat or in some way alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are currently regulated by the EPA through primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). As directed by the SDWA amendments of 1986, EPA has been expanding its list of primary MCLs. MCLs have been proposed or established for approximately 100 contaminants.
Federal Clean Water Act Growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As amended in 1977, this law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. It gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industrial and municipal dischargers. The CWA also continued requirements to set water quality standards for all known contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions (EPA 2002a).
Section 303(d) of the 1972 CWA requires states, territories, and authorized tribes to develop a list of water quality-impaired segments of waterways. The 303(d) list includes water bodies that do not meet water quality standards for the specified beneficial uses of that waterway even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control
30 Final Report
technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for water bodies on their 303(d) lists and implement a process, called total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), to meet water quality standards (EPA 2002b).
The TMDL process is a tool for implementing water quality standards and is based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions. The TMDL establishes the maximum allowable loadings of a pollutant that can be assimilated by a water body while still meeting applicable water quality standards. The TMDL provides the basis for the establishment of water quality-based controls. These controls should provide the pollution reduction necessary for a water body to meet water quality standards. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The TMDLs allocation calculation for each water body must include a margin of safety to ensure that the water body can be used for the uses the state has designated. Additionally, the calculation also must account for seasonal variation in water quality (EPA 2002b).
TMDLs are intended to address all significant stressors which cause or threaten to cause water body beneficial use impairments, including point sources (e.g., sewage treatment plant discharges), nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from fields, streets, range, or forest land), and naturally occurring sources (e.g., runoff from undisturbed lands). TMDLs may be based on readily available information and studies. In some cases, complex studies or models are needed to understand how stressors are causing water body impairment. In many cases, simple analytical efforts provide an adequate basis for stressor assessment and implementation planning. TMDLs are developed to provide an analytical basis for planning and implementing pollution controls, land management practices, and restoration projects needed to protect water quality. States are required to include approved TMDLs and associated implementation measures in state water quality management plans.
Water Supply Act of 1958 The Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, provides the authority for the Secretary of the Army to include storage in Corps projects for water supply. The local interests must agree to pay the cost associated with the storage space. Acquisition of storage for water supply can be accomplished through either discretionary storage or through reallocation of storage. Through discretionary storage, the Chief of Engineers has the discretionary authority to reallocate up to 15 percent or 50,000 acre-feet, whichever is less, of the total storage capacity allocated to all purposes, provided the reallocation has no severe effect on other authorized purposes or will not involve major structural or operational changes. Reallocation of storage, however, can only be accomplished through congressional approval. Reallocation of discretionary storage requires a study to evaluate the impact on hydropower and other uses, which requires significant time and cost constraints.
31 Final Report
State Laws Missouri Clean Water Law Chapter 644 is called the Missouri Clean Water Law. Section 644.011 states that pollution “constitutes a menace to the public health and welfare, creates a public nuisance, is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate uses of water.” The statement goes on to declare public policy to conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain, and improve the quality for beneficial uses and prohibit waste discharge into any waters of the state prior to receiving necessary improvements or corrective action to protect the beneficial uses of the water body. Additionally, the statute states that the policy is to “provide for the prevention, abatement and control of new or existing water pollution” (MDNR 2000).
Section 644.021 of this statute created the Clean Water Commission (CWC), which operated independently until MDNR was created in 1974. The CWC is currently part of MDNR.
The Clean Water law establishes a permitting process that gives MDNR an opportunity to ensure that the level of contaminants to be discharged to waters of the state at a point source will not degrade the quality of the body of water receiving the discharge.
Missouri Water Resources Law This law, established in 1989, charged MDNR with the task of developing and maintaining an ongoing statewide surface and groundwater monitoring program. It also charged MDNR with establishing an inventory of existing surface and groundwater uses and quantities.
32 Final Report
4.0 Drought Planning
Drought is not just an extreme event but a weather cycle that water purveyors must manage for and anticipate the demand, shortages in available supply, and measures necessary to conserve supply on the demand-side of the equation. There appears to be a 5- to 10-year cycle of wet and dry year(s), as shown in Figure 4.1. The drought of record was in 1954. The duration of the rainfall deficit is shown in Figure 4.2. The most recent drought was in 2012 but was not as long in duration as the drought of record, as shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.1: Average Summer (June, July, and August) Precipitation – 1895 to 2010. Source Missouri State Climatologist
Figure 4.2: Monthly Precipitation Departure from Average – January 1952 to December 1956
33 Final Report
34 Final Report
Figure 4.3: Monthly Precipitation Departure from Average – January 2008 to July 2012
As a result of the 1954 drought of record, the City of Lamar and City Utilities each built reservoirs
in preparation for future drought. Demands have increased substantially in Springfield, Missouri
since 1954. Though most drought periods are not as extreme as 1954, the substantial increase in
demands has added significant pressure on both groundwater and surface water resources.
Springfield’s City Utilities has adopted conservation measures to employ during times of
drought. In times of drought, to meet demands while addressing falling lake levels, City Utilities
relies heavily on their surface water allocation from Stockton Lake to replenish their falling
municipal lake levels. When lake levels reach 60 percent capacity, mandatory drought measures
are enacted by City Utilities. To date this has not occurred with the lowest storage levels of
record reaching 62 percent. The City of Joplin’s water provider, Missouri‐American Water, in
2012 added 2 feet of emergency dam to Grand Falls to offer an additional 68 million gallons in
times of drought. These two largest communities of the region were on the threshold of taking
drastic measures in 2012.
The MDNR Drought Response Plan (2002) was prepared in support of the State Water Resources
Plan (RSMo 640.415) and as a result of the 1988/1989 drought. Per MDNR WR 44, the primary
purpose of the Drought Response Plan is to address the need for coordinated advanced
emergency planning. The plan outlines proactive emergency and tactical measures designed to
better prepare Missouri for drought. The plan does not eliminate the need for long range strategic
planning to address the bigger issue of drought impact avoidance. The plan offers conservation
measures and pricing alternatives for communities to consider in their respective plans.
Water availability in drought conditions is discussed in Section 6 and compared to future
forecast demands in Section 7.
5.0 Water Demand Forecast 2060
5.1 Study Summary In 2012, MDNR in coordination with the Coalition developed and released a long-term regional water demand forecast for southwest Missouri, the Southwest Missouri Water Resource Study - Phase I (MDNR 2012). This forecast identified the need for water in this region through 2060. The Phase I Study was conducted to support regional level planning needs and is not intended for utility level planning decisions.
The Phase I report and water demand forecast was designed to improve the understanding of current and estimated future water use within publically supplied residential and non-residential, self-supplied residential and non-residential, and agricultural water use sectors in the 16-county region of southwest Missouri. The demand forecast provided an analysis of both current and future water demand for each of the 16 individual counties in the region. This regional and county forecast was then further evaluated to provide current and estimated future withdrawals by surface and groundwater sources. The results of this study provided the baseline of water demand to determine the most economically viable sources for satisfying the region’s future water demand requirements. These future estimated demands reinforced the importance of future reliable water sources for regional development and growth. A summary of these estimated demands are located at the end of this report in Appendix A.
Based on the results of the Phase I study, regional total water demands for all sectors are expected to increase approximately 27 percent under a medium-growth scenario by 2060, increasing average daily demands by approximately 125 mgd. The regional average day demands will be used in this report in determining water supply needs. Demands were estimated by sector, by county, and by year in 10-year intervals through 2060. Table 5-1 provides total estimated demands by municipal supply (residential, commercial, and industrial), self-supply residential and non-residential, and agricultural supply (livestock and agriculture).
35 Final Report
Table 5-1: Estimated Water Demands by Sector in Southwest Missouri
2010 Demands (mgd) 2030 Demands (mgd) 2060 Demands (mgd)
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Municipal Self-Supply
Residential
Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Municipal Self-Supply
Residential
Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural
Barry 3.38 0.95 13.811 2.99 4.85 1.33 13.811 2.99 11.03 1.95 13.811 2.99
Barton 1.34 0.00 0.16 1.62 1.47 0.00 0.16 1.62 1.84 0.00 0.16 1.62
Cedar 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.73 0.92 0.22 0.00 0.73 0.81 0.23 0.00 0.73
Christian 6.90 1.93 1.54 0.72 16.97 4.84 1.54 0.72 26.50 7.36 1.54 0.72
Dade 0.75 0.42 0.05 1.57 0.72 0.44 0.05 1.57 0.70 0.49 0.05 1.57
Greene 27.22 2.21 171.582 0.91 36.61 3.13 171.582 0.91 56.36 4.62 171.582 0.91
Hickory 0.78 0.32 0.02 0.49 0.71 0.34 0.02 0.49 0.52 0.33 0.02 0.49
Jasper 14.33 1.22 2.53 1.69 19.77 1.74 2.53 1.69 29.95 2.57 2.53 1.69
Lawrence 3.19 1.16 1.63 2.09 4.42 1.69 1.63 2.09 7.34 2.72 1.63 2.09
McDonald 1.82 0.85 3.15 1.27 3.87 1.23 3.15 1.27 9.23 2.09 3.15 1.27
Newton 4.03 2.10 0.01 1.99 5.12 2.92 0.01 1.99 8.21 4.52 0.01 1.99
Polk 2.78 1.35 0.05 1.72 3.84 1.95 0.05 1.72 4.81 2.62 0.05 1.72
St. Clair 0.73 0.45 0.16 0.68 0.71 0.48 0.16 0.68 0.65 0.53 0.16 0.68
Stone 2.93 0.97 1.21 0.43 3.89 1.46 1.21 0.43 5.84 2.13 1.21 0.43
Taney 6.76 1.10 25.043 0.21 10.51 1.75 25.043 0.21 19.03 3.14 25.043 0.21
Vernon 2.43 0.00 0.43 2.98 2.36 0.00 0.43 2.98 2.41 0.00 0.43 2.98
TOTAL 80.37 15.25 221.37 22.09 116.74 23.52 221.37 22.09 185.23 35.30 221.37 22.09 1 Aquaculture accounts for 12.10 mgd (USGS 2005) 2 Thermoelectric accounts for 166.56 mgd (USGS 2005) 3 Aquaculture accounts for 23.81 mgd (USGS 2005)
36 Final Report
These data indicate a total baseline average day demand of approximately 339 mgd. This value is highly reflective of a high industrial flow component, especially in thermoelectric water requirements in Greene County. Residential public supply and self-supply per capita demands average 66 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and account for only approximately 18 percent of total regional baseline demands. Public Supply and self-supplied non-residential demands account for approximately 75 percent of total water use, with 50 percent of self-supplied industrial water being used for thermoelectric power plants in Greene and Jasper counties and the remaining 25 percent for public-supplied and self-supplied non-residential uses, including industries, institutions, and golf-courses. Agriculture accounts for approximately 7 percent of total regional demands. Total regional demands are estimated to increase to approximately 383 mgd by the year 2030 and continue to increase to approximately 464 mgd by the year 2060. The average daily demand will be used in determining water supply needs. It is noted that peak demands are typically 1.5 to 2 times average demands. The application of peak demands is discussed further in Section 9.
5.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Demands Total estimated daily demands were also further divided into surface water demands and groundwater demands based on the Estimated Water Use in the United States (USGS 2005), as shown in Table 5-2. Approximately 76 percent of water withdrawn in southwest Missouri is surface water. This average percent withdrawal is determined on a weighted scale based on the total estimated baseline withdrawal by county. Overall estimates of percentages of surface water and groundwater withdrawals, by county, are listed in Table 5-2. Figure 5.1, provides total surface water and groundwater demands by county.
Table 5-2: Percentages of Groundwater and Surface Water Withdrawals in Southwest Missouri
County Surface Water Groundwater Total Estimated Baseline Withdrawals (gpd)
Barry 68% 32% 21,126,701
Barton 39% 61% 3,126,918
Cedar 28% 72% 1,954,753
Christian 12% 88% 11,101,445
Dade 23% 77% 2,795,139
Greene 95% 5% 201,329,331
Hickory 21% 79% 1,603,674
Jasper 53% 47% 19,774,737
Lawrence 33% 67% 7,359,322
McDonald 15% 85% 7,098,007
Newton 46% 54% 8,134,179
Polk 20% 80% 5,898,760
St Clair 28% 72% 2,024,160
Stone 6% 94% 5,546,795
Taney 84% 16% 32,847,964
Vernon 27% 73% 5,834,426
WEIGHTED AVERAGE 76% 24%
37 Final Report
Additionally, Figure 5.1 provides a map of public supply (residential and non-residential) surface water and groundwater supply percentages by county.
Figure 5.1: Public Water Supply Source by County
Public supply residential and non-residential, self-supply non-residential, and agricultural source of supply by county were determined based on data provided in the Estimated Water Use in the United States (2005). For the purposes of this study, the source of self-supplied residential water use was assumed to be 100 percent groundwater. Additionally, water use for golf courses was provided by MDNR for Greene, Lawrence, and Taney counties; however, a source of the withdrawals was unknown. For the purpose of this study, golf course irrigation is included in self-supply non-residential use and is assumed to be 100 percent surface water although there are a few noted exceptions in Springfield.
Figure 5.2 illustrates the percentages of water supply utilized during the baseline year by all sectors. In Section 7 of this report, supply availability gaps are analyzed primarily based on municipal and self-supplied residential and industrial demands. It is important to note, however, that regional water availability is affected by all sectors. While the study focuses on potential shortages for municipal and self-supplied industrial water needs, identifying sources to address these shortages will in turn increase supply for other sectors from their original supply source.
38 Final Report
Figure 5.2: Southwest Missouri Baseline Total Regional Water Use by Sector
Groundwater and surface water estimates by county are shown in Table 5-3, and are represented on a map in Figure 5.3. For the purposes of this comparison, baseline (2010) surface water to groundwater ratios were held constant into the future. Table 5-4 provides a baseline (2010) comparison of surface water and groundwater demands by sector.
