ORDES
Volume III-G
Special Study Report
Issues Related to Water Allocation
in the Lower Ohio River Basin
E. Downey Brill, Jr., Glenn E. Stout, Robert W. Fuessle,
Randolph M. Lyon, and Keith E. Wojnarowski
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
May 15, 1977
PHASE I
OHIO RIVER DASIN ENERGY STUDY
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
Volume III-G
SPECIAL STUDY REPORT
ISSUES RELATED TO WATER ALLOCATION
IN THE LOWER OHIO RIVER BASIN
E. Downey Brill, Or.
Glenn E. Stout
Robert W. Fuessle
Randolph M. Lyon
Keith E. Wojnarowski
May 15, 1977
Prepared for
Office of Energy, Minerals,
and Industry
Office of Research and
Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C.
Grant Number - US EPA R-804821
-------
PREFACE
The report is based on the first nine months' progress in a special
study of water allocation issues. It should be viewed as a preliminary
analysis. Future work is planned for refining and extending the work
described here.
We would like to thank the following people and agencies for
supplying information: J. R. Villines and others from the Division of
Water Resources, Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Kentucky; L. A. Martens, U.S. Geological Survey, Illinois;
J. F. Blakey, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Ohio;
W. G. Weist, U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis; the Illinois State
Water Survey; and several representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of
.Engineers (Cincinnati, Louisville, and St. Louis offices). Much of the
work of this report is based on earlier reports by all of these agencies,
We also thank E. A. Joering of the Ohio River Basin Commission for
supplying recent information, for suggesting sources of information,
and for providing many helpful suggestions.
-------
CONTENTS
page
PREFACE III-G-iil
TABLES III-G-vii
FIGURES . . . . III-G-ix
I. INTRODUCTION III-G-1
2. POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO WATER ALLOCATION AND USE . III-G-3
2.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-3
2.2. WATER USE PROJECTIONS IN RELATION TO WATER
SUPPLIES: AN OVERVIEW III-G-3
2.2.1. WATER SUPPLIES III-G-3
2.2.2. WATER USE ESTIMATES III-G-5
2.2.3. COMPARISON BETWEEN CONSUMPTIVE LOSSES
AND AVAILABLE SURFACE-WATER SUPPLIES . III-G-12
2.2.4. POTENTIAL ROLE OF IRRIGATION III-G-12
2.3. EFFECTS OF WATER CONSUMPTION ON THE MAJOR
RIVER BASINS . . . . III-G-15
2.3.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-15
2.3.2. CONSUMPTION RATIOS FOR MAJOR RIVERS
IN THE ORBES REGION III-G-16
2.3.3. SELECTED EFFECTS OF CONSUMPTION
BY STATE III-G-16
2.3.3.1. ILLINOIS ..... III-G-16
2.3.3.2. INDIANA III-G-23
2.3.3.3. KENTUCKY III-G-23
2.3.3.4. OHIO III-G-23
2.4. POLICY TRADE-OFFS AND RESEARCH NEEDS III-G-23
2.4.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-23
2.4.2. AUGMENTING SUPPLIES: RESERVOIRS . . . III-G-23
2.4.3. REDUCING CONSUMPTION: ENERGY
CONSERVATION, COOLING ALTERNATIVES,
AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES III-G-26
2.5. CONCLUSIONS III-G-27
III-G-iv
-------
3. OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE ORBES REGION .. . . III-G-29
3.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-29
3.2. PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF III-G-29
3.3. INFLOW TO THE ORBES REGION III-G-29
3.4. WATER SOURCES WITHIN THE ORBES REGION III-G-29
3.4.1. STREAMFLOWS III-G-30
3.4.2. GROUNDWATER SOURCES AND POTENTIAL
RESERVOIR SITES III-G-30
3.5. FUTURE WORK III-G-30
4. WATER USE CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS III-G-57
4.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-57
4.2. MUNICIPAL WATER USE III-G-57
4.2.1. PROJECTION METHODOLOGY III-G-57
4.2.2. PER CAPITA USE III-G-59
4.2.3. POPULATION PROJECTIONS III-G-59
4.2.4. CONSUMPTION III-G-60
4.3. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL WATER USE III-G-60
4.3.1. PROJECTION METHODOLOGY III-G-60
4.3.2. CONSUMPTION .... III-G-63
4.4. COMPARISON WITH OTHER WATER-USE INVESTIGATION . III-G-63
4.5. ENERGY-RELATED WATER USE III-G-63
4.5.1. WATER USE FOR ELECTRIC POWER
GENERATION III-G-63
4.5.2. WATER USE FOR COAL GASIFICATION .... III-G-65
4.5.3. TOTAL ENERGY-RELATED WATER WITHDRAWAL
AND CONSUMPTION III-G-65
4.6. WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION III-G-68
4.6.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-68
4.6.2. PROJECTIONS III-G-68
4.6.3. PEAK IRRIGATION RATES III-G-71
4.6.4. CONSUMPTION III-G-71
4.6.5. FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECTIONS III-G-72
4.6.6. IRRIGATION IN NEIGHBORING BASINS . . . III-G-72
III-G-v
-------
4.7. NAVIGATIONAL WATER USE III-G-73
4.8. SUMMARY III-G-74
5. METHODOLOGY FOR EXAMINING SURFACE-WATER USE ALONG
MAJOR TRIBUTARIES III-G-79
5.1. INTRODUCTION III-G-79
5.2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS III-G-79
5.2.1. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USES . III-G-79
5.2.2. POWER WATER USES III-G-79
5.2.3. WATER CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO THE
7-DAY 10-YEAR LOW FLOWS III-G-80
5.3. IMPACT OF WATER LOSSES FROM MAJOR
TRIBUTARIES III-G-80
III-G-vi
-------
TABLES
table
III-G-1
III-G-2
III-G-3
III-G-4
III-G-5
III-G-6
III-G-7
III-G-8
III-G-9
III-G-10
III-G-11
III-G-12
IJI-G-13
III-G-14
III-G-15
III-G-16
III-G-17
WATER SUPPLY IN ORBES REGION
WATER USE IN 1970
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
IN 1985
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE BOM 80/20 SCENARIO FOR 2000. .
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE BOM 50/50 SCENARIO FOR 2000. .
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE' FTF 100/0 SCENARIO FOR 2000. .
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE FTF 0/100 SCENARIO FOR 2000. .
INCREMENTAL WATER CONSUMPTION FROM 1970
IN RELATION TO LOW FLOW SUPPLIES ....
WATER CONSUMPTION IN 2000 FOR IRRIGATION
IN COMPARISON TO OTHER WATER USES. . . .
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS - BOM
80/20
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS - BOM
50/50
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS - FTF
100/0
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS - FTF
0/100
PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF IN THE ORBES
REGION
ESTIMATED RUNOFF UNDER 7-DAY 10-YEAR
LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
INFLOW TO THE ORBES REGION UNDER
AVERAGE; AND LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN ILLINOIS. . . .
Page
III-G-4
III-G-6
III-G-7
III-G-8
III-G-9
III-G-10
III-G-11
III-G-13
III-G-14
III-G-17
III-G-18
III-G-19
III-G-20
III-G-31
III-G-32
III-G-33
III-G-35
III-G-vii
-------
TABLES
table page
III-G-18 FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN INDIANA .... HI-G-38
III-G-19 FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN KENTUCKY. . . . III-G-41
III-G-20 FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN OHIO III-G-43
III-G-21 FLOWS OF THE OHIO RIVER AND MINOR
TRIBUTARIES III-G-46
III-G-22 SELECTED RESERVOIRS IN INDIANA ...... III-G-48
III-G-23 SELECTED POTENTIAL RESERVOIRS IN
KENTUCKY . III-G-50
III-G-24 SELECTED POTENTIAL RESERVOIRS IN OHIO. . III-G-52
III-G-25 MUNICIPAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS IN
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY III-G-58
III-G-26 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
PROJECTIONS IN MILLION. GALLONS PER
DAY III-G-61
III-G-27 ESTIMATES OF WATER WITHDRAWAL AND CON-
SUMPTION BY COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS . . III-G-66
III-G-28 WATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION FOR
ENERGY-RELATED USES IN CUBIC FT PER
SECOND III-G-67
III-G-29 PROJECTIONS OF IRRIGATION IN THE ORBES
REGION III-G-69
III-G-viii
-------
FIGURES
figure
III-G-1 CONSUMPTION ALONG THE OHIO RIVER FOR THE
BOM SCENARIOS III-G-21
III-G-2 CONSUMPTION ALONG THE OHIO RIVER FOR THE
FTF SCENARIOS III-G-22
III-G-3 POLICY TRADE-OFFS RELATED TO WATER CON-
SUMPTION II1-6-25
III-G-4 STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN ILLINOIS III-G-37
III-G-5 STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN INDIANA III-G-40
III-G-6 STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN KENTUCKY III-G-42
III-G-7 STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN OHIO III-G-45
III-G-8 WATER DATA FOR ILLINOIS III-G-47
III-G-9 SELECTED RESERVOIR SITES IN INDIANA III-G-49
III-G-10 SELECTED RESERVOIR SITES IN KENTUCKY .... III-G-51
III-G-11 SELECTED RESERVOIR SITES IN OHIO III-G-53
III-G-ix
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this report are to describe the first stage
of an ongoing analysis of water allocation issues related to energy
development in the Ohio River Basin. The water resources of the Ohio
River Basin Energy Study (ORBES) region are described in Chapter 3;
average and low-flow conditions are considered. Projected water uses
are given in Chapter 4; municipal, industrial, irrigation, navigation,
and power-related uses are considered so that an overall balance be-
tween sources and supplies could be determined. Particular emphasis
has been given to consumptive water losses since they are not available
for other off-stream users or for maintaining water quality.
Municipal and self-supplied industrial uses were projected on a
county basis for all states included in the ORBES region. Energy
related uses were estimated by assuming that wet cooling towers would
be utilized by plants specified by the four different ORBES scenarios.
(Different cooling technologies will be examined in further studies.)
Two of the energy scenarios are based on projections by the
Bureau of Mines (BOM). The BOM 80/20 and BOM 50/50 scenarios assume
different ratios of coal-fired plants and nuclear plants for generating
electricity; for example, the BOM 80/20 scenario assumes that 80% of the
plants are coal-fired and 20% are nuclear. The other two scenarios,
based on a Ford Foundation study, are referred to as the Ford Technical
Fix (FTF 100/0 and FTF 0/100) scenarios. The FTF scenarios project
much lower energy development than do the BOM scenarios.
The available water supplies and total projected water uses are
compared in Chapter 2. Comparisons are made on a state basis and for
the major river basins. For rivers, the ratio of cumulative consumption
to the 7-day 10-year low flow was calculated for the different reaches;
profiles are shown that give the ratios along the Ohio River. The
methodology used to analyze the river basins is described in Chapter 5.
Since excessive levels of consumptive use were estimated under the BOM
scenarios, policy issues related to increasing water supplies and/or
decreasing water consumption are also discussed in Chapter 2.
Many assumptions have been made in developing the water use
estimates presented in this report. Many of the estimates can be
readily modified to reflect different assumptions; for example, the
aggregate water use levels could be changed (using a multiplicative
factor) to correspond to a different consumptive use requirement for
a power plant.
III-G-1
-------
2. POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO WATER ALLOCATION AND USE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Expected growth of population, industry, and energy de-
mands will lead to increased demands on the finite water resources.
This interrelationship is discussed in three main sections of this
chapter. The first provides an overview of the magnitudes of water
supplies and of present and projected water uses under the different
ORBES scenarios. State totals are used which apply to the portions
of the states within the ORBES region. The methods and data used
are described in Chapters 3 and 4.
The second section provides a more detailed analysis of the
effects of the consumptive water use on the major rivers; the method-
ology is described in Chapter 5. The approach is to express the cum-
ulative consumption along a river as a percent of the 7-day 10-year
low flow.
The third section provides a brief discussion of additional
trade-offs and issues related to water allocation and energy develop-
ment; research needs are also identified. In general, the interrelated
nature of the water and energy systems is emphasized.
2.2. WATER USE PROJECTIONS IN RELATION TO WATER SUPPLIES: AN OVERVIEW
2.2.1 WATER SUPPLIES
Water supplies in the ORBES region are relatively abundant
as indicated by the estimates of average rainfall, runoff, and inflow
in Table III-G-1. During drought conditions, of course, supplies are
much lower, as indicated by the low-flow estimates in the table.
Runoff refers to the portion of actual stream flows originating within
the region; the portion from outside the region is listed as inflow.
Inflow is counted only where it enters the ORBES region; as an example,
the inflow to Indiana is listed as zero since the actual streamflows
into that state are listed as runoff or inflows to other states. Note
that inflows to the region account for about 67% of the total average
flow and for over 90% of the total low flow.
