[PPT] - Agenda 9:00 Introductions 9:05 Update to Scenario Planning 10:00 PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Combined Technical

Workgroup Meeting

Feb 21, 2019, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Missouri Water Resources Plan

SLIDE 2

9:00 Introductions 9:05 Update to Scenario Planning 10:00 Infrastructure Update 10:30 BREAK 10:45 Strategies to Address Impacts 12:00 Adjourn

2

Agenda

SLIDE 3

Proposed Scenarios for Missouri Plan

3

SLIDE 4

Missouri Planning Scenarios

Scenario M&I Demands Ag Demands Climate Water Treatment Level Supply Constraints Reservoir Regulations Business-As- Usual

Baseline M&I

demands

Baseline Rural

demands

Med Ag

irrigation

Med Ag

processing

Historical

temperatures

Historical

precipitation

Existing

water treatment levels

No water supply

constraints

No re-allocation of USACE

reservoirs for supply

Existing permitting process

for new reservoirs Strong Economy/ High Water Stress

High M&I

demands

Higher Rural

demands

High Ag

irrigation

Med-High Ag

processing

Hotter

temperatures

Lower rainfall
High

increase in water treatment levels

Interstate diversions
ut of Missouri River

Basin

Limitations on GW

(select areas)

Prolonged supply

disruption on River intakes

Limited re-allocation of

USACE reservoirs for supply

Streamlined permitting

process for new reservoirs Substantial Agricultural Expansion

Baseline M&I

demands

Baseline Rural

demands

Med Ag

irrigation

Highest Ag

processing

Warmer

temperatures

Greater rainfall
Moderate

increase in water treatment levels

Interstate diversions
ut of Missouri River

Basin

Limitations on GW

(select areas)

Limited re-allocation of

USACE reservoirs for supply

Existing permitting process

for new reservoirs Weak Economy/ Low Water Stress

Low M&I

demands

Baseline Rural

demands

Med Ag

irrigation

Med Ag

processing

Warmer

temperatures

Greater rainfall
Existing

water treatment levels

No water supply

constraints

No re-allocation of USACE

reservoirs for supply

Existing permitting process

for new reservoirs

4

SLIDE 5

Quantification of Scenario Planning Drivers

5

SLIDE 6

Scenario Drivers

M&I Demands
Agricultural Demands
Climate
Supply Constraints
Water Treatment Levels
Regulations

6

SLIDE 7

Missouri Planning Scenarios

for Drought-of-Record Conditions

7

Notes: 1 Limitations on groundwater and prolonged supply disruptions on Missouri River intakes are also part of some scenarios.

2 Streamflow generated in Missouri only. 3 Missouri River flow entering Missouri (not climate adjusted).

Scenario M&I Demands Ag Demands Climate Supply Constraints1 Percent Change from Baseline

Category Statewide (mgd) Statewide (%)

M&I Demands: 624 Ag Demands: 311 no change Supply (streamflow2): 9,358 from normal Missouri River flow3: 15,587 Category Statewide (mgd) Statewide (%) M&I Demands: 820 31% Ag Demands: 970 212% Supply (streamflow2): 8,478

9%

M&I Demands +25% Missouri River flow3: 13,189

15%

Rural Demands +10% Category Statewide (mgd) Statewide (%) M&I Demands: 644 3% Ag Demands: 228

27%

Supply (streamflow2): 10,573 13% Missouri River flow3: 13,189

15%

Category Statewide (mgd) Statewide (%) M&I Demands: 584

6%

Ag Demands: 228

27%

Supply (streamflow2): 10,573 13% M&I Demands -10% Missouri River flow3: 15,587 0% Rural Demands +10%

Weak Economy/Low Water Stress Overall Impact to Surface Water Supply and Demands Business-As- Usual Strong Economy/High Water Stress Substantial Agricultural Expansion Baseline M&I and Baseline Rural Demands High M&I and Higher Rural Demands Baseline M&I and Baseline Rural Demands Low M&I and Baseline Rural Demands Med Ag Irr and Med Ag Processing High Ag Irr and Med-High Ag Processing Med Ag Irr and Highest Ag Processing Med Ag Irr and Med Ag Processing Warmer T and Greater P Warmer T and Greater P Reservoir sedimentation

