Proposed Desired Future Conditions & Modeled Available - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Proposed Desired Future Conditions & Modeled Available Groundwater

GMA 1 Joint Planning Committee Meeting April 20, 2016 Steven D. Walthour, PG

SLIDE 2

Ogallala Aquifer Proposed Desired Future Conditions

 40 % of volume in storage remaining in 50 years, for

the period 2012 - 2062 in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, and Sherman counties;

 50 % of volume in storage remaining in 50 years, for

the period 2012 - 2062 in Hansford, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Carson, Donley, Gray, Roberts, Wheeler, and Oldham Counties; and within Panhandle District Armstrong and Potter Counties;

 80 % of volume in storage remaining in 50 years for

the period 2012 - 2062, in Hemphill County;

 The total average drawdown is approximately 20 feet

in 50 years for the period 2012 -2062, in Randall County and within High Plains District in Armstrong and in Potter Counties.

SLIDE 3

Dockum Aquifer Proposed Desired Future Conditions

 Average drawdown in water levels will be no

more than forty percent (40%) in 50 years for the period 2012 -2062 in Dallam, Hartley, Moore and Sherman Counties;

 Average decline in water levels will be no more

than thirty feet (30’) in 50 years for the period 2012 -2062 in Oldham, Carson, and within Panhandle District in Armstrong and in Potter Counties;

 The total average drawdown is approximately 40

feet in 50 years for the period 2012 -2062, in Randall County and within High Plains District in Armstrong and in Potter Counties.

SLIDE 4

GMA 1 JPC Meetings

November 8, 2011 August 9, 2012; July 23, 2013; November 7, 2013; February 21, 2014; April 11, 2014; May 30, 2014; August 19, 2014; November 6, 2014; February 18, 2015; August 23, 2015; February 25, 2016; March 17, 2016; and April 20, 2016

SLIDE 5

Groundwater Availability Models

 Conceptual Model for the High Plains

Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Model;

 Numerical Model for the High Plains

Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Model;

 Six HPAS GAM Predictive Runs – Intera;  HPAS GAM Predictive Runs – Hutchison  TWDB Predictive Runs for TERS  Previous GAM Predictive Runs

SLIDE 6

HPAS GAM Predictive Runs April 6, 2016 -Ogallala Aquifer.

With the exception of HPWD, targets were based on fraction remaining after 50 years (in 2062), specifically NPGCD-west (0.40), NPGCD-east (0.50), PGCD (0.50), and HCUWCD (0.80). In HPWD, targets were based on average drawdown, corresponding to pumping rates set at 150% of 2012 pumping rates.

SLIDE 7

HPAS GAM Predictive Runs April 6, 2016 -Dockum Aquifer.

Targets were set as a fraction of available drawdown in NPGCD-west (0.40). In the

• ther districts, Dockum targets were based
• n average drawdown after 50 years (in

2062). Specifically, PGCD (30’), HPWD (40’), Oldham County-No GCD (30’), Randall County – No GCD (40’)

SLIDE 8

HPAS GAM Predictive Runs April 6, 2016

 2016.5 - saturated thickness was set to

30 feet.

 2016.6 - saturated thickness was set to

10 feet.

SLIDE 9

All Aquifers County 2015* 2016 2020 2030 2040 2050 2062 2070 Armstrong 8,739 64,977 66,677 63,484 58,784 53,887 48,164 44,573 Carson 129,743 181,421 192,729 184,371 170,535 153,936 134,257 121,673 Dallam 314,346 416,274 402,753 301,372 240,382 181,080 117,202 79,219 Donley 39,476 69,404 75,012 76,288 73,162 67,872 60,901 56,275 Gray 41,540 171,475 181,601 175,267 163,099 148,713 131,744 121,136 Hansford 169,191 276,822 275,769 272,655 271,968 270,280 269,478 269,128 Hartley 355,566 524,608 473,654 344,196 282,545 220,441 153,135 118,632 Hemphill 21,935 55,176 52,338 52,217 52,409 52,305 52,340 52,358 Hutchinson 64,870 103,110 95,244 95,694 94,418 92,372 90,580 89,357 Lipscomb 39,006 55,112 267,540 266,710 267,370 266,591 266,556 266,546 Moore 171,652 248,949 229,630 186,323 152,348 116,127 76,940 55,670 Ochiltree 84,963 115,225 244,446 243,931 244,670 244,050 244,085 244,094 Oldham 14,903 152,169 174,075 169,031 154,361 137,402 118,352 108,866 Potter 8,846 48,050 56,170 55,156 51,742 47,889 43,386 40,527 Randall 46,817 31,785 36,096 37,960 36,825 34,584 31,575 29,528 Roberts 79,284 359,716 431,798 455,129 428,388 390,246 342,747 311,054 Sherman 289,327 365,074 399,273 349,021 282,589 212,871 136,867 93,930 Wheeler 13,534 114,844 130,782 138,810 137,761 132,311 123,308 116,837 TOTAL 1,893,738 3,354,191 3,785,587 3,467,615 3,163,356 2,822,957 2,441,617 2,219,403 Modeled Available Groundwater (afy) Predictive Runs 5.3-5.5

2015 rates are identical to the last year of the calibrated model (2012) except in NPGCD where other rates were provided by NPGCD staff.

SLIDE 10

2015 rates are identical to the last year of the calibrated model (2012) except in NPGCD where other rates were provided by NPGCD staff.

