[PPT] - Welcome! Jennifer Hoggatt Director Water Resources Center 2 Agenda PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Combined Technical

Workgroup Meeting

Aug 28, 2018, 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Missouri Water Resources Plan

SLIDE 2

Welcome!

Jennifer Hoggatt Director Water Resources Center

2

SLIDE 3

9:30 Introductions 9:45 Summary of Baseline Water Supply Sources and Water Budgets and Comments from Technical Workgroup 10:30 BREAK 10:45 Introduction to Scenario Planning and Uncertainty Drivers 11:30 Introduction to Missouri Water Resources Plan Scenario Narratives 12:00 LUNCH 12:45 Break‐Out Introduction and Review of Handouts 1:15 Break‐Out Discussions ‐ Municipal & Industrial Water Demands/Supply/Treatment (2 groups) ‐ Agricultural Water Demands/Supply/Treatment (2 groups) 2:30 Break‐Out Group Report Outs 3:00 Consensus on Planning Scenarios 3:30 ADJOURN

3

Agenda

SLIDE 4

Summary of Baseline Water Supply and Budgets

4

SLIDE 5

Supply Availability Update ‐ Outline

5

Water supply availability refresher
Updates to surface water budgets based on TWG feedback
Dry year demands
Median flows
Severity of drought years
HUC8 Level Analysis
Upper Grand example
Groundwater Supply
Groundwater budgets
Recharge estimates
Comparison of withdrawals and recharge

SLIDE 6

Total Water Budget

6

Non‐Consumptive Use Wastewater Returns Basin Outflow Naturalized Streamflow Reservoir Storage Inflow from Out of State Consumptive Use Groundwater Precipitation Evapotranspiration

Natural Components

6

SLIDE 7

HUC4 Current Surface Water Budget (mgd)

7

Outflow HUC4 Name Precipitation Evapo‐ transpiration Streamflow (from Out of State) Streamflow (from an in state HUC4) Streamflow (generated in HUC4) Total Streamflow Non‐ Consumptive Withdrawals Non‐ Consumptive Returns Consumptive Withdrawals Wastewater Returns Basin Outflow

711 Upper Mississippi‐Salt

14,828 8,756 79,077 4,433 83,509 464 461 26 33 83,513

714 Upper Mississippi‐ Kaskaskia‐Meramec

15,095 9,112 149,601 4,421 154,021 986 981 118 226 154,125

802 Lower Mississippi‐St. Francis

10,869 5,761 155,286 1,773 157,059 3 4 14 13 157,059

1024 Missouri‐Nishnabotna

6,343 3,945 31,910 1,699 33,610 913 928 97 21 33,549

1028 Chariton‐Grand

15,242 9,020 1,296 4,070 5,366 770 765 29 10 5,342

1029 Gasconade‐Osage

30,262 18,486 2,824 9,390 12,214 176 175 37 27 12,203

1030 Lower Missouri

20,540 12,055 37,734 20,540 6,007 64,281 2,182 2,154 21 185 64,417

1101 Upper White

23,634 14,195 1,859 9,083 10,942 110 112 34 44 10,954

1107 Neosho‐Verdigris

6,369 3,881 1,854 1,854 5 6 19 24 1,860 Values in Million Gallons per Day, based on Average Annual Conditions

Natural Components Streamflow Withdrawals and Returns

SLIDE 8

Comparison of Surface Water Supply and Demand Average Year

8

HUC4 Name Total Streamflow (mgd) Current 2060

711

Upper Mississippi‐Salt

83,509 0.6% 0.1% 714

Upper Mississippi‐ Kaskaskia‐Meramec

154,021 0.7% 0.7% 802

Lower Mississippi‐St. Francis

157,059 0.0% 0.0% 1024

Missouri‐Nishnabotna

33,610 3.0% 3.6% 1028

Chariton‐Grand

5,366 14.9% 17.5% 1029

Gasconade‐Osage

12,214 1.7% 2.1% 1030

Lower Missouri

64,281 3.4% 2.6% 1101

Upper White

10,942 1.3% 1.5% 1107

Neosho‐Verdigris

1,854 1.3% 1.6%

Total Withdrawals as a Percent

f Total Streamflow

SLIDE 9

Supply Availability Update ‐ Outline

9

Water supply availability refresher
Updates to surface water budgets based on TWG feedback
Dry year demands
Median flows
Severity of drought years
HUC8 Level Analysis
Upper Grand example
Groundwater Supply
Groundwater budgets
Recharge estimates
Comparison of withdrawals and recharge