13%
4%
5%
2%
11%
0% 61%
4% GroundwaterMunicipalGroundwater Self-Supply ResGroundwater SelfSupply NRGroundwaterAgriculturalSurface WaterMunicipalSurface Water Self-Supply ResSurface Water SelfSupply NRSurface WaterAgricultural
Note: Thermoelectric and aquaculture account for 99.2% of self-supplied NR surface water demands
39 Final Report
Table 5-3: Groundwater and Surface Water Estimated Water Demands in Southwest Missouri
2010 Demands (mgd) 2030 Demands (mgd) 2060 Demands (mgd) County Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surface Water
Barry 6.85 14.28 8.70 14.28 15.51 14.28
Barton 1.95 1.18 2.03 1.23 2.27 1.35
Cedar 1.42 0.54 1.34 0.54 1.23 0.54
Christian 9.76 1.34 22.74 1.34 34.79 1.34
Dade 2.16 0.63 2.15 0.63 2.19 0.63
Greene 10.49 191.44 12.72 198.92 16.97 215.91
Hickory 1.29 0.32 1.24 0.32 1.04 0.32
Jasper 10.31 9.46 13.00 12.73 17.90 18.84
Lawrence 5.94 2.13 7.70 1.42 11.65 1.42
McDonald 6.14 0.96 8.56 0.96 14.79 0.96
Newton 4.65 3.48 6.00 4.04 9.10 5.63
Polk 4.74 1.16 6.41 1.16 8.04 1.16
St. Clair 1.46 0.56 1.47 0.56 1.45 0.56
Stone 5.22 0.33 6.66 0.33 9.29 0.33
Taney 5.62 27.49 8.28 28.97 14.22 32.94
Vernon 4.32 1.51 4.25 1.51 4.30 1.51
TOTAL 82.32 256.81 113.25 268.94 164.74 297.72
Figure 5.3: Total Estimated Baseline Surface Water and Groundwater Demands by County
40 Final Report
Table 5-4: Baseline Estimated Water Demands by Source and Sector in Southwest Missouri
2010 Demands (mgd)
Groundwater Surface Water
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply Industry Agricultural Municipal Self-Supply
Residential Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural
Barry 3.38 0.95 1.68 0.85 0.00 0.00 12.131 2.15
Barton 0.88 0.00 0.12 0.95 0.47 0.00 0.04 0.67
Cedar 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54
Christian 6.90 1.93 0.73 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.53
Dade 0.75 0.42 0.03 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.61
Greene 3.80 2.21 4.22 0.25 23.42 0.00 167.362 0.66
Hickory 0.78 0.32 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.31
Jasper 5.73 1.22 2.36 1.00 8.60 0.00 0.17 0.69
Lawrence 3.19 1.16 0.91 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.72 1.41
McDonald 1.82 0.85 3.10 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.91
Newton 1.95 2.10 0.01 0.59 2.07 0.00 0.00 1.41
Polk 2.78 1.35 0.02 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.13
St. Clair 0.73 0.45 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.48
Stone 2.93 0.97 1.19 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.31
Taney 3.62 1.10 0.84 0.07 3.15 0.00 24.203 0.14
Vernon 2.43 0.00 0.42 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.50
TOTAL 42.67 15.25 15.72 8.69 37.71 0.00 205.65 13.45 1 Aquaculture accounts for 12.10 mgd (USGS 2005) 2 Thermoelectric accounts for 166.56 mgd (USGS 2005) 3 Aquaculture accounts for 23.81 mgd (USGS 2005)
41 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
42 Final Report
6.0 Supply Availability
Section 3 of this report presented the physical, legal, and institutional framework for evaluating both groundwater and surface water supplies in southwest Missouri. The following discussion within this section focuses on past research, current state of the water resources, and future projections of groundwater and surface water availability. Topics of water quantity and quality will be presented demonstrating challenges, constraints, and opportunities in use and management of southwest Missouri’s water resources.
6.1 Groundwater Sources The Ozark Aquifer is estimated to hold 113 trillion gallons of water. Figure 6.1 shows the billions of gallons of water estimated to be in the Ozark Aquifer in the majority of the study area (Jim Vandike, MDNR).
Figure 6.1: Billion Gallons of Storage in the Ozark Aquifer
Source: Jim Vandike (MDNR), Groundwater Issues in Southwest Missouri
The Springfield Plateau aquifer covering most of the counties of greatest need is recharged mostly by annual precipitation. Both the Springfield Plateau aquifer and Salem Plateau (Taney County and Branson, Missouri) aquifers recharge an estimated 6 to 14 inches per year depending on rainfall (Jim Vandike, MDNR). This does present challenges for public supply systems utilizing this shallower unconfined aquifer during the summer season and even more so in times of drought. The Springfield Plateau aquifer has sufficient quantity and annual recharge for the foreseeable future to support self-supplied domestic needs throughout southwest Missouri (USGS, Tri-State Study 2010). Figure 6.2 shows the groundwater storage of the Springfield Plateau aquifer by county in billions of gallons for the majority of the study area. However, there are documented issues of private wells being compromised around the larger communities of Joplin and Springfield, Missouri due to well interference and resulting growing cones of depression, including parts of the Ozark Aquifer becoming unconfined due to
43 Final Report
extensive withdrawals. Unconfined means the Ozark Aquifer is no longer fully saturated though the confining layer is still present between the Springfield Plateau and Ozark aquifers.
Figure 6.2: Billion Gallons of Storage in the Springfield Plateau Aquifer
Source: Jim Vandike (MDNR), Groundwater Issues in Southwest Missouri
Figures 6.3 and 6.4 show the progression of the Ozark Aquifer becoming unconfined from pre-development to present.
Figure 6.3: Pre-development Confined (blue) versus Unconfined (yellow) Ozark Aquifer
Source: MDNR, Springfield Plateau Groundwater Province Report
44 Final Report
Figure 6.4: Recent (2006-2007) Confined (blue) versus Unconfined (yellow) Ozark Aquifer
Source: MDNR, Springfield Plateau Groundwater Province Report
As shown in Section 3, Figure 3-1, there is a divide in the Ozark Aquifer that impacts the rate of recharge; therefore, west of central Barry County, Lawrence County, and the western boundary of Greene County receive no recharge from the Salem Plateau, and replenishment of the aquifer must all come from the leakage from the above Springfield Plateau aquifer. Several western counties have an additional shale layer, reducing the rate of recharge significantly. The findings and discussion regarding groundwater availability will follow this divide between eastern and western counties for both quantity and quality, focusing mainly on the Ozark Aquifer, which serves the larger municipal, industrial, and agricultural users.
6.1.1 Ozark Aquifer West In addition to the challenges of recharge in this portion of the Ozark Aquifer, there are interstate pressures on the aquifer from Kansas and Oklahoma. Several studies by USGS and those commissioned by the Coalition, Source of Supply Investigation for Joplin, Missouri (WHPA 2003), evaluate both groundwater quantity and quality in the tri-state area of southwestern Missouri, southeastern Kansas, and northwestern Arkansas. Specific counties in Missouri are Barton (City of Lamar), Jasper (cities of Joplin, and Carthage), Newton (cities of Joplin and Neosho), McDonald (City of Noel), portions of Lawrence and Barry (cities of Cassville and Monett), and to a much lesser extent Dade and Vernon. Figure 6.5 shows the map of the study area boundary for the USGS tri-state, whereas the WHPA study focused on the Missouri counties.
45 Final Report
Figure 6.5: USGS Tri-State Groundwater Study Boundary Source: USGS Groundwater-Flow Model of the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System, Northwestern Arkansas, Southeastern Kansas,
Southwestern Missouri and Northeastern Oklahoma (Rev. March 2010)
6.1.1.1 Quantity The largest municipal user in the area is Joplin located in both Jasper and Newton counties. The primary source of water for Joplin is surface water from Shoal Creek as provided by Missouri-American Water. Since 1985, Joplin has utilized groundwater to supplement and to meet demands during the summer season, provide a backup for water quality issues of Shoal Creek intake, and supply industrial users. The WHPA (2003) study conducted interviews and completed a revised MODFLOW model using an operational definition of aquifer yield. The study offered a “best-fit” yield for depths of 100 to 800 feet. The amount of groundwater at these depths ranged from 1.01 mgd at 100 feet to 8.04 mgd at 800 feet. This is the yield available for the cities of Joplin, Carl Junction, Webb City, Duenweg, Carthage, and Carterville. Per the interviews conducted at that time, these cities collectively in 2000/2001 were using approximately 7 mgd of the groundwater. Table 6-1 is derived from data provided in the WHPA report and associated interview data to arrive at an average annual well production for 2000/2001.
Table 6-1: WHPA Study Findings
City or Town Population (2000)
Total Number of Well
Total Well Capacity (MGD)
Annual Average Well Production (MGD)
Reported Water Level Decline
Carl Junction 5,294 6 2.50 0.55 No Carthage 12,668 16 8.50 2.74 Yes Carterville 1,850 1 0.65 0.20 Yes Duenweg 1,034 2 1.40 0.11 No Joplin 45,504 4 3.80 0.95 Yes Webb City 9,812 6 3.40 1.10 Yes Neosho 10,505 3 1.50 1.17 - Oronogo 976 2 1.40 0.12 Yes Jasper PWSD#1 N/A 1 0.40 0.16 No Total MGD 23.55 7.10
Note: Carthage does not use all wells simultaneously. These data reflect municipal public supply only.
46 Final Report
Publically supplied municipal and self-supplied industrial demands from groundwater in 1990 were 8.2 mgd and grew to 18.1 mgd in 2000, which is over twice that used in 1990. During this time, the study reports Carthage, Missouri experienced a 50 foot decline in water levels from 1995 to 2000, and prior to that the pumps in one well had to be lowered 100 feet from 705 feet to 805 feet. Oronogo has two wells, and both wells had to lower their pumps from 500 to 700 feet (2003). Well interference is noted in Webb City, Missouri, indicating that when Joplin’s Hill Street well is pumping, water levels in Webb City’s Wells 11 and 12, which produce nearly half their well production, drop below the pumps that are located between 650 and 700 feet deep. At the time of this study, it was noted that a cone of depression was developing in Joplin, Missouri and an existing cone of depression is in Carthage, Missouri.
In 2006, B&V completed the Coalition Water Supply Study. The study, relying on additional modeling from the WHPA study, suggested that the Ozark Aquifer could produce 27 mgd, which is 50 percent more than was pumped in 2000, but not without further predicted declines of 150 to 250 feet.
Sponsored by the Kansas Water Office, the USGS Groundwater-Flow Model of the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System, Northwestern Arkansas, Southeastern Kansas, Southwestern Missouri and Northeastern Oklahoma (Rev. March 2010) assessed the long-term availability of groundwater from the Ozark Aquifer. USGS looked at hypothetical scenarios of levels of increased use among the states of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. USGS applied five hypothetical scenarios to the model for the years 2007 through 2057 as follows:
• Scenario 1. Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas continue to withdraw at 2006 levels
• Scenario 2. Each state has a 1 percent increase per year
• Scenario 3. Only Oklahoma and Missouri increase 1 percent per year
• Scenario 4. Each state increases by 2 percent per year
• Scenario 5. Each state increases by 4 percent per year (assumptions below)
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2: USGS Hypothetical Scenarios for Groundwater Availability
Decline in water-level altitude (feet)
Scenario Pittsburg, Kansas
Miami, Oklahoma
Joplin, Missouri
Carthage, Missouri
Noel, Missouri
1 169 330 493 650 583 2 245 508 596 Dry Dry 3 210 505 593 Dry Dry 4 302 644 756 Dry Dry 5 505 Dry Dry Dry Dry
47 Final Report
Per the USGS report, Carthage and Noel model cells go dry, with only a 1 percent increase per year between 2037 and 2057 and as early as 2029 under Scenario 5. Joplin wells go dry in 2050 in Scenario 5, reflecting a 4 percent increase per year in total representing a 700 percent increase in pumping. MDNR has questioned the assumptions applied by USGS in this study, particularly the application of growth rates and not spreading demands across a wider network of model cells. Noel, Missouri model cells go dry in all scenarios by 2040, except if use levels stay the same as 2006. Figure 6.6 is the groundwater hydrograph for Noel from 1960 through 2010, demonstrating a steady decline in the aquifer.
Figure 6.6: Groundwater Hydrograph at Noel, Missouri
Source: MDNR Water Resources Center Website
There are several competing sectors for groundwater around Noel, Missouri, including Miami, Oklahoma, large retirement developments just across the state line in Arkansas, and poultry operations in McDonald County.
In the intervening years since these studies were completed, more real-time observation wells have been added to the State’s extensive network of monitoring wells providing greater insights into groundwater fluctuations that will continue to shed light on the aquifer’s recharge and recovery.
6.1.1.2 Quality Due to significant mining activities in the area as shown in Figure 6.7, special well drilling rules apply in Special Area 2 (Jasper and Newton counties) to prevent contaminants such as lead, cadmium, and trichloroethene (TCE) (TCE used in manufacturing ball bearings) from entering the Ozark Aquifer from surface or already polluted upper aquifer.
48 Final Report
Figure 6.7: Location and Extent of Mining Operations
Source: Jim Vandike (MDNR), Groundwater Issues in Southwest Missouri
The USGS report, Quality Characteristics of the Ground Water in the Ozark Aquifer of Northwestern Arkansas, Southeastern Kansas, Southwestern Missouri and Northeastern Oklahoma (2006-07), expressed concern of brackish water entering the aquifer from the Kansas portion of the Ozark Aquifer, particularly as cones of depression grow around the Joplin, Missouri area essentially reversing the natural east-to-west flow gradient. However, this was not the finding of the study, rather there is a natural east to west decline in water quality. Other concerns presented include upwelling of saline water from lower geologic strata and increasing leakage from the upper aquifer, thus, pulling in potentially contaminated water as noted previously in this section.
6.1.2 Ozark Aquifer East The portion of the Ozark Aquifer that supports most of Greene, Christian, Lawrence, Stone and Taney counties is east of the divide that receives benefit of recharge from the Salem Plateau. Recharge from precipitation through the Springfield Plateau aquifer and the Ozark Confining Unit into the Ozark Aquifer is estimated to be about 2.5 percent of the total annual rainfall. Karst topography and numerous springs demonstrate the complex aquifer system and the interactions of surface water (rainfall runoff, lakes, and streams) with groundwater. The largest single users of groundwater in this eastern portion of the study area are the City of Springfield, Springfield and Greene County industries, and Branson, Missouri. Even as early as the late 1980s, the USGS was reporting a 500 feet decline cone of depression centered on Springfield, Missouri. The cities of Springfield and Branson, Missouri in recent years have secured other surface water sources alleviating the reliance on the aquifer for the foreseeable future; whereas, many of the surrounding communities rely wholly on the aquifer. There are numerous self-supplied domestic wells throughout the area.
49 Final Report
6.1.2.1 Springfield Area There have been numerous studies done on the karst formations, springs, and aquifers in this area. The latest is the USGS study, Groundwater-Flow Model and Effects of Projected Groundwater Use in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System in the Vicinity of Greene County, Missouri – 1907-2030 (2010). The USGS study area is shown in Figure 6.8. The study evaluated the assumptions of the model variables from groundwater recharge and movement as well as the interactions with surface water, including lakes, streams, and springs. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impacts of multiple growth and demand scenarios on the growing cone of depression in the Ozark Aquifer around the Greene County area.
Figure 6.8: Greene County Vicinity Study Area Boundary Source: USGS (2010) Groundwater-Flow Model and Effects of Projected Groundwater Use in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer
System in the Vicinity of Greene County, Missouri – 1907-2030
Low and high growth population scenarios were considered in conjunction with two extenuated drought alternatives for either 2010 to 2013 or 2027 to 2030. Two additional scenarios were considered that demonstrated the impacts of the addition of two large industrial users: one within the City of Springfield and another 3 miles east of the city. The industrial wells proposed in the center of Springfield and outside of the city both were started at pumping 1.3 mgd and for the low and high scenario were projected to pump 1.89 mgd and 1.91 mgd, respectively. At a meeting with the Coalition on May 15, 2013, members concurred that these industrial withdrawals seemed reasonable, noting poultry processing industry use in Monett as an example. This is equivalent to 1,311 and 1,324 gpm, respectively, as shown in Table 6-3.