All Aquifers County 2015* 2016 2020 2030 2040 2050 2062 2070 Armstrong 8,868 65,608 67,527 64,240 59,394 54,310 48,461 44,845 Carson 129,854 181,476 192,787 184,425 170,583 153,977 134,292 121,706 Dallam 321,378 421,179 411,047 300,571 243,089 185,490 121,997 89,095 Donley 39,491 70,819 76,925 78,237 74,944 69,493 62,383 57,704 Gray 41,540 171,664 182,087 175,968 163,729 149,267 132,280 121,649 Hansford 169,191 276,822 275,769 272,655 271,968 270,280 269,478 269,128 Hartley 355,662 525,609 476,633 338,937 280,271 220,614 154,877 120,493 Hemphill 21,935 55,302 52,549 52,432 52,600 52,474 52,490 52,498 Hutchinson 64,870 103,460 95,942 96,614 95,271 93,191 91,319 90,021 Lipscomb 39,006 55,112 267,540 266,710 267,370 266,591 266,556 266,547 Moore 171,702 249,517 230,251 186,912 152,873 116,605 77,361 56,033 Ochiltree 84,963 115,225 244,446 243,931 244,670 244,050 244,085 244,094 Oldham 16,594 153,944 176,803 172,065 157,531 140,882 122,165 112,174 Potter 9,286 48,681 56,903 55,880 52,408 48,525 43,993 41,111 Randall 47,130 31,785 36,096 37,966 36,871 34,642 31,612 29,555 Roberts 79,284 359,716 431,798 455,129 428,388 390,246 342,747 311,054 Sherman 289,327 365,074 399,273 349,047 282,665 213,012 137,012 94,033 Wheeler 13,711 116,334 133,554 141,727 140,359 134,609 125,426 119,017 TOTAL 1,903,792 3,367,327 3,807,930 3,473,446 3,174,984 2,838,258 2,458,534 2,240,757 Modeled Available Groundwater (afy) Predictive Runs 6.3-6.5

SLIDE 11

Factor 1 – Uses & Conditions

 2011 Panhandle Regional Water Plan (2012 State Water Plan)  2016 Panhandle Regional Water Plan  Projected Exempt Groundwater Use Estimates - TWDB,

December 2015

 Ogallala Aquifer, Seymour Aquifer, And Total Pumping For Municipal,

Manufacturing, Mining, Steam Electric Power, Irrigation And Livestock Uses For 2004-2013 TWDB.

 Minor Aquifers, Other Aquifers And Unknown Aquifers Pumping

For Municipal, Manufacturing, Mining, Steam Electric Power, Irrigation And Livestock Uses For 2004-2013 TWDB.

 HPAS GAM Predictive Runs 5.3-5.5  HPAS GAM Predictive Runs 6.3-6.5

SLIDE 12

Ogallala DFC - Dallam, Hartley, Sherman, and Moore Counties

 High agriculture usage of the aquifer,  Above average rate of decline,  Very limited stream flow, and  High agriculture economic impact.  Combined counties projected use

approximates the average MAG under both predictive runs

SLIDE 13

Ogallala DFC s - Armstrong, Donley, Carson, Gray, Hansford, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts, and Wheeler, Counties;

 Moderate agriculture usage of the aquifer,  Significant municipal well fields in the area,  Average rate of decline,  Minimal stream flow, and  Moderate agriculture and municipal

economic impact.

 Projected use is below to well below the

average MAG under both predictive runs

SLIDE 14

Ogallala DFC - Hemphill County

 Minimal agriculture usage of the aquifer,  Minimal rate of decline,  Extensive stream flow for the planning

area, and

 Water related ecotourism economic

impact.

 Projected use is well below the average

MAG under both predictive runs

SLIDE 15

Dockum DFC – Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Sherman Counties

 Currently minimal use compared to Ogallala  Primarily confined aquifer conditions  Minor to no recharge  Very limited to no discharge to springs,

rivers, draws, and escarpments.

 Potentially high to supplementary agriculture

economic impact.

 Historic use below average MAG under both

predictive runs.

SLIDE 16

Dockum DFC – Armstrong, Carson, Oldham, Potter, Randall County

 Currently minimal use compared to Ogallala  Confined and Unconfined aquifer conditions  Minor recharge in all but Carson County.  Limited to significant discharge to springs,

rivers, draws, and escarpments.

 Potentially high to supplementary

agriculture economic impact.

 Historic use below average MAG under both

predictive runs.

SLIDE 17

2011 PRWP Total Projections for Water Use in GMA 1 (ac-ft/yr)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 6,068 5,752 5,598 5,348 4,870 4,386 Carson 62,731 53,330 52,126 49,607 40,445 39,382 Dallam 297,251 289,813 281,566 267,509 238,974 210,433 Donley 33,941 31,608 30,686 29,153 26,109 23,057 Gray 36,835 33,700 33,786 32,877 31,289 29,001 Hansford 136,267 120,959 117,814 112,359 101,031 89,735 Hartley 301,252 290,007 282,033 268,363 240,369 212,405 Hemphill 6,310 6,198 5,867 5,293 4,743 4,251 Hutchinson 71,970 70,715 70,931 70,198 67,152 64,963 Lipscomb 20,033 18,647 18,053 17,039 15,296 13,574 Moore 163,586 153,107 150,268 144,588 131,828 119,280 Ochiltree 67,502 58,768 57,332 54,722 49,489 44,303 Oldham 6,133 5,937 5,794 5,556 5,119 4,670 Potter 62,142 67,696 71,794 76,261 80,594 87,101 Randall 49,323 49,414 51,303 53,117 54,160 54,715 Roberts 7,928 7,488 7,175 6,634 5,849 5,123 Sherman 226,168 207,035 201,290 190,136 171,361 151,320 Wheeler 15,746 14,027 13,546 12,702 11,439 10,239 TOTAL 1,571,186 1,484,201 1,456,962 1,401,462 1,280,117 1,167,938