SLIDE 10

Updates to Water Budgets – Dry Year Demands

10

SLIDE 11

Updates to Water Budgets – Median Flows

Median annual streamflow now included as part of monthly

comparisons of supply and demand.

Average ‐ appropriate for analysis of total volume (reservoir supply)
Median – more appropriate for river withdrawals

11

SLIDE 12

12

Total Supply Average Year In‐State Supply Average Year

Upper Mississippi‐Salt Monthly Comparisons

f Supply and Demand

SLIDE 13

13

Out‐of‐State and Major River Supply Average Year Total Supply Dry Year

Upper Mississippi‐Salt Monthly Comparisons

f Supply and Demand

SLIDE 14

Monthly Comparisons

f Supply and Demand

14

In‐State Supply Dry Year Out‐of‐State and Major River Supply Dry Year

Upper Mississippi‐Salt

Potential Supply Gap

SLIDE 15

Updated to Water Budgets – Drought Years

How does the driest year of the last 30 years in each basin

compare to the 1950s drought years?

15 NA = streamflow records not available in the 1950s for the same gages

* Chariton‐Grand Aug 2017 to Aug 2018 flow is also 1.3 in/yr HUC4 Basin

No. of

Gages 1987‐2016 Dry Year(s) Flow (in/yr) 1950s Dry Year Flow (in/yr) Upper Miss.‐Salt 3 1989, 2006 1.9 1954, 1956 1.0 Upper Miss.‐Kaskaskia‐Meramec 2 2000, 2012 5.0 1954, 1956 3.5 Lower Miss.‐St. Francis 2 1987, 2012 3.6 1954 3.2 Missouri‐Nishnabotna 2 1988, 2003 1.4 NA NA Chariton‐Grand 2 2000, 2003 1.3 1956 1.4 Gasconade‐Osage 2 2000, 2006 3.1 1954 3.0 Lower Missouri 3 2006 1.9 1954 0.4 Upper White 2 2000 8.3 1954 7.2 Neosho‐Verdigris 2 2006 2.6 1954, 1956 1.9

*

SLIDE 16

Chariton‐Grand Flow Duration Curve

16

Aug 15, 2017 – Aug 15, 2018

SLIDE 17

July 2018 Average Streamflow Conditions

17 Source: USGS WaterWatch Select Missouri River Gages included on USGS WaterWatch

SLIDE 18

Supply Availability Update ‐ Outline

18

Water supply availability refresher
Updates to surface water budgets based on TWG feedback
Dry year demands
Median flows
Severity of drought years
HUC8 Level Analysis
Upper Grand example
Groundwater Supply
Groundwater budgets
Recharge estimates
Comparison of withdrawals and recharge

SLIDE 19

19

HUC8 Watersheds Identified as Candidates for More Detailed Analysis

Upper Grand Thompson Lower Grand Upper Chariton Lower Chariton Little Chariton Little Osage

SLIDE 20

HUC8 Water Budgets

20

SLIDE 21

Flow Duration Curve

21

Missouri State Water Plan Page 6 of 8

Upper Grand Basin Summary

Flow‐Duration Curve5

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Basin Discharge (mgd) Percentage of time monthly discharge was equal or lower

Upper Grand Flow‐Duration Curve, 95.5 Years of Record

Total Flow Flow From Out of State Flow From In State Current Total Average Annual Surface Water Demand