50 Final Report
Table 6-3: USGS Hypothetical Scenarios for Groundwater Withdrawals and Resulting Decline
Scenario Conditions Decline
Scenario Growth Rate Drought
Years/Industry Scenario 6 and 7
Pumping Rate in 2030 in mgd
Maximum head decline at
Springfield (feet)
Head decline in Nixa, Ozark and
Republic area (feet) 1 2006 N/A 32.4 61.5 15-45 2 Low 2010-13 53.2 203.4 > 100 3 Low 2027-30 53.2 203.9 > 100 4 High 2010-13 54.0 206.9 > 100 5 High 2027-30 54.0 207.3 > 100
6 Low 2 New Industries 56.1 641.0 > 100
7 High 2 New Industries 56.7 648.2 > 100
Declines in the Springfield, Missouri area in scenarios 2, 3, 4, and 5 are relatively the same, with about 200 feet declines with similar results in the outlying cities of Nixa, Ozark, and Republic of over 100 feet. In addition to drought as experienced in 2012, additional industrial withdrawals are very real scenarios to be considered for the Springfield, Missouri area. Declines within close proximity of the industry central to the city were at maximum nearly 650 feet. At this location, the approximate total thickness of the aquifer is 1,300 feet. By 2030 under Scenarios 6 and 7, the approximate saturated thickness is 469 feet.
Other evidence of the declining levels and growing cone of depression as a result of more users and well interference was reported in Topics in Water Use: Southern Missouri (MDNR WR 63). Brookshire reports water levels in a domestic well drilled into the Ozark Aquifer in northeast Greene County declined to the extent to “rendering the well useless” as a result of growing industrial use pressure on the aquifer. (Brookshire 2003). In November 2008, the City Administrator of Nixa, Christian County, wrote of the water woes of the communities surrounding Springfield, Missouri in a newsletter titled Regional Growth Taxing Ground Water Supply. The City Administrator noted that Nixa’s shallow wells were drying up at depths of 700 to 900 feet. Growth pressures were pushing the city to provide municipal water outside the city’s incorporated boundaries. He notes the Town of Clever needed to lower their pumps 80 to 100 feet due to inadequate static pressure. As a result, these surrounding communities are looking for surface water options potentially seeking support from Springfield’s Stockton Lake allocation. See the surface water discussion later in this section for more details on the Stockton Lake surface water allocation for Springfield, Missouri.
6.1.2.2 Branson Area The Branson area of Taney and Stone counties is centered on an outdoor recreation hot spot between Table Rock Lake (Corps) and Lake Taneycomo, owned and operated by Empire District Electric Company to generate electricity. Branson, Missouri for decades has been a tourist town focused on family fun. As such, the seasonal water use is much higher in the summer months. A consistent water supply is critical for the tourist- and water-based economy of Branson, Missouri.
51 Final Report
Branson, Missouri resides within the Salem Plateau’s farthest western reaching extent into the 16 county study area. Most of the city’s deep wells were drilled to a depth of around 1,500 feet, placing them in the Eminence Dolomite, as shown in Figure 3.4. For years, Branson, Missouri has been lowering their well depths to keep up with growth and growing tourist season demands since the early 1990s. Today, Branson, Missouri has a secure surface water source, Lake Taneycomo, from which 90 percent of the city’s water demands of 1.2 billion gallons annually are met. There are no restrictions on the quantity of surface water withdrawn by Branson, Missouri from Taneycomo. (Mike Ray, July 17, 2013)
6.1.3 Osage Plains Most of Barton, Vernon, and St. Clair counties and portions of Cedar and Dade counties are in the Osage Plains physiographic province, as shown in Figure 3.1. The Osage Plains closely align with a groundwater transition from the Springfield Plateau aquifer freshwater to brackish/saline groundwater, as shown in Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.9: Freshwater and Saline Water Break in Missouri. Source: MDNR WR 63
The upper strata, Pennsylvanian rock, is found in the northwestern part of Vernon County, producing 1 to 40 gpm that is sufficient for most domestic uses. The Mississippian Aquifer is more widely used in Barton and Vernon counties, and yield ranges from 3 to 60 gpm, averaging 15 to 20 gpm. The Ozark Aquifer is available in the eastern portions of Vernon and Barton counties around Golden City and Lamar in Barton County and Nevada in Vernon County. Thickness of the freshwater aquifer is greatest around Golden City just east of the transition line. Wells drilled in the upper Gasconade Dolomite yield between 250 to 600 gpm, whereas the lower produces 350 to 1,000 gpm. Wells drilled deeper into the Eminence Dolomite produce 500 to 1,200 gpm, as shown in Figure 3.4.
52 Final Report
Lamar, Missouri straddles the line of transition from freshwater on the east to saline on the west. Lamar switched from groundwater to surface water for public supply in 1955 primarily in response to the 1954 drought. Nevada, Missouri is just west of the transition line. In 1982, Nevada, Missouri applied a reverse osmosis system to deal with salinity. Nevada, Missouri had seen a groundwater decline of about 80 feet since the early 1900s. Golden City in Barton County experiences seasonal fluctuations of around 50 feet in their public supply wells as a result of high intensity pumping from agriculture irrigation in the months of July through September then slowly recovers the remainder of the year, as shown in Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.10: Golden City Seasonal Groundwater Fluctuations and Well Interference
Source: MDNR Water Resources Center Website
Use of groundwater for center pivot irrigation began in the mid-1960s with wells drilled into either the Roubidoux Formation Gasconade Dolomite as documented in the Appraisal of the Groundwater Resources of Barton, Vernon and Bates Counties, Missouri (MDNR WR 36 1985) as shown in Figure 3.4. In the early 1980s, several irrigation wells were capped in northern Vernon County due to potential increases in salinity and constructed surface water impoundments. Much of Barton, southern Vernon, and the northwest corner of Dade and southwest corner of Cedar counties have seen groundwater declines of 100 to 200 feet. The south-central part of Barton County has experienced declines of 300 feet, as shown in Figure 3.5.
6.1.4 Groundwater Summary The Springfield Plateau aquifer levels respond to annual precipitation and thus show some stress in drought years but generally provide sufficient water for domestic uses for the foreseeable future. The Ozark Aquifer has ample storage, but recharge is slow particularly west of Springfield where confining layers are even less permeable. Even in the karst topography of the Springfield, Missouri area, the cone of depression continues to grow with growing municipal and industrial demands assuming the trend identified by MDNR in 2007 of continued
53 Final Report
groundwater declines as shown in Figure 3.5. The growing tourist area of Branson, Missouri placed greater demands on wells to a point that it did not make financial sense to go deeper but rather look to a surface water alternative.
In the intervening years since these studies were completed, more real-time observation wells have been added to the State’s extensive network of monitoring wells providing greater insights into groundwater fluctuations that will continue to shed light on the aquifer’s recharge and recovery.
6.1.4.1 Ozark Aquifer West These western counties include McDonald, Newton, Jasper, Barton, Lawrence, and Barry. Communities in this region include Joplin, Carthage, Neosho, Noel, and Monett. There are several constraints and stressors in the continued use of the Ozark Aquifer in the western counties and communities of the study area, including:
• Multi-state demand on the aquifer
• Reduced recharge due to additional confining layer
• Groundwater quality concerns from past mining operations
The WHPA study (2003) using a steady-state model indicated that a maintainable yield is between 8 to 10.5 mgd, with a drawn down of 800 feet. However, a steady-state model does not benefit from groundwater storage. B&V (2006), applying the WHPA model, suggested that 27 mgd is achievable with an additional 100 to 200 feet of decline. The USGS transient model (2010) may be a better indicator of yield. Even so, the USGS model for several scenarios of growth show model cells in Carthage, Jasper County, and Noel, McDonald County, going dry with a 1 percent annual growth by 2040 and potentially cells in Joplin, Jasper County, on the threshold of going dry at a 2 percent annual growth among the multiple states near a decline of 800 feet by 2050. In the meantime, municipal and industrial water demands are growing, and groundwater declines have wells going deeper to extract the water. Precautions have been taken to help ensure groundwater quality is maintained in the Ozark Aquifer as regulated under the Missouri Well Construction Rules, Special Area 2.
6.1.4.2 Ozark Aquifer East Eastern counties include Greene, Christian, Taney, Stone, Polk, and portions of Lawrence and Barry. Communities in this region include Springfield, Nixa, and Branson, Missouri. There are unique features to the aquifer in this eastern portion of the study area, including karst topography with numerous sinkholes, springs, and loosing streams and recharge support from the Salem Plateau unlike in the western half of the study area. Yet there are unique constraints and stressors as well, including:
• As of 2007, growing cone of depression with growing signs of well interference and well level decline assuming the trend identified by MDNR in 2007 of continued groundwater declines as shown in Figure 3.5
54 Final Report
• Financial threshold of drilling and pumping deeper versus finding an alternative source
• Groundwater quality concerns with interplay of the Springfield Plateau and Ozark Aquifer given the karst nature of the region.
In 1997, Miller and Vandike reported that the cone of depression in the Springfield area dropped approximately 500 feet from predevelopment levels and at the lowest point measured in 1996 in the Ozark Aquifer was 259 feet below the top of the aquifer, thus, no longer fully saturated. At that time, approximately 1,000 feet of the Ozark Aquifer or nearly 80 percent was saturated.
Building on the USGS 2006 groundwater investigations, a closer look at scenarios by USGS (2010) in the Greene County area were conducted to predict the impacts of growth rates, drought and future industry on groundwater levels. Low and high growth rates with modeled droughts either in the first 3 years or at the last 3 years of the forecast horizon demonstrated little differences in the four scenarios; however, they did indicate continued decline of around 200 feet in Springfield, Missouri with more than a 100 feet decline in the outlying communities such as Nixa, in Christian County. The more sobering scenario was the addition of a couple of industries each pumping between 1 and 2 mgd continuously from 2010 to 2030, resulting in a localized head decline of nearly 650 feet by 2030. The thickness of the aquifer at this location is 1,300 feet and is estimated to have 469 feet of saturated thickness, which is less than 40 percent saturated under this industrial use scenario. The outlying communities are predicted to see little additional drawdown from the varying growth and drought scenarios.
Prior to the 1990s, Branson, Missouri had drilled municipal wells around 1,500 feet, and as the growing tourist industry boomed during that decade, more and deeper wells were needed to keep up with the seasonal demands. Branson, Missouri hit a decision point that it was financially in their best interest to pursue a surface water source alternative rather than to keep taxing the groundwater resource at an increasing cost. A representative from Nixa at the May 15, 2013 Coalition meeting noted that the cost of treating surface water is about 3 times that of treating groundwater. Thus, it would be some time before the breaking point was reached of not drilling more and deeper wells and switching to or supplementing with surface water.
Precautions have been taken to help ensure groundwater quality is maintained in the Ozark Aquifer as regulated under the Missouri Well Construction Rules, Sensitive Area C. The Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Fulbright Area, Greene County, Missouri (Vandike and Sherman 1993) study evaluated the possibility of landfill contamination of the Fulbright Springs area. The wells at Fulbright are the highest producing within the Ozark Aquifer on average of 2,000 gpm. Fulbright #1 well water level measured in 1993 dropped over 300 feet from June to October but recovered quickly over the winter months. There was concern this drawdown would pull contamination from the local landfill. The study calculations indicate that it is possible for the closed Fulbright Landfill contaminants to reach Fulbright Well #1, but no data collected as of the study being published had demonstrated contamination to have occurred.
55 Final Report
Further indication of growing pressure on groundwater and expected continued decline is demonstrated in City Utilities supply to Springfield, Missouri being supplemented by Corps’ Stockton Lake surface water since 1996. Surface water is further discussed later in this section.
6.1.4.3 Osage Plains Osage Plains counties include Barton, Vernon, and portions of Cedar and Dade. Communities in this region include Lamar in Barton County and Nevada in Vernon County and on the edge Golden City, Barton County. The unique constraint in this region is the transition zone between fresh and saline groundwater. The primary stressor in the aquifer is significant agricultural center pivot irrigation particularly in south-central Barton County. Primary concerns regarding groundwater are as follows:
• Movement of saline groundwater into fresh groundwater zones
• Influence of agricultural irrigation on public supply
• Potential salinity concerns on agricultural soils and production
The City of Lamar moved to surface water for public supply in 1955 in response to the 1954 drought. A number of communities followed suit with concerns of water quality and salinity. In the 1980s, irrigation wells were capped in Vernon County with concerns of salinity and surface water impoundments constructed. In 1982, the City of Nevada employed reverse osmosis to address salinity issues.
6.2 Surface Water Sources Missouri follows the “reasonable use” rule of water use by riparian landowners whose property borders a watercourse, stream, or lake. The riparian landowners may beneficially use water as long as they do not cause unreasonable damage to fellow riparians. This water use doctrine impacts the quantity of surface water available for future use in this region.
6.2.1 Surface Water Availability 6.2.1.1 Quantity Water demands in southwest Missouri are currently met through the utilization of several surface water sources, including municipal lakes, federal reservoirs, and streams. Figure 3.9 shows the locations of major streams and reservoirs within the 16 county study area.
Fellows and McDaniel lakes are privately owned by the City of Springfield and serve as their primary water supply source. Additionally, City Utilities in Springfield, Missouri utilizes surface water supply from the James River and Stockton Lake. Stockton Lake, located in southeastern Cedar County, northeastern Dade County, and southwestern Polk County, is a secondary water source, generally utilized if supply levels in Fellows and McDaniel lakes begin to fall below approximately 80 percent. The water from Stockton Lake is piped approximately 30 miles to Fellows and McDaniel lakes. City Utility’s Stockton Lake water supply allocation was
56 Final Report
implemented in 1996 and allows for withdrawals up to an average of 15 mgd based on availability, with an agreement for an additional 15 mgd in the future. Lake Lamar, owned by the City of Lamar, Barton County, has served as the city’s primary water source since 1955. Shoal Creek serves as the primary source for the cities of Joplin located in both Jasper and Newton counties and Neosho in Newton County. Based on groundwater challenges faced in the 1990s, Lake Taneycomo was added as a water supply source and serves the City of Branson in Taney County. All surface water users in southwestern Missouri supplement surface water supplies with at least one groundwater source.
In the case of surface water withdrawals, the safe yield is used to determine the maximum amount of water that is available for withdrawal while still maintaining minimum flow and/or storage requirements. For an impoundment, the safe yield is dependent on the storage capacity and the amount of reliable inflow to maintain certain authorized purposes of the impoundment.
Safe yield is determined by the Corps for the impoundments it operates. The Chief of Engineers has the discretionary authority to reallocate up to 15 percent or 50,000 acre-feet, whichever is less, of the total storage capacity allocated to all purposes, provided the reallocation has no severe effect on other authorized purposes or will not involve major structural or operational changes. Reallocation can also be accomplished through congressional approval, and all changes in allocation which exceed the 15 percent or 50,000 acre-feet discretionary allotment require congressional approval.
For streams and rivers, this minimum flow rate is considered at the 7Q10 flow rate; which is the 10 year probability of occurrence of a consecutive 7-day low flow rate. Flows above this threshold are typically considered available for drinking water.