SLIDE 18

2011 PRWP Total Projections for Water Use in GMA 1 (Percent) County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Carson 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.4 Dallam 18.9 19.5 19.3 19.1 18.7 18.0 Donley 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 Gray 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 Hansford 8.7 8.1 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.7 Hartley 19.2 19.5 19.4 19.1 18.8 18.2 Hemphill 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Hutchinson 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.6 Lipscomb 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Moore 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.2 Ochiltree 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 Oldham 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Potter 4.0 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.3 7.5 Randall 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.7 Roberts 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 Sherman 14.4 13.9 13.8 13.6 13.4 13.0

SLIDE 19

Modified from 2016 PRWP: Total Projections for Water Use in GMA 1 (ac-ft/yr)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 5,243 5,286 5,077 4,792 4,381 3,971 3,563 Carson 62,756 58,106 55,294 51,273 45,880 40,508 35,140 Dallam 368,553 376,493 354,620 326,399 291,512 256,648 221,798 Donley 27,031 26,033 25,141 23,771 21,338 18,912 16,486 Gray 29,480 33,086 33,051 32,205 31,540 30,024 28,652 Hansford 133,757 140,089 132,184 121,356 108,403 95,471 82,824 Hartley 347,481 353,384 334,432 309,381 276,600 243,876 211,204 Hemphill 7,095 6,446 5,885 5,308 4,692 4,075 3,809 Hutchinson 74,882 71,534 70,823 69,150 66,497 64,678 63,046 Lipscomb 33,223 23,142 21,891 20,273 18,089 16,086 14,184 Moore 178,277 161,328 153,840 144,155 131,884 119,984 108,181 Ochiltree 64,351 65,358 61,562 57,102 51,612 46,367 41,271 Oldham 6,353 6,288 6,239 6,066 5,708 5,384 5,067 Potter 48,137 69,374 74,224 79,447 84,518 92,870 100,990 Randall 45,591 50,260 52,200 53,904 55,268 57,048 59,012 Roberts 8,090 8,102 7,295 6,408 5,413 4,672 4,083 Sherman 239,462 225,104 212,287 195,370 174,359 153,357 132,400 Wheeler 17,332 14,195 13,156 11,711 10,014 8,872 8,078 TOTAL 1,697,094 1,693,608 1,619,201 1,518,071 1,387,708 1,262,803 1,139,788

SLIDE 20

Modified from 2016 PRWP: Total Projections for Water Use in GMA 1 (Percent) County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Carson 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 Dallam 21.7 22.2 21.9 21.5 21.0 20.3 19.5 Donley 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 Gray 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 Hansford 7.9 8.3 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.3 Hartley 20.5 20.9 20.7 20.4 19.9 19.3 18.5 Hemphill 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Hutchinson 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.5 Lipscomb 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 Moore 10.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Ochiltree 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 Oldham 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Potter 2.8 4.1 4.6 5.2 6.1 7.4 8.9 Randall 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.5 5.2 Roberts 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Sherman 14.1 13.3 13.1 12.9 12.6 12.1 11.6 Wheeler 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

SLIDE 21

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-10: Historical and Projected Municipal Water Use in GMA 1 (percent)

County 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Carson 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 Dallam 2.4 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 Donley 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 Gray 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.1 3.7 3.3 Hansford 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 Hartley 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 Hemphill 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 Hutchinson 5.1 4.5 5.5 5.2 4.8 4.4 3.9 3.5 Lipscomb 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 Moore 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.4 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.5 Ochiltree 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 Oldham 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Potter 36.4 38.7 34.7 35.0 35.5 36.2 37.0 37.7 Randall 31.3 31.0 31.5 32.3 33.2 34.2 35.3 36.3 Roberts 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Sherman 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 Wheeler 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9

SLIDE 22

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-11: Historical and Projected Municipal Water Use in GMA 1 (percent)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Carson 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 Dallam 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 Donley 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 Gray 6.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.6 Hansford 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 Hartley 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 Hemphill 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hutchinson 7.5 5.8 5.5 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.0 Lipscomb 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 Moore 4.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.9 Ochiltree 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 Oldham 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 Potter 33.0 33.3 33.5 33.9 34.2 34.5 34.9 Randall 31.5 32.8 33.2 33.6 33.8 34.2 34.4 Roberts 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Sherman 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 Wheeler 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0

SLIDE 23

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-12: TWDB Historical and Projected Industrial Water Use in GMA 1 (percent) County 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Carson 3.5 0.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 Dallam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Donley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray 9.2 7.0 10.5 8.8 9.3 9.3 9.7 9.1 Hansford 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 Hartley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hemphill 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.1 Hutchinson 32.5 50.9 29.0 29.3 29.6 30.3 30.5 30.5 Lipscomb 0.1 0.2 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 Moore 13.7 16.3 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.6 10.6 Ochiltree 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 Oldham 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Potter 38.1 22.9 35.6 37.6 38.2 39.3 40.2 42.2 Randall 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 Roberts 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.6 Sherman 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeler 0.2 0.0 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.9

SLIDE 24

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-13: TWDB Historical and Projected Industrial Water Use in GMA 1 (Percent) County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Carson 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Dallam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Donley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray 0.8 6.6 7.2 7.3 7.9 7.3 6.9 Hansford 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 Hartley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hemphill 1.2 2.6 1.9 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 Hutchinson 44.2 29.0 29.6 30.5 31.1 31.1 30.9 Lipscomb 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 Moore 15.0 10.5 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.0 10.9 Ochiltree 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 Oldham 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Potter 33.4 40.9 42.0 43.9 45.5 47.7 48.7 Randall 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 Roberts 0.4 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 Sherman 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Wheeler 1.3 3.7 2.5 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.1