Note: Thermo demands are not included in surface water demands

10 mgd (Max Monthly Surface Water Demand is 11 mgd ) 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 112 466 1,501

Demand Exceeds Total Flow 2% of the time

SLIDE 22

HUC8 Water Budgets

22

Missouri State Water Plan Page 2 of 8 ac‐ft/yr in/yr mgd Precipitation (In‐State) 5,588,679 37.28 4,985 Evapotranspiration 1,158,189 7.73 1,033 Streamflow (from Out‐of‐State) 262,751 1.75 234 Streamflow (from other In‐State HUC8 basin) 0.00 Streamflow originating in HUC8 1,439,190 9.60 1,284 Total Streamflow 1,701,941 11.35 1,518 Non‐Consumptive Surface Water Withdrawals 1,127 0.01 1.0 Consumptive Surface Water Withdrawals 9,813 0.07 8.8 Total Surface Water Withdrawals 10,940 0.07 10 2060 Demands Surface Water Withdrawals By Sector ac‐ft/yr in/yr mgd mgd Major Water Systems 4,794 0.03 4.3 4.6 Self‐Supplied Nonresidential 0.00 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 5,019 0.03 4.5 6.5 Total Consumptive 9,813 0.07 8.8 11.1 Thermoelectric Power Generation 0.00 0.0 0.0 Aquaculture and Wetlands 1,127 0.01 1.0 1.0 Total Non‐consumptive 1,127 0.01 1.0 1.0 Groundwater Withdrawals By Sector1 ac‐ft/yr in/yr mgd mgd Major Water Systems 3,184 0.02 2.8 2.9 Self‐Supplied Domestic and Minor Systems 729 0.005 0.7 0.4 Self‐Supplied Nonresidential 0.00 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 927 0.01 0.8 1.2 Total Consumptive 4,839 0.03 4.3 4.5 Thermoelectric Power Generation 0.00 0.0 0.0 Aquaculture and Wetlands 577 0.004 0.5 0.5 Total Non‐consumptive 577 0.00 0.5 0.5

Upper Grand Basin Summary

Summary of Water Demands by Sector Annual Surface Water Budget Summary

Current Demands 4.3 4.5 1.0

Current Surface Water Withdrawals*

2.8 0.7 0.8 0.5

Current Groundwater Withdrawals

Major Water Systems Self‐Supplied Domestic and Minor Systems Self‐Supplied Nonresidential Agriculture Thermoelectric Power Generation Aquaculture and Wetlands ConsumptiveDemands Non‐ConsumptiveDemands

*Surface Water Demands do not include Self‐Supplied Domestic sector **Chart data labels represent demands in mgd.

SLIDE 23

23

Total Supply Dry Year Upper Grand (HUC8)

Monthly Comparisons

f Supply and Demand

Potential Supply Gap

SLIDE 24

Upper Grand Subbasin Public Water Supply Intakes

24

Active (12) Emergency (1) Inactive (7)

Upper Grande Thompson

Iowa Missouri

Hamilton Lake

(serves Hamilton)

Harrison Co. Lake Bethany North Lake Bethany South Lake

(serves Bethany)

Lakes and lake systems where recent withdrawals have equaled or exceeded

ptimum yield1

1 North Central Missouri Water Supply

Reliability Study – 2016 Final Report, HDR.

SLIDE 25

25

Active (12) Emergency (1) Inactive (7)

Upper Grande Thompson

Iowa Missouri

Cameron City Reservoir 1 and 2 (serve Cameron) Harrison County Lake

(serves Bethany)

Lakes with less than 12 months of storage under 30‐year minimum annual flow and no outflow

Breckenridge City Lake

(serves Breckenridge, emergency only)

North Upper Lake

(serves King City)

Upper Grand Subbasin Public Water Supply Intakes

SLIDE 26

Current Average Annual Surface Water Demand as a Percent of Average Annual Streamflow

All Supply Sectors Except Thermoelectric Power Generation Major River Supply and Demands not included