9% Reduction in Flow

Reservoir Sedimentation and Interstate Diversions out of Missouri River

14% Reduction in Flow

Reservoir Sedimentation and Interstate Diversions out of Missouri River

14% Reduction in Flow

Historical T and P Reservoir Sedimentation

9% Reduction in Flow

Hotter T and Lower P

SLIDE 8

Strong Economy / High Water Stress Scenario Methods and Assumptions

Additional population growth by 2060:
+25% in urban counties
+10% in rural counties
Applies to these sectors:
Major Water Systems (by major water system)
Self-supplied Residential and Minor Systems (at the county level)
Self-supplied Non-residential
Agriculture Irrigation
Sources of water are assumed equal to 2016 proportions

(except more Ag irrigation demand from groundwater)

Hotter temperatures and lower rainfall trends

8

SLIDE 9

Substantial Agriculture Expansion Methods and Assumptions

Applies to two sectors:
Self-supplied Nonresidential (by agriculture industry)
Baseline demands for all other sectors
Sources of water are assumed equal to 2016 proportions

9

SLIDE 10

Major Water Systems Demand by Scenario

10

882 807 963 1,182

600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 2016 2030 2040 2050 2060 Total Water Demand (MGD) Low M&I Demand Baseline Demand High M&I and Rural Demand

SLIDE 11

Self-Supplied Residential and Minor Systems

11

86 73 102

20 40 60 80 100 120 2016 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Total Water Demand (MGD) Baseline High Rural Demand

Note: Low Rural Demands were not calculated since they were not part of an scenario.

SLIDE 12

12

Self-Supplied Nonresidential

50.2 58.4 57.5 56.7 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 2016 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Total Water Demand (MGD)

High Agriculture Processing Med-High Agriculture Processing Baseline Note: It is unknown when new self supplied nonresidential facilities will be brought

nline therefore is assumed a percentage increase from baseline.

SLIDE 13

13

Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock

2,594 2,181 4,860 2,606

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Total Water Demand (MGD)

Scenario 1 Business -As-Usual (Med Ag Irrigation) Scenario 2 Strong Economy/High Water Stress (High Ag Irrigation) Scenario 3 Substantial Agricultural Expansion (Med Ag Irrigation)

SLIDE 14

Climate Adjustment Factors for M&I Demands High Water Stress

Developed using weather-demand regression model specific

to MO and climate change model outputs

Resulting adjustment factors by basin/HUC
Multiplied by future projections to represent climate

scenarios

Hot/Dry – 8% to 12% increases
Warm/Wet – 4% to 7% increases

14

SLIDE 15

Update to Scenario Planning

15

SLIDE 16

16

Climate change and groundwater recharge

SLIDE 17

Climate Variability – Projections

17

Ensembling (grouping): HOT/DRY (1) and WARM/WET (3)

Selected for Scenarios

1 2 3 4 5 6

15%
10%
5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Mean Annual T Change ('C) Mean Annual P Change (%) Annual P and T Projection Anomalies

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1 2 3 4 5 6

15%
10%
5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Mean Annual T Change ('C) Mean Annual P Change (%) Annual P and T Projection Anomalies

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

DRY WET HOT WARM

SLIDE 18

Climate Variability – Recharge Projections

18

Gridded runoff:
Each GCM projection (precipitation

and temperature) used as input to macroscale hydrologic model (VIC)

Applied for same 1/8th degree grid
Spatially distributed; coarsely

calibrated at large basin scale

Output = monthly runoff and ET

projections for each grid cell

SLIDE 19

Climate Variability – Recharge Projections

19

Net Recharge was calculated for

each grid cell and each month as: Precip – ET – Runoff = Net Recharge*

* Change in subsurface storage. If positive, then recharge. If negative, then net loss through ET (soil evap + ET through deep roots) + baseflow losses (subsurface runoff).