Fellows and McDaniel Lakes Both Fellows and McDaniel lakes are water supply reservoirs owned by City Utilities of Springfield. McDaniel Lake was created in 1929 by impounding the Little Sac River, and the dam was raised to increase storage in 1992. Fellows Lake was created in 1955, following a severe period of drought, by impounding a portion of the Sac River. Forty years later in 1996, following the agreement that established Stockton Lake as a water supply source for City Utilities, water from Stockton Lake began being pumped into both McDaniel and Fellows lakes to supplement the city’s water supply. These combined sources generally account for approximately 45 to 65 percent of Springfield’s water demands. Stage one emergency conservation measures are enacted once stored water volume is equal to or less than 60 percent of lake storage capacity. During the drought conditions of 2012, the combined storage reached a low of 63 percent on August 31.
57 Final Report
James River City Utilities receives water from one intake on the James River. The use of this source of supply is highly dependent on precipitation due to minimum flow requirements. Approximately 20 to 30 percent of Springfield’s total water demands are met through the James River intake.
Stockton Lake In 1996, 50,000 acre-feet (30 mgd) of Stockton Lake storage was reallocated from its present use to municipal and industrial water supply use to City Utilities. The Lake is currently utilized by City Utilities as a supplemental water supply source. In order to allocate additional storage, a water supply study would be required, with congressional approval. Figure 6.11 shows the monthly water withdrawals from City Utilities from 2007 to 2012 as well as monthly precipitation during that same time period.
Figure 6.11: Monthly Surface Water Withdrawals from Stockton Lake 2007 to 2012
Lamar Lake Lamar Lake, located in Barton County, serves as the primary water supply source for the City of Lamar. According to MDNR Reservoir Operations Study Computer Program (RESOP) studies, the safe yield is 1 mgd (MDNR 2001), and optimum yield is 0.427 mgd. Annual average water demands for the City of Lamar currently exceed the optimum yield of Lake Lamar, and RESOP modeling completed in 2005 indicates the lake is at risk for not meeting the community’s water demands during periods of drought (Edwards et al. 2005). The city also utilizes one groundwater well to supplement surface water withdrawals.
Shoal Creek Shoal Creek serves as the primary water supply source for the cities of Joplin and Neosho. Joplin withdraws approximately 8 to 14 mgd while Neosho withdraws approximately 1.6 mgd. Both Joplin, Missouri and Neosho, Missouri supplement this supply with groundwater wells. The 7Q10 for Shoal Creek is 43 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 28 mgd at Grand Falls impoundment in
58 Final Report
Joplin, Missouri, and there were several time periods during the historic drought of the 1950s where flow fell beneath this threshold level. Table 6-4 presents USGS gauge data in cfs upstream of the Grand Falls impoundment for the drought of record 1954, drought of 2012, and the median monthly flow for nearly 70 years of record.
Table 6-4: Shoal Creek Monthly Flow at Joplin, Missouri
Year (cfs) Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Monthly Median 168.5 181.0 177.0 237.0 250.2 369.6 418.0 485.1 501.3 422.1 246.0 166.9
2011-2012 218.3 159.3 427.3 384.6 255.5 190.9 727.7 621.1 277.5 143.0 88.0 69.9 1953 -1954 47.0 54.4 58.6 64.1 61.3 63.4 57.9 56.0 210.8 81.4 47.0 37.1
Lake Taneycomo On the White River, fed by the tailwaters of Table Rock Lake, Lake Taneycomo serves as the primary water source for the City of Branson in Taney County. There is currently no limit to the amount of withdrawals by the City of Branson according to their use agreement with Empire Electric. Branson currently fulfills approximately 90 percent of their total water demands with Lake Taneycomo withdrawals.
6.2.1.2 Quality Water Quality in Southwest Missouri generally reflects land use of the watershed. Only two water bodies currently utilized as water supply sources in southwestern Missouri are listed on the state 303(d) listing as an impaired water body. Fellows Lake in Greene County is listed for having a mercury impairment (2012), and Shoal Creek has been listed since 2008 for an E. coli impairment. These listing are presented in Table 6-5. The public drinking water supply beneficial use designation is not listed as being affected for either of these water bodies.
Table 6-5: 303(d) Listed Water Supply Designated Water Bodies within Southwestern Missouri1
Name Constituent Potential Sources Estimated Area Affected Beneficial Use Affected
Fellows Lake2 Mercury in Fish Tissue Atmospheric Deposition 800 Acres Aquatic Life Protection Shoal Creek Escherichia coli Rural Non-Point Sources 41.1 Miles Recreation
1 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, 2012 2 Delisted in 2013 but added again in 2104 due to different data interpretation
In 2010, an approved TMDL plan was produced to address low dissolved oxygen below the Table Rock Dam flowing into Lake Taneycomo. One of several potential solutions in the TMDL for Lake Taneycomo was a minimum flow of 400 cfs, which is 280 cfs above the current minimum flows (MDNR 2010). The minimum flow of 400 cfs was first published in the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study Report (TR5; Corps 2004) The preferred flow by the Missouri Department of Conservation is 800 cfs, but 400 cfs was a compromise with other demands such as hydropower. Flows below Table Rock have been as low as 100 cfs. Alternative flows important for cold water fish species would also have implications on the supply availability between the Table Rock Dam and the Ozark Beach Dam of Lake Taneycomo.
59 Final Report
6.2.2 Surface Water Summary The economy of southwest Missouri relies on the pristine streams and reservoirs of the region. Water-based recreation is a significant contribution to many of the local economies of the region. Recognizing this reliance, communities have risen to the challenges of meeting water quality standards. The more basic need is of the people and businesses of the local communities served by these water resources. Community sources and delivery systems are most challenged during times of drought.
In the 1950s, Lamar and Springfield, Missouri responded to the drought of record by constructing municipal lakes. Since 1996, Springfield, Missouri has relied on as much as 19 mgd in supplemental surface water supplies from Stockton Lake and is able to pump an annual average of 15 mgd currently. In the 1990s, the City of Branson experienced growing pressure on groundwater supplies as the result of becoming a booming tourist destination and subsequently secured supply from Lake Taneycomo as a more reliable supply. In 2012, because of the drought, Missouri-American Water in Joplin, Missouri added an additional 2 feet of emergency storage to hold back 68 million gallons.
60 Final Report
7.0 Gap Analysis
Section 5 of this report presented the forecasted demands for the 16 county study area through 2060 by source and sector, and Section 6 summarized the known available groundwater and surface water within the region. This section will compare the future estimated demands with known and projected available supply. Where available surface water and groundwater do not meet the future forecasted demands, the term “gap” is used to identify the deficit. This section does not address the constraints or capacities of infrastructure (e.g., pumps, treatment plants, and distributions systems) to pump, treat, and deliver this available water or future constraints regarding contractual agreements among purveyors. The difference between the future demand from the current capacity to treat and deliver is referred to as the future “need” in order to supply the available water.
7.1 Scenarios Meeting demands in the more urban portions of the study area during normal weather conditions is likely a challenge in the future forecast years. However, meeting demands in these areas during drought periods is a challenge presently. The larger communities, including Springfield, Joplin, and Branson, Missouri (tourist population) rely primarily on surface water; whereas the majority of the study area relies solely on groundwater as their source of supply. Yet, in the Springfield and Joplin, Missouri areas, there continue to be a growing cone of depression in the underlying Ozark Aquifer assuming the trend identified by MDNR in 2007 of continued groundwater declines as shown in Figure 3.5. There have been numerous studies on the Ozark Aquifer and alternative pumping scenarios evaluated over the past couple of decades pointing toward the need for additional surface water sources. These studies will serve to establish some of the basic parameters, assumptions, and thresholds applied in the gap analysis and are documented in the following sections. These past studies have not defined the quantity needed, timeframe in which the additional water will be needed, and the variation in seasonal demands to be met. This gap analysis will attempt to do that at a regional planning level.
To address both surface water and groundwater availability in both normal and drought conditions, the following four management scenarios are applied in the gap analysis and are further explained in the paragraphs below:
• Scenario 1. Normal weather surface water flows or withdrawals. USGS groundwater model with current rate of growth reflecting continual declines.
• Scenario 2. Normal weather surface water flows or withdrawals. Sustainable groundwater management option (fully saturated Ozark Aquifer).
• Scenario 3. Drought condition surface water flows or withdrawals. USGS groundwater model with current rate of growth reflecting continual declines.
61 Final Report
• Scenario 4. Drought condition surface water flows or withdrawals. Sustainable groundwater management option (fully saturated Ozark Aquifer).
The following discussion presents the assumptions and application of these management scenarios for the 16-county region. Gap results will be presented for all four scenarios, but the focus of discussion will be primarily on the most likely future Scenarios 1 and 3, reflecting a continued growing rate of use of groundwater in both the normal and drought conditions, respectively. Future considerations regarding Scenarios 2 and 4 are discussed in Section 10, Conclusions and Recommendations.
7.2 Assumptions Previous studies conducted to model and evaluate groundwater reliability in the study area have delineated study boundaries based on physiographic and geologic characteristics. In order to compare the future forecasted demands with the appropriate groundwater evaluations, the gap analysis needs to reflect these similar delineations to make demands and supply availability comparable. Thus, the 16 county study area was divided into 4 sub-regions that are shown in Figure 7.1.
• Sub-region 1. Barry, Barton, Jasper, McDonald, and Newton counties
• Sub-region 2. Christian, Greene, Lawrence, Polk, and Stone counties
• Sub-region 3. Taney County
• Sub-region 4. Cedar, Dade, Hickory, St. Clair, and Vernon counties
Figure 7.1: Study Area Sub-regions
62 Final Report
Similarly, the previous groundwater studies focused primarily on public supplied, self-supplied residential, and self-supplied industrial sectors of demand in their scenarios of impacts on the groundwater resource. In order to make the future forecasted demands comparable, the total demands by county, using the USGS water use data, were first separated into groundwater and surface water as presented in Section 5. For this study, the public supplied, self-supplied residential, and self-supplied industrial sectors were used to compare to the USGS groundwater evaluations. Average daily demands per month by county and forecast year were used to compare to surface water and groundwater supply availability by sub-region. Average daily demand by month covers both the least and greatest daily demand (i.e. peak day demand) in a given month. Further discussion of peak day demand planning is presented in Section 9.
7.3 Sub-region Gap Analysis 7.3.1 Sub-region 1 Sub-region 1 includes Barry, Barton, Jasper, McDonald and Newton counties. Within this sub-region, there are three communities that rely primarily on surface water. The primary source of water for both Joplin in Jasper and Newton counties and Neosho in Newton County is Shoal Creek. The primary source of water for the City of Lamar is Lamar Lake. The capacity of these sources is discussed in Section 6. For all other communities, the sole source is groundwater.
Lamar built their city lake after the 1954 drought of record. In 2012, the most recent drought, Missouri-American Water, Joplin, Missouri, built a wooden gate system on top of the concrete dam for additional 2 feet of storage that provides an additional 68 million gallons annually. The primary dam for Joplin is at Grand Falls on the downstream end of Shoal Creek as it leaves the city. There is limited storage with quantities available primarily controlled by Shoal Creek flows. The available amount of Shoal Creek water for public supply is assumed to be the amount after minimum stream flows are met. The minimum flow required is 43 cfs. Flows in cfs were presented in Table 6.4. The average flow upstream of the impoundment is 400 cfs. From nearly 70 years of record, the average flow in August is just over 200 cfs. The stream flow per month in mgd for the average stream flow (70 years of record), drought of record (1954), and most recent drought 2012 are shown in Table 7-1 to allow comparison to the future forecasted demands.
Table 7-1: Shoal Creek Flows Converted to mgd at Joplin, Missouri
Year (mgd) Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug
Monthly Median* 109 117 114 153 162 239 270 314 324 273 159 108
2011 - 2012 141 103 276 249 165 123 470 401 179 92 57 45
1953 - 1954 30 35 38 41 40 41 37 36 136 53 30 24
* Median monthly flow from the most recent 70 years of compiled data
63 Final Report
In an average year, there is sufficient water available from Shoal Creek to meet current and future demands, even in the summer season. Although there is surface water available, the infrastructure is not in place to store or readily utilize the majority of these flows above the minimum flow. In the drought of record, minimum stream flows are not met.
Groundwater levels have been declining in this sub-region in part due to greater demands and slower recharge in this part of the aquifer as noted in Section 3. The WHPA study (2003) reported 9.2 mgd for public supply and adding “other” (e.g., self-supplied industrial) groundwater users total 18.1 mgd demand in 2000. Public supply and self-supplied industrial from the demand forecast totaled 18.9 mgd in 2010. The B&V study (2006) indicated that with some additional drawdown of the Ozark Aquifer, 27 mgd, is achievable per modeling completed by WHPA after the 2003 report. The 27 mgd from groundwater is similar to the demand forecast between 2030 and 2040 forecast years. The demand forecast for the moderate-growth scenario has a similar growth rate of between 1 and 2 percent annually as was applied in the USGS 2010 study scenarios 2, 3, and 4 (Section 3), which indicates dry model cells in Carthage and Noel, Missouri in that same timeframe. For the purpose of this gap study, 27 mgd was applied to both normal weather and drought year scenarios (Scenarios 1 and 3) as the likely future withdrawal at the current rate of use, based on the results of the three studies explained above.
On the other hand, the WHPA 2003 report noted that the “best-fit” model demonstrated a more sustainable withdrawal in the sub-region between 5.2 and 8.04 mgd. The higher value was used to reflect a sustainable withdrawal in combination with the normal and drought year scenarios (Scenarios 2 and 4).
Table 7.2 presents the combined groundwater and surface water deficit (i.e., gap) of available supply to meet future projected demands by scenario, forecast year, and month. Under normal conditions (median monthly flows in Shoal Creek) and both groundwater management options reflected in Scenarios 1 and 2, there is sufficient water in Shoal Creek to make up the difference of limited groundwater withdrawals now and out to 2060. Again the infrastructure to capture, store, treat, and deliver this available surface water is not in place. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 demonstrate that although the groundwater management option of 27 mgd total withdrawals is exceeded in 2030 there are sufficient Shoal Creek flows available to meet the regional demands beginning in 2030 through 2060.
64 Final Report
Table 7-2: Gap Evaluation, Sub-region 1 Scenarios 1 through 4
Scenario 1
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2060 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scenario 2
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2060 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scenario 3
2020 - - - - - - 10 19 12 0 - -
2030 - - 0 2 - - 15 24 17 5 1 -
2040 5 4 7 9 - - 24 33 26 12 8 4
2050 13 12 15 17 - 7 33 43 36 20 16 11
2060 21 20 24 26 - 17 44 54 47 30 24 20
Scenario 4
2020 13 12 15 17 - 4 29 38 30 19 15 11
2030 17 16 19 21 - 9 34 43 36 24 20 16
2040 24 23 26 28 - 17 43 52 45 31 27 23
2050 32 31 34 36 - 26 52 62 55 39 35 30
2060 40 39 43 45 - 36 63 73 66 49 43 39
65 Final Report
66 Final Report
Figure 7.2: Sub‐region 1, Scenario 1 Groundwater Threshold Exceeded in 2030
Figure 7.3: Sub‐region 1, Scenario 1 Sufficient Surface Water to Meet Demands in 2030
Scenarios 3 and 4 reflect drought flows in Shoal Creek combined with the growing projected
rate of groundwater withdrawal (USGS and B&V) as compared to a more sustainable
withdrawal as offered by the 2003 WHPA study, respectively. In the drought scenarios under
both groundwater management options, if the drought of record were to happen today, there
would not be sufficient available water to meet demands. For example, the gap expands by as
much as 10 to 20 mgd in the summer months in Scenario 3 (2020) as shown in Table 7‐2.