26

SLIDE 27

Current July Surface Water Demand as a Percent of Average Year July Streamflow

All Supply Sectors Except Thermoelectric Power Generation Major River Supply and Demands not included

27

SLIDE 28

Current Dry Year Surface Water Demand as a Percent of Dry Year Streamflow

All Supply Sectors Except Thermoelectric Power Generation Major River Supply and Demands not included

28

SLIDE 29

Current Dry Year July Surface Water Demand as a Percent of Dry Year July Streamflow

All Supply Sectors Except Thermoelectric Power Generation Major River Supply and Demands not included

29

High percentages are due to very low July dry year supply

availability. Supply

availability for Lower Missouri and Missouri‐ Nishnabotna are calculated from gages with small drainage areas, relative to other basins.

SLIDE 30

Supply Availability Update ‐ Outline

30

Water supply availability refresher
Updates to surface water budgets based on TWG feedback
Dry year demands
Median flows
Severity of drought years
HUC8 Level Analysis
Upper Grand example
Groundwater Supply
Groundwater budgets
Recharge estimates
Comparison of withdrawals and recharge

SLIDE 31

Groundwater Budgets

31

Hays, P.D., Knierim, K.J., Breaker, Brian, Westerman, D.A., and Clark, B.R., 2016, Hydrogeology and hydrologic conditions of the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5137.

Ozark Aquifer System, Current Day Budget

SLIDE 32

Groundwater Recharge Estimates (MoDNR)

32

SLIDE 33

Groundwater Recharge Estimates (USGS)

33

Imes, J.L. and L.F. Emmett, 1994. Geohydrology of the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System in Parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. USGS Professional Paper 1414‐D.

Ozark Plateau Aquifer System

SLIDE 34

Groundwater Recharge Estimates (USGS)

34

Clark, B.R., Richards, J.M., and Knierim, K.J., 2018, The Ozark Plateaus Regional Aquifer Study—Documentation of a groundwater‐flow model constructed to assess water availability in the Ozark Plateaus: USGS Report 2018–5035.

SLIDE 35

USGS Estimated Mean Annual Recharge

35

Wollock, 2003. Estimated Mean Annual Natural Ground‐water

Recharge in the Conterminous United States. USGS Open File Report 03‐311

1‐km resolution raster dataset of mean annual natural

ground‐water recharge derived from 1951‐80 mean annual runoff contour map and baseflow index (BFI).

BFI estimated by stream hydrograph separation method
Assumes that:

1. Long‐term average natural ground‐water recharge is equal to long‐ term average natural ground‐water discharge to streams, and 2. The base‐flow index reasonably represents, over the long term, the percentage of natural ground‐water discharge in streamflow.

SLIDE 36

36

10.3 0.5

Recharge in Inches/Year

USGS Estimated Mean Annual Recharge

Springfield Plateau Salem Plateau Southeastern Lowlands Northeastern Missouri Northwestern Missouri Missouri Alluvium Mississippi Alluvium West Central Missouri

SLIDE 37

USGS Estimated Mean Annual Recharge by HUC8 Basin

37

Recharge (Inches/Year)

0.0 – 1.0 1.1 – 2.0 2.1 – 3.0 3.1 – 4.0 4.1 – 5.0 5.1 – 6.0 6.1 – 7.0 7.1 – 8.0 8.1 – 9.0

SLIDE 38

38

Recharge in inches/Year

0.0 – 1.0 1.1 – 2.0 2.1 – 3.0 3.1 – 4.0 4.1 – 5.0 5.1 – 6.0 6.1 – 7.0 7.1 – 8.0 8.1 – 9.0

USGS Estimated Mean Annual Recharge by County

SLIDE 39

39

Groundwater Withdrawals As a Percent of Recharge

0% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% > 100%

Current Groundwater Withdrawals as a Percentage

f Estimated Recharge from Precipitation

(Includes Alluvial Aquifer Demands)