SLIDE 25

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-14: Historical and Projected Irrigation Water Use in GMA 1 (Percent) County 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Carson 5.9 4.5 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.9 Dallam 19.6 24.0 21.2 22.3 22.2 22.3 22.3 22.2 Donley 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Gray 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Hansford 8.4 7.5 9.5 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 Hartley 17.6 21.2 21.4 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.2 22.1 Hemphill 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Hutchinson 3.9 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 Lipscomb 0.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Moore 11.0 10.2 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 Ochiltree 6.4 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Oldham 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Potter 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Randall 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Roberts 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Sherman 18.0 14.3 16.0 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.8 15.7 Wheeler 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

SLIDE 26

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-15: Historical and Projected Irrigation Water Use in GMA 1(Percent)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Carson 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Dallam 23.8 25.0 25.0 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 Donley 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Gray 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Hansford 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Hartley 22.3 23.4 23.4 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 Hemphill 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Hutchinson 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lipscomb 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Moore 10.6 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 Ochiltree 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 Oldham 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Potter 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Randall 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Roberts 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Sherman 15.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 Wheeler 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

SLIDE 27

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-16: Projections for Livestock Water Use in GMA 1 (Percent) County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 Carson 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 Dallam 9.6 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.8 12.0 Donley 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 Gray 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 Hansford 10.1 9.4 9.6 9.9 10.1 10.3 Hartley 14.0 16.9 17.5 18.1 18.7 19.3 Hemphill 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 Hutchinson 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 Lipscomb 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 Moore 7.8 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.9 Ochiltree 9.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.9 Oldham 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 Potter 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 Randall 7.5 6.5 6.2 6.0 5.7 5.4 Roberts 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 Sherman 13.5 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.5 Wheeler 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2

SLIDE 28

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-17: Historical and Projected Livestock Water Use in GMA 1(Percent) County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 1.60 1.65 1.62 1.57 1.52 1.46 1.41 Carson 2.25 1.77 1.74 1.68 1.63 1.57 1.51 Dallam 9.68 11.35 11.67 11.84 12.00 12.16 12.32 Donley 2.79 3.40 3.33 3.21 3.09 2.96 2.84 Gray 5.07 3.46 3.45 3.38 3.32 3.26 3.21 Hansford 12.07 8.78 8.94 8.96 8.97 8.97 8.96 Hartley 18.56 16.62 17.45 18.04 18.64 19.25 19.87 Hemphill 3.41 3.26 3.20 3.09 2.98 2.87 2.76 Hutchinson 1.57 2.17 2.18 2.17 2.16 2.15 2.14 Lipscomb 2.55 2.42 2.42 2.39 2.36 2.33 2.30 Moore 7.66 9.40 9.77 10.00 10.22 10.45 10.68 Ochiltree 4.64 10.78 9.08 8.97 8.86 8.74 8.61 Oldham 3.55 3.14 3.08 2.97 2.86 2.75 2.64 Potter 2.47 1.23 1.21 1.16 1.12 1.08 1.04 Randall 9.88 6.79 6.66 6.44 6.22 5.99 5.77 Roberts 1.03 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.79 Sherman 6.95 8.82 9.08 9.20 9.32 9.44 9.55 Wheeler 4.26 4.03 4.20 4.05 3.89 3.74 3.59

SLIDE 29

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-10: Historical and Projected Municipal Water Use in GMA 1 (ac-ft/yr)

County 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 414 437 371 382 369 354 350 340 Carson 1,422 1,150 1,297 1,308 1,300 1,257 1,143 1,038 Dallam 1,964 1,519 1,711 1,844 1,928 1,949 1,908 1,819 Donley 516 651 659 650 631 611 594 568 Gray 4,204 3,950 4,082 4,048 3,936 3,782 3,551 3,327 Hansford 1,304 1,260 1,298 1,391 1,469 1,555 1,605 1,649 Hartley 1,405 1,095 1,209 1,251 1,271 1,279 1,263 1,199 Hemphill 607 591 633 636 614 592 575 548 Hutchinson 4,174 3,505 4,124 4,180 4,122 3,988 3,766 3,576 Lipscomb 899 605 748 764 741 720 709 676 Moore 4,979 4,675 4,505 5,151 5,724 6,179 6,455 6,622 Ochiltree 2,231 2,039 2,143 2,318 2,448 2,536 2,579 2,634 Oldham 392 622 416 425 394 348 302 244 Potter 29,780 30,230 25,865 28,273 30,525 33,091 35,890 38,185 Randall 25,645 24,209 23,491 26,084 28,510 31,271 34,283 36,778 Roberts 180 159 189 194 175 146 127 115 Sherman 776 561 846 919 948 977 1,003 1,016 Wheeler 942 775 880 881 878 883 882 873 TOTAL 81,834 78,033 74,467 80,699 85,983 91,518 96,985 101,207

SLIDE 30

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-11: Historical and Projected Municipal Water Use in GMA 1 (ac-ft/yr)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 349 447 438 432 429 428 428 Carson 1,361 1,279 1,286 1,284 1,274 1,272 1,272 Dallam 1,695 2,183 2,418 2,674 2,938 3,200 3,454 Donley 638 623 606 591 584 583 583 Gray 4,692 4,609 4,965 5,430 6,130 6,691 7,286 Hansford 1,090 1,120 1,164 1,208 1,251 1,304 1,357 Hartley 1,147 1,509 1,561 1,582 1,600 1,624 1,644 Hemphill 731 944 1,023 1,089 1,167 1,240 1,309 Hutchinson 5,600 5,148 5,221 5,193 5,180 5,173 5,171 Lipscomb 637 941 995 1,023 1,071 1,107 1,138 Moore 3,640 5,356 5,974 6,656 7,385 8,182 9,004 Ochiltree 2,261 3,075 3,252 3,456 3,696 3,969 4,268 Oldham 655 647 677 669 667 666 666 Potter 24,701 29,425 32,036 34,932 37,997 41,541 45,316 Randall 23,587 29,017 31,741 34,567 37,655 41,134 44,791 Roberts 168 273 276 272 271 271 271 Sherman 630 654 692 707 728 744 758 Wheeler 1,228 1,147 1,164 1,183 1,220 1,265 1,315 Total 74,810 88,397 95,489 102,948 111,243 120,394 130,031