The reader is referred to Chapter 3 for a more detailed dis-
cussion of the water supplies.
III-F.-3
-------
Table III-G-1
WATER SUPPLY IN THE ORBES REGION1
Water Supply
Average Conditions
Rainfall2
Runoff2
Inflow3
Total4
Low- Flow Conditions
Runoff2
Inflow3
Total4
Illinois
140,000
34,0002
160,000
200,000
1,500
43,000
45,000
Indiana
95,000
28,000
O3
28,000
1,700
O3
1,700
Kentucky
140,000
50,000
80,000
130,000
1,400
31 ,000
32,000
Ohio
98,000
30,000
50,000
79,000
1,800
4,500
6,300
Total
471 ,000
140,000
290,000
440,000
6,400
78,000
85,000
2Data in cubic feet per second (cfs).
3Based on data from Ref. (1).
Only inflow from outside the ORBES region is given here. Thus, the
inflow to Indiana is listed as zero; the Ohio River, for example, is
accounted for as a combination of runoff from the different states
.and inflow to Ohio.
Total equals inflow plus runoff. Totals do not necessarily equal sums
of column entries because of rounding,
III-G-4
-------
2.2.2 WATER USE ESTIMATES
Estimates of the major water uses in 1970 are listed in
Table III-G-2. Both withdrawal and "consumption" estimates are pro-
vided. The consumption estimates are of primary concern in this
discussion; such water losses are not returned to the streams and
are not directly available for other off-stream uses or for main-
taining water quality.
Table III-G-3 provides projections of total water use in
1985. One major assumption is that all power plants use cooling
towers—even existing plants which must be retrofitted. The estimates
presented could easily be modified to reflect different cooling
technologies.
One major trend is apparent from examining Tables III-G-2
and III-G-3; the water consumption estimates increase sharply, from
1000 cfs to 3000 cfs for the region as a whole. The major reason is
the assumption that cooling towers would be employed by all plants.
(Note that this trend is actually understated since the power-related
estimates for 1970 include the parts of the states not in the ORBES
region). A related trend is that the water withdrawal estimates
decrease because of the assumption that cooling towers replace once-
through cooling.
Another trend is that the relative proportions of consumptive
use change. For the 1970 estimates, municipalities and industries
accounted for approximately 90% of the total consumption, but for the
1985 estimates they account for only 37% with power-related consumption
accounting for the remaining 63%. Irrigation, discussed in a following
section, is not considered here.
The trends described above also hold in examining water use
estimates for the four ORBES scenarios for 2000 (see Tables III-G-4,
III-G-5, III-G-6 and III-G-7). Under the BOM scenarios, power-related
water consumption could be as much as 75% of the total projected con-
sumption.
The two BOM scenarios project significantly higher energy
demands and lead to much higher estimates of water use than do the FTP
scenarios. The difference between the BOM 80/20 and BOM 50/50 scenarios
is relatively small; the total water consumption estimate for the BOM
50/50 scenario is approximately seven percent greater because of the
larger cooling requirement of nuclear plants. The estimate for the FTF
0/100 scenario is only three percent greater than for the FTF 100/0
scenario.
III-G-5
-------
Table III-G-2
WATER USE IN 197CT
Water Withdrawal
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Illinois
430
1,500
18,000
Indiana
720
400
6,500
Kentucky
480
450
5,900
Ohio
1,400
3,300
21 ,000
Total
3,000
5,600
51 ,000
Total
19,000
7,600
6,900
26,000 60,000
Water Consumption8
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
86
87
7.7
180
140
24
7.7
180
96
27
33
160
270
200
22
490
600
330
70.4
1,000
Data are in cfs. Municipal and industrial estimates are for the areas of
each state within the ORBES region. Power estimates are for the entire
gState.
jSee Chapter 4.
gFrom Reference (1).
Estimated at 20% of withdrawals for municipalities and at 6% for industries.
III-G-6
-------
Table III-G-3
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
IN 19859
Water Withdrawal
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
Water C_ojT_s_umpjt^p_n_
Municipal
Industrial
Power
111 inois
470
2,500
720
3,700
95
150
480
Indiana
790
730
560
2,100
160
44
370
Kentuck
560
770
510
1,800
no
46
340
Ohio
Total
1,500 3,400
3,700 7,700
1,000 2,800
6,300 14,000
310
220
670
670
460
1,900
Total
720
570
500
1,200 3,000
Data in cfs. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the method used to
calculate these estimates.
III-G-7
-------
Table III-G-4
VTER USE IN THE
UNDER THE BOM 80/20 SCENARIO FOR 2,000'
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
JO
Water Withdrawal
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
Water Consumption
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
.Illinois
540
3,800
1,600
5,900
110
230
1,000
\i
1,400
Indiana
910
1,200
1,500
3,600
180
71
1,000
1,200
Kentucky
660
1,200
1,400
3,000
130
71
930
1,100
Ohio
1,700
6,000
2,600
10,000
340
360
1,700
2,400
Total
3,800
12,000
7,000
23,000
760
730
4,700
6,200
Data in cfs. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the method used to
calculate these estimates.
III-G-8
-------
Table III-G-5
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE BOM 50/50 SCENARIO FOR 200011
Illinois Indiana Kentucky Ohio Total
Water Withdrawal
Power 1,700 1,600 1,500 2,800 7,600
Total of Municipal,
Industrial, and
Power Withdrawals 6,000 3,700 3,400 10,000 24,000
Wajter Consumption
Power 1,100 1,100 1,000 1,900 5,100
Total of Municipal,
Industrial, and
Power Consumption 1,500 1,300 1,200 2,600 6,600
Data in cfs. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the method used to
calculate these estimates.
III-G-9
-------
Table III-G-6
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE FTP 100/0 SCENARIO FOR 200012
Illinois Indiana Kentucky Ohio Total
Water Withdrawal
Power
750
620
580 1,200
3,200
Total of Municipal,
Industrial, and
Power Withdrawals 5,100 2,700 2,400 8,900 19,000
Water Consumption
Power
500
420
390
810 2,100
Total of Municipal,
Industrial, and
Power Consumption 840
670
590 1,500
3,600
12
Data in cfs. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the method used to
calculate these estimates.
III-G-10
-------
Table III-G-7
PROJECTED WATER USE IN THE ORBES REGION
UNDER THE FTP 0/100 SCENARIO FOR 200013
Illinois Indiana Kentucky Ohio Total
Water Withdrawal
Power
760
660
620 1,300
3,400
Total of Municipal,
Industrial, and
Power Withdrawals 5,100 2,800 2,500 9,000 19,000
Water Consumption
Power
500
440
410
880
2,200
Total of Municipal,
Industrial, and
Power Consumption 840
690
610 1,600
3,700
13
Data in cfs. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the method used to
calculate these estimates.
III-G-11
-------
2.2.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN CONSUMPTIVE LOSSES AND AVAILABLE SURFACE-
WATER SUPPLIES
A comparison between consumptive water estimates and avail-
able surface-water supplies during low-flow conditions is given in
Table III-G-8. Under each state the incremental consumption from 1970
is given for 1985 and for the two extreme scenarios (BOM 50/50 and FTP
100/0). This consumption is also expressed as a percent of the total
runoff and as a percent of the total flow (runoff plus inflows to the
ORBES region). Under the BOM scenario, the average percent of total
flow is estimated at seven percent for the ORBES region; the large
variations from state to state result in large part from the fact that
inflows were counted only where they enter the ORBES region.
When the total consumption estimates for the BOM scenario are
compared to the estimated low-flow runoff from within the region, how-
ever, the percents are much larger. The percent for the ORBES region
is 87%; the maximum percent is 115% and occurs for Ohio. These amounts
highlight the degree to which the states could depend on inflows from
outside their boundaries. The estimates for Illinois, for example,
indicate that the incremental consumption is only three percent of the
total flow but that it is 87 percent of the runoff from within the
state. The large difference results from the very large flow in the
Mississippi River. Future development in adjacent regions, however,
could lead to competition for that resource. In particular, there is
a large potential for irrigation in the Missouri Basin which drains into
the Mississippi River. Similar conditions hold for the other states.
Note that the dependence on inflow is much less under the FTF scenario.
2.2.4 POTENTIAL ROLE OF IRRIGATION
Irrigation has not been considered in the above discussion of
water consumption because of the many questions surrounding its develop-
ment in the region. Presently there is very little irrigation in the
ORBES region. Recently, however, supplemental irrigation during drought
periods has received increasing attention.
Water consumption estimates for irrigation in the year 2000
are presented in Tabel III-G-9; low, moderate, and high levels of irri-
gation are assumed. The low estimate is based on data for irrigated
acreage in recent periods and assumes no additional development. The
moderate and high estimates correspond to significant expansion of
irrigated acreage. (Projections and factors affecting irrigation devel-
opment are discussed in Section 4.6.)
III-G-12
-------
Table III-G-8
INCREMENTAL WATER CONSUMPTION FROM 1970 IN RELATION
TO LOW-FLOW SUPPLIES
Scenario
State 1985 BOM 50/50 FTF 100/0
ILLINOIS
Incremental consumption (cfs) 544 1276 657
(As % of runoff) 37 87 45
(As % of total flow) 1 3 1
INDIANA
Incremental consumption (cfs) 393 1141 489
(As % of runoff) 23 67 29
(As % of total flow) 23 67 29
KENTUCKY
Incremental consumption (cfs) 341 1083 431
(As % of runoff) 24 75 30
(As % of total flow) 1 3 4
OHIO
Incremental consumption (cfs) 715 2077 1018
(As % of runoff) 39 115 56
(As % of total flow) 11 33 16
TOTAL
Incremental consumption (cfs) 2003 5587 2605
(As % of runoff) 31 87 40
(As % of total flow) 273
III-G-13
-------
Table III-G-9
WATER CONSUMPTION IN 2000 FOR IRRIGATION
IN COMPARISON TO OTKER WATER USES14
Irrigation Consumption (cfs)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total
Low
170
(33)
110
(20)
110
(20)
110
(20)
500
(93)
Moderate
530
(100)
530
(100)
210
(40)
800
(150)
2,100
(390)
High
1,100
(200)
1,100
(200)
320
(60)
1,300
(250)
3,800
(710)
Scenario Consumption (cfs)
BOM 50/50 15
1,500
(0)
1,300
(0)
1,200
(0)
2,600
(0)
6,600
(0)
FTP 100/0 15
840
(0)
670
(0)
590
(0)
1,500
(0)
3,600
(0)
14
15
Irrigated acreages, in thousands of acres, are given in parentheses.
Estimates are for municipal, industrial and power uses.
III-G-14
-------
The consumption rate is assumed to be 59% of withdrawals;
this rate is the national average and is well below the high levels
experienced in the region at present. An application rate of 1.5 inches
per week is assumed to occur simultaneously in all areas in calculating
totals. This unlikely condition corresponds to a severe and widespread
drought.
The estimates in Table III-G-9 indicate that irrigation devel-
opment could entail significant levels of water consumption, relative
to the total consumption estimates for municipal, industrial, and power-
related uses under the two extreme ORBES scenarios. Irrigation demands
would be met from some combination of groundwater and surface water
sources. Depending on the extent to which surface water is used, the
impact (in conjunction with that of the other uses) on the 7-day 10-year
low flows could be significant. Extensive groundwater utilization
should be studied carefully because of the interrelationship with sur-
face water and because safe-yield estimates are not known in many areas.
2.3. EFFECTS OF WATER CONSUMPTION ON THE MAJOR RIVER BASINS
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
The local effects of increasing levels of consumption have
been examined through an analysis of surface water supplies and incre-
mental surface water use levels. Incremental use levels were examined
because of the assumption (made by this investigation) that 7-day 10-year
low flows take into account present levels of water use. Wet cooling
towers have been assumed for all new plants. Retrofitting of existing
plants was not considered in the analysis described in this section.
Surface water usage was considered for the following reasons:
1) ground water records are poor for most of the region,
2) power facilities use surface water almost exclusively, and
3) power generation has been projected to be the major consumer
of water in coming years.
Irrigation was riot considered in this analysis because the
projections of water use and acreage are highly variable. Extensive
irrigation, however, would compound the problems noted below.
In this analysis it is also assumed that the present fraction
of demand met by surface supplies would continue thrpugh 2000. Further
assumptions and the methodology are discussed in Chapter 5. The
consumption estimates presented here do not account for increases in
consumption in adjacent areas (e.g., upper Ohio River Basin). Thus,
they should be viewed as incremental consumption from uses in the ORBES
region. Where excessive levels of consumption are indicated, the
implication is that some.combination of storage, increased groundwater
utilization, and reduqed water consumption is necessary.