Similarly, Figure 7.4 shows Shoal Creek availability in the drought of record as compared to
baseline (2010) demands for Sub‐region 1, indicating there is a potential shortage now as was
demonstrated in the 2012 drought. The gap in availability grows with each forecast period to
include deficits in all months of the year by 2060 as much as 54 mgd and 73 mgd in the month
of August for Scenarios 3 and 4, respectively.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
MGD
2030
GroundwaterDemand
GroundwaterSupply
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
MGD
2030
SurfaceWaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
TotalWaterSupply
Figure 7.4: Sub-region 1, Scenario 3 Supply Availability Gap Under Drought Conditions 2010
7.3.2 Sub-region 2 Sub-region 2 includes Christian, Greene, Lawrence, Polk, and Stone counties. The primary source of water for Springfield in Greene County is surface water from Fellows and McDaniel lakes and the James River. The capacity of these sources is discussed in Section 6. For all other communities, the sole source is groundwater.
Springfield built its second city lake, Fellows after the 1954 drought of record. Several decades later, foreseeing a future need for water during drought periods, the City of Springfield retained Burns and McDonnell to pursue an allocation of water supply from Stockton Lake. In the 1993 Burns and McDonnell study, the estimated drought yield of existing sources was 28 mgd. An additional 28 mgd would be needed by Springfield by 2040. As a result, since 1996, the city has relied on a Stockton Lake allocation, with a maximum allowance of 50,000 acre-feet or an average of 30 mgd, utilized mostly during times of drought. Since Springfield is currently the only utility within this sub-region relying on surface water presently, CDM Smith focused on identifying the withdrawals for all surface water sources (i.e., Fellows and McDaniel lakes, James River, and Stockton Lake) to quantify the need during both normal and drought years. City Utilities provided annual reports, which reflect total raw water production by source for the fiscal years (FY) (October through September) of 2008 through 2012. However, Stockton Lake raw water is pumped to the city’s lakes system and thus had to be isolated from the analysis to determine normal and drought year Springfield City Utilities surface water supply thresholds by month. The Corps provided Springfield Stockton Lake withdrawal data by month, which are available in Appendix B.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2010
Surface WaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
Total Water Supply
67 Final Report
CDM Smith evaluated the Stockton Lake withdrawals as compared to City Utilities annual reports to determine the years that best represent normal and drought conditions. First, Stockton Lake withdrawals were reviewed to identify the trend in City Utilities use of supplemental supply. To illustrate these trends, Stockton Lake withdrawals from 2007 through 2012 are shown in Figure 6.11.
Reviewing the use of Stockton Lake since 1996, it was found that despite average precipitation in 2010, there was reliance on Stockton Lake primarily in the summer months with some limited withdrawals in several winter months as well. Thus, 2010 appeared to best represent a close to normal weather year for which there was reliance on Stockton Lake. Therefore, lake supply use during 2010 is used to reflect a likely continued reliance into the future. The most recent drought was in 2012 during which City Utilities nearly issued mandatory conservation measures. City Utilities relied heavily on withdrawals from Stockton Lake in 2012 of approximately 15 mgd during the summer months. City Utilities water withdrawals by month and source for fiscal years 2010 and 2012 are shown in Table 7-3 and shown graphically in Figures 7.5 and 7.6.
Table 7-3: Springfield City Utilities Water Production by Source 2010 and 2012
Month FY 2010 Water Use (MGD) FY 2012 Water Use (MGD)
Ground Surface Stockton Ground Surface Stockton January 6.17 23.16 0.01 3.67 21.19 0.00 February 6.60 20.42 0.02 4.73 18.39 2.42 March 5.66 19.57 0.00 5.43 13.36 5.86 April 5.82 22.07 0.00 5.74 14.99 6.68 May 4.63 24.26 0.02 3.76 14.98 13.55 June 4.68 31.96 2.88 3.26 16.87 15.53 July 4.76 30.85 0.41 1.68 22.72 16.00 August 3.37 29.23 4.87 0.73 16.24 16.13 September 5.19 20.75 3.19 4.82 2.64 16.37 October 6.12 19.31 0.00 2.09 15.25 9.08 November 5.90 20.25 0.02 2.05 9.33 9.32 December 5.32 20.21 0.00 2.85 11.42 6.62
Sources. Springfield City Utilities annual reports and Stockton Lake withdrawal reports
68 Final Report
Figure 7.5: Fiscal Year 2010 Springfield Water Use by Source
Figure 7.6: Fiscal Year 2012 Water Use by Source
The 2010 USGS study for the Greene County vicinity noted a cone of depression existing below Springfield, Missouri as early as the late 1930s. According to USGS, declines from predevelopment condition were 300, 350, and 500 feet in 1974, 1987, and 1996, respectively. In the cone of depression, the Ozark Aquifer was 259 feet below the top of the aquifer, thus, not fully saturated. At that point, the 1,300 feet thick aquifer was 80 percent saturated. Continued declines were modeled by USGS for seven scenarios, as shown in Section 6. A combination of high and low growth rates and periods of drought in the early forecast horizon versus late in the horizon were modeled, with the addition of two new industries each using approximately 1 mgd. A total of 56 mgd was projected to be used by 2030 compared to the 32.4 documented to be used in 2006. This projected amount is similar to the amount forecast in demand study for the forecast period of 2030 to 2040 in the medium-growth scenario. Where the potential new industries were modeled to be located, the aquifer thickness of 1,300 feet had 469 feet
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Stockton
Surface
Ground
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Stockton
Surface
Ground
69 Final Report
saturated, or 36 percent. The USGS projected 56 mgd as a future groundwater threshold for the current growth rate. To estimate a more sustainable groundwater withdrawal, USGS notes 8 mgd withdrawals in 1962 and 20 mgd in 1987. It was then assumed for Scenarios 2 and 4, reflecting the more sustainable groundwater management , withdrawals would total 16 mgd. The USGS report did not state that between 1962 and 1987 that the Ozark Aquifer was fully saturated but an indication that it was greater than 80 percent saturated prior to 1996 is noted above.
As shown in Table 7-4, under Scenario 1 reflecting normal weather conditions (surface water withdrawals in FY 2010) and the groundwater management option of 56 mgd, Sub-region 2 has a gap in supply availability of total water (including the Stockton Lake allocation) by 2060 in the months of August and September of 11 and 14 mgd, respectively. In 2050, the sub-region is on the cusp of a shortage in groundwater and surface water as reflected in Figures 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9.
Table 7-4: Gap Evaluation, Sub-region 2 Scenarios 1 through 4
Scenario 1 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2030 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2040 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2050 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2060 - - - - - - - 11 14 - - -
Scenario 2 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - 2030 - - - - - - 8 13 2 - - 2040 2 7 5 5 5 5 12 21 26 12 6 2 2050 13 18 15 16 16 17 25 36 39 24 16 12 2060 24 30 26 28 29 30 39 51 54 36 28 23
Scenario 3 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2030 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2040 - - - - - - - - 4 - - - 2050 - - - - - - - 9 17 - - - 2060 - - - - - 5 7 24 33 - - -
Scenario 4 2020 - - - - - - - 7 18 - - - 2030 - - 1 2 4 8 8 21 31 6 7 1 2040 4 9 11 12 14 20 20 34 44 16 16 11 2050 15 20 21 23 26 32 33 49 57 28 27 21 2060 26 32 33 35 38 45 47 64 73 40 39 32
70 Final Report
Figure 7.7: Sub-region 2, Scenario 1 Groundwater Gap in 2050
Figure 7.8: Sub-region 2, Scenario 1 Surface Water Threshold in 2050
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2050
GroundwaterDemand
Groundwater Supply
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2050
Surface WaterDemand
SW Supply w/oStockton Allocation
SW Supply w/Stockton Allocation
71 Final Report
Figure 7.9: Sub-region 2, Scenario 1 Combined Groundwater and Surface Water Threshold in 2050
In Scenario 3, under drought conditions (surface water withdrawals in FY 2012) combined with the groundwater management option of 56 mgd (as presented in Table 6-3), Sub-region 2 reflects a deficit of 4 mgd in 2040 in the month of September even with Stockton Lake maximum current allocations. The deficit grows to include the entire summer season of the months of June, July, August, and September in 2060 of 5, 7, 24, and 33 mgd, respectively. City Utilities is the only city in Sub-region 2 that relies largely on surface water sources. In Scenario 3, surface water sources fall short of meeting August and September monthly drought demands even with Stockton Lake allocations between 2040 and 2050. This deficit reflects the use of Stockton Lake allocations during the drought of 2012, as shown in Figure 7.10. The total deficit during drought for the combined sources is shown in Figure 7.11.
Figure 7.10: Sub-region 2, Scenario 3 Surface Water Gap in 2050
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2050
Surface WaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
Total Water Supply
72 Final Report
Figure 7.11: Sub-region 2, Scenario 3 Combined Surface Water and Groundwater Gap in 2050
Under the groundwater management option of 56 mgd (USGS) for both the normal and drought conditions, data evaluation results indicate a supply availability gap of 14 and 33 mgd in September for Scenarios 1 and 3, respectively. The gap is during the summer months for Scenarios 1 and 3.
There are currently no agreements between City Utilities and neighboring communities to provide any portion of their total water supply.
7.3.3 Sub-region 3 Sub-region 3 consists only of Taney County. Until the 1990s, Taney County water demands were met by groundwater. Then in the 1990s, the City of Branson experienced significant tourism growth that put pressure on the groundwater supply, forcing them to drill more and deeper wells to the point that it was economically favorable for the City of Branson to consider an alternate source, Lake Taneycomo. Now the primary source of water for the City of Branson is surface water. The remainder of the county continues to be supplied by groundwater.
Empire Electric, who operates the dam and hydropower facilities on Taneycomo, has an arrangement with the City of Branson to supply surface water. The City of Branson has expressed that the arrangement has no limitations on the quantity to supply Branson’s demands now and into the future. However, it is believed that Lake Taneycomo’s drinking water supply arrangement is expressly for the City of Branson and thus unavailable for use by other surrounding communities. As such, the only surface water demands identified in Taney County are the City of Branson demands, which are considered to always be met in all scenarios and forecast years. There is no indication that there would not be sufficient water in Lake
73 Final Report
Taneycomo to meet these demands particularly in the peak summer season. Peak summer demands also coincide with peak hydropower demands; thus, there would be sufficient releases from Table Rock Lake to meet water supply commitments. Currently, there is a TMDL, as discussed in Section 6, regarding dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Taneycomo as a result of hydropower releases. One alternative to improve the dissolved oxygen levels is to have a minimum flow of 400 cfs. This is a similar amount observed for Bull Shoals downstream of Lake Taneycomo and would be assumed to be the same amount that must pass through Lake Taneycomo in all seasons. Currently, flows into Lake Taneycomo are as little as 100 cfs (due to gate leakage etc.) to over 15,000 cfs during high power generation.
Groundwater management options considered are the current rate of growth bounded by parameters and scenarios offered in the USGS 2010 study for Sub-region 2 (Greene County vicinity) and a more sustainable withdrawal that would be more likely to return the aquifer to a fully saturated state (confined) assuming greater recovery in the karst Salem Plateau formations. Since there were no specific models completed by USGS for this portion of the study area, the findings of the USGS 2010 study were applied here, given portions of both Sub-regions 2 and 3 reside in the Salem Plateau aquifer and both the cities of Springfield and Branson, Missouri were experiencing similar rates of decline in the aquifer. Thus, the ratio of the groundwater demand of 32.4 mgd in 2006 as reported in the USGS 2010 study and the future demand of 56 mgd, that in some locations rendered the aquifer less than 50 percent saturated, were applied to Taney County groundwater demands. The baseline demand for Taney County per the Phase I demand study is 5.56 mgd. Applying this ratio to the baseline demand would result in a future withdrawal threshold for the county of 9.6 mgd. The baseline demand of 5.56 mgd is applied as the more sustainable groundwater demand given that Branson has reduced its groundwater demands by 90 percent in the past decade, and its wells have recovered substantially.
The sufficiency of the sources to meet future demands given the assumptions above is shown in Table 7-5 as the amount not met by either surface or groundwater.
74 Final Report
Table 7-5: Gap Evaluation, Sub-region 3 Scenarios 1 through 4
Scenario 1
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - 1 2 2 1 - - -
2060 - - - - - 3 4 4 3 1 - -
Scenario 2
2020 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
2030 - - - - - 1 2 2 1 - - -
2040 - - - 1 1 3 4 4 3 2 1 -
2050 - - 1 2 3 5 6 6 5 4 3 2
2060 1 1 2 4 4 7 8 8 7 5 4 3
Scenario 3
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - 1 2 2 1 - - -
2060 - - - - - 3 4 4 3 1 - -
Scenario 4
2020 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
2030 - - - - - 1 2 2 1 - - -
2040 - - - 1 1 3 4 4 3 2 1 -
2050 - - 1 2 3 5 6 6 5 4 3 2
2060 1 1 2 4 4 7 8 8 7 5 4 3
Given that Branson is the only surface water user in Taney County and that their surface water demands are always met by Lake Taneycomo, even during drought, the gaps reflected in Table 7-5 are, thus, deficits in groundwater supply for Taney County. There are gaps in supply in 2050 of 1 to 2 mgd during the summer months and 3 to 4 mgd during the same months in 2060 for Scenarios 1 and 3. Figure 7.12 shows Taney County reaching the USGS assumed groundwater threshold of 9.6 mgd by 2040. The sustainable groundwater management option would reflect a supply gap of 1 mgd in August 2020, growing to as much as 8 mgd in 2060 and having deficits in all months as shown in Figure 7.13.
75 Final Report
Figure 7.12: Sub-region 3, Scenario 1 Groundwater Threshold in 2040
Figure 7.13: Sub-region 3, Scenario 2 Groundwater Gap in 2060
7.3.4 Sub-region 4 Sub-region 4 includes the five northern most counties of the study area, including Cedar, Dade, Hickory, St. Clair, and Vernon. The primary source of water in these counties is groundwater. Most of Vernon County and the northwest corner of St. Clair County are on the saline side of the saline/freshwater boundary, as shown in Figure 6.9. All of Vernon and St. Clair counties and portions of Cedar and Dade counties are in the Osage Plains Aquifer, as shown in Figure 3.1. The City of Nevada is located in Vernon County and, due to salinity levels, has been using reverse osmosis in their drinking water treatment process since 1982 (MDNR WR36). It is believed that there is sufficient groundwater in the Springfield Plateau aquifer to continue to meet self-supplied residential demands and adequate availability in the Ozark Aquifer to
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
GroundwaterDemand
GroundwaterSupply
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2060
GroundwaterDemand
Groundwater Supply
76 Final Report
continue to meet future demands of primarily rural counties that are collectively experiencing declining populations. The primary concern with continued groundwater pressures is the movement of the saline/freshwater boundary eastward. There is continued concern regarding salinity levels for agricultural irrigations needs.