SLIDE 31

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-12: TWDB Historical and Projected Industrial Water Use in GMA 1 (ac-ft/yr)

County 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 19 13 12 12 12 12 12 Carson 2,201 352 2,052 2,081 2,128 2,173 2,209 2,259 Dallam 9 Donley 22 15 14 14 14 14 14 Gray 5,822 3,694 8,700 7,791 8,591 8,852 9,550 9,539 Hansford 630 437 592 585 583 581 579 578 Hartley 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Hemphill 1 2 2,576 2,576 2,315 1,845 1,480 1,184 Hutchinson 20,575 26,834 24,057 25,875 27,363 28,794 30,036 32,104 Lipscomb 82 102 1,324 1,330 1,214 991 821 690 Moore 8,687 8,614 8,779 9,350 9,744 10,138 10,483 11,108 Ochiltree 164 49 1,148 1,148 1,027 818 661 522 Oldham 292 2 328 341 347 352 357 364 Potter 24,104 12,100 29,549 33,222 35,239 37,429 39,543 44,334 Randall 504 534 623 689 746 799 843 915 Roberts 9 1,270 1,270 1,148 922 731 592 Sherman 20 2 17 16 16 16 16 16 Wheeler 113 2,001 2,001 1,810 1,444 1,148 922 TOTAL 63,250 52,731 83,049 88,306 92,302 95,185 98,488 105,158

SLIDE 32

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-14: Historical and Projected Irrigation Water Use in GMA 1 (ac- ft/yr)

County 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 10,544 6,583 5,118 4,688 4,544 4,305 3,827 3,349 Carson 97,345 64,707 58,775 49,230 47,982 45,457 36,368 35,355 Dallam 320,475 346,605 292,031 283,315 274,642 260,187 231,278 202,368 Donley 21,019 26,347 32,000 29,676 28,771 27,257 24,228 21,200 Gray 25,499 27,181 22,705 20,410 19,785 18,744 16,661 14,578 Hansford 138,389 108,000 130,694 115,027 111,506 105,637 93,899 82,162 Hartley 289,008 307,260 294,932 281,648 273,026 258,657 229,917 201,177 Hemphill 3,779 7,187 1,825 1,705 1,653 1,566 1,392 1,218 Hutchinson 63,208 41,194 43,104 39,971 38,748 36,708 32,630 28,551 Lipscomb 14,789 28,020 16,956 15,546 15,070 14,277 12,690 11,104 Moore 180,594 147,000 147,471 135,001 130,869 123,981 110,205 96,430 Ochiltree 104,220 66,539 60,844 51,839 50,252 47,607 42,317 37,028 Oldham 5,223 7,267 4,235 3,914 3,794 3,594 3,195 2,795 Potter 8,009 4,205 6,226 5,697 5,525 5,234 4,652 4,071 Randall 30,302 23,156 22,477 19,900 19,291 18,275 16,245 14,214 Roberts 22,890 14,639 6,084 5,639 5,466 5,179 4,603 4,028 Sherman 294,703 207,000 220,372 200,521 194,437 182,913 163,736 143,269 Wheeler 8,335 13,528 11,311 9,488 9,198 8,713 7,745 6,777 TOTAL 1,638,331 1,446,418 1,377,160 1,273,215 1,234,559 1,168,291 1,035,588 909,674

SLIDE 33

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-15: Historical and Projected Irrigation Water Use in GMA 1(ac- ft/yr)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 4,396 4,194 3,990 3,708 3,296 2,884 2,472 Carson 60,069 55,702 52,838 48,776 43,356 37,937 32,517 Dallam 363,839 369,864 347,524 318,795 283,373 247,952 212,530 Donley 25,523 24,080 23,203 21,847 19,419 16,992 14,564 Gray 22,721 21,291 20,104 18,539 16,479 14,419 12,359 Hansford 128,632 134,902 126,481 115,759 102,897 90,035 77,173 Hartley 340,554 345,365 325,882 300,290 266,924 233,559 200,193 Hemphill 4,549 1,907 1,814 1,685 1,498 1,311 1,124 Hutchinson 40,372 40,008 37,671 34,635 30,786 26,938 23,090 Lipscomb 31,415 20,009 19,014 17,650 15,689 13,728 11,767 Moore 162,595 143,028 134,395 123,290 109,591 95,892 82,193 Ochiltree 60,484 57,243 53,825 49,414 43,923 38,433 32,942 Oldham 4,186 3,937 3,768 3,524 3,133 2,741 2,350 Potter 1,191 3,427 3,292 3,091 2,748 2,404 2,061 Randall 18,419 18,000 17,156 15,976 14,201 12,426 10,650 Roberts 7,362 5,958 5,609 5,155 4,582 4,009 3,437 Sherman 236,631 220,966 207,757 190,687 169,499 148,312 127,125 Wheeler 13,913 8,203 7,983 7,433 6,607 5,781 4,955 Total 1,526,851 1,478,084 1,392,306 1,280,254 1,138,001 995,753 853,502