III-G-15
-------
2-3.2. CONSUMPTION RATIOS FOR THE MAJOR RIVERS IN THE ORBES REGION
Tables III-G-10, III-G-11, III-G-12, and III-G-13 describe the
ratios of the cumulative consumption to the 7-day 10-year low flow--
hereafter referred to as" the consumption ratio—for different reaches
of the maj'or rivers under each energy development scenario. The im-
pact of consumption on the major rivers is arbitrarily defined as
light, moderate, or heavy if the average consumption ratio is .05 or
below, between .05 and .25, or over .25, respectively. Due to incoming
tributaries and changing use, the ratio changes along the rivers.
Under the BOM scenarios, only three basins are considered to have
relatively light consumption while in the FTP scenarios, eight or
nine basins have light consumption.
Figures III-G-1 and III-G-2 give detailed profiles of the
consumption ratio along the Ohio River Main Stem under the BOM and
FTF scenarios, respectively. For the BOM 50/50 and 80/20 scenarios,
the Ohio River has maximum consumption ratios of .14 and .12 and an
average consumption ratio of .10 and .09, respectively. For the FTF
scenarios with much lower projections of energy use, the Ohio River
consumption ratios are only a few percent.
2.3.3. SELECTED EFFECTS OF CONSUMPTION BY STATE
2.3.3.1. ILLINOIS
Taking into account only plants in the ORBES region in
Illinois, the consumption ratios along the Mississippi River are very
low. The average consumption ratio is less than .03 for the BOM 50/50
scenario, even if all power plants are assumed to be operating simul-
taneously at full capacity.
In contrast, the Kaskaskia and Big Muddy River Basins are
projected to face very high levels of consumption. The Big Muddy River
is estimated to lose a significant amount of its low flow just from
projected municipal and industrial usage and from the scheduled power
plant additions.
The Illinois River Basin is projected to have an average con-
sumption ratio of only 5% in the BOM 80/20 scenario. Under the BOM
50/50 scenario, three nuclear plants have been sited in the upper
reaches of this system—e.g., Iroquois and Livingston Counties—where
low flows are projected to be seriously affected by plant operation.
Although one nuclear plant operating at full capacity consumes approx-
imately 42 cfs, even if all potential reservoirs were built for both
counties, the total 10-year net-yield would still be only 30 cfs (see
Reference 2). Sim.ilarly, for Hamilton County the total 40-year safe
yield would be only 10 cfs with the additional reservoirs (see Refer-
ence 3). Plants sited in this county, however, under the BOM scenarios
would consume 55 cfs and withdrawals would be 83 cfs.
III-G-16
-------
Table III-G-10
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS-BOM 80/20
River Basin
Number
of
Plants
Minimum
Ratio
Average
Maximum Ratio for
Ratio All Reaches
Relative
Impact
Muskingum, Oh. 5
Big Sandy, Ky. 0
Scioto, Ohio. 9
Licking, Ky. 0
Great Miami, Oh. 9
Little Miami, Oh. 3
Kentucky, Ky. 2
Salt, Ky. 0
Green, Ky. 4
Wabash, Ind. 22
Saline, II. 2
Cumberland Ky. 4
Ohio River 13417
23
.12
.02
.45
.18
.41
.06
.03
.--16
.12
.11
.00
.03
.009
35
.19
.02
.45
.18
.96
!.06
.37
.19
.34
.00
.26
.12
29
.16
.02
.86
.18
.60
!.06
.20
.15
.20
.00
.11
.08
Moderate
Light
Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Kaskaskia, 11.
Big Muddy, 11.
Illinois, 11.
Mississippi River
2
1
16
2217
.65
1.10
.02
.007
.65
1.10
.10
.04
.65
1.10
.05
.018
Heavy
Heavy
Light
Light
16Ratios were not calculated since the 7-day 10-year flow is zero.
17A11 power plants in the ORBES Region are taken into account in
calculating the consumption ratios for the Ohio River. Only plants
in the ORBES portion of Illinois were considered for the Mississippi
River.
III-G-17
-------
Table III-G-11
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS-BOM 50/50
Number Average
of Minimum Maximum Ratio for Relative
Plants Ratio Ratio All Reaches Impact
River Basin
Muskingum, Oh. 5 .12 .20
Big Sandy, Ky. 0 .02 .02
Scioto, Oh. 8 .43 1.45
Licking, Ky. 0 .18 .18
Great Miami, Oh. 8 .41 .96
Little Miami, Oh. 00.0
Kentucky, Ky. 2 .03 .37
Salt, Ky. 0 --18 --
Green, Ky. 2 .008 .14
Wabash, Ind. 18 ,01 .23
Saline, II. 2 23.00 35.00
Cumberland, Ky. 5 .02 .26
Ohio River 13519 .006 .14
29
.16
.02
.83
.18
.58
0
.20
— 18
.11
.14
.00
.10
.10
Moderate
Light
Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Kaskaskia, 11.
Big Muddy, 11.
Illinois, 11.
Mississippi River
2
0
15
2419
.65
.33
.02
.007
.65
.33
11.49
.05
.65
.33
1.79
.026
Heavy
Heavy
Heavy20
Light
18Ratios were not calculated since the 7-day 10-year flow is zero.
19A11 power plants in the ORBES Region are taken into account in
calculating the consumption ratios for the Ohio River. Only plants
in the ORBES portion of Illinois were considered for the Mississippi
River.
20Rated light for all but two of the upstream reaches which are rated
heavy.
III-G-18
-------
Table III-G-12
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS-FTP 100/0
Number Average
of Minimum Maximum Ratio for Relative
Plants Ratio Ratio All Reaches Impact
River Basin
Muskingum, Oh. 1 .04 .07 .055 Moderate
Big Sandy, Ky. 0 .02 .02 .02 Light
Scioto, Oh. 2 .13 .64 .33 Heavy
Licking, Ky. 0 .18 .18 .18 Moderate
Great Miami, Oh. 4 .15 .30 .19 Moderate
Little Miami, Oh. 1 .63 .63 .63 Heavy
Kentucky, Ky. 0 .02 .03 .03 Light
Salt, Ky. 0 --21 --21 -21 Heavy
Green, Ky. 0 .008 .008 .008 Light
Wabash, Ind. 3 .01 .13 .07 Moderate
Saline, II. 0 M) ^0 ^0 Light
Cumberland, Ky. 0 .01 .01 .01 Light
Ohio River 2222 .002 .03 .02 Light
Kaskaskia, 11.
Big Muddy, 11.
Illinois, 11.
Mississippi River
0
0
2
222
.06
.33
.01
0
.06
.33
.06
.01
.06
.33
.03
.005
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Light
21Ratios not calculated since the 7-day 10-year flow is zero.
22A11 power plants in the ORBES Region are taken into account in
calculating the consumption ratios for the Ohio River. Only plants
in the ORBES portion of Illinois were considered for the Mississippi
Ri ver
III-G-19
-------
Table III-G-13
RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS-FTP 0/100
Number Average
of Minimum Maximum Ratio for Relative
Plants Ratio Ratio All Reaches Impact
River Basin
Muskingum, Oh. 2 .12 .19 .155 Moderate
Big Sandy, Ky. 0 .02 .02 .02 Light
Scioto, Oh. 0 .04 .30 .14 Moderate
Licking, Ky. 0 .18 .18 .18 Moderate
Great Miami, Oh. 0 .06 .06 .06 Moderate
Little Miami, Oh. 0 0 0 0 Light
Kentucky, Ky. 0 .03 .03 .03 Light
Salt, Ky. 0 -23 «23 -23 Heavy
Green, Ky. 0 .008 .008 .008 Light
Wabash, Ind. 1 .05 .11 .05 Light
Saline, II. 0 ^0 %0 ^0 Light
Cumberland, Ky. 0 .02 .13 .06 Moderate
Ohio River 142tt .004 .04 .03 Light
Kaskaskia, 11.
Big Muddy, 11
Illinois, 11.
Mississippi River
0
0
1
] 24
.06
.33
.01
0
.06
.33
.07
.01
.06
.33
.04
.005
Moderate
Heavy °
Light
Light
23Ratios not calculated since the 7-day 10-year flow is zero.
2l*All power plants in the ORBES Region are taken into account in
calcuating the consumption ratios for the Ohio River. Only plants
in the ORBES portion of Illinois were considered for the Mississippi
River.
III-G-20
-------
c
o
Q.
3 O
(/> T-
O (O
O C£
.30
.20
.10
BOM 80/20
1 11 11 1 f 1 IT 1
DO 00
-•• o
in -••
o
CO <-h
Q> O
3
CL
I
ro
_i. _j. -s n>
O rh (0 3
?r ct 01 c-t-
->• —> c+ C.
3 fl> O
. o>
3
O.
CO
Q)
CD
n>
n>
3
co o
O) C
cr
n>
3
n>
Qo O>
3
E: Q.
OJ
cr
c
o
-M
Q.
3 O
in •!-
O (O
.30
.20
.10
I II II
o
3"
o
I
in
in
3
O
O
3
I II I
BOM 50/50
Figure III-G-1
10 15 20 25
Reach Number
CONSUMPTION ALONG THE OHIO RIVER FOR THE BOM SCENARIOS
31
-------
c
o
C -M
O
o<
f»i>
^g
^.
O)
3
— 1.
Q>
13
Q.
-JO-0"
t
^^
n>
3
f+
C
0
<^
•O-0-O-O-O—C
t
GO
0)
r+
^°^}
t
CD
-5
n>
n>
3
t
GO
0>
_i.
3
n>
G°
g-
QJ
^^
a>
3-
t
o
c
3
cr
n>
'
a>
3
Q.
•0-OHi
1
0
3-
«J*
o
i
**;
.j.
w
w
.
r .
C
3
O
rt
FTP 100/0
1 II II I I I I I
. JU
c
o
1. -20
E
3 O
to -i- "If)
Cjj . 1 U
^~*
O (C
o o:
-
FTP 0/100
10
15
20
25
31
Reach Number
Figure III-G-2. CONSUMPTION ALONG THE OHIO RIVER FOR THE FTF SCENARIOS
-------
2.3.3.2. INDIANA
Indiana has an extensive system of rivers in the Wabash Basin.
A number of plants are located along this system as well as along the
Ohio River in the ORBES scenarios. In general, the maximum consumption
ratio in the Wabash River Basin is about .30 for the BOM scenarios and
about .08 for the FTP scenarios. The highest figures in the basin are
encountered when plants are sited on the upper reaches of the East and
West Fork of the White River.
2.3.3.3. KENTUCKY
In Kentucky, most plants sited by the ORBES scenarios are
close to the Ohio River Main Stem. No plants have been located on the
interior rivers in the FTF scenarios. For the BOM scenarios, plants
are located on the Kentucky, Green and Cumberland Rivers, and these
rivers have average consumption ratios ranging from .10 to .20. Although
no plants were sited in the Salt and Licking Basins, these basins are
projected to have consumption ratios above .10 because of municipal and
industrial water usage alone.
2.3.3.4. OHIO
Ohio is projected to have the largest power-related water use
of all the states in the ORBES region. Plants are heavily distributed
along the Ohio, Great Miami, Scioto, and Muskingum Rivers in the BOM
scenarios. The minimum ratio in the BOM scenario for all of these
basins except the Ohio is above .10. Plant sitings on the Little Miami
in the BOM 80/20 and FTF 100/0 scenarios are also projected to have
considerable impacts. Local problems may also exist for the Scioto
River Basin under the FTF scenarios. In general, however, the FTF
scenarios have less impact on low flows in Ohio's rivers than do the
BOM projections.
2.4. POLICY TRADE-OFFS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
2.4.1. INTRODUCTION
The preceding sections describe the relative magnitudes of
water supplies and projected water uses. Estimates of water consumption
for the ORBES scenarios represent high percentages of the low flows in
many of the major river basins, and the cumulative consumption represents
a significant percentage of the low flow in the Ohio River under the BOM
scenarios. The preceding section also describes the importance of the
large inflows to the ORBES region and notes the potential for competition
from adjacent regions.
111-6-23
-------
The situation described above for the BOM scenarios is repre-
sented by the top corner point on the triangle in Figure III-G-3. It
is a rather extreme position in the infinity of futures since the esti-
mated level of'water consumption is so high. Excessive water consumption
can exacerbate existing water qua!ity problems and can cause new ones.
Where problems occur, extreme and costly measures could be undertaken
during low-flow periods to control both non-point and point sources of
pollution. Excessive consumption can also preempt other water use
activities. For example, supplemental irrigation could be restricted
in the future in some areas where it would cause additional decreases
in nearby stream flows.
Directions of change are indicated by the other two corners of
the triangle. Available water supplies can be increased by constructing
reservoirs or by greatly increasing groundwater use. Or, the level of
water consumption can be reduced, although this change would almost
certainly have to be in the dominant power sector. (If large-scale
irrigation is developed, conservation can be effected there, also.)