SLIDE 20

Climate Variability – Hot/Dry Changes for 2060

20

NW Corner Central SE Corner

Image of precipitation contours from Surface Water Resources of Missouri, MoDNR, 1995

Avg. Temperature Change Term ('C) Avg. Precipitation Change Factor Jan 3.14 1.01 Feb 2.95 1.08 Mar 2.85 1.11 Apr 3.04 1.07 May 3.30 0.98 Jun 3.88 0.91 Jul 4.18 0.90 Aug 4.31 0.92 Sep 4.25 1.00 Oct 3.82 0.99 Nov 3.04 1.01 Dec 3.46 1.07 Avg. Temperature Change Term ('C) Avg. Precipitation Change Factor Jan 3.14 1.01 Feb 2.95 1.08 Mar 2.85 1.11 Apr 3.04 1.07 May 3.30 0.98 Jun 3.88 0.91 Jul 4.18 0.90 Aug 4.31 0.92 Sep 4.25 1.00 Oct 3.82 0.99 Nov 3.04 1.01 Dec 3.46 1.07 Avg. Temperature Change Term ('C) Avg. Precipitation Change Factor Jan 3.57 1.08 Feb 3.21 1.13 Mar 3.15 1.12 Apr 2.92 1.16 May 3.25 1.02 Jun 3.86 0.89 Jul 4.18 0.85 Aug 4.25 0.90 Sep 4.18 0.94 Oct 3.91 0.96 Nov 3.24 1.00 Dec 3.80 1.05 Avg. Temperature Change Term ('C) Avg. Precipitation Change Factor Jan 3.88 1.15 Feb 3.43 1.17 Mar 3.48 1.19 Apr 2.98 1.18 May 3.28 1.04 Jun 3.91 0.89 Jul 4.32 0.82 Aug 4.37 0.83 Sep 4.34 0.95 Oct 3.92 1.01 Nov 3.36 1.06 Dec 4.17 1.10

SLIDE 21

Monthly Net Recharge - Central Grid Cell

21

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Hot/Dry Climate Conditions

Most recharge

ccurs in winter

months Net Recharge in Inches per Month

SLIDE 22

Climate Variability – Recharge Changes for 2060 Average Condition Scenarios

22

NW Corner Central SE Corner

Image of precipitation contours from Surface Water Resources of Missouri, MoDNR, 1995

Avg. Recharge

Change Hot/Dry Moderate Increase Warm/Wet Moderate Increase

Avg. Recharge

Change Hot/Dry Slight Increase Warm/Wet Moderate Increase

Avg. Recharge

Change Hot/Dry Slight Increase Warm/Wet Moderate Increase

SLIDE 23

Climate Variability – Recharge Changes for 2060 Drought of Record Condition Scenarios

23

NW Corner Central SE Corner

Image of precipitation contours from Surface Water Resources of Missouri, MoDNR, 1995

Avg. Recharge

Change Hot/Dry Moderate Increase Warm/Wet Moderate Increase

Avg. Recharge

Change Hot/Dry Slight Decrease Warm/Wet Slight Increase

Avg. Recharge

Change Hot/Dry Moderate Decrease Warm/Wet Slight Increase

SLIDE 24

Climate Grid Cell Subregion Assignments

24

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade-Osage Upper White Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishna- botna

NW Corner Central SE Corner

SLIDE 25

25

Limitations on groundwater

SLIDE 26

Approach

26

30% reduction in 2060

Major Water System groundwater demands (27 mgd  19 mgd) for Scenario 2, in Neosho- Verdigris

Corresponding 8 mgd

increase in surface water demands

Surface Water Intakes Public Water Supply Wells Alluvium Deposits Major Rivers Lakes

Legend Neosho-Verdigris Gasconade-Osage Upper White

SLIDE 27

119 105 129 157 1,336 393 165 81 117 97 114 400 41.8 40.5 41.8 42.7 54.2 80.8 90.8 88.5 65.3 47.2 43.0 42.0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 Million Gallons per Day Total Median Streamflow 2060 Surface Water Demands