SLIDE 34

Modified from 2011 PRWP Table 1-16: Projections for Livestock Water Use in GMA 1 (ac-ft/yr)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Armstrong 566 670 673 677 681 685 Carson 607 711 716 720 725 730 Dallam 3,509 4,654 4,996 5,373 5,788 6,246 Donley 1,267 1,268 1,270 1,271 1,273 1,275 Gray 1,348 1,451 1,474 1,499 1,527 1,557 Hansford 3,683 3,956 4,256 4,586 4,948 5,346 Hartley 5,106 7,103 7,731 8,422 9,184 10,024 Hemphill 1,276 1,281 1,285 1,290 1,296 1,301 Hutchinson 685 689 698 708 720 732 Lipscomb 1,005 1,007 1,028 1,051 1,076 1,104 Moore 2,831 3,605 3,931 4,290 4,685 5,120 Ochiltree 3,367 3,463 3,605 3,761 3,932 4,119 Oldham 1,154 1,257 1,259 1,262 1,265 1,267 Potter 502 504 505 507 509 511 Randall 2,732 2,741 2,756 2,772 2,789 2,808 Roberts 385 385 386 387 388 388 Sherman 4,933 5,579 5,889 6,230 6,606 7,019 Wheeler 1,554 1,657 1,660 1,662 1,664 1,667 TOTAL 36,510 41,981 44,118 46,468 49,056 51,899

SLIDE 35

Modified from 2016 PRWP Table 1-17: Historical and Projected Livestock Water Use in GMA 1(ac-ft/yr)

County 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Armstrong 498 645 649 652 656 659 663 Carson 702 692 696 700 704 709 713 Dallam 3,013 4,437 4,669 4,920 5,191 5,485 5,803 Donley 870 1,330 1,332 1,333 1,335 1,337 1,339 Gray 1,579 1,352 1,378 1,407 1,438 1,473 1,511 Hansford 3,759 3,432 3,574 3,724 3,881 4,046 4,219 Hartley 5,778 6,498 6,977 7,498 8,066 8,684 9,359 Hemphill 1,061 1,275 1,279 1,284 1,289 1,295 1,302 Hutchinson 490 847 873 903 935 971 1,010 Lipscomb 795 947 969 993 1,020 1,050 1,083 Moore 2,384 3,676 3,906 4,155 4,424 4,716 5,032 Ochiltree 1,444 4,216 3,632 3,729 3,832 3,942 4,058 Oldham 1,105 1,229 1,231 1,234 1,237 1,240 1,243 Potter 768 481 482 484 486 488 491 Randall 3,077 2,654 2,665 2,677 2,690 2,704 2,719 Roberts 321 369 369 370 371 372 373 Sherman 2,163 3,449 3,631 3,825 4,034 4,257 4,497 Wheeler 1,326 1,577 1,680 1,682 1,684 1,687 1,689 Total 31,133 39,106 39,992 41,570 43,273 45,115 47,104

SLIDE 36

Hemphill County UWCD

Total Estimated Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Ogallala 2,100 2,991 2,600 2,230 1,863 1,502 1,397 Estimated Domestic Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Ogallala 121 131 139 142 146 149 152 Estimated Livestock Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Ogallala 1,067 1,170 1,173 1,178 1,183 1,189 1,195 Estimated Mining and Rig Supply Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Ogallala 912 1,690 1,288 910 534 164 50

SLIDE 37

High Plains UWCD No. 1

Total Estimated Exempt Use by aquifer Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum 416 409 445 494 541 593 644 Ogallala 8,824 8,442 8,850 9,384 9,918 10,486 11,077 Total 9,240 8,851 9,295 9,878 10,459 11,079 11,721 Estimated Domestic Exempt Use (by auifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum 408 406 443 493 541 594 647 Ogallala 8,664 8,536 9,307 10,309 11,329 12,409 13,532 Estimated Livestock Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2020 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 Ogallala 155 144 146 147 149 150 152 Estimated Rig Supply Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2020 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum Ogallala 5 7 9 10 11 12 14

SLIDE 38

North Plains GCD

Total Estimated Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum 190 204 221 237 255 273 292 Ogallala 21,175 26,021 26,546 27,906 29,353 30,903 32,562 Rita Blanca 979 1,188 1,251 1,317 1,391 1,470 1,555 Estimated Domestic Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2020 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum 26 30 34 36 39 41 42 Ogallala 1,107 1,228 1,377 1,472 1,559 1,645 1,729 Rita Blanca 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 Estimated Livestock Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2020 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Dockum 164 174 187 201 216 232 250 Ogallala 20,068 24,793 25,169 26,434 27,794 29,258 30,833 Rita Blanca 973 1,181 1,243 1,309 1,382 1,460 1,544

SLIDE 39

Panhandle GCD

Total Estimated Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Blaine 125 135 143 144 144 145 146 Dockum 961 1,026 1,133 1,247 1,360 1,482 1,610 Ogallala 8,147 11,215 9,838 8,469 7,123 6,684 6,809 Other 807 885 918 928 939 949 960 Estimated Domestic Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Blaine 13 13 13 14 14 15 16 Dockum 906 963 1,070 1,184 1,296 1,418 1,546 Ogallala 1,292 1,364 1,477 1,584 1,701 1,816 1,933 Other 111 112 120 127 135 142 150 Estimated Livestock Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Blaine 112 122 130 130 130 130 130 Dockum 55 63 63 63 64 64 64 Ogallala 4,357 4,457 4,539 4,579 4,620 4,667 4,715 Other 696 773 798 801 804 807 810 Estimated Mining and Rig Supply Exempt Use (by aquifer) Aquifer 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Ogallala 2,498 5,394 3,822 2,306 802 201 161