Policy alternatives and some of the trade-offs between them are discussed
below. The triangle does not imply that there are only three alterna-
tive policies for the future; an overall strategy based on some mixture
of them is most likely the best.
2.4.2. AUGMENTING SUPPLIES: RESERVOIRS AND GROUNDWATER UTILIZATION
Increasing available supplies is fraught with unknowns and
potential impacts. Reservoirs run counter to the current trend in
water resources planning in the ORBES region because of their many
potential environmental, social, and economic impacts. Such projects
can, however, serve multiple purposes (e.g., recreation and municipal
supply) and could be used as cooling lakes for power plants. (Also,
preliminary calculations have indicated that water losses would
be less than for cooling towers.) Reservoir sites in the region have
been identified, but safe yields from them have not yet been estimated
(except for Illinois).
In Section 2.3 and in Chapter 5, groundwater utilization for
municipal and industrial uses is assumed to grow in proportion to surface
water use. The ORBES region apparently contains areas with abundant
groundwater sources; their safe yields, however, are not generally
known (except for some areas of Illinois). A policy of greatly increased
use should be preceded by a program of groundwater mapping and analysis
to prevent "mining" (i.e., depletion). The interrelationship between a
given groundwater source and the nearby streamflows sjiould also be
analyzed. In many parts of the ORBES region, high-yield sources are
along the major rivers, and extensive development of them might cause
a major decrease in the flows of the corresponding rivers during low-flow periods
Note that these groundwater related issues will become especially impor-
tant if large-scale irrigation materializes since that source is
commonly used.
111-6-24'
-------
HIGH LEVEL OF
WATER CONSUMPTION
water quality impacts
other environmental impacts
limits on new uses
interregional competition
WATER STORAGE AND/OR
EXPANSION OF GROUND
WATER UTILIZATION
environmental, social
economic impacts
potential "mining" of
ground water
and
LOWER LEVEL OF WATER
CONSUMPTION
cooling alternatives
environmental, social and
economic impacts
institutional alternatives
Figure III-G-3. POLICY TRADE-OFFS RELATED TO WATER CONSUMPTION
111-6-25
-------
2.4.3. REDUCING CONSUMPTION: ENERGY CONSERVATION, COOLING
ALTERNATIVES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES
Rather than storing water or greatly increasing groundwater
utilization, the level of water consumption can be decreased. Signi-
ficant decreases must be in the power sector since even stringent
conservation in the municipal and industrial sectors would not signi-
ficantly alter the relationship between water supply and use on a
regional basis. On a local basis, of course, water conservation can
be effective in all sectors. Water consumption in the power sector
can be reduced by energy conservation and/or by alternative cooling
technologies.
Employing energy conservation can take different forms.
Power-plant capacities can be limited—either individually or in total.
Or, during periods of low streamflow, reduced electricity use or even
"brown-outs" could be employed to minimize streamflow depletion by
power-plant cooling systems; lower power plant efficiencies could also
be accepted during those periods to reduce consumptive losses. Insti-
tutional arrangements would be needed, of course, to implement such a
program. This approach could even be carried farther. For example,
if large-scale supplemental irrigation systems are developed, power
use could also be curtailed during critical periods when the water is
needed for crops.
Water consumption by power plants could also be reduced by
utilizing cooling systems other than cooling towers (assumed in the
calculations in this report). As discussed in Chapter 4, the other
technologies (cooling lakes, once-through, and dry towers) produce
less consumptive loss than cooling towers. Also, small reservoirs
could be used in conjunction with cooling towers; total losses would
increase, but stored water could be used during low-flow periods.
As an extreme case, water consumption could be minimized by
locating all power plants on the largest rivers (e.g., Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers) and by employing once-through cooling. As trade-
offs in this extreme case, however, thermal pollution in the region's
waterways and the SOg air pollution in the Ohio River Valley would also
tend to be maximized. Additional research is needed, however, to ex-
plore the trade-off between consumptive losses and thermal pollution
for all of the cooling technologies.
There are other technological approaches to optimizing water
use since the level of use is variable. New cool ing-towers can be
designed to reduce the levels of consumption although there are gene-
rally cost penalties. Also, variable cooling technologies and plant-
operating procedures can be used to minimize water consumption or
111-6-26
-------
thermal pollution during critical periods (at the expense of decreased
plant efficiency, most likely). Wet-dry towers are one example. Other
approaches to optimizing water and energy use include multiple-
purpose reservoirs, or cooling lakes, as mentioned above where recre-
ation and aquaculture are possible uses (4).
Another approach is to use cooling water discharges for dis-
trict heating (5). Water reuse by municipalities and industries is a
part of many water and energy optimization approaches. Reuse itself,
however, tends to have little effect on total consumption. Reuse of
thermal effluents of power plants could reduce heat loadings
on the receiving waters since heat losses would occur during multiple
uses (e.g., district heating, or warming agricultural soil to extend
growing seasons).
There are also alternate institutional approaches to optimi-
zing water use. For example, in addition to existing allocation methods,
user fees could be applied to consumptive losses, or consumption "rights"
could be auctioned. In general, the different approaches to managing
environmental externalities could be applied to manage water consumption.
2.5. CONCLUSIONS
The water resources and energy systems are highly interrelated;
there are significant trade-offs in many directions, leading to many
far-reaching policy issues. It has been demonstrated that the consump-
tion losses under the BOM scenarios could have a major impact on the
available streamflows under the assumption that cooling towers are
employed exclusively. The severity of this impact is much less for
the FTP scenarios.
For the BOM scenario, the estimates of consumptive losses are
extremely high for many of the tributaries of the Ohio River. For the
main stem of the Ohio River, the highest ratio of cumulative consumption
to 7-day 10-year low flow is .14. That ratio is quite significant,
especially since future increases in consumption upstream of the ORBES
region are not taken into account. Growth in water use after the
year 2000, of course, would add to these problems. Also, extensive
development of supplemental irrigation could increase the impact.
Inflows of the ORBES region are critical to maintaining adequate
streamflows for water quality maintenance. Future development in nearby
regions (e.g., for irrigation) could lead to increased competition for
these water resources and to interregional political conflicts.
It is also clear that under the BOM scenario, at least, new
water allocation mechanisms would be needed—to contend with drought
conditions—on an interregional basis, within the ORBES region, and
within the states of the region. Such mechanisms require new legisla-
tion and new institutional arrangements. Groundwater allocation mecha-
nisms will be especially urgent if that resource is developed extensively
beyond current practice.
IH-G-27
-------
REFERENCES
1. C. Richard Murray and E. Bodette Reeves. Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1970. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 676. Washington, D.C., 1972.
2. Julius H. Dawes and Michael L. Terstriep. Potential Surface
Water Reservoirs of North-Central Illinois. Illinois State
Water Survey Report of Investigation 56, Urbana, 1966.
3. William C. Ackermann. Potential Water Resources of Southern
Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Report of Investigation
31, Urbana, 1962.
4. J. Karl check, J. Powell, E. Beardsworth. "Prospects for
District Heating in the United States." Science. Vol. 195
(March 1977): 948-955.
5. Charles C. Coutant. "How To Put Waste Heat To Work." Environ-
mental Science and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 9, (1976): 868-871.
III-G-28
-------
3. OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES
IN THE ORBES REGION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The analysis of water supplies and use levels, discussed in
Chapter 2 for the ORBES region, is based on supply estimates presented
below and described in more detail in a project memorandum (1). Water
supplies are viewed here as the sum of river inflows to the region and
sources originating within the region. The inflow distinction is made
because it leads to an analysis (in Chapter 2) of the potential dependence
(by the ORBES region) on water resources that originate outside the region.
Sources originating within the region are classified as streamflow
runoff, groundwater, and potential reservoirs. Estimate of 7-day, 10-year
low-flows in the major rivers are presented along with average flow data
because they are commonly used in planning to represent critical periods
for water quality analyses.
3.2 PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF
Average precipitation and runoff in the ORBES region is described
in Table III-G-14. The average water supplies, listed in Chapter 2, are
based on the estimates of average runoff and on the areas shown.
Runoff during low-flow conditions is defined in this study as the
flow of water from the region at the boundaries. The estimates (given in
Table III-G-15) were made by simply summing the 7-day, 10-year discharges
of the major rivers (and subtracting any inflows to the region through
these rivers). The discharges of these rivers are given in a following
section of this chapter. Although the low-flows do not occur simultaneously,
this method was used as a conservative first approximation. Note also that
some runoff is actually available for use within the region but evaporates
before reaching a boundary.
3.3 INFLOW TO THE ORBES REGION
The major streams flowing into the ORBES region are listed in
Table III-G-16; average and 7-day, 10-year low-flows are given. As an
example, the Mississippi River flow at the north-west corner of the region
is an inflow since it originates outside the region. South of that point,
the runoff to the Mississippi River from outside the region is estimated by
the discharges of the major rivers (e.g., the Iowa River). As in the case
of streamflows within the region, the 7-day, 10-year low-flows were simply
summed—providing a first approximation.
3.4 WATER SOURCES WITHIN THE ORBES REGION
Streamflows, groundwater sources, and potential reservoir sites in
the ORBES are described below. These individual water sources are considered
in the analysis of the local impacts of each ORBES scenario.
III-G-29
-------
3.4.1. STREAMFLOWS
Average and 7-day, 10-year low-flows of the major rivers within
the ORBES region are listed in Tables III-G-17, III-G-18, III-G-19,
and III-G-20(one for each state). Figures 111-6-4 , 111-6-5 , III-G-6 ,
and III-G-7 , show the locations of the gauging stations listed in the
tables (with a few exceptions).
The Ohio River is highly regulated, and its flow characteristics
must be estimated. Table III-G-21presents two sets of estimates of the
7-day, 10-year low-flow. The second set, prepared by the Corps of Engineers
and used by the Ohio River Basin Commission, were used in the^calculations'
in Chapter 2. Flow data for some of the minor tributaries of the Ohio
River are also given in Table III-G-21.
The reader is directed to References (5, 9, 11, and 12) for
additional streamflow data for the region.
3.4.2. GROUNDWATER SOURCES AND POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITES
The major groundwater sources and potential reservoir sites in
Illinois are described in Figure III-G-8 , a map supplied by the Illinois
State Water Survey (ISWS). In particular, the water yields from these
sources were estimated and are indicated on the map. Additional data
describing these sources has also been published by the ISWS [Ref (13)].
Groundwater information for Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio was
obtained from References (7, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) and is described in a
project memorandum (1). In general, the groundwater in areas adjacent to
the major rivers (shown in Figures III-G- 5, III-G- 6, and III-G-7 above)
can support wells yielding 500 gallons per minute (1.1 cfs). Of course,
these sources and the river flows are highly interdependent. Safe yields
from the aquifers in these states are not known, and a major research need
is to develop such a data base.
Potential reservoir sites for Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio are
described in Tables III-G-22, 111-6-23. and III-G-24, respectively. The
approximate locations are shown in Figures III-G-9, III-G-10, and III-G-11 ,
respectively. Safe yield estimates are not available; another research need
is to develop such estimates to complete the inventory of water sources in
the region.
3.5 FUTURE WORK
The information presented in this chapter represents a first-cut
effort. It is anticipated that after additional review by state and federal
agencies the material will be augmented and revised. Additional research
needs are'discussed in Chapter 2.
III-G-30
-------
Table III-G-14
PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF IN THE ORBES REGION1
State Acreage in ORBES Region
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
29,831,680
20,515,360
25,376,000
21,343,360
Average Annual
Rainfall (in.)
40
40
48
40
Average Annual
Runoff (in.)
102
12
17
12
1
From Ref. (2), unless otherwise indicated.
Trom Ref. (3).
III-G-31 •
-------
Table 111-6-1.5
ESTIMATED RUNOFF UNDER 7-DAY 10-YEAR LOW-FLOW CONDITIONS
State Total Runoff (cfs) Rivers Included
Illinois 1500 Illinois, Kaskaskia,
Big Muddy, Embarass
Little Wabash, Saline
Indiana 1700 White, Wabash
Kentucky 1400 Licking, Kentucky.
Green, Big Sandy,3
Cumberland^
Ohio5 1800 Little Miami, Great
Miami, Scioto,
Muskingum, Mill Creek
3
It was estimated that only 65% of the Big Sandy River basin lies inside
the ORBES region, and 65% of the discharge was assumed to be runoff.
Runoff from the ORBES area was estimated as follows: (low-flow at Smith-
land, Ky.) - (low-flow at Dover, Tenn.) + (low-flow at Rowena, Ky.)«
The Beaver River basin was evaluated in the same manner as the Big Sandy
River basin (see footnote 3).