7.3.5 Regional Summary Evaluation by sub-region limits surface water sources to their respective sub-region; however, when evaluating the 16-county region in total, available surface water is distributed throughout the entire region. As a result, viewing the gap from a regional standpoint will be slightly different from viewing the gap by sub-region. This study does not take into account infrastructure and contractual agreements that may restrict the regional distribution of this available water. Therefore, in some cases, local groundwater supply may no longer be available; however, regionally available surface water can serve to fill the gap in supply and to meet demand. While it may appear, in this case, that there is no apparent gap in overall supply and demand, infrastructure and contractual limitations could cause unseen gaps. This situation is shown in Table 7-6, Scenario 1, where under normal weather conditions and a groundwater management option that anticipates continued declines at current rates of growth, the region is estimated to have a sufficient combination of groundwater and surface water to meet future demands through 2060. However, the groundwater threshold is hit by 2040, as shown in Figure 7.14, while surface water supply availability, as shown in Figure 7.15, makes up for the difference through 2060.
However, as shown in Table 7-6, under Scenario 3 (under drought conditions and a groundwater management option that anticipates continued declines at current rates of growth), the region only has a sufficient combination of groundwater and surface water to meet future demands through 2030, with increasing deficits appearing after 2040. The groundwater threshold is hit by 2040, as shown in Figure 7.14, and surface water supply availability, as shown in Figure 7.16, can no longer make up the difference during a drought. The supply gap during the summer months grows from 3 to 6 mgd in 2030 to as much as 83 mgd in August of 2060, as shown in Figure 7.17.
77 Final Report
Table 7-6: Gap Evaluation - Regional Summary
Scenario 1
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2060 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scenario 2
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2050 - - - - - - - 20 20 - - -
2060 - - - - - - - 49 49 9 - -
Scenario 3
2020 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2030 - - - - - - - 3 6 - - -
2040 - - - - - - 3 27 29 - - -
2050 - - - - - - 28 54 54 8 1 -
2060 4 9 14 20 - 25 55 83 82 31 23 11
Scenario 4
2020 - - 4 7 - 1 24 45 48 13 11 1
2030 10 13 19 23 - 19 44 66 69 30 26 16
2040 27 31 37 41 - 40 66 90 92 49 44 34
2050 46 51 56 61 - 63 91 117 117 71 64 53
2060 67 72 77 83 - 88 118 146 145 94 86 74
78 Final Report
Figure 7.14: Regional Summary, Scenario 1 Groundwater Gap in 2040
Figure 7.15: Regional Summary, Scenario 1 Groundwater and Surface Water Threshold in 2040
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
GroundwaterDemand
GroundwaterSupply
050
100150200250300350400450500
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
Surface WaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
Total Water Supply
79 Final Report
Figure 7.16: Regional Summary, Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2040
Figure 7.17: Regional Summary, Scenario 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Gap in 2060
By 2030, groundwater resources in the region will be locally challenged and likely stress purveyors economically to drill, pump, and deliver groundwater. The flows in Shoal Creek during normal monthly weather conditions supplemented with the allocation of 30 mgd in Stockton Lake are sufficient to meet demands through 2060 for the 16-county region making up for the groundwater deficit. To take advantage of these flows in Shoal Creek in support of regional demands, storage and delivery infrastructure would need to be constructed as offered as an alternative in Freese and Nichols study (2010). Today the gap in supply is most challenging during drought.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2040
Surface WaterDemand
GroundwaterDemand
Total Water Supply
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov De
c
MGD
2060
Surface WaterDemand
Groundwater Demand
Total Water Supply
80 Final Report
Sub-region 1 would have a deficit today if there were a drought of record (1954) because there currently is very limited storage on Shoal Creek at Joplin. The drought gap today is around 10 mgd, growing to 50 mgd by 2060. If the drought of record were to occur, there is no infrastructure in place today to fill the drought need of sub-region 1 although the regional evaluation only shows the 16-county gap in supply for the drought Scenario 3 beginning in 2030 based on available supply from other sub-regions. Sub-region 2 reflects a slight supply gap as early as 2040 even with Springfield City Utilities Stockton Lake allocation. The drought gap begins at 4 mgd in 2040 and grows to 30 mgd by 2060. As a 16-county region, the drought scenario will have a gap by 2030 of around 5 mgd, growing to 80 mgd in 2060.
Section 8 will discuss supply availability from the Corps’ reservoirs to potentially meet future southwest Missouri demands. Section 9 discusses the current treatment capacities of the 16 counties and looks at peak day demand implications for future infrastructure. Section 10 will provide conclusions and offer recommendations.
81 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
82 Final Report
8.0 Corps Reservoir Overview – Lake Yield Study
8.1 Purpose of Yield Study In the 16-county study area, there are three potentially large sources of raw surface water. These include Stockton Lake, Pomme de Terre Lake and Table Rock Lake. The potential yield of these lakes is evaluated in this section.
8.2 Pertinent Lake Data Stockton and Pomme de Terre lakes were constructed and are operated by the Kansas City District of the Corps. The lakes are located in southwest Missouri on tributaries to Truman Reservoir, also constructed and operated by the Kansas City District. Table Rock Lake was constructed and is operated by the Little Rock District of the Corps. Table Rock Lake is located in Barry, Stone, and Taney counties in southwest Missouri and is part of the White River system as shown in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1: Pertinent Lake Data
Stockton
Table Rock
Pomme de Terre
83 Final Report
8.2.1 Stockton Lake Construction of Stockton Dam began in 1963, with closure of the structure occurring on September 23, 1968. The lake first filled to the top of the multipurpose zone (867.0 feet mean sea level.) on December 18, 1971. The drainage area upstream of the dam is about 1,160 square miles. The lake is operated for flood control, hydropower, water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, and water supply. The lake was not originally authorized for water supply; however, 50,000 acre-feet of storage was reallocated for that purpose in 1993. The City of Springfield holds contract number DACW41-94-L-0001 for the 50,000 acre-feet of storage. The current Stockton Lake storage allocations are provided in FiguFigure re 8.2.
Figure 8.2: Stockton Lake Storage Allocations
84 Final Report
8.2.2 Pomme de Terre Lake Construction of Pomme de Terre Dam began in 1957, with closure of the structure occurring on June 28, 1960. The lake first filled to the top of the multipurpose zone (839.0 feet mean sea level) on June 15, 1963. The drainage area upstream of the dam is about 611 square miles. The lake is operated for flood control, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The lake is authorized for water supply; however, the lake is not currently operated for that purpose. Pomme de Terre Lake does not have any specific storage allocations within the multipurpose pool. The storage within each zone is provided in Figure 8.3.
Figure 8.3: Pomme de Terre Lake Storage
8.2.3 Table Rock Lake Table Rock Lake was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1941. Construction of Table Rock Lake began in 1952, with closure of the structure occurring in November 1958. Hydropower generation began in May 1959 and the reservoir was filled to the top of the conservation pool in May 1960. The drainage area upstream of the dam is 4,020 square miles. The lake is operated for flood control, hydropower, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The lake is authorized for water supply, however, no storage is currently allocated for the water supply purpose. The Table Rock Lake storage volumes are shown in Figure 8.4.
85 Final Report
Figure 8.4: Table Rock Lake Storage
8.3 Dam Safety Action Classification The Table Rock Dam currently has a Corps Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) IV (marginally safe) rating. Both Stockton and Pomme de Terre Dams currently have a Corps DSAC III rating. The DSAC III rating is for dams with confirmed and unconfirmed dam safety issues where the combination of life or economic consequences with probability of failure relative to other dams is moderate to high. The Corps policy prohibits reallocation of flood pool space to other purposes if a dam has a DSAC rating of I, II, or III. Reallocation of multipurpose pool space is acceptable for DSAC III under the policy. The top of the multipurpose pool for Stockton and Pomme de Terre are 867.0 and 839.0, respectively. The top of the conservation pool for Table Rock is 915.0. The Pomme de Terre DSAC rating is expected to be changed to DSAC IV (marginally safe) as major repair of the stilling basin was completed in 2011.
8.4 Study Methodology The expected yield is evaluated through the iterative simulation method. A daily model of lake operation is prepared using the Hydrologic Engineering Center's Reservoir Simulation Program (HEC-ResSim) for Stockton and Pomme de Terre lakes, and The Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems Riverware for Table Rock Lake. Both software packages are approved for use in Corps analyses. The software performs hydrologic routing and determines reservoir releases based on a guide curve approach plus user-specified operation rules. The rules provide for lake operation in accordance with the current lake Water Control Manuals. The Models are run multiple times for a specific water supply yield value with varying account storage amounts. Using this method, the minimum storage required for a specific yield value (firm yield) is determined.
86 Final Report
8.5 Conservation/Multi-Purpose Pool Yields Table 8-1 and Figure 8.5 present the results for the amount of storage that would be required to provide for a given firm yield request from the Conservation/Multi-Purpose pool from each lake. Detailed analyses are provided in addendum to this report.
Table 8-1: Storage Required for a Given Yield
Yield (mgd)
Storage Required (acre-feet)
Pomme de Terre Stockton Table Rock
5 6,600 7,600 7,000
10 13,200 15,200 14,000
15 19,800 22,700 21,000
20 26,400 30,300 28,000
25 32,900 37,800 35,100
30 39,600 45,300 42,100
35 46,300 >50,000 49,100
Figure 8.5: Storage Required for a Given Yield
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Stor
age
(Acr
e-Fe
et)
Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Table Rock
Pomme de Terre
Stockton
87 Final Report
8.6 Flood Control Pool Yields Table 8-2 and Figure 8.6 present the results for the amount of storage that would be required to provide for a given firm yield request from the Flood Control pool from each lake. Stockton Lake was not included due to a DSAC of III and shown in Section 8.3. Detailed analyses are provided in addendum to this report.
Table 8-2: Flood Control Pool Storage Required for a Given Yield
Yield (mgd)
Storage Required (acre-feet)
Pomme de Terre Table Rock
5 6,700 7,100
10 13,600 14,200
15 20,300 21,300
20 27,100 28,500
25 33,800 35,700
30 41,100 43,000
35 47,600 50,300
Figure 8.6: Flood Control Pool Storage Required for a Given Yield
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Stor
age
(Acr
e-Fe
et)
Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Table Rock
Pomme de Terre
88 Final Report
8.7 Summary The calculations in Sections 8.5 and 8.6 indicate the storage that would be required to provide a given firm yield through the drought of record. This storage is currently allocated to other authorized purposes such as hydropower or flood control. A change in the use of storage in an existing reservoir project from its present use to municipal and industrial water supply (reallocation) is authorized by the Water Supply Act of 1958. Reallocations or addition of storage that would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was authorized, surveyed, planned, constructed, or which would involve major structural or operational changes, will be made only upon the approval of Congress.
The Corps and other Federal reservoirs represent a combination of large economic investments and commitments of valuable natural resources. These reservoirs can make important contributions to the nation’s economy. Over time, as population shifts and growth and need changes, the purposes of some Federal reservoirs may no longer satisfy the original project priorities. To meet these changing needs, the Corps is continually turning to reallocation. Reallocation of storage to municipal and industrial water supply has been considered in a number of different ways. However, any new reallocation agreement must provide the states or others with financial incentives not available elsewhere and the use of existing storage in Corps facilities must be cheaper for the potential user than the construction of new or additional facilities. Corps policy for reallocated storage is to charge the user the cost of the storage as if it were constructed today. Types of opportunities for reallocations include: the use of water supply storage not under contract, temporary use of storage allocated for future conservation purposes and sediment, storage made available by change in conservation demand or purpose, seasonal use of flood control space, reallocation of flood control space during the dry season, modifying reservoir water control plans and method of regulation, raising the existing dam, and system regulation of Corps and non-Corps reservoirs. Opportunities for reallocation can also be created through new partnerships with states and other water agencies.
89 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
90 Final Report
9.0 Supply Infrastructure Summary
A review of existing capacities of public drinking water systems is offered in this section as compared to projected county and regional demands through 2060 to seek efficiencies in and effective use of capital investments that meet regional infrastructure needs. Likewise, an overview of water quality violations in most recent years by county is presented to help pinpoint the most effective future investments in complying with recent regulations. Looking collectively at quantity and quality deficiencies and respective infrastructure needs can begin to help prioritize the most pressing regional needs.
9.1 Treatment Capacities of Public Supply Systems Nearly 125 mgd of additional flow is projected as being required to serve southwest Missouri by the year 2060 under the medium-growth scenario. Of that estimated 125 mgd, approximately 105 mgd of additional flow is projected from publically supplied sectors as discussed in Section 5.
A summary of system design capacities collected by MDNR and published in the Census of Missouri Public Water Systems (2011) is provided in Table 9-1 as well as projected publically supplied peak day demands in 2020, 2030, and 2060.
9.2 Peak Day Demands Peak day demand for public supply water was determined in order to estimate treatment needs. Based on data collected in a study conducted by B&V (2006), water supply entities in this region show the ratio of peak day demands to average day demands to be between 1.5 and 2.0. In order to offer a conservative estimate of peak day demands, a factor of 2.0 is used in this Phase II study. Peak day demands were compared with total system design capacities, by county, based on system design capacities collected by MDNR and published in the Census of Missouri Public Water Systems (2011). This comparison serves to indicate possible future needs for improvements in intakes, pumping, piping, and treatment. Results of this analysis can be viewed in Table 9-1, which provides a comparison of public supply demands by county (residential, non-residential, and system losses) and county total system design capacity. Based on these calculations and water demand estimates, initial county shortages appear by 2020, and a shortage in total system capacities regionally of 6.4 mgd by 2030 is estimated, with that deficit in capacity increasing to over 143 mgd by 2060. Only 6 of the 16 counties in the Southwest Missouri Region currently have total system design capacity to handle estimated 2060 peak day demands.