SLIDE 40

Ogallala Aquifer Pumping by Use in GMA-1 2004-2013 (in acre-feet) Year Total Municipal Manufacturing Mining Steam Electric Power Irrigation Livestock 2004 2,129,384 70,443 31,805 130 919 2,001,912 24,175 2005 2,133,538 82,435 32,331 123 994 1,982,647 35,008 2006 1,690,772 89,908 32,182 265 867 1,519,161 48,389 2007 1,715,766 66,507 31,147 259 1301 1,578,919 37,633 2008 1,865,445 76,618 31,762 82 3870 1,714,853 3,8260 2009 1,883,645 80,418 34,913 73 3236 1,733,244 31,761 2010 1,618,566 83,397 27,910 346 1,485,136 21,777 2011 2,477,214 120,700 17,468 1509 2,311,980 25,557 2012 2,389,638 115,980 15,718 447 2,225,427 32,066 2013 2,170,677 110,954 14,980 123 958 2,014,761 28,901

SLIDE 41

Rita Blanca Aquifer Pumping by Use in GMA-1 2004-2013 (in acre-feet) Year Total Municipal Manufact- uring Mining Steam Electric Power Irrigation Livestock 2004 38,196 178 36,766 1252 2005 38,393 166 37,022 1205 2006 33,270 155 31,628 1487 2007 35,127 143 33,422 1562 2008 38,676 144 37,245 1287 2009 39,574 182 38,339 1053 2010 33,694 38 33,202 454 2011 45,504 8 44,967 529 2012 46,360 8 45,259 1093 2013 36,833 6 35,771 1056

SLIDE 42

Dockum Aquifer Pumping by Use in GMA-1 2004-2013 (in acre-feet) Year Total Municipal Manufact- uring Mining Steam Electric Power Irrigation Livestock 2004 4705 837 3007 861 2005 5554 876 3220 1458 2006 6510 1803 2257 2450 2007 5851 1434 2751 1666 2008 5335 1613 2343 1379 2009 5423 1800 2293 1330 2010 7174 4074 1770 1330 2011 7646 3228 2837 1581 2012 6787 2602 2579 1606 2013 6376 2469 2440 1467

SLIDE 43

Blaine Aquifer Pumping by Use in GMA-1 2004-2013 (in acre-feet) Year Total Municipal Manufact- uring Mining Steam Electric Power Irrigation Livestock 2004 1062 1 1044 17 2005 1435 2 1299 134 2006 1573 11 1353 209 2007 1667 9 1537 121 2008 1641 11 1514 116 2009 1559 13 1428 118 2010 1505 16 1391 98 2011 1786 18 1660 108 2012 2523 17 2407 99 2013 1776 12 1681 83 Seymour Aquifer Pumping by Use in GMA-1 2004-2013 (in acre-feet) Year Total Municipal Manufacturing Mining Steam Electric Power Irrigation Livestock 2004 2 2 2005 2 2

SLIDE 44

Factor 2 –water supply needs and water management strategies

 2011 Panhandle Regional Water Plan

(2012 State Water Plan)

 Modeled Available Groundwater

Predictive Run 6.3-6.5

 Modeled Available Groundwater

Predictive Run 5.3-5.5

SLIDE 45

*2015 rates are identical to the last year of the calibrated model (2012) except in NPGCD where other rates were provided by NPGCD staff. ** Average MAG compared to Average Demand Dallam, Hartley, Sherman, Hutchison – Conservation Potter, Randall – Roberts County Well Field Development, Conservation All Aquifers MAG Predictive Runs 6.3-6.5 - 2011 PRWP DEMAND = NEED County 2015* 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Average** Dallam 24,127 121,234 19,005 (24,420) (53,484) (88,436) (329) Hartley 54,410 186,626 56,904 11,908 (19,755) (57,528) 38,761 Hutchinson (7,100) 25,227 25,683 25,073 26,039 26,356 20,213 Potter (52,856) (10,793) (15,914) (23,853) (32,069) (43,108) (29,766) Randall (2,193) (13,318) (13,337) (16,246) (19,518) (23,103) (14,619) Sherman 63,159 192,238 147,757 92,529 41,651 (14,308) 87,171 Wheeler (2,035) 119,527 128,181 127,657 123,170 115,187 101,948

SLIDE 46

All Aquifers MAG Predictive Runs 5.3-5.5 - 2011 PRWP DEMAND = NEED County 2015* 2020 2030 2040 2050 2062 Average Dallam 17,095 112,940 19,806 (27,127) (57,894) (93,231) (4,735) Hartley 54,314 183,647 62,163 14,182 (19,928) (59,270) 39,185 Hutchinson (7,100) 24,529 24,763 24,220 25,220 25,617 19,542 Moore 8,066 76,523 36,055 7,760 (15,701) (42,340) 11,727 Potter (53,296) (11,526) (16,638) (24,519) (32,705) (43,715) (30,400) Randall (2,506) (13,318) (13,343) (16,292) (19,576) (23,140) (14,696) Sherman 63,159 192,238 147,731 92,453 41,510 (14,453) 87,106 Wheeler (2,212) 116,755 125,264 125,059 120,872 113,069 99,801

SLIDE 47

Factor 3 - Hydrological conditions Factor 4 - Environmental impacts,

 Numerical Model for the High Plains

Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Model;

 TWDB Predictive Runs for T

• tal

Estimated Recoverable Storage

SLIDE 48

County Recharge ET Springs Rivers Draws Escarp- ments Reser- voirs Wells Storage Lateral Cross- Form- ational Armstrong 9,535