Neosho-Verdigris Scenario 2 Results

Comparison of Monthly Dry Year Supply and 2060 Surface Water Demand

GAP

8 MGD (on average) added to surface water demand per month

SLIDE 28

28

Missouri River - Quantification of upstream depletions

SLIDE 29

Missouri River

Characterize water

supply disruption scenario throughout state using Missouri River an as example

Major source of

water supply

Water supply
Hydropower
Irrigation
Recreation
Navigation
Major contributor to

Mississippi River flows downstream of St. Louis

29

SLIDE 30

Future Missouri River Upstream Depletions

For the purposes of scenario planning MoDNR has

completed calculations to estimate future upstream depletions

30

Two major sources:
Sedimentation of

mainstem reservoirs

9% reduction in flows into

the state during a drought

Increased upstream

demands

14% reduction in flows

SLIDE 31

Major River Impacts – Missouri-Nishnabotna Scenario 2 – Drought of Record Conditions

31

SLIDE 32

Major River Impacts – Missouri-Nishnabotna, Scenario 2 – Drought of Record Conditions (cont’d.)

All Scenario 2 Missouri-Nishnabotna demands are shown as

Missouri River Demands

Missouri River inflows

represent 1956 inflows to northwest Missouri

Supply exceeds demand
Concerns with Missouri River

relate to combined effect of bed degradation and reduced flows

32

SLIDE 33

Missouri River Bed Degradation

Examples of impacted infrastructure:
Bridges
Water supply intake
Floodwalls
Levees
Navigation Structures
Bed elevation decline at KC
Bed elevation decline at Lexington

33

SLIDE 34

Bottleneck Reach

34 Source: Karen Rouse, MoDNR 2018

Missouri River provides 40%

f Mississippi River Flow on

average. The maximum contribution was 72% in 2012

SLIDE 35

35

Water supply disruptions

SLIDE 36

Potential Causes of Disruption

Disruption – short duration (less than 1 week) event requiring

an alternative water supply source be used

Primarily related to surface water supply
Missouri River, also
Reservoirs
Smaller streams used for water supply
Causes of disruption
Chemical spill
Water supply system failures (could be > 1 week)

36

SLIDE 37

Elk River Chemical Spill

January 9, 2014 in Charleston, West Virginia
7,500 gallons of crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM)

leaked into the Elk River

Spill triggered a “do-not-use” advisory for the entire Charleston

metropolitan area

Advisory was in place for 5+ days before water supply was safe for

use again

37

SLIDE 38

Historical Spills Along the Missouri River (1986-Present)

38

SLIDE 39

Other Potential Supply Disruptions

Cyanobacteria Event
Mechanical Failures
Pump station outages
Aging Infrastructure
Corrosion
Pipeline leaks
Failing Intake Structures
Missouri River Bed

Degradation

39

SLIDE 40

Disruption Resiliency for Missouri River Water Supply

Water providers using the Missouri River as their water supply source

were contacted to evaluate existing supply resiliency efforts

Sources of backup supply for surveyed facilities include:
Mississippi River
Nearby groundwater
Hauled water from neighboring systems

40

Preparedness Action Facility A Facility B Facility C Facility D

Y/N DAYS Y/N DAYS Y/N DAYS Y/N DAYS

Water Storage Y 1-1.5 Y 1-1.5 Y 1 Y 1-3 Backup Supply Y

Y

<1 Y 1-2 N n/a Interconnections Y 1 Y <1 Y <1 N n/a Emergency Response Plan Y

Y
Y
Y
Days = Number of days average daily demand would be met

n/a = not appliciable

SLIDE 41

Disruption Resiliency for Missouri River Water Supply

Potential concerns based on information received:
Interconnections with neighboring systems appear to be inadequate
Emergency response plans that use hauled water face limitations
Survey indicates the total supply backup supply sources would

provide less than one week of demands

41

SLIDE 42

42

Scenario Results

SLIDE 43

Limitations of the Analysis

43

Comparisons of supply and demand at the subregional

(HUC4) and even watershed (HUC8) scale can miss localized stress and gaps

Results do not consider in-place infrastructure
Alluvial demands treated as groundwater (but may impose

stress to surface water)