91 Final Report
Table 9-1: Comparison of Public Supply Peak Day Demands with Total System Design Capacities (mgd)
County Total System
Design Capacity
2020 Peak Day Demand
2020 Design Capacity
Difference
2030 Peak Day Demand
2030 Design Capacity
Difference
2060 Peak Day Demand
2060 Design Capacity
Difference
Barry 15.4 8.65 6.74 9.7 5.70 22.1 (6.67)
Barton 4.8 2.85 1.96 2.9 1.87 3.7 1.14
Cedar 3.3 1.93 1.39 1.8 1.47 1.6 1.70
Christian 16.9 23.22 (6.32) 33.9 (17.05) 53.0 (36.11)
Dade 2.4 1.49 0.86 1.4 0.91 1.4 0.94
Greene 72.5 64.16 8.30 73.2 (0.75) 112.7 (40.25)
Hickory 1.7 1.53 0.18 1.4 0.29 1.0 0.67
Jasper 30.6 34.34 (3.74) 39.5 (8.94) 59.9 (29.30)
Lawrence 11.2 7.65 3.52 8.8 2.33 14.7 (3.51)
McDonald 3.4 5.68 (2.29) 7.7 (4.34) 18.5 (15.08)
Newton 8.9 9.12 (0.19) 10.2 (1.31) 16.4 (7.48)
Polk 6.7 6.71 (0.02) 7.7 (0.99) 9.6 (2.93)
St. Clair 1.4 1.48 (0.06) 1.4 0.01 1.3 0.12
Stone 11.2 7.14 4.07 7.8 3.43 11.7 (0.47)
Taney 29.5 16.92 12.61 21.0 8.50 38.1 (8.54)
Vernon 7.2 4.74 2.47 4.7 2.49 4.8 2.39
TOTAL 227.1 197.61 29.48 233.1 (6.38) 370.5 (143.38)
In an effort to confirm peak day to average day ratios of 2.0, analysis of daily pumpage data from City Utilities was completed. Figure 9-1 provides an illustration of daily pumpage totals to the monthly average for June 2012, the month in which the peak day demand occurred in that year. As seen in this figure, doubling the average annual pumpage captures and exceeds the peak day total pumpage for 2012. In 2007, the peak day demand in August was 59.41 mgd, which is nearly double, 1.9 times, that of the average annual use, 31.31 mgd in 2012. Average daily demand as applied by month in the gap analysis presented in Section 7 captures those daily demands below as well as above the average with respect to supply availability. However, peak day demands are required to plan for and design to in meeting the future infrastructure needs for treatment and delivery of water as presented in Table 9-1.
92 Final Report
Figure 9-1: City Utilities of Springfield Peak Day Analysis
Missouri-American Water projects an annual average daily demand of 13 mgd and peak demand of 22.9 mgd. Joplin has experienced a peak day demand of 22 mgd. Thus, peak day demands are nearly 2 times that of average day demands.
9.3 Water Quality Supply Compliance Issues In addition to capacity restraints on delivering reliable water sources to publically supplied customers in the future, some providers may also be restricted based on water quality violations in their supply system. Operating facilities utilizing surface water may face problems arising from underlying geologic formations or surrounding land use. Additionally, surface water providers are more likely to experience poor water quality during drought conditions. The quality of groundwater is largely dependent on the aquifer type it is derived from.
Water quality issues for public operating facilities in Missouri are identified in the Public Water System (PWS) Violations Database (MDNR 2013). A summary of these violations from 2010 to 2012 within the southwest Missouri study region are presented by county in Table 9-2. As shown in this table, the primary contaminant of concern for most counties is coliform. Vernon and McDonald counties are also shown to have several average maximum contaminant level violations for combined radium (-226 and -228) and gross alpha (excluding radon and uranium). Reallocation of water storage at Bull Shoals Lake in 2010 was completed mainly in response to elevated levels of radium and fluoride in the water supply of north central Arkansas that exceeded the national primary drinking water standards (Corps Little Rock District, 2010).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
MGD
Daily Total Pumpage
Average MonthlyPumpage
FY 2012 AverageAnnual Pumpage
93 Final Report
Table 9-2: Number of 2010-2012 Water Quality Supply Violations1
County Chlorine Coliform Combined Radium E. Coli Groundwater
Rule Gross Alpha
Lead and Copper
Nitrate-Nitrite TTHM
Barry 3 1
Barton 1 1 1
Cedar 5 1
Christian 8 2 1
Dade 6 1
Greene 6 2
Hickory 8 2 3 3 2
Jasper 23 2 3 1 1
Lawrence 6 1 1
McDonald 6 18 1 22 1
Newton 6 2
Polk 5 2
St. Clair 16 2
Stone 1 2
Taney 7 1 1
Vernon 3 3 9 2 7 1
TOTAL 4 110 27 7 11 29 19 5 1 1 PWS Violation Database 2010-2012
9.4 Summary The gap in supply to meet demands as presented in Section 7 align with future infrastructure needs to meet peak day demands in 2020 as demonstrated in Table 9-1 for Jasper, McDonald, and Newton counties in Sub-region 1. A more significant infrastructure need is reflected in Christian County in Sub-region 2. Alternative sources of supply and the necessary infrastructure to treat and deliver the water should be looked at simultaneously to make informed and economically efficient capital investment decisions within this decade.
94 Final Report
10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
10.1 Conclusions The supply availability study is a planning level evaluation of supply sources for Southwest Missouri as compared to projected demands to identify future water availability gaps. No additional groundwater or surface water modeling was conducted for either the Ozark Aquifer or for the primary municipal surface water sources. However, as part of this study, the Corps did evaluate supply availability for Stockton, Pomme de Terre and Table Rock lakes. The findings of these evaluations are summarized in the following sections.
As a region, there is sufficient quantity of both surface water and groundwater in Southwest Missouri to meet future demands through 2060, particularly during years of normal weather, provided the infrastructure and contractual agreements are in place to capture, store, treat, and deliver the available water. However, during times of drought the combination of existing sources are challenged to meet demands region-wide and fall short of demands as early as 2030 by as much as 6 mgd in September growing to a deficit of 83 mgd in 2060. In either case, the necessary infrastructure to capture, store, treat and deliver the available water is insufficient in a number of communities, particularly for the peak day demands beginning between 2010 and 2020 as discussed in Section 9.
Although there is an estimated 113 trillion gallons of groundwater in the Ozark Aquifer, there are local challenges and limitations to the availability and production of the aquifer. Likewise, though there is ample surface water during times of normal weather, the municipal infrastructure to capture and store the water is insufficient to meet demands during times of drought. Given these local constraints, the 16 county study area was divided into 4 sub-regions to provide a more focused evaluation of water availability in support of the most likely options to meet future demands.
The cone of depression in the Ozark Aquifer underlying the Joplin area still persists despite Joplin’s primary source of supply being surface water. Additionally, there are groundwater declines throughout many communities within the remainder of sub-region 1. Likewise, although Springfield utilizes surface water as its primary source of supply, yet there exists a cone of depression in the Springfield area and declines among the surrounding communities within sub-region 2. It is recognized that there are annual groundwater level fluctuations during the drought years of 2005, 2006 and 2012 and during the wetter years of 2008, 2011 and 2013. The MDNR real-time groundwater level monitoring well network measures groundwater level fluctuations and will provide data in support of future USGS evaluations of the Ozark Aquifer. In sub-region 3, the City of Branson in the past decade has converted to surface water from Lake Taneycomo after experiencing the need to drill more and deeper wells to meet demands during the tourist season on which their community’s economy depends. All other communities in sub-region 3 rely on groundwater, which is projected to become strained by 2050. Sub-region 4,
95 Final Report
the northern most counties within the study area, is experiencing overall declines in population and has had relatively few issues with quantities of groundwater to meet demands; although quality may be a growing concern with the potential for brackish water to migrate further east.
Shoal Creek and the Spring River system are located in the southwest portion of the study area, sub-region 1, and have the potential to provide sufficient supply for Joplin and the surrounding area if the necessary storage facilities are constructed in the near future. There have been studies to evaluate alternatives to capture these flows, but the capital and mitigation costs are high. City Utilities supplements its two lakes with an allocation of 50,000 acre-feet (30 mgd) from the Corps reservoir, Stockton Lake. The allocation was secured by City Utilities, however, there are no restrictions on City Utilities supplying water to surrounding communities within sub-region 2. The City of Branson has an arrangement with Empire District Electric Company that allows them to pump water from Lake Taneycomo to meet their demands for the foreseeable future. This agreement is only with the City of Branson. It is likely that there is sufficient storage at Lake Taneycomo to meet additional public supply demands in sub-region 3 and beyond; however, this supply availability would need to be evaluated among competing demands and authorized by Empire District Electric Company.
As noted, a number of studies have been completed in the past decade to look at alternatives for additional surface water supplies including construction of new reservoirs or requesting new and additional allocations from federal reservoirs. The Corps owns and operates three large reservoirs in Southwest Missouri; Stockton, Pomme de terre and Table Rock lakes.
As part of this study, the Kansas City and Little Rock Districts of the Corps evaluated storage that would be required at each reservoir to provide a given firm yield through the drought of record. This storage is currently allocated to other authorized purposes such as hydropower or flood control. Table 10-1 presents the amount of storage allocated to flood control and the conservation and multipurpose pools at each of the Corps reservoirs.
Table 10-1: Summary of Storage at Corps Reservoirs in Southwest Missouri
Reservoir Stream Dammed Flood Control Storage (AF)
Conservation / Multipurpose
(AF)
AF needed to Yeild 35 MGD
Table Rock White 760,000 1,181,500 49,100
Stockton Sac 774,0001 875,000 >50,000
Pomme de Terre Pomme de Terre 407,000 237,000 46,300 1 Flood storage is unavailable due to the Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC)
Per the Corps evaluation, it would require 6,600, 7,600, and 7,000 AF of storage from Pomme de Terre, Stockton and Table Rock lakes, respectively, to each supply a yield of 5 mgd during the drought of record from the conservation and/or multipurpose pools. The storage required from these pools to supply 35 mgd would be 46,300, 50,000, and 49,100 AF from Pomme de Terre, Stockton and Table Rock lakes, respectively. For other supply amounts refer to Section 8.
96 Final Report
Again, this storage is currently allocated to other authorized purposes. A change in the use of storage in an existing reservoir project from its present use to water supply (i.e., reallocation) is authorized by the Water Supply Act of 1958. However, reallocations or addition of storage that would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or which would involve major structural or operational changes, will be made only upon the approval of Congress.
10.2 Recommendations In the past decade, there has been a convergence of studies, monitoring data, and investments to secure the future of water resources in Southwest Missouri. As part of this study, the Kansas City District Corps completed an evaluation of available reservoir storage for water supply purposes for both Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes. Similarly, the Little Rock District Corps completed an evaluation for Table Rock Lake as part of the White River system. Beginning in 2014, the USGS will be conducting a new modeling effort for the Ozark Aquifer that will be completed in 2017.
The following recommendations address science, technical and policy needs as identified during the Southwest Missouri Water Resources Study – Phase I and Phase II. Also, next steps to secure water sources to meet future demands are offered for future consideration..
• Consider beginning discussions of local and regional groundwater management options that are appropriate for Southwest Missouri’s water future while leveraging USGS’s ongoing Ozark Aquifer modeling efforts.
The Ozark Aquifer contains over 100 trillion gallons of groundwater, yet there are localized declines and several documented cones of depression at Joplin, Springfield and Branson indentifying a physical and economic constraint even to such a large and seemingly infinite supply source. Currently, groundwater withdrawals in Missouri are governed by the Reasonable Use policy. In recent years, significant well interference with competing wells in close proximity has been documented. The area of unconfined (i.e., less than fully saturated) Ozark Aquifer continues to expand underneath the southern portion of the study area. There has been an expressed interest in a groundwater management alternative seeking a sustainable groundwater source for future generations. It has been seen in Branson that the Ozark Aquifer has the capacity to recharge and recover relatively quickly. Most wells throughout the region drawdown in the summer season and recover in the winter season.
Offered here are investigative steps in defining ”sustainable” groundwater level conditions.
- First, identify what is the desired management goal for the community or region. This should include input from water users and other stakeholder groups.
97 Final Report
- Second, provide to USGS the Phase I water demand forecast to apply in their latest Ozark Aquifer modeling effort.
- Third, identify groundwater management strategies employed by other states to balance groundwater resource management with emerging water uses
- Finally, identify potential groundwater management strategies, with stakeholder involvement, that seek to meet the desired management goal or another agreed upon threshold (e.g., annual feet of decline or percent saturation) for management of the aquifer.
• Evaluate stream flow needs in partnership with water users, stakeholder groups and other local, state and federal agencies. Determine the desired and necessary stream flow conditions needed to meet all beneficial uses, especially during low flow periods and drought conditions.
• Align future infrastructure with supply availability gaps to leverage capital investments for efficient and effective use of regional dollars and resources.
• Evaluate and implement drought management planning throughout regional utilities. Such planning has been proved critical to the area. The city of Springfield was able to avoid mandatory measures during the drought of 2012 through education and outreach of voluntary conservation measures.
• Consider and incentivize water conservation and water use efficiency programs to reduce demands.
• Consider and model outcomes of various climate variability scenarios.
• Begin exploring water supply reallocation opportunities in Corps of Engineers lakes to help reduce communities' dependence on groundwater supplies.
98 Final Report
11.0 References
Beveridge and Vineyard (1990) as reported in U.S. Geological Survey. (1994). Environmental and Hydrologic Setting of the Ozark Plateaus Study Unit, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4022.
Black and Veatch (2006) Tri-State Water Resource Coalition Water Supply Study. B&V Project No. 41395. Prepared in cooperation with US Army Corps of Engineers – Little Rock District.
CDM Smith. (2012). Southwest Missouri Water Resource Study – Phase 1: Forecast of Regional Demands (2010-2060). US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District and Little Rock District, Missouri Department of Natural Resources in conjunction with Tri-State Water Resource Coalition.
City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. (2008). Water Treatment and Supply FY 2008 Annual Report. Springfield, Missouri.
City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. (2009). Water Treatment and Supply FY 2009 Annual Report. Springfield, Missouri.
City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. (2010). Water Treatment and Supply FY 2010 Annual Report. Springfield, Missouri.
City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. (2011). Water Treatment and Supply FY 2011 Annual Report. Springfield, Missouri.
City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri. (2012). Water Treatment and Supply FY 2012 Annual Report. Springfield, Missouri.
Freese and Nichols. (2009). Water Supply Reservoir Screening Study. City of Monett and Missouri Department of Natural Resources in conjunction with Tri-State Water Resource Coalition.
Freese and Nichols. (2010). Supplement Reservoir Screening Study. Memorandum to the Tri-State Coalition.
Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS, Linsey KS, Lovelace JK, and Maupin MA. (2009). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.
Pflieger, W.L. 1989. Aquatic community classification system for Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Aquatic Series No. 19. Jefferson City, MO
99 Final Report
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (1985). Appraisal of the groundwater resources of Barton, Vernon, and Bates counties, Missouri. Water Resources Report 36, Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geology and Land Survey.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (1993a). Topics in Water Use: Southern Missouri. Water Resources Report Number 63. Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1993b). Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Fulbright Area, Greene County, Missouri. Water Resources Report Number 43. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (1995). Surface Water Resources of Missouri. Water Resources Report Number 45. Division of Geology and Land Survey.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (1997). Groundwater Resources of Missouri, Missouri State Water Plan Series, Volume II: Water Resources Report Number 46, Division of Geology and Land Survey.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2000). A Summary of Missouri Water Laws. Water Resources Report number 51. Missouri State Water Plan Series. Volume VII. Division of Geology and Land Survey.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2002). Missouri Drought Plan. Water Resources Report Number 69. Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2005). Missouri Water Supply Studies. Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2010). Census of Missouri Public Water Systems.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2010). TMDL for Lake Taneycomo in Taney County, Missouri. Approved Dec 30, 2010.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2011). Census of Missouri Public Water Systems.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2011). Missouri Well Construction Rules. Available at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2175.pdf.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2013). PWS Violation Database.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2013). TMDL Assignments HUC 8 2012 303d List by HUC 7-26-13. Available at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/tmdl-assignments-huc8-2012-303d-list-byhuc8-7-26-13.pdf.