Alluvial aquifers along the Missouri River also receive some recharge from the river and bedrock aquifers Alluvial aquifers here also receive recharge from Mississippi River and Ozark Aquifer

SLIDE 40

40

Groundwater Demand As a Percent of Recharge

0% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% > 100%

Current Groundwater Withdrawals as a Percentage

f Estimated Recharge from Precipitation

(Includes Alluvial Aquifer Demands)

SLIDE 41

Southeastern Lowlands ‐ Mississippi Embayment

Alluvial Aquifer Withdrawal from Storage

Clark, B.R., Hart, R.M., and Gurdak, J.J., 2011, Groundwater availability of the Mississippi embayment: USGS Professional Paper 1785.

Water level increase Water level decrease Southeastern Lowlands

SLIDE 42

42

Groundwater Withdrawals As a Percent of Recharge

0% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% > 100%

Current Groundwater Withdrawals as a Percentage

f Estimated Recharge to Water Table

(Includes Alluvial Aquifer Demands)

SLIDE 43

43

Groundwater Withdrawals As a Percent of Recharge

0% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% > 100%

2060 Groundwater Withdrawals as a Percentage

f Estimated Recharge to Water Table

(Includes Alluvial Aquifer Demands)

SLIDE 44

Short Break

44

SLIDE 45

Scenario Planning Overview

45

SLIDE 46

Why Scenario Planning?

46

Water managers have to plan for the future
One thing that is certain is that the future is uncertain
Given the time and expense to plan for programs and

critical infrastructure, it is essential to account for uncertainty

Scenario planning is a structured way to account and plan for

uncertainty

SLIDE 47

Typical Water Planning Paradigm

47

Time Horizon Impact (e.g. water shortage)

Typical planning uses narrow range of forecast conditions based on little incorporation of uncertainty Actual conditions Major ‘Disruption Point’ causing stress beyond planned conditions

SLIDE 48

Why Scenario Planning?

48

Major sources of uncertainty can be reflected in scenarios Disruption Points

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Scenario E

Actual conditions

Impact (e.g. water shortage) Time Horizon

SLIDE 49

Steps in Scenario Planning

49

1) Identify major uncertainties that can impact the future 2) Select most important uncertainties as “drivers” of scenarios 3) Combine uncertainty drivers into scenarios that represent different possible futures 4) Measure impacts of scenarios and assess strategies to address impacts 5) Use an adaptive management framework for continuous re‐ assessment and implementation of strategies

SLIDE 50

Assess Major Uncertainties

50

S T E P 1

Population Growth Unplanned Outages Interstate Diversions Regulatory Framework Technology Changes Municipal Water Use Economic Conditions Water Treatment Level Future Climate Agricultural Output

SLIDE 51

Select Most Important Uncertainties (EXAMPLE)

51

S T E P 2

Range of Uncertainty

Low variability High variability

Impact of Uncertainty

Low impact High impact

Uncertainties that should be included in baseline conditions Uncertainties that should form basis for future scenarios

Water Treatment Level

SLIDE 52

Scenarios represent combinations of uncertainties that tell a

narrative of a potential future condition

Even with a small number of uncertainties, the number of

potential scenarios is large – thus the goal is to develop the fewest number of scenarios that provides an adequate range

f futures to explore
Scenarios should have internal consistency, e.g., if future

climate is warmer/drier then agricultural irrigation will be greater

52

Build Scenarios

S T E P 3

SLIDE 53

53

Scenario Name Demands/ Economy Supply Constraints Future Climate Water Treatment Level Regulatory Framework

Business‐as‐ Usual Baseline Projection Medium Historical variability Existing Water Treatment Level Current Weak Economy Low Projection Low Warmer/ Wetter Existing Water Treatment Level Less Stringent Hot Growth High Projection High Hot/Dry Moderate Increase in Water Treatment Level More Stringent Adaptive Innovation High Projection Medium Hot/ Wetter Moderate Increase in Water Treatment Level Adaptive