Results are preliminary – Ag demands recently incorporated

SLIDE 44

Interpreting the Results for Surface Water

Identifying Potential Supply Stress Average Conditions

44

Condition Analysis Result Potential Water Supply Stress Key Average Monthly Demand < 50% of Supply for entire year No Stress Monthly Demand > 50% of Supply for 1 month or more Low Stress Monthly Demand > Supply for 1 month Monthly Demand > Supply for multiple months Higher Stress

SLIDE 45

Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual Non-Major River Demands – Average Conditions

45

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

No Stress Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

Surface Water Stress

1 3 1 3 2

Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol

SLIDE 46

Scenario 2 – Strong Economy/High Water Stress Non-Major River Demands – Average Conditions

46

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

Surface Water Stress

No Stress

1 1 3 3 2

Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol

2 1 2

SLIDE 47

Scenario 3 – Substantial Agricultural Expansion Non-Major River Demands – Average Conditions

47

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

1 1 3 3 2

Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec

Scenario 1 Scenario 3

Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

Surface Water Stress

No Stress

Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol

1 4 2

SLIDE 48

Interpreting the Results for Surface Water

Identifying Potential Supply Stress Drought of Record Conditions

48

Condition Analysis Result Potential Water Supply Stress Key Drought of Record Monthly Demand < 50% of Supply for entire year No Stress Monthly Demand > 50% of Supply for 1 month or more Low Stress Monthly Demand > Supply for 1 month Monthly Demand > Supply for multiple months Higher Stress

SLIDE 49

Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual

Non-Major River Demands – Drought of Record Conditions

49

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

8 9 6 9 4 5 10 4 7

No Stress Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

Surface Water Stress

Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol

SLIDE 50

Scenario 2 – Strong Economy/High Water Stress

Non-Major River Demands – Drought of Record Conditions

50

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

8 9 6 9 4 5 10 7 4

Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

Surface Water Stress

No Stress

Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol

7 7 9 10 5 12 8 11

SLIDE 51

Scenario 3 – Substantial Agricultural Expansion

Non-Major River Demands – Drought of Record Conditions

51

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

9 8 6 9 4 5 10 7 4

Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec

Scenario 1 Scenario 3

Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

Surface Water Stress

No Stress

Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol

6 4 4 8 9 4 9 7 10

SLIDE 52

Limitations of the Analysis - Groundwater

Comparisons of supply and demand at the subregional

(HUC4) and even watershed (HUC8) scale can miss localized stress and gaps

Alluvial demands treated as groundwater (but may impose

stress to surface water)

Results are preliminary – Ag demands recently incorporated

52

Pre-pumping water level

Well Well Well Well

Localized reduction in baseflow to stream Pumping water level

Stream

SLIDE 53

Interpreting the Results for Groundwater

Identifying Potential Supply Stress

53

Condition Analysis Current GW Levels Withdrawals as a Percent of Recharge* Potential Water Supply Stress Key Average Annual No Trend Decrease No Stress No Trend Relatively Flat No Trend Declining Increase Flat or Decrease Low Stress Declining Increase Declining Substantial Increase Increasing * Relative to 2016

SLIDE 54

Groundwater Relative Results – Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 Average Conditions

54 54

Chariton-Grand Upper Mississippi- Salt Lower Missouri Gasconade- Osage Upper White Upper Mississippi- Kaskaskia-Meramec Neosho- Verdigris Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Missouri- Nishnabotna

Scenario

No Stress Low Potential Stress Higher Potential Stress

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

SLIDE 55

Infrastructure Update

55

SLIDE 56

Infrastructure Feedback

November 28, 2018

Primary concern for small communities is funding
Small communities are not able to actively replace aging

infrastructure

MoDNR and EIERA work together to provide funding when possible
Large utilities are focused on maintaining existing

infrastructure (rehab and replacement)