• 39
• 1,227
• 2,339
• 8,805

11,286

• 6,262
• 2,150

Carson 12,471

• 367

5,470

• 143
• 129,816

124,865

• 12,826

347 Dallam 24,600

• 61

19,836

• 429,574

379,136 7,428

• 1,365

Donley 17,361

• 1,688
• 1,286
• 11,948
• 35
• 6,715
• 39,308

26,676 16,943 Gray 26,409

• 764
• 2,979
• 6,240
• 41,569

40,077

• 14,934

Hansford 11,531

• 483

10,052 419

• 242,130

217,629 2,981 Hartley 29,186

• 3,213
• 2
• 5,377
• 1,636

42

• 488,903

486,978

• 17,996

920 Hemphill 34,367

• 24,400
• 198
• 20,587
• 101
• 3,673
• 21,951

21,931 14,614 Hutchinson 7,082

• 2,367
• 185
• 4,744
• 798
• 6,860
• 85,118

82,617 10,373 Lipscomb 29,621

• 5,733

1,567

• 56,294

47,145

• 16,307

Moore 17,436 5,266

• 164
• 1,730
• 282,841

256,336 7,024

• 1,326

Ochiltree 12,379

• 170

3,738 126

• 113,704

100,672

• 3,040

Oldham 18,476

• 758
• 258
• 8,550
• 1,015
• 7,868
• 14,397

11,621 6,315

• 3,567

Potter 7,090

• 64

597

• 267
• 1,655
• 8,573

12,040

• 7,587
• 1,580

Randall 10,169

• 559
• 104
• 45
• 231
• 991
• 44,304

30,515 7,810

• 2,258

Roberts 13,328

• 26,681
• 13,211
• 2,354
• 2,103
• 79,392

84,930 25,483 Sherman 17,550 9,682

• 397,598

370,112 246 9 Wheeler 28,976

• 3,969
• 1,184
• 8,133
• 2,274
• 12,809
• 13,605

8,623 4,376 Total 327,567

• 71,213
• 3320
• 20,593
• 7,239
• 54,762

587 -2,497,882 2,313,189 24,641

• 10970

Table A.3.1 Water budget for the Ogallala Aquifer by county for year 2012 of the transient model.

SLIDE 49

Table A.3.2 Water budget for the Rita Blanca Aquifer by county for year 2012 of the transient model. County Recharge ET Springs Rivers Draws Escarp ments Reserv

• irs

Wells Storage Lateral Cross- Format ional Dallam 0 -6,202 2,054 945 3,203 Hartley 92 1

• 93

SLIDE 50

Table A.3.4 Water budget for the upper Dockum Group by county for year 2012 of the transient model. County Recha rge ET Springs Rivers Draws Escarp ments Reserv

• irs

Wells Storage Lateral Cross- Forma tional Dallam

• 23

1,131 5 -1,113 Hartley

• 2

706 4

• 708

Moore 14

• 14

Oldham

• 1

7

• 2
• 4

Potter Randall

• 22

240

• 1
• 218

Sherman

SLIDE 51

Table A.3.5 Water budget for the lower Dockum Group by county for year 2012 of the transient model. County Recha rge ET Springs Rivers Draws Escarp ments Reser voirs Wells Storage Lateral Cross- Format ional Armstrong 228

• 295
• 509
• 2,261
• 173

274 586 2,150 Carson

• 138

310 174

• 347

Dallam 0 -2,757 3,466 22

• 731

Hartley 205

• 313

985 0 -2,022 3,826 -2,566

• 115

Hutchinson Moore 64

• 55

0 -1,605 222 34 1,340 Oldham 5,906 -3,719

• 120 -9,813

0 -1,129 1,112 4,192 3,571 Potter 2,217 -1,078

• 22 -3,392
• 395

0 -1,472 1,443 1,120 1,580 Randall 86 0 -2,328

• 747

0 -2,634 2,811 336 2,476 Sherman

• 485

252 241

• 8

SLIDE 52

Factor 3 & Factor 4 DFC Impacts

 Ogallala Aquifer (MAG fully produced)

• Recharge should remain constant to increase

based on rivers providing additional recharge.

• Reduced discharges to Springs, Rivers, Draws

Escarpments should accelerate.

• Reduction in storage should accelerate.
• Lateral and Cross-Formational Flow will

change inflow/outflow conditions.

SLIDE 53

Factor 3 & Factor 4 DFC Impacts (Cont.)

 Dockum Aquifer (MAG fully produced)

• Recharge should remain constant in lower

Dockum, No recharge in upper Dockum.

• Discharges to Springs, Rivers, Draws

Escarpments will continue to diminish.

• Reduction in storage should continue to

diminish

• Lateral and Cross-Formational Flow will

change inflow/outflow conditions.

SLIDE 54

Factor 5 - The impact on subsidence

 Ogallala Aquifer proposed DFC – No

Significant Impact on Subsidence

 Dockum Aquifer proposed DFC – No

Significant Impact on Subsidence

SLIDE 55

Factor 6 - Socioeconomic impacts

 Proposed DFCs will not have any socio-

economic impact that exceeds the socio- economic impacts identified in the adopted 2016 Panhandle Regional Water Plan associated with currently projected regional pumping demands.

SLIDE 56

Factor 7 - The impact on private property

 Dockum Aquifer proposed DFC

• More groundwater available than current and

projected pumping

• Significant groundwater available at end of 50

year period

 Ogallala Aquifer proposed DFC

• Generally more groundwater available than

current and projected pumping

• Significant groundwater available at the end of

the 50 year period.

SLIDE 57

Factor 8 The feasibility of achieving the DFCs

 Dockum Aquifer DFC

• HPAS GAM predictive runs are possible
• More available water than projected use
• Groundwater withdrawals within TERS range

 Ogallala Aquifer DFC

• HPAS GAM predictive runs are possible
• More available water projected use
• Groundwater withdrawals within TERS range

SLIDE 58

Factor 9 Any other information?