Uncertainty Drivers

Build Scenarios (EXAMPLE)

S T E P 3

SLIDE 54

54

Determine Impacts of Scenarios

S T E P 4

Water shortage during droughts or emergency conditions Water infrastructure needs to safely convey water to where it is needed Water treatment needed to meet public health requirements

SLIDE 55

55

Use Adaptive Management for Continuous Re‐ Assessment and Implementation of Strategies

S T E P 5

Risk Triggers represent selected uncertainties (e.g., economy or climate)

SLIDE 56

Proposed Scenarios for Missouri Plan

56

SLIDE 57

Draft Scenarios and Discussion

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
f 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
f 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 57

SLIDE 58

Draft Evaluations Metrics

Water shortages during droughts
Need for additional water supply infrastructure (surface

reservoirs, wells, river intakes, conveyance)

Cost for additional water treatment

58

SLIDE 59

Lunch Break

59

SLIDE 60

Scenario Drivers Background Information for Break‐Out Groups

60

SLIDE 61

61

Scenario Drivers

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

SLIDE 62

M&I Demand Drivers

62

SLIDE 63

Consumptive Use Water Demand Projections – ALL SECTORS – Current Use

63

Groundwater = 79% Surface water = 21%

SLIDE 64

Consumptive Use Water Demand Projections ‐ Baseline

64

17% 22%

SLIDE 65

Major Water Systems Demand Projections ‐ Baseline

65

2016 2060

Growth in water use driven by population growth 5.07 Population Served (millions) 6.5

SLIDE 66

Self‐Supplied Domestic & Minor Systems Demand Projections ‐ Baseline

66

2016 2060

1.05 Population Served (millions) 1.3 Growth in water use driven by population growth

SLIDE 67

Agricultural Demand Drivers

67

SLIDE 68

Agricultural Demands

68

Demands that represent water use for agriculture

production are within three sectors:

Agriculture Irrigation
Livestock
Self‐Supplied Nonresidential

SLIDE 69

Agricultural Demands

69

Sector Baseline Forecast Scenario Parameters Agriculture Irrigation

Row crop expansion in irrigated acres from 1.7 million

(2016) to 2.0 million (2060)

No major changes in crop type mix (soybeans 34%, corn

28%, rice 19%, cotton 16%, other 3%)

No major changes in supply of water (98%

groundwater)

Irrigation efficiency remains at sprinkler 75%, surface

50%, micro‐irrigation 90%

Average weather assumed
Irrigated acres increase or decrease

(urbanization or other reason)

More of one crop type over another
Switch to a different water source
Improvement in irrigation efficiency
Lower/higher ET requirements due to

genetic modifications/advancements

Deviation from average temperature and/or

rainfall Livestock

Number of animals (cattle/calves, hogs, poultry, other)
Water requirement per animal per day
No major changes in supply of water (groundwater

36%, surface water 64%)

Future trends based on projections of meat and dairy

consumption per capita to 2027, then linear trend assumed

Weather not a major impactor
More/less livestock
Increases/decreases in water use per animal
Changes in source of water

Self‐supplied Non‐ residential

Food manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, milk

bottling/pasteurizing, ethanol plants, etc.

Captures industries that have own water supply
Growth to 2060 based on employment growth in

Woods & Poole demographic projection series for the NAICS code within county of industry location

No major changes in supply of water (groundwater 75%,

surface water 25%)

Average weather assumed

*Note, some food processing plants get water from municipal source.