Even at replacement rates above the national average, large

communities are far behind on needed replacements to maintain systems

56

SLIDE 57

Infrastructure Feedback

November 28, 2018

Numerous variables impede Regionalization efforts
Concerns of NRW, cost of interconnections vs drilling new wells
Regulations including ammonia restrictions and

reclassification of streams are major infrastructure drivers for wastewater

These improvements impact wastewater rates

57

SLIDE 58

Current Major Water Supply Projects

East Locust Creek Reservoir Project
North Central Missouri Regional Water Commission
Cameron Pipeline Project
Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission
Southwest Missouri Water Resource Study
Tri-State Water Resources Coalition
Missouri American Reservoir Project
Little Otter Creek Reservoir Project

58

SLIDE 59

59

Water Supply Projects

Project Study Areas

East Locust Creek Reservoir Little Otter Creek Reservoir Missouri American Reservoir

SLIDE 60

Surface Water Treatment

60 Treatment Type Source Water Characteristics Estimated Capital Costs (Facility cost per GPD) Direct Filtration1 Pristine water quality, consistent with few excursions. $2-3 per GPD Conventional1 Moderate-high quality water, moderate to high frequency of excursions. $3-4 per GPD Conventional + Enhanced Coagulation High natural organic matter (precursor material to disinfection by- products [DBPs]). $3-4 per GPD Conventional + Lime Softening High hardness in source water. $3-4 per GPD Conventional + Ozone/UV High natural organic matter (precursor material DBPs), high TOC and/or increased levels of pathogens, increased levels of bromide, moderate to severe taste and odor, potential for contaminants of emerging concern. $4-5 per GPD Conventional + GAC Similar to Conventional + Ozone, but with lower risk of pathogens in source water. $3-4 per GPD Conventional + Membranes Higher TOC + pathogens $4-5 per GPD Conventional + Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis All of the above + TOC, softening, salinity, CECs. Not always effective for taste and odor issues. $8-10 per GPD

SLIDE 61

Ground Water Treatment

61

Treatment Type Source Water Characteristics Estimated Capital Costs (Facility cost $/GPD)1 <1 mgd 1-5 mgd >5 mgd

No Treatment Pristine water quality, absent of pathogens Residual Disinfection Pristine water quality with low levels of pathogens (coliforms) $1-2 per GPD $0.75- $1.5 per GPD $0.5-1 per GPD Primary Disinfection + Residual Disinfection Low to moderate levels of pathogens (coliforms) $1-2 per GPD $0.75- $1.5 per GPD $0.5-1 per GPD Sequestering Low to moderate levels of iron and/or manganese $1-2 per GPD $0.75- $1.5 per GPD $0.5-1 per GPD Corrosion Control (pH/Alkalinity or inhibitor) Corrosive waters with low pH, calcium (hardness), and/or alkalinity $1-2 per GPD $0.75- $1.5 per GPD $0.5-1 per GPD Air Stripping Low to high levels of hydrogen sulfide, radon, or volatile

rganic compounds (VOCs)

$2-4 per GPD $1.5-3 per GPD $1-2 per GPD Oxidation/Advanced Oxidation (e.g., O3, O3-H2O2, UV-H2O2) Low to high levels of hydrogen sulfide and other aesthetic or regulated constituents that can be destroyed by oxidation $2-5 per GPD $2-3 per GPD $1-2 per GPD Oxidation + Pressure Filtration Moderate to high turbidity, levels of iron, manganese, or arsenic $2-4 per GPD $2-3 per GPD $1-2 per GPD Oxidation + Clarification + Filtration Moderate to high levels of turbidity, iron, manganese, TOC, arsenic, radionuclides, and other aesthetic or regulated constituents $3-5 per GPD $3-4 per GPD $2-4 per GPD GAC Adsorption Moderate to high levels of TOC; radon; low to high levels of SOCs, VOCs, PFAS; and other aesthetic or regulated constituents $3-4 per GPD $2 - 3 per GPD $1-2 per GPD Ion Exchange Moderate to high levels of iron, manganese, hardness, TOC; or low to high levels of arsenic, hexavalent chromium, PFAS, fluoride, or other aesthetic or regulated constituents $3-4 per GPD $2-4 per GPD $2-3 per GPD Lime Softening + Filtration Moderate to high levels of calcium and/or magnesium hardness; and radionuclides $4-5 per GPD $3-5 per GPD $3-5 per GPD Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis Moderate to high levels of salinity, hardness, organics, PFAS, metals, and other aesthetic or regulated constituents $5-10 per GPD $4-8 per GPD $3-6 per GPD