III-G-32
-------
Table III-G-16
INFLOW TO THE ORBES REGION UNDER AVERAGE AND LOW-FLOW CONDITIONS
River
Flows (cfs)
Inflow to Illinois:^
Mississippi
Wapsipinicon
Iowa
Skunk
Des Moines
Fox
Wyaconda
N. Fabius
Middle Fabius
S. Fabius
North
Missouri
Salt
Meramac
Rock
Green
Illinois
Subtotal
Inflow to Kentucky: 7
Tennessee
Cumberland
Subtotal
Inflow to Ohio:8
Ohio
Big Sandy
Guyandotte
Kanawha
L. Kanawha
Beaver
Subtotal
TOTAL INFLOW
^ From Ref. i/\\
Average
46910
1344
6253
2233
5254
219
209
249
211
348
207
79650
1511
2964
5237
528
10710
164037
67320
13090
80410
32740
1480
1573
10367
2100
1419
49679
294126
7-day 10-yr
13970
90
540
19
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
24500
0
285
1306
49
2196
43079
27900
3010
30910
3100
21
20
1200
4
139
4484
78473
7The average inflow of the Tennessee River is based on the average flow
at Paducah (5). The 7-day 10-year low flow of the Tennessee River is
III-G-33
-------
Table III-G-16
INFLOW TO THE ORBES REGION UNDER AVERAGE AND LOW-FLOW CONDITIONS
(footnotes, continued)
calculated from the 7-day 10-year low flow of the Ohio River at
Metropolis and Golconda (1) and from the flow of the Cumberland
River at Smithland, Kentucky (2). Cumberland River inflow estimated
by subtracting the flow at Dover, Tennessee, from the flow at Celina,
Tennessee (2).
o
Since approximately 35% of Big Sandy River Basin lies outside the
region, 35% of the flow is assumed to be inflow. Similarly, approx-
imately 60% of the Beaver River basin lies outside the ORBES region,
and 60% of the flow is assumed to be inflow. That inflow is added
to the Ohio River inflow which is estimated as the flow at Sewickley,
Pennsylvania. All flow estimates are from Ref (2).
III-G-34
-------
Table III-G-17
FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN ILLINOIS
River
Mississippi
Ohio
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
Illinois
Rock
Pecatonica
S. Branch
Kishwaukee
Kishwaukee
Des Plaines
Fox
DuPage
Green
Kankakee
Location 9 Avg.
Clinton, IA (1)
Keokuk, IA (2)
Alton, IL (3)
St. Louis, MO (4)
Chester, IL (5)
Thebes, IL (6)
Golconda (7)
Metropolis (8)
Lockport (9)
Marseilles (10)
Kingston Mines (11 )
Meredosia (12)
Rockton (13)
Oregon (14)
Como (15)
Joslin (16)
Freeport (17)
DeKalb (18)
Belvidere (19)
Perry vi lie (20)
Russel (21)
Des Plaines (22)
Riverside (23)
Algonquin (24)
Dayton (25)
Warrenville (26)
Shorewood (27)
Amboy (28)
Genesco (29)
Momence (30)
Wilmington (31)
Disch.(cfs)10
46,910
61,100
93,130
174,000
174,700
177,600
262,200
5,455
10,710
13,430
19,590
3,702
5,024
5,237
878
273
568
104
210
368
760
1,506
102
217
528
1,820
3,740
7-day, 10-yr
low flow (cfs) ' '
13,970
15,170
21,470
45,970
46,840
47,810
12,610
44,820
1,700
3,240
3,000
3,500
795
1,100
1,097
1,306
181
.10
34.3
62.3
0
4.3
18.4
51
198
13.6
45
4.9
49.2
411
451
III-G-35
-------
Table III-G-17 (cont.)
River
Iroquois
Vermilion
Mackinaw
Spoon
Sangamon
LaMoine
Vermilion
Kaskaskia
Embarass
Little Wabash
Big Muddy
Saline
Location Avg. Disch. (cfs)
Chebanse (32)
Lowell (33)
Pontiac (34)
Congerville (35)
Green Valley (36)
Wyoming (37)
Seville (38)
Monticello (39)
Riverton (40)
S. Fork at Kincaid (41)
Oakford (42)
Colmar (43)
Ripley (44)
S. Fork at Sidney (45)
Danville (46)
Ficklin (47)
Vandal ia (48)
New Athens (49)
Newton (50)
Lawrenceville (51)
Clay City (52)
Carmi (53)
Mt. Vernon (54)
Benton (55)
Murphysboro (56)
Harrisberg (57)
Junction (58)
1,583
722
374
435
967
398
2,929
441
739
927
1,401
3,654
882
2,493
454
1,787
1,21 112
7-day, 10-yr
low flow (cfs)
16.6
7.3
.2
.54
25.2
1.2
19
2.1
37.2
.84
206
.78
9
13.5
33
.70
25.7
93
13.2
35
.47
5.7
1.3
30.6
35.2
1J13
2.4iJ
^Locations of guage stations are indicated by numbers in circles on the
Illinois map in Fig. III-G-4.
lOFrom Ref. (4), unless otherwise indicated.
llFrom Ref. (6), unless otherwise indicated.
12prom Ref. (7).
!3From Ref. (8). „
III-G-36
-------
DAVENPORT-ROCK ISLANDW.CLlNE(l5.
Rock R. r
Statistical Areas tSV'JV
181 COUNTY CODE NUMSR
Figure III-G-4. STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN ILLINOIS
III-G-37
-------
Table III-G-18
FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN INDIANA
River
Wabash
Eel
Tippecanoe
Mississinewa
Salamonie
Wildcat Creek
Big Monon Cr.
Vermilion
Sugar Cr.
Big Raccoon Cr.
White
14
Location
Huntinqton (1)
Peru (2)
Loqansport (3)
Lafayette (4)
Covington (5)
Terre Haute (6)
Vincennes (7)
N. Manchester (8)
Loqansport (3)
Oswego (9)
Ora (10)
Monticello (11)
Delphi (12)
Ridgeville (13)
Eaton (14)
Marion (15)
Peoria (16)
Portland (17)
Warren (18)
Dora (19)
Jerome (20)
Kokomo (21)
Owasco (22)
Lafayette (4)
Francesville (23)
Danville (24)
Catlin (25)
Crawfordsville (26)
Byron (27)
Fincastle (28)
Coxville (29)
Anderson (30)
Noblesville (31)
Indianapolis (32)
Marti nsville (33)
Spencer (34)
Newberry (35)
Petersberq (36)
Avg. Disch (cfs)15
536
2,294
3,205
6,203
6,936
10,200
11,240
347
704
97.8
779
1,451
1,573
125
271
625
671
64.5
356
495
103
203
351
690
135
889
458
624
438
122
367
801
1,056
1,344
2,971
4,490
11,230
7-day, 10-yrln
low flow (cfs)
9
87
190
535
630
900
1,060
31
95
2.6
130
166
188
.9
2
16
20
.9
5.2
20
1.1
8.5
15
43
10
12.8
11.2
4.4
19
30
2
36
61
70
44
210
275
685
III-G-38
-------
Table III-G-18 (cont.)
River
Fall Cr.
Eagle Cr.
Eel
E. Fork White
Muscatatack
Vernon Fk.
Location
Fortville (37)
Zionsville (38)
Bowling Green (39)
Columbus (40)
Seymour (41 )
Bedford (42)
Shoals (43)
Deputy (44)
Vernon (45)
Avg. Disch. (cfs)
161
91.3
825
1,786
2,346
3,438
5,289
337
215
7-da.y, 1
low flow
14
0
17
100
155
182
222
0
0
0-yr
(cfs)
14Locations are indicated by numbers in circles on the Indiana map in
Fig. III-G-5.
15From Ref. (7).
III-G-39
-------
Tippecanoe R.
ORBS fEGION BOUNDARY"
ORBS REGION
BOUNDARY
Salamonie R.
Mississinewa
GARY-HAMMOND EAST CH
.5 ©FORT WAYNE
1 003 s
'
vermil ion
KC -X^
Wabash R.
ONC/N«,T,CINCINNATI ?^
W. Fork
White River
E. Fork White
River
131 • COUN1Y CODE NUMKR
© Places ot 100.000 or more inhabitants
• Pi«es of 10.000 to 100.000 inhabitants
D C<:n!'»l cities ol SMSA s wi!h (e*er than 00.000 ir.hao.u.-
O PMces ol 25,000 to 50.000 inn»Dilinls outiidc SMSA'!-
Figure III.G-5. STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN INDIANA
III-G-40
-------
Table III-G-19
FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN KENTUCKY
River
Kentucky
Salt
Rolling Fork
Licking
Green
Barren
Rough
Cumberland
Tradewater
Big Sandy
Location*6 Avg.
Hinchester (1)
Frankfort (2)
Lockoort (3)
N. Fork at Hazard (10)
N. Fork at Jackson (11 )
S. Fork at Booneville (12)
Middle Fork at
Talega (13)
Elkhorn Cr. Nr.
Frankfort (14)
Shepherdsville (4)
Boston (5)
Farmers (6)
McKinneysburg (7)
Catawba (8)
S. Fork at Cynthiana (9)
Greensburg (15)
Brownsville (16)
Woodbury (17)
Livermore (18)
Bowling Green (19)
Dundee (20)
Barbourville (21)
Williamsburg (22)
Cumberland Falls (23)
S. Fork at Stearns (24)
Olney (25)
Louisa (26)
Levisa Fk. at
Pikesville (27)
Levisa Fk. at
Paintsville (28)
Disch. (cfs)17
5,223
7,023
8,247
1,293
1 ,028
700
599
1,533
1,720
1,076
3,038
4,131
751
1,086
4,136
7,979
10,850
2,464
963
1,722
3,146
1,767
32911
4,228
1,353
2,385
7-day, 10-yr 17
low flow (cfs)17
33
112
163
1.5
2.2
1.3
3.1
10
.7
1.7
141
241
306
53
11.1
8.3
8.6
16
O7
59
3.9
15
16Locations are indicated by numbers in circles on the Kentucky map in
Fig. III-G-6.
17From Ref. (2).
III-G-41
-------
Licking R.-
Green R.
crON
HUNTINGTON-ASHLAN:
Big Sandy
Tradewater R.
Tennessee R.
Cumberland R.
Kentucky Lake
LF.GEND
® Places of 100.000 or more inhabitants
O Places of 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants
O Central cities ot SMSA's with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants
181 COUNTY CODE NUMBER O Places of 25.000 to SO.OOO inhabitants outside SMSA's
O 10 10 SO
Figure III-G-6. STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN KENTUCKY
Standard Mctropoli!?n
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
-------
Table III-G-20
FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN OHIO
River
Little Miami
Mill Creek
Great Miami
Mad
Still water
Whitewater
Scioto
Big Walnut Creek
Big Darby Creek
Olentangy
Paint Creek
1 8
Location Avg. Di
Mil ford (1)
E. Fork at Perinton (2)
Oldtown (3)
Caesar Creek,
Harveysburg (4)
Caesar Creek, Wellman (5)
Todd Fk, Roachester (6)
E. Fork, Williamsburg (7)
E. Fork, Batavia (8)
Carthage (9)
Sydney (10)
Taylorsville (11)
Dayton (12)
Miamisburg (13)
Hamilton (14)
Urbana (15)
Springfield (16)
Englewood (17)
Alpine, IN (18)
Brookville, IN (19)
E. Fork at
Brookville, IN (19)
Columbus (20)
Circleville (21)
Chill icothe (22)
Mouth of the Scioto (23)
Rees (24)
Darbyville (25)
Delaware (26)
Prior to Delaware Reservoir
construction
Bourneville (27)
sch. (cfs)19 ™
1,205
5472i
107
21
21021
235 oT
224 21
2772
415
473
995
2,083
2,295
3,203
140
481
571
545
1,274
423
1,336
3,294
4,370
487
438
av, 10-yr 9n
flow (cfsKu
45
1.0
7.3
.2
1.3
.2
0
.4
4.2
1R19
1Q
46 10
175 19
223 \9
281 iy
33 19
10
115 19
1219
45
82
19
41
128
147
600
7
6.2
Reliable records not available du
to Delaware Reservoi
348
788
r.
1
7.8
III-G-43
-------
Table III-G-20 (cont)
River
Location
Avg. Disch. (cfs)
7-day, 10-yr
low flow (cfs)
Muskingum
Tuscarawas
Walhonding
Mohican
Licking
Nimishillen Cr.
Mohoning
Coshocton (28)
Zanesville (29)
McConnelsville (30)
Mouth of Muskingum (23)
Dover (31)
Newcomerstown (32)
Nellie (33)
Green (34)
Tobosco (35)
N. Industry (36)
W. Branch at
Newton Falls (37)
Youngstown (38)
Lowellville (39)
4,855
6,926
7,282
1,375
2,422
1,457
879
672
166
98.7
844
1,078
464
550
565
790
159
210
50
2319
i n
4. 119
200
290
18
19
20
21
Locations are indicated by numbers in circles on the Ohio Map
in Fig. III-G-7.