Known to be underestimated due to under

registering/reporting so could increase for sensitivity

If state experiences or drives a doubling of

agriculture output, likely to be seen in this sector

Need to identify WHERE the growth would
ccur and what types of new industries

would be expected

Changes in source of water
Deviation from average temperature and/or

rainfall

SLIDE 70

Agriculture Irrigation Demand Projections ‐ Baseline

70

2016 2060

1.7 Irrigated Acres (millions) 2.0 Growth in water use driven by irrigated acreage growth

SLIDE 71

Agriculture Irrigation Wells

71

SLIDE 72

Livestock Demand Projections – Baseline

72

2016 2060

46% growth in water use from 2016 to 2060 driven by growth in animals. Annual growth rates to 2060: Beef production 1% Hogs 0.68% Poultry 1.34%

SLIDE 73

Self‐Supplied Nonresidential Demand Projections Baseline

73

Category Number

f Users

Annual MGD Food Manufacturing

15 25.6

Mining

16 18.3

Miscellaneous Manufacturing

6 3.72

Chemical Manufacturing

3 2.16

Petroleum & Coal Products Manufacturing

6 1.25

Beverage & Tobacco Product Manufacturing

1 0.50

Wood Product Manufacturing

2 0.04

Machinery Manufacturing

1 0.02

2016

This sector includes industries such as: ethanol plants, food manufacturing, animal food production, dairy processing, farm equipment manufacturing

SLIDE 74

Climate Drivers

74

SLIDE 75

Historical Climate

75

2015 (56 in) 2012 (31 in) Mean 41 in

SLIDE 76

Climate Predictions

76

Projected Changes in Precipitation and Temperature – 2060 (Example)

Month Historical average Warm Wet Hot Dry Avg. Temperature (°F) Avg. Precipitation (Inches) Avg. Temperature (°F) Avg. Precipitation (Inches) Avg. Temperature (°F) Avg. Precipitation (Inches) Jan 32 1.89 36 2.02 38 2.04 Feb 34 2.32 37 2.74 40 2.62 Mar 43 2.99 46 3.53 48 3.35 Apr 54 4.13 57 4.79 59 4.79 May 64 5.16 68 5.93 70 5.26 Jun 73 4.41 77 4.90 80 3.92 Jul 77 4.29 81 4.59 85 3.65 Aug 77 4.06 81 4.10 85 3.65 Sep 68 4.17 72 4.25 76 3.92 Oct 55 3.35 59 3.55 62 3.22 Nov 45 3.62 48 4.13 50 3.62 Dec 32 2.72 36 2.94 39 2.86

SLIDE 77

Spatial Variability of Climate within Missouri

77

SLIDE 78

Supply Constraints Drivers

78

SLIDE 79

Major Impoundments in the Missouri River Basin

79

SLIDE 80

Drinking Water Intakes

80

SLIDE 81

Groundwater Limitations

81

SLIDE 82

Water Treatment Level Drivers

82

SLIDE 83

Relative WQ Drivers/Thresholds by Treatment Type

83

Treatment Type Drivers/Thresholds for Treatment

Pathogens TOC TSS & Turbidity Salinity Hardness Nutrients/Taste & Odor Emerging Contaminants Direct Filtration1

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

Conventional1

MED MED MED LOW LOW LOW LOW

Conventional + Enhanced Coagulation

MED HIGH MED-HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW

Conventional + Lime Softening

MED MED- HIGH MED-HIGH LOW HIGH LOW LOW

Conventional + Ozone/UV

MED-HIGH MED- HIGH MED-HIGH LOW LOW MED-HIGH MED-HIGH

Conventional + GAC

MED MED- HIGH MED-HIGH LOW LOW MED-HIGH MED-HIGH

Conventional + Membranes

MED-HIGH MED- HIGH MED-HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW

Conventional + Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis

MED-HIGH MED- HIGH MED-HIGH MED-HIGH MED-HIGH MED-HIGH MED-HIGH

SLIDE 84

Reservoir Regulations Drivers

84

SLIDE 85

USACE Reservoir Storage in Missouri

85

SLIDE 86

USACE Reservoir Storage in Missouri

86

SLIDE 87

Break‐Out Groups

Provide instructions for break‐out groups

87

SLIDE 88

Break‐Out Groups ‐ Report Out

88

Provide instructions for break‐out report outs

SLIDE 89

Consensus on Planning Scenarios

89

SLIDE 90

Thank You

90