Ray M (2013). Phone Conversation. 17 July 2013.
100 Final Report
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009). Quality Characteristics of Ground Water in the Ozark Aquifer of Northwestern Arkansas, Southeastern Kansas, Southwestern Missouri, and Northeastern Oklahoma, 2006-07. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5093. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office.
U.S. Geological Survey. (2010). Groundwater-Flow Model and Effects of Projected Groundwater Use in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System in the Vicinity of Greene County, Missouri – 1997-2030. Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5227. US Department of the Interior. US Geological Survey. In cooperation with Greene County, Missouri, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
US Army Corps of Engineers – Little Rock District. (2004). White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study Report. July 2004.
US Army Corps of Engineers – Little Rock District. (2010). Bull Shoals Lake Arkansas Environmental Assessment: Reallocation of Water Storage at Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas, for the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority and Marion County Regional Water District.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). Summary of the Clean Water Act. Accessed 5 August 2013. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). Overview of the TMDL Process. Accessed: 5 August 2013. Available from: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/water.nsf/ac5dc0447a281f4e882569ed0073521f/2ac95839fe692ab6882569f100610e6a?OpenDocument.
Wittman Hydro Planning Associates of Bloomington, IN (WHPA). (2003) Final Report Source of Supply Investigation for Joplin, Missouri. Prepared for Missouri-American Water Company.
101 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
102 Final Report
Appendix A - Estimated Future Water Demands by Sector, Source, and Year (2020-2060)
A-0 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
A-0 Final Report
2020 Water Demands (MGD)
Groundwater Surface Water
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply Industry Agricultural Total Municipal Self-Supply
Residential Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Total
Barry 4.32 1.15 1.68 0.85 8.00 - - 12.13 2.15 14.28
Barton 0.93 - 0.12 0.95 2.00 0.50 - 0.04 0.67 1.21
Cedar 0.96 0.22 - 0.20 1.38 - - - 0.54 0.54
Christian 11.61 3.26 0.73 0.20 15.80 - - 0.81 0.53 1.34
Dade 0.75 0.43 0.03 0.96 2.17 - - 0.02 0.61 0.63
Greene 4.48 2.67 4.22 0.25 11.62 27.60 - 167.36 0.66 195.62
Hickory 0.76 0.33 0.01 0.18 1.28 - - 0.01 0.31 0.32
Jasper 6.86 1.49 2.36 1.00 11.71 10.31 - 0.17 0.69 11.17
Lawrence 3.82 1.41 0.91 0.68 6.82 - - 0.72 1.41 2.13
McDonald 2.84 1.03 3.10 0.36 7.33 - - 0.05 0.91 0.96
Newton 2.21 2.47 0.01 0.59 5.28 2.35 - - 1.41 3.76
Polk 3.36 1.65 0.02 0.60 5.63 - - 0.03 1.13 1.16
St Clair 0.74 0.47 0.08 0.20 1.49 - - 0.08 0.48 0.56
Stone 3.57 1.24 1.19 0.12 6.12 - - 0.02 0.31 0.33
Taney 4.52 1.39 0.84 0.07 6.82 3.94 - 24.20 0.14 28.28
Vernon 2.37 - 0.42 1.48 4.27 - - 0.01 1.50 1.51
Total 54.10 19.21 15.72 8.69 97.72 44.70 - 205.65 13.45 263.80
A-1 Final Report
2030 Water Demands (MGD)
Groundwater Surface Water
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply Industry Agricultural Total Municipal Self-Supply
Residential Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Total
Barry 4.85 1.33 1.68 0.85 8.71 - - 12.13 2.15 14.28
Barton 0.96 - 0.12 0.95 2.03 0.51 - 0.04 0.67 1.22
Cedar 0.92 0.22 - 0.20 1.34 - - - 0.54 0.54
Christian 16.97 4.84 0.73 0.20 22.74 - - 0.81 0.53 1.34
Dade 0.72 0.44 0.03 0.96 2.15 - - 0.02 0.61 0.63
Greene 5.11 3.13 4.22 0.25 12.71 31.49 - 167.36 0.66 199.51
Hickory 0.71 0.34 0.01 0.18 1.24 - - 0.01 0.31 0.32
Jasper 7.90 1.74 2.36 1.00 13.00 11.87 - 0.17 0.69 12.73
Lawrence 4.42 1.69 0.91 0.68 7.70 - - 0.72 1.41 2.13
McDonald 3.87 1.23 3.10 0.36 8.56 - - 0.05 0.91 0.96
Newton 2.48 2.92 0.01 0.59 6.00 2.64 - - 1.41 4.05
Polk 3.84 1.95 0.02 0.60 6.41 - - 0.03 1.13 1.16
St Clair 0.71 0.48 0.08 0.20 1.47 - - 0.08 0.48 0.56
Stone 3.89 1.46 1.19 0.12 6.66 - - 0.02 0.31 0.33
Taney 5.62 1.75 0.84 0.07 8.28 4.89 - 24.20 0.14 29.23
Vernon 2.36 - 0.42 1.48 4.26 - - 0.01 1.50 1.51
Total 65.33 23.52 15.72 8.69 113.26 51.40 - 205.65 13.45 270.50
A-2 Final Report
2040 Water Demands (MGD)
Groundwater Surface Water
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply Industry Agricultural Total Municipal Self-Supply
Residential Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Total
Barry 6.68 1.51 1.68 0.85 10.72 - - 12.13 2.15 14.28
Barton 1.03 - 0.12 0.95 2.10 0.55 - 0.04 0.67 1.26
Cedar 0.88 0.22 - 0.20 1.30 - - - 0.54 0.54
Christian 19.84 5.60 0.73 0.20 26.37 - - 0.81 0.53 1.34
Dade 0.71 0.46 0.03 0.96 2.16 - - 0.02 0.61 0.63
Greene 5.95 3.59 4.22 0.25 14.01 36.66 - 167.36 0.66 204.68
Hickory 0.65 0.33 0.01 0.18 1.17 - - 0.01 0.31 0.32
Jasper 9.18 2.00 2.36 1.00 14.54 13.79 - 0.17 0.69 14.65
Lawrence 5.29 2.00 0.91 0.68 8.88 - - 0.72 1.41 2.13
McDonald 5.34 1.47 3.10 0.36 10.27 - - 0.05 0.91 0.96
Newton 2.93 3.39 0.01 0.59 6.92 3.11 - - 1.41 4.52
Polk 4.19 2.22 0.02 0.60 7.03 - - 0.03 1.13 1.16
St Clair 0.67 0.50 0.08 0.20 1.45 - - 0.08 0.48 0.56
Stone 4.51 1.67 1.19 0.12 7.49 - - 0.02 0.31 0.33
Taney 6.97 2.16 0.84 0.07 10.04 6.07 - 24.20 0.14 30.41
Vernon 2.37 - 0.42 1.48 4.27 - - 0.01 1.50 1.51
Total 77.19 27.12 15.72 8.69 128.72 60.18 - 205.65 13.45 279.28
A-3 Final Report
2050 Water Demands (MGD)
Groundwater Surface Water
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply Industry Agricultural Total Municipal Self-Supply
Residential Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Total
Barry 8.70 1.72 1.68 0.85 12.95 - - 12.13 2.15 14.28
Barton 1.11 - 0.12 0.95 2.18 0.59 - 0.04 0.67 1.30
Cedar 0.84 0.22 - 0.20 1.26 - - - 0.54 0.54
Christian 23.02 6.44 0.73 0.20 30.39 - - 0.81 0.53 1.34
Dade 0.71 0.47 0.03 0.96 2.17 - - 0.02 0.61 0.63
Greene 6.87 4.08 4.22 0.25 15.42 42.27 - 167.36 0.66 210.29
Hickory 0.58 0.33 0.01 0.18 1.10 - - 0.01 0.31 0.32
Jasper 10.53 2.27 2.36 1.00 16.16 15.82 - 0.17 0.69 16.68
Lawrence 6.26 2.34 0.91 0.68 10.19 - - 0.72 1.41 2.13
McDonald 7.10 1.75 3.10 0.36 12.31 - - 0.05 0.91 0.96
Newton 3.42 3.92 0.01 0.59 7.94 3.63 - - 1.41 5.04
Polk 4.50 2.43 0.02 0.60 7.55 - - 0.03 1.13 1.16
St Clair 0.65 0.51 0.08 0.20 1.44 - - 0.08 0.48 0.56
Stone 5.17 1.90 1.19 0.12 8.38 - - 0.02 0.31 0.33
Taney 8.48 2.63 0.84 0.07 12.02 7.39 - 24.20 0.14 31.73
Vernon 2.39 - 0.42 1.48 4.29 - - 0.01 1.50 1.51
Total 90.33 31.01 15.72 8.69 145.75 69.70 - 205.65 13.45 288.80
A-4 Final Report
2060 Water Demands (MGD)
Groundwater Surface Water
County Municipal Self-Supply Residential
Self-Supply Industry Agricultural Total Municipal Self-Supply
Residential Self-Supply
Industry Agricultural Total
Barry 11.03 1.95 1.68 0.85 15.51 - - 12.13 2.15 14.28
Barton 1.20 - 0.12 0.95 2.27 0.64 - 0.04 0.67 1.35
Cedar 0.81 0.23 - 0.20 1.24 - - - 0.54 0.54
Christian 26.50 7.36 0.73 0.20 34.79 - - 0.81 0.53 1.34
Dade 0.70 0.49 0.03 0.96 2.18 - - 0.02 0.61 0.63
Greene 7.87 4.62 4.22 0.25 16.96 48.48 - 167.36 0.66 216.50
Hickory 0.52 0.33 0.01 0.18 1.04 - - 0.01 0.31 0.32
Jasper 11.97 2.57 2.36 1.00 17.90 17.98 - 0.17 0.69 18.84
Lawrence 7.34 2.72 0.91 0.68 11.65 - - 0.72 1.41 2.13
McDonald 9.23 2.09 3.10 0.36 14.78 - - 0.05 0.91 0.96
Newton 3.98 4.52 0.01 0.59 9.10 4.23 - - 1.41 5.64
Polk 4.81 2.62 0.02 0.60 8.05 - - 0.03 1.13 1.16
St Clair 0.65 0.53 0.08 0.20 1.46 - - 0.08 0.48 0.56
Stone 5.84 2.13 1.19 0.12 9.28 - - 0.02 0.31 0.33
Taney 10.17 3.14 0.84 0.07 14.22 8.86 - 24.20 0.14 33.20
Vernon 2.41 - 0.42 1.48 4.31 - - 0.01 1.50 1.51
Total 105.03 35.30 15.72 8.69 164.74 80.19 - 205.65 13.45 299.29
A-5 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
A-6 Final Report
Appendix B - Stockton Lake Withdrawals (1996-2012)
B-0 Final Report
This page intentionally left blank
B-0 Final Report
Stockton Lake Withdrawals by City Utilities of Springfield (MG)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Jan 4.8 96.1 - 344.4 496.4 296.4 292.5 186.8 - 278.9 195.8 340.6 - 0.4 165.3 -
Feb 1.4 - - 408.8 396.7 250.5 266.1 - - 252.0 - 122.6 - 0.5 198.5 67.7
Mar 0.2 - - 417.7 - - 290.5 - - 242.8 - 63.7 8.3 - 73.0 181.6
Apr 0.5 - - 441.2 - - - - - 5.1 - 0.6 7.0 - 10.8 200.5
May 11.6 123.2 - 1.2 521.0 460.6 - - - - 410.4 - - 1.6 0.7 0.4 420.0
Jun 19.7 110.2 20.5 - 496.1 443.0 - - - - 470.1 - 1.5 - 86.5 - 466.0
Jul 630.3 169.7 116.2 - 428.6 - - 192.1 - 274.5 454.6 79.6 - 0.5 12.8 1.3 496.1
Aug 458.7 180.1 - - 125.4 - - 252.8 147.3 432.1 463.3 118.1 0.5 0.7 150.9 0.9 500.1
Sep 417.6 101.2 224.0 - 459.4 - - 248.1 246.7 410.9 631.7 12.3 1.1 16.7 95.7 105.3 491.1
Oct 332.3 269.1 14.1 69.4 460.1 - 253.1 302.9 420.1 279.3 657.2 - 2.3 - 39.5 281.6 486.5
Nov 30.6 303.4 - 491.4 455.6 201.7 282.0 480.6 470.3 270.0 629.2 - - 0.5 12.1 279.5 Dec 0.4 520.5 0.5 484.5 531.7 377.4 291.4 483.8 - 280.5 477.7 - 0.7 - 0.6 205.1
Total 1,901 1,784 471 1,046 5,090 2,376 1,373 2,809 1,471 1,947 4,973 406 534 35 400 1,322 3,309
B-1 Final Report
Stockton Lake Withdrawals by City Utilities of Springfield (MGD)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Jan 0.15 3.10 - 11.11 16.01 9.56 9.44 6.03 - 9.00 6.32 10.99 - 0.01 5.33 -
Feb 0.05 - - 14.60 14.17 8.95 9.50 - - 9.00 - 4.38 - 0.02 7.09 2.42
Mar 0.01 - - 13.48 - - 9.37 - - 7.83 - 2.05 0.27 - 2.35 5.86
Apr 0.02 - - 14.71 - - - - - 0.17 - 0.02 0.23 - 0.36 6.68
May 0.37 3.98 - 0.04 16.81 14.86 - - - - 13.24 - - 0.05 0.02 0.01 13.55
Jun 0.66 3.67 0.68 - 16.54 14.77 - - - - 15.67 - 0.05 - 2.88 - 15.53
Jul 20.33 5.47 3.75 - 13.83 - - 6.20 - 8.85 14.66 2.57 - 0.02 0.41 0.04 16.00
Aug 14.80 5.81 - - 4.04 - - 8.16 4.75 13.94 14.95 3.81 0.02 0.02 4.87 0.03 16.13
Sep 13.92 3.37 7.47 - 15.31 - - 8.27 8.22 13.70 21.06 0.41 0.04 0.56 3.19 3.51 16.37
Oct 10.72 8.68 0.46 2.24 14.84 - 8.16 9.77 13.55 9.01 21.20 - 0.08 - 1.27 9.08 15.69
Nov 1.02 10.11 - 16.38 15.19 6.72 9.40 16.02 15.68 9.00 20.97 - - 0.02 0.40 9.32 Dec 0.01 16.79 0.02 15.63 17.15 12.18 9.40 15.61 - 9.05 15.41 - 0.02 - 0.02 6.62
Average 7.7 4.8 1.3 2.9 14.0 6.6 3.8 7.7 4.0 5.3 13.6 1.1 1.5 0.1 1.1 3.6 10.8
B-2 Final Report