From Ref. (2), unless otherwise indicated.
From Ref. (8), unless otherwise indicated.
From Ref. (9).
III-G-44
-------
Muskingum R.
Great
Miami
© fltttt 0> 100.000 Of mart inh«bit«l citio.'ol SMS* » »>th (t*«f tn»n 50.000 ixni
O PlKti ol 2J t)00 to W.OOO .nhjb.nnu outvdi SMSA't
f*"^ *-l Slttdwd Melcopoliltn
L. - J SKIittiCjl Ar«j> |
»TSMS»-»» 181 COUNTY CODE NUMHR
Figure III-G-7. STREAM-GAUGING STATIONS IN OHIO
III-G-45
-------
Table III-G-21
FLOWS OF THE OHIO RIVER AND MINOR TRIBUTARIES
River
Ohio
Little
Beaver
Hocking
Raccoon Cr.
Tygarts
Cr.
Ohio Bush
Cr.
Mill Cr.
Blue
Location 22
Pittsburgh, PA (1)
Sewickley, PA (2)
nhio-PA State line (3)
Wheeling, W. VA. (4)
St. Marys, W. VA (5)
Parkersburg, W. VA (6)
Pt. Pleasant, W. VA (7)
Huntington, W. VA (8)
Ashland, KY (9)
Maysville, KY (10)
Cinn., OH (11)
above Kentucky R. (12)
Louisville, KY (13)
Dam 43 (14)
Dam 45 (15)
Dam 46 (16)
Dam 47 (17)
Evansville, IN (18)
Dam 48 (19)
Dam 49 (20)
Golconda, IL (21)
Metropolis, IL (22)
E. Liverpool, OH (23)
Enterprise, OH (24)
Athens, OH (25)
Adamsville, OH (26)
Greenup, KY (27)
West Union, OH (28)
Carthage, OH (20)
Whitecloud, IN (30)
Avq. Disch
(cfs) 23
32,740
50,730
77,620
91,550
96,810
113,700
133,900
258,500
522
435
978
655
304
442
617
7-day 10-yr
Low Flow
Estimates (cfs) 2/
3,100
3,100
3,600
3,700
4,000
4,900
6,600
6,900
7,400
7,800
7,900
8,100
8,200
8,800
9,100
9,200
9,300
11,000
11,000
11,000
14,000
46,000
18
29
43
3.4
.2
.2
4.2
12
7-day 10 yr
Low Flow
1 Estimates (cfs) 25
6,555
6,820
8,055
9,950
11,150
12,130
14,265
16,635
47,230
22Locations are indicated by numbers and triangles on Fig. III-G-4,
III-G-6, and III-G-7.
23From Ref. (2).
24From Ref. (8).
25From Ref. (10).
III-G-5,
III-G-46
-------
WATER FOR
COAL CONVERSION
IN ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY
Stream Yield = Minimum daily flow once in 50 years.
Reservoir Yield = 1/2 the capacity during a once-in-40-years drought.
Figure III-G-8. WATER DATA FOR ILLINOIS
III-G-47
-------
Table III-G-22
SELECTED RESERVOIRS IN INDIANA26
97
Location No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reservoir28
Big Pine (P)
Lafayette (P)
Mississinewa (E)
Salamonie (E)
Huntington (E)
Mansfield (E)
Cagles Mill (E)
Monroe (E)
Biq Blue (P)
Downeyville (P)
Clifty Creek (P)
Patoka (E)
Azalia (P)
Deputy (P)
Parker (P)
Fall Creek (P)
Crawfordsville (P)
Maltersville (P)
Upper Martinsville (P)
Deer Creek (P)
Denver (P)
Pipe Creek (P)
Delphi, Upper (P)
Coal Creek (P)
Biq Walnut (P)
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
331
787
809
553
707
216
295
441
269
276
140
168
250
294
175
242
423
62
2,110
280
680
167
4,136
256
197
Total Storaoe
(ac-ft) '
210,500
331,800
368,400
263,600
153,100
132,800
228,100
441,000
85,700
86,400
56,370
301,600
69,920
147,000
133,000
223,100
161,170
23,200
420,000
90,000
263,000
68,800
514,000
170,250
160,700
26Ref. (7).
2 Locations are indicated by number on state map in Fig. III-G-9.
28Potential (P) or existing (E).
III-G-48
-------
Tippecanoe R.
KAMMOVI
IAKC
GARY-HAMMOND
ORES REGION BOUNDARY'
ORES REGION
BOUNDARY
Salomonie R.
Mississinewa
fo«r
©FORT WAYNE
ALLCN 1
003 I
W. Fork
White River
181 COUNTY CODE NUMBER
Figure III-G-9. SELECTED RESERVOIR SITES IN INDIANA
III-G-49
-------
Table III-G-23
SELECTED POTENTIAL RESERVOIRS IN KENTUCKY29
LOCATION MO.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
RESERVOIR
Drakes Creek
Camp Ground
Floyds Fork
Howards town -,
Taylorsville
Cutshin Creek
Ford
Greasy Creek
Kingdom Come
Leatherwood Creek
Line Fork
Little Goose Creek
Red Bird River
Station Camp Creek
Troublesome Creek
Walkers Creek
Falmouth
Hinkston Creek
Royal ton .
Paintsville,}
Yatesville J1
DRAINAGE AREA
(sq. mi.)
500
438
42
384
354
84
2,503
51
131
49
64
38
115
95
201
1,260
1,505
174
76
92
208
TOTAL STORAGE
(Ac-ft)
307,000
448,600
139,500
369,300
399,100
69,000
840,000
30,200
73,000
35,000
62,000
30,000
90,000
290,000
112,000
180,500
898,300
128,000
47,300
76,400
99,800
29Ref. (2).
^Locations are indicated by number in state map in Fig. III-G-10.
31 Under construction.
III-G-50
-------
I
tn
Licking R.
Kentucky R.
LOUISVILLE'
?WA
CINCINNATI :-
'««.
NCINNATI
, ...nN;v
jNTINGfON
'HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND
Green R.
Tradewoter R.
Tennessee R.
Cumberland River
-Kentucky Lake
LEGEND
Places ol 100.000 or more inhabitants
• Places ol 50.000 to 100.000 inhabitants
D Central cities ol SMSA's with fewer than 60,000 inhabitants
181 COUNTY CODE NUMIER O Places ol 25.000 to SO.OOO inhabitants outside SMSA's
• -^1
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
Figure III-G-10. SELECTED RESERVOIR SITES IN KENTUCKY
-------
Table III-G-24
SELECTED POTENTIAL RESERVOIRS IN OHIO32
oo
Location No. °°
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
RESERVOIR
Boqgs Fork
Conser Run
Frazeysburg
Hugle Run
Middle Branch
Millersburq
Ogg
Skull Fork
Utica
Valley Run
Alum Creek ^
Bellepoint
Mill Creek
Roundhead
Upper Darby
Cowan Creek
Morrow
Washington Mills
Todd Fork
Dry Fork
DRAINAGE AREA
(sq. mi.)
15
15
62
9
27
381
12
46
114
25
123
736
181
34
239
51
685
308
245
45
TOTAL STORAGE
(Ac-ft)
5,000
5,100
62,000
8,200
9,300
77,000
8,500
15,000
82,000
15,100
124,000
88,200
92,500
11,900
32,500
14,000
244,000
61,000
95,000
37,000
32Ref. (2).
33 Locations are indicated by number in Fiq. III-G-11.
3^ Under construction.
III-G-52
-------
BENVILLE-WEIRTON
Muskingum R.
H
Great
'Miami
LEGEND
© PKCn 0< 1CJ 000 01 ino>t i
• PlKft ol S3 JOO lo 100000
O Ctn!>jl ca.n ol SWSA % »,tn lnr< inn SOOCO
O PlKri ol 2!>t>00 lo W.OOO inhjb.lanlt ouli.de SMSA't
s.j;,»:,c4i;,«« ,VM»-,, 131 COUNTY CODE NUMEER
Figure III-G-11. SELECTED RESERVOIR SITES IN OHIO
III-G-53
-------
REFERENCES
1. Project memorandum submitted to P. Haag (for distribution to
project members) from E. D. Brill, February 18, 1977. Attach-
ment submitted May 15, 1977, lists major assumptions. A copy
is on file at the Water Resources Center, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801.
2. The Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Ohio River,
in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of H.E.W., Department of the Interior, FPC,
and participating states, Ohic^ River Basin Comprehensive Survey,
App. D, K, Cincinnati, Ohio,1967.
3. Illinois Technical Advisory Committee on Water Resources, Water
For Illinois, a plan for action, Springfield, March, 1967.
4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration, Great Lake Region, Chicago and Minneapolis Offices,
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study. App. H, 1970.
5. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for Kentucky
Water Year 1975, Louisville, 1975.
6. Singh, Krishan P. and John B. Stall. The 7-Day 10-Year Flows of
IIVinoi^s Streams, Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 57. Urbana,
1973.
7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, in cooperation
with Member Agencies of the Wabash River Coordinating Committee,
Wabash River Basin Comprejiejisiye Study, Main Report, App. C, F,
8. Personal communication from William G. Weist, Jr., Chief of
Hydrologic Studies Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Indiana-
polis, Indiana, October, 1976.
9. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Ohio Water
Year 1975. Columbus, 1975.
10. Personal communication from Richard C. Armstrong, Acting Chief,
Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cincinnati,
Ohio, April 5, 1977.
11. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Rejsources^ Data for Illinois Water
Year 1975.
12. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Data^ for Indiana Water
Year 1975. Indianapolis, 1975
III-G-54
-------
REFERENCES (cont)
13. Smith, William H. and John B. Stall. Coal and Water Resources for
Coal Conversion in Illinois, Cooperative Resources Report 4,
Illinois State Water Survey and Illinois State Geological Survey.
Urbana, 1975.
14. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Atlas Series. Nos.
HA15-HA38. 1960-1962. Available from Kentucky Geological
Survey, 307 Mineral Industries Building, Lexington, Ky.
40506.
15. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.
Water Inventory of the Muskingum River Basin and Adjacent
Ohio River Areas, Report No. 21, Columbus, 1968.
16. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.
Water Inventory of the Scioto River Basin, Report No. 17,
Columbus, 1963.
17. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.
Water Inventory of the Little Miami River andMill Creek
Basins and Adjacent Ohio River Tributaries, Report No. 18,
Columbus, 1964.
18. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.
Water Inventory of the Mahoning and Grand River Basins and
Adjacent Areas in Ohio, Report No. 16, Columbus, 1961.
III-G-55
-------
4. WATER USE CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains water use projections for the ORBES
region. Projections of municipal and industrial use have been made
on a county basis for 1975, 1985 and 2000 for all 350 counties in
the Study area. Water use for power generation, irrigation and
navigation has also been investigated.
This chapter is a much condensed version of a more detailed
report (1), which includes the county projections. State totals are
presented in this chapter; they represent only the portions of the
states within the ORBES region.
Water use is difficult to measure and it is even more
difficult to project, since projections depend on population, in-
come, relative prices, and technological developments. Thus, the
figures presented here should be interpreted cautiously; they are
more likely to represent orders of magnitude than specific values.
This is especially true, of course, for the longer range projections,
The municipal and self-supplied water use sections are
probably the most reliable. The projections of water use for power
generation, irrigation and navigation are less certain. Finally,
the reader should keep in mind that projections for withdrawals
and consumption are based on present technologies and life-styles.
The use projections should not be considered identical to "require-
ments" because of the major potential for water conservation.
4.2. MUNICIPAL WATER USE
4.2.1. PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
Municipal use was calculated in this study by multiplying
county population by a per capita use figure for the county
(See Table III-G-25). This technique has a few drawbacks. The
total population of a county is not actually served by municipal
systems. Also, income and price factors are not considered in these
projections. Because of life-style differences, the entire popula-
tion of a county does not use water at exactly the same rate as the
population served by municipal systems. Additionally, municipal
systems support industrial, civic and commercial users, and often
have significant leakage. The method employed.here, however, can
be justified for strong reasons:
1. While rural families may use less water than urban
ones—for income and life style reasons—water jhs_ used for live-
stock. This may partly outweigh the demand placed on municipal.
systems by nondomestic uses (e.g., industrial, civic).
III-G-57
-------
Table III-G-25
MUNICIPAL HATER USE PROJECTIONS
IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY1
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
1960
280
420
290
790
1975
300
500
330
920
1985
310
510
360
990
2000
350
590
430
1100
2020
--
700
—
1200
1 million gallons per day =1.55 cubic feet per second.
III-G-58
-------
2. Assuming a slightly high level of use is appropriate
for cautious planning.