1Estimated capital cost for treatment facilities only; estimated costs do not include well development, treated water storage, and distribution facilities costs.

SLIDE 62

Breakout Groups

62

SLIDE 63

Breakout groups

Are there areas of localized supply stress to discuss?
Are there any other regional water supply projects planned?
By subregion (HUC4), what identified and other strategies

could be used to address supply stress and disruptions?

63

SLIDE 64

Missouri Planning Scenarios

Scenario M&I Demands Ag Demands Climate Water Treatment Level Supply Constraints Reservoir Regulations Business-As- Usual

Baseline M&I

demands

Baseline Rural

demands

Med Ag

irrigation

Med Ag

processing

Historical

temperatures

Historical

precipitation

Existing

water treatment levels

No water supply

constraints

No re-allocation of USACE

reservoirs for supply

Existing permitting process

for new reservoirs Strong Economy/ High Water Stress

High M&I

demands

Higher Rural

demands

High Ag

irrigation

Med-High Ag

processing

Hotter

temperatures

Lower rainfall
High

increase in water treatment levels

Interstate diversions
ut of Missouri River

Basin

Limitations on GW

(select areas)

Prolonged supply

disruption on River intakes

Limited re-allocation of

USACE reservoirs for supply

Streamlined permitting

process for new reservoirs Substantial Agricultural Expansion

Baseline M&I

demands

Baseline Rural

demands

Med Ag

irrigation

Highest Ag

processing

Warmer

temperatures

Greater rainfall
Moderate

increase in water treatment levels

Interstate diversions
ut of Missouri River

Basin

Limitations on GW

(select areas)

Limited re-allocation of

USACE reservoirs for supply

Existing permitting process

for new reservoirs Weak Economy/ Low Water Stress

Low M&I

demands

Baseline Rural

demands

Med Ag

irrigation

Med Ag

processing

Warmer

temperatures

Greater rainfall
Existing

water treatment levels

No water supply

constraints

No re-allocation of USACE

reservoirs for supply

Existing permitting process

for new reservoirs

64

SLIDE 65

Adaptive Management

65

Stay the Course Stay the Course Implement Some New Strategies Implement More New Strategies Now 2060 Identified Projects:

East Locust Creek Reservoir

Project

Cameron Pipeline Project
Tri-State Water Resources

Coalition (Stockton Lake)

Missouri American Reservoir

Project

Little Otter Creek Reservoir

Project

“Strong Economy” “Ag Expansion” “Business as Usual” “Weak Economy” Level of Water Stress

SLIDE 66

Short Break

66

SLIDE 67

Urban Breakout

67

SLIDE 68

Future Strategies - Urban

Additional Storage
Reallocation of USACE Reservoirs
New Storage
Conveyance
Enhanced Water Treatment
Wastewater Reuse
Expanded Conservation
Conjunctive Use (groundwater/surface water)
System Redundancy (intakes and conveyance)

68

SLIDE 69

Ag Breakout

69

SLIDE 70

Future Strategies - Agriculture

Tile Drain recycled water in Northern Missouri (Other areas?)
System efficiency in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation and

transition to high value crops (Other areas?)

Meeting demand for expanded food processing state wide

(See handout)

Expanded groundwater use for livestock
Expanded alluvial groundwater use for additional irrigation

70

SLIDE 71

Thank You

71