3. For this study one important consideration is incre-
mental demand, i.e., the change in demand from one period to the
next. The result of the technique used here is very similar to that
of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study (GLBFS) (2). Although
the authors of the GLBFS comprehensively investigated rural water
demand, for planning purposes they assumed that all new population
would use municipal systems.
4. Based on a preliminary econometric study, the effect
of income on per capita municipal use in the region is thought to
be negligible.
4.2.2. PER CAPITA USE
Per capita figures for municipal demand have been taken
predominantly from the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey,
Appendix D (ORBCS) (3) which was prepared in 1967. This source
contains per capita usage rates based on the population served
by municipal water supply systems. These rates include some
industrial, commercial and public uses as well. Several counties
in each state are outside the actual Ohio River Basin, though they
have been included in the ORBES region. In these cases, per capita
use figures have been derived from other sources. Many Illinois
counties and Jasper County, Indiana, are covered by the Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study (UMRCBS) (4) which is
analogous to the ORBCS. For many of the northern counties in
Indiana and Ohio, approximate data have been taken from the GLBFS.
In this analysis the per capita use figure has been kept
constant at the base level suggested by the data source. There are
two potential problems with this approach. First, in a few cases
the ORBCS figure is excessively high to be considered a reasonable
county-wide figure. For example, a few per capita figures are
above 200 gallons per capita daily (gpcd). The other problem may
be that the per capita consumption of water may be growing somewhat.
A study of a region similar to the Ohio River Basin (2) suggests
that per capita use may increase to 108 gpcd at an annual rate of
1% cind thereafter at an annual rate of .25% to the level of 130
gpcd.
For more detailed descriptions and analysis of municipal
demands, the reader is directed to Reference (1).
4.2.3. POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The specified dates for the ORBES scenarios are 1975, 1985,
and 2000. Except for Ohio, recent official state projections of
i
III-G-59
-------
county populations for these dates are contained in the ORBES
Task 1 report (5). For Ohio only the figures for 1985 were pro-
vided, so projections were performed for 1975, 1985, 2000 and
2020 based on a disaggregation of data from another source (6).
This is specifically discussed in Reference (1). Similar pro-
jections were made also for Indiana before the Task 1 report was
received. For Indiana, however, the Task 1 figures are used for
all projections except for 2020.
4.2.4. CONSUMPTION -
Consumption of municipal water is estimated to be approxi-
mately 20 per cent of withdrawals (7).
4.3. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
4.3.1. PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
Self-supplied industrial withdrawals account for approxi-
mately 90% of all industrial withdrawals (2, p.v.); the remaining
percentage is municipally supplied. In this report, and in all
studies cited, discussions of industrial withdrawals exclude the
power generation industry. Projections for self-supplied indus-
trial use in the ORBES region are presented in Table III-G-26.
These projections are based on industrial earnings projections
contained in Reference (6). Two other methods for making pro-
jections were also tried, and will be mentioned below. The data
base for self-supplied industrial withdrawals for almost all
counties in this study is the ORBCS. This survey calculated
industrial withdrawals based on figures for water use per employee
for different industries. For the few counties not covered by
the ORBCS or the UMRCBS special calculations were made. Special
calculations were also made to incorporate recent United States
Geological Survey data for Ohio (8).
Manufacturing earnings are used as a measure of industrial
growth in counties. Industrial water withdrawals are assumed to
be directly correlated to industrial growth. Manufacturing
earnings are projected by OBERS (Office of Business Economics and
the Economic Research Service) (6) for SMSA's (standard metropoli-
tan statistical areas) and non-SMSA portions of economic areas.
The economic areas typically consist of several counties whereas
SMSA's are smaller, being generally one to three counties. OBERS
projects earnings for 1980, 1985, 1990, 2000 and 2020. It also
has data for 1962 and 1970. Ratios of future earnings to those
of 1962 have been calculated. A typical vector of ratios for 1970
earnings, 1980 earnings, etc., looks as follows:
1970 1980 1985 2000 2020
1.4226 2.1916 2.5810 4.2043 7.4579
III-G-60
-------
Table III-G-26
SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS
IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY2
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
1960
640
180
190
1600
1975
1200
330
360
1700
1985
1600
470
490
2400
2000
2400
770
760
3400
2020
4100
1300
1300
5200
"1 million gallons per day = 1.55 cubic feet per second.
III-G-61
-------
OBERS does not project data for 1975. Earnings in 1975 are assumed
to be a linear interpolation of 1970 and 1980 earnings. Note that
earnings ratios and industrial water use projections for 2020 are
included even though this year is not specified for the ORBES pro-
ject. These projections have been included since they could be
readily generated.
Under this technique growth of industrial water withdrawals
is assumed to be strictly proportional to the growth of manufactur-
ing earnings. In Illinois, for example, separate earnings ratios
were calculated for 17 different areas in the state--10 non-SMSA
economic areas and 7 SMSA's. Each county falls into exactly one
of these 17 regions, and its self-supplied industrial water use was
projected to grow accordingly.
Water use projections have also been made using total earn-
ings instead of manufacturing earnings as the measure of industrial
growth. The total earnings data are obtained from OBERS projections
and all calculations are exactly analogous to those with manufactur-
ing earnings. Total earnings, however, include data from government,
agriculture and other sectors which do not indicate industrial growth.
So, manufacturing sector earnings would seem to be a better indicator
of self-supplied industrial water use than total earnings. Total
earnings projections were made because of some minor inconsistencies
in the OBERS data base. Projections using total earnings growth
rates give state-wide totals which are essentially the same as pro-
jections based on only manufacturing sector growth. A more detailed
comparison of these two projections is contained in Reference (1).
A problem with using earnings projections of either type,
however, is that they lead to large—perhaps unrealistic--increases
in water withdrawals. A similar observation was noted by the
authors of the GLBFS, who used "value added in manufacturing" as
their measure of industrial growth. They project a 600% increase
of value added from 1970 to 2020 in the Great Lakes region. They
assert that industrial water withdrawals cannot be projected to
increase at such a high rate, though consumption may increase in
these magnitudes. Furthermore, they suggest industrial water with-
drawals may decline during the coming years. After a period of
decline in withdrawals while industrial plants are improving their
efficiency levels, it is expected that withdrawals will begin to
increase because of industrial growth. Thus, withdrawals in 2000
may be generally equal—depending on the subarea of the Great Lakes
basin—to those in 1970. By 2020 withdrawals may be about 10% more
than 1970. This picture would be complicated, of course, by changes
in wastewater treatment requirements and by additional reuse caused
by local water shortages. For this study, it is believed that
rather than planning on a decrease in withdrawals, the more cautious
planning approach would be to assume a constant level of withdrawals
from 1975 through 2000.
III-G-62
-------
4.3.2. CONSUMPTION
Anti-pollution discharge regulations and the spread of
cooling towers both are expected to contribute to decreasing
withdrawal rates. This trend has been observed recently, for
example, by officials at the United States Geological Survey in
Ohio. Still, as emphasized by the authors of the GLBFS. consump-
tion j_s_ expected to increase and this could have significant
impacts upon the region's water resources.
Consumption projections can be based on industrial with-
drawal projections of the earnings growth variety using a con-
stant consumption rate. The 1972 Census of Manufactures (9),
for example, suggests an average 6% level of consumption for
industry. Murray and Reeves (7) find a 10% national level of
industrial consumption. The 6% value was used in the calcula-
tions in Chapter 2.
4.4. COMPARISON WITH OTHER WATER-USE INVESTIGATIONS
The municipal and industrial projections presented in
this report have been compared with projections and water use
inventories from a number of different sources. Especially bene-
ficial have been recent data received from the Division of Water
Resources, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection (10, 11, 12) and from the United States
Geological Survey in Columbus, Ohio (8). Also useful have been
Water for Illinois: A Plan for Action (13), a paper by C.S.
Csallany (14) and the Wabash River Basin Comprehensive_Study (15).
The state-wide aggregations presented here have been check-
ed for consistency with the above materials, and a modification
was made for one county in Ohio. Generally, when data for recent
years have become available, they are quite close to the projec-
tions presented here.
4.5. ENERGY-RELATED WATER USE
4.5.1. WATER USE FOR ELECTRIC-POWER GENERATION
Water consumption and withdrawal for electric-power genera-
tion are projected in this investigation based on a formula for
estimating water use with present technologies. The condenser
cooling water flow rate is estimated (5, pp. ld-20, ld-21) as
follows:
W = 3.71666 x 10"2 (L) (C) [H (1-S) - 3413] (1)
8.34 (AT)
III-G-63
-------
where:
W = water flow rate required (in cfs),
L = load factor (as a percentage of capacity),
C = generating capacity (in megawatts),
H = heat rate, which is directly related to thermal effi-
ciency (in BTU/kWh, British thermal units per kilowatt
hour),
S = stack heat loss (as a percentage of heat rate), and
AT = temperature rise across the condenser (in degrees
Fahrenheit, °F).
Based on the following assumptions, estimates of water use
are given below:
L = 100%
C = 1000 MW, except in FTF 100% coal scenario where the
plant capacities are 600 MW,
H = 9500 BTU/kWh for coal-fired plants,
H = 10,500 BTU/kWh for nuclear plants,
S = 15% for coal-fired plants,
S = 0 for nuclear plants, and
AT = 15°F
In the first phase of this study it is assumed that all plants
will employ wet cooling towers. For a plant using such towers it is
estimated (5, p. ld-22) that 2% of the total condenser flow would be
lost to evaporation and drift (these losses are termed consumption),
and that 1% of the total flow would be required as blow down. In
total, 2% of the total flow calculated by Equation 1 would be needed
as make-up. For example, a 1000 MW coal-fired (nuclear) plant operat-
ing at full capacity would have a condenser flow of 1380 cfs (2100
cfs), a withdrawal rate of 41 cfs (62 cfs), and a consumption rate of
III-G-64
-------
28 cfs (42 cfs). In the calculations described in Chapters 2 and 5,
and in Section 4.5.3 of this chapter, a load factor of 55% is assumed
in determining aggregate water use estimates for large areas; the
estimates listed above are reduced proportionally for each plant.
4.5.2. WATER USE FOR COAL GASIFICATION
The estimated withdrawal and consumption for coal gasification
plants operating at full capacity are shown in Table III-G-27, based
on Reference (16). A unit size high-BTU plant—as defined by ORBES--
produces 250 x 106 standard cubic feet per day (SCFD) of pipeline
quality gas. A unit size low-BTU plant produces 1500 x 106 SCFD.
4.5.3. TOTAL ENERGY-RELATED WATER WITHDRAWAL AND CONSUMPTION
Estimates are presented for the 1970 level of use and for pro-
jected water uses in 1985 and 2000 in Table III-G-28. Note that the
estimates for 1970, from Reference (7), reflect state totals instead
of totals for the ORBES portions of the states. Only the ORBES
counties were included, however, in the projections of use in 1985
and in 2000 for the different scenarios.
The 1985 projections were prepared in the following manner.
A list of existing plants and plants scheduled for completion between
1975 and 1985, along with their respective generating capacities, is
provided in Reference (5). Using the assumptions stated above (in-
cluding a load factor of 55%), water withdrawal and consumption were
estimated for 1985. The estimates were summed on a state by state
basis. Projections for 2000 were made in a similar manner; the ORBES
scenarios provide the proposed number of plants and their respective
capacities. The estimates for the two BOM scenarios in Table
III-G-28 include projected withdrawal and consumption by coal-gasifi-
cation plants. Only one high-BTU and one low-BTU plant are located
in each state, however, and the projected water use for coal gasifi-
cation accounts for only a very small portion of the total energy-
related water use. The other ORBES scenarios do not forecast
gasification plants.
As noted above, wet cooling towers were assumed for all plants,
implying a switch from once-through cooling in existing plants by
1985. As shown in Table III-G-28, a very small percentage of the
withdrawal in 1970 was consumed. According to the projections, how-
ever, consumption will increase greatly as cooling towers are used.
This trend already has been observed, for example, by the U.S.
Geological Survey in Ohio; data for that state (8) indicate a 455%
increase in consumption from 1970 to 1975, accompanied by an 11%
decrease in withdrawal.
III-G-65
-------
Table III-G-27
ESTIMATES OF WATER WITHDRAWAL AND CONSUMPTION
BY COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS
Plant Type Withdrawal (cfs) Consumption (cfs)
High BTU 38 29
Low BTU 22 18
III-G-66
-------
Table 111-6-28
WATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION
FOR ENERGY-RELATED USES IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOMD:
Scenario
State4
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Totals5
1970
18,000
(7.7)
6,500
(7.7)
5,900
(33)
21 ,000
(22)
51 ,000
(70.4)
1985
720
(480)
560
(370)
510
(340)
1,000
(670)
2,800
(1,900)
BOM(80/20)
1,600
(1,000)
1,500
(990)
1,400
(900) '
2,600
(1,700)
7,000
(4,700)
BOM( 50/50)
1,700
(1,100)
1,600
(1,100)
1,500
(1,000)
2,800
(1,900)
7,600
(5,100)
FTF(100/0)
750
(500)
620
(400)
580
(390)
1,200
(810)
3,200
(2,100)
FTF(0/100)
760
(500)
660
(440)
620
(410)
1,300
(880)
3,400
(2,200)
Consumption figures are in parentheses.
For 1970, the state figures are for the entire state, from Ref. (7); for
future years figures are for the ORBES portions of the states assuming cooling
towers are on all plants.
Totals do not always equal the sums of the column entired due to round-off error.
III-G-67
-------
Any combination of cooling technologies could be assumed *
instead of the uniform adoption of wet cooling towers. Water with-
drawal and consumption would depend on the mix. Only preliminary
calculations for different technologies have been made as part of
this study, but they tend to support the trend indicated by the
following estimates of consumptive losses made by the Federal
Power Commission (17) for 1000MW coal-fired plant operating at
full capacity: 28 cfs for wet cooling towers, 16 cfs for cooling
ponds, and 12 cfs for once-through cooling. Dry cooling systems
have very small consumptive losses (18).
4.6. WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
4.6.1. INTRODUCTION
Professionals' views vary widely concerning the prospects
for irrigation in the ORBES region. Projections of irrigation
based on historical trends show continuing, yet moderate, growth.
Some experts have s/iggested that there is the potential for major
expansion of irrigation in the region. In contrast, other inves-
tigators believe much of projected—and even present—irrination
will not be economically profitable (19).
Presently, the ORBES region is characterized by a virtual
absence of irrigation. The percentage of agricultural land which
is irrigated is one of the lowest in the nation (20), and the rich
farm soils often show a surplus of water. Hence, some recent pub-
lications dealing with the region's water resources have not looked
heavily into irrigation. Recently, however, irrigation has
increased rapidly in some parts of the region. If the extreme
projections hold, irrigated acreage in the region could increase
more than ten fold by the year 2020.
4.6.2. PROJECTIONS
Projections of irrigated acreage and peak water use are pre-
sented in Table III-G-29- In a number of cases projections have
been made by river basin or by state rather than by areas within
the ORBES boundaries. Still, the values presented give an idea of
the wide range in projections, and the relative irrigation possibi-
lities in the ORBES region. The acreage projections have been
taken from a number of sources, and are briefly described below.
For Illinois, different projections of irrigated acreage
have been derived as follows:
Case 1 (33,000 acres) is a 1967 estimate of row crop
acreage in the counties in the ORBES region (21). Also,
see Reference (20) for 1969 figures.
III-G-68
-------
Table III-G-29
PROJECTIONS OF IRRIGATION IN THE ORBES REGION
State
Acreage
Peak Week
Use (cfs)
Annual Use6
(Thousand Acre-Ft.)
Illinois
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
33,000
200,000
800,000
290
1,800
7,200
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Indiana
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
20,000
61,000
220,000
1,500,000
180
550
2,000
14,000
Mot
19
57
140
Available
Kentucky
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
20,000
32,000
64,000
180
290
570
Not Available
28
55
Ohio
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
20,000
54,000
270,000
180
480
2,400
32
32
210
From different sources than peak week use figures
III-G-69
-------
Case 2 (200,000 acres) is an estimate for the ORBES counties
in 2020 based on trends in the late 1960's which project
250,000 acres for the entire state (22). For the ORBES region
the 1985 projection is about 95,000 acres; the 2000 projection
is roughly 140,000 acres.
Case 3 (800,000 acres) is an estimate for the ORBES counties
based on a potential of from 1 to 1.2 million irrigated acres
in the entire state at some time in the future (23, 24).
For Indiana the following cases are presented:
Case 1 (20,000 acres) is an estimate of irrigated acreage in
1967 in the ORBES region (25). Also, see Reference (20) for
statewide 1969 figures.
Case 2 (65,000 acres) is a projection for 2020 based on
historical trends (25). Similar trends are suggested in Ref-
erence (15).
Case 3 (220,000 acres) is the estimated economic potential
for irrigation in the Wabash River Basin (which includes part
of Illinois and excludes parts of Indiana) in 2000 (3).
Case 4 (1.5 million acres) is a projection of the amount of
economically feasible irrigated acreage by 2020 in the Wabash
River Basin (15).
The following cases are presented for Kentucky:
Case 1 (20,000 acres) is based on Census of Agriculture
figures for 1969 (20).
Case 2 (32,000 acres) is a projection of economically feasible
acreage in the Kentucky, Salt and Licking River Basins in 1980
(3). This includes most of the irrigated acreage in Kentucky
except for the portion which falls into the Ohio River Main
Stem region.
Case 3 (64,000 acres) is a projection of economically feasible
acreage in the Kentucky, Salt and Licking Basins in 2000 (3).
For Ohio the following cases are presented:
Case 1 (20,000 acres) is the estimated total for the ORBES
region based on figures for irrigated water use in 1975 (8)
and statewide acreage figures for 1969 (20).
Case 2 (54,000 acres) is the sum .of projections of economically
feasible acreage in the Muskingum, Scioto, and Little and Great
III-G-70
-------
Miami River Basins in 1980 (3). This does not include
acreage in the Ohio River Main Stem region.
Case 3 (270,000 acres) is a projection for 2000 for the
same region as Case 2 (3).
4.6.3. PEAK IRRIGATION RATES
Two types of estimates for water use are presented in Table
III-G-29. Peak week levels have been calculated in cubic feet per
second based on irrigation of all acreage at a level of 1.5 inches
per week. This method is described below. Where projections (or
actual data for Case 1 for Ohio) on water use are available (3, 8,
15, 25), they are also presented. Figures from other sources are
in acre-feet, but it should be noted that almost all irrigation
occurs over the summer months. Therefore, the levels of acre-feet
presented are low in the sense that they average the water use
over the entire year.
The quantity and time of irrigation in the region will vary
because of crop, soil type and climatic differences. In a given
region, however, corn and soybeans require similar amounts and
timing of irrigation. Since these are among the most important
crops in the ORBES region they are central to the derivation of
peak week irrigation rates. For corn, the critical period in
Illinois is typically the last two weeks in July--i.e., about
65 days after seedling emergence—when the plants are undergoing
silk emergence. At this time the plants have the greatest water
need, and this is also the period during which rainfall is least
probable. During these weeks as much as 1.5 inches of water might
be applied by irrigation. Total irrigation over the three summer
months is in the range of one foot, half of which might come in
one month (23).
4.6.4. CONSUMPTION
Water use in irrigation is highly consumptive due to large
losses from transpiration and evaporation. According to Murray
and Reeves (7), more than 90% irrigation water in the ORBES re-
gion may presently be consumed. They note that their data for
some regions may be poor, but even the lowest consumption rate in
the nation is above 33%. The average rate of consumption of
irrigation water in the U.S. was 59% in 1970 (7). This average
can be applied to the different projections given in Table
III-G-29 to obtain estimates of total consumption that could
occur in the ORBES region.
III-G-71
-------
4,6.5. FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECTIONS
o
Projections of irrigation are affected by both agronomic and
economic factors. •Among the most important agronomic factors is
the soil type, and its"ability to retain water in drought periods.
In Illinois, projections of major potential increases in irrigation
are largely for areas of sandy soils; soils with hard clay beneath
the surface may also be conducive to supplemental irrigation (23).
Economic factors, however, will ultimately determine the ex-
tent of irrigation. As Vernon Ruttan notes in his discussion of
resource combinations in agriculture, "The most striking feature
about agricultural development in the United States is not its sta-
bility but the way in which it responds to economic and technolo-
gical changes." (26, p.8).
Among the important economic factors are the relative prices
of such inputs as land, labor, fertilizer, energy and water. Crop
prices and accessibility to markets also play important roles in
determining the extent of irrigation. The changing structure of
the agricultural sector may also affect irrigation development
patterns. Agribusiness may have more funds to invest and may have
a longer planning horizon than single family farmers. Successful
irrigation in the ORBES region will also require sound management
techniques. These techniques are likely to become increasingly
common due to rising levels of agricultural education and agri-
business.
While trends of rising levels of management expertise, land
prices, crop prices and agribusiness indicate increased potential
for irrigation, other factors may moderate or counteract them.
Importantly, irrigation at present entails increased inputs of
energy, labor, fertilizer and water. Costs per unit output may in
fact rise with irrigation, and the prices of the increased inputs
may rise as fast—or faster—than land or produce prices. For
these reasons not all experts are convinced that increased irri-
gation in the ORBES region—and other relatively humid regions--
will be profitable or should be encouraged. Additional research
in this area is needed.
4.6.6. IRRIGATION IN NEIGHBORING BASINS
Major increases in irrigation in neighboring regions have also
been projected by some investigators. Because water use for irri-
gation is very consumptive, major increases in irrigation in neigh-
boring regions could significantly affect the inflow of water to
the ORBES region. In Iowa, for example, irrigated acreage may
double this year, drrigated acreage in Nebraska may increase from
6.5 to 10 million acres by the 1980's, and may eventually reach 15
million acres (24). These large developments are likely to affect
the water balance of the Missouri River Basin, and therefore of the
Mississippi River, which is the western boundary of the ORBES area.
III-G-72
-------
4.7. NAVIGATIONAL WATER USE
In general it appears that even major increases in water
use—and consumptive losses—over the next few decades will not
seriously affect navigation in the rivers of the ORBES region.
The Ohio River, the Mississippi River above St. Louis, the Illinois
Waterway, and the Green and Barren Rivers in Kentucky are all lock-
ed and dammed (3, 4 ) to an extent that ensures adequate channel
depth during low-flow conditions. Based on brief discussions with
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it appears that the effects of in-
creased consumption on the Mississippi River south of St. Louis
would also be minimal. During low-flow conditions dredging is pre^
sently increased to maintain nine foot channel depths, and barges
are restricted in their movements outside the channel.
In addition to increased dredging activity, lighter loading
of barges may accompany these periods. Such measures may be in-
creasingly necessary, as barge traffic is expected to grow throug-
out the coming decades (3, 4). Also, increased mining and use of
coal would add to the traffic projections made in the late 1960's
(4), which foresaw coal use remaining steady or declining.
A brief discussion with a Corps of Engineers representative
in St. Louis suggested the following rule of thumb for looking
at the effects of water losses on the navigation along the Missis-
sippi River. At the low water level of 54,000 cfs at St. Louis
(i.e., the 9-foot channel depth), every 1000 cfs decrease in flow
lowers the channel depth approximately 1/2 inch. A decrease of
10,000 cfs would lower the river stage roughly 8 1/2 inches. As
a comparison, the 7-day 10-year low flow of the Mississippi River
at St. Louis is 45,970 cfs (see Chapter 3).
The above discussion suggests that, in general, the impacts
of increased water consumption on navigation may be slight. It is
possible, however, that large increases in heavily consumptive uses
could have significant effects on navigational water levels. Par-
ticularly important in this regard would be extensive development
of irrigation and power generation outside as well as within the
ORBES region. The Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin
Study, for example, notes that "future consumptive demands for water
for irrigation in the Missouri River Basin could significantly
reduce the Missouri River's contribution" to the Mississippi during
low flow (4, p. J-ll). The Missouri River, which is outside the
ORBES region, presently contributes 24,000 of the 54,000 cfs needed
to maintain a nine foot channel depth in the Mississippi River at
St. Louis. Power generation could also affect water levels in the
Mississippi, through the cumulative effects of plants in the Upper
Mississippi, and Missouri, and Ohio River Basins.
III-G-73
-------
4.8. SUMMARY
Water withdrawal and water consumption are related yet
distinct aspects of water use. Even for a given sector they do
not necessarily increase at the same rate. Municipal withdrawals
and consumption are both likely to increase proportionately with
population growth. Industrial withdrawals may remain fairly con-
stant or grow slowly, but consumption is projected to increase at
the rate of industrial growth. It should also be noted that muni-
cipal and industrial usage levels presented in this study are
averages. Peak levels are typically 20% greater (15).
Water use for irrigation and power generation may entail
major consumptive losses. With the spread of closed system cool-
ing technologies, power withdrawals are decreasing, but consumption
is increasing sharply. The extent of irrigation growth over the
coming decades remains a question; experts' opinions range from
forecasting little growth to vast expansion.
Major increases in water consumption—related to power
generation and irrigation—could adversely affect navigation, but
even during low-flow periods these effects might be slight.
Water quality maintenance, wildlife, and recreational water
uses have not been extensively considered in this investigation.
Rather, the aim has been to concentrate on consumptive uses of
water, which could affect these other uses. Non-consumptive uses,
however, should also be given explicit consideration in water
allocation decisions.
III-G-74
-------
REFERENCES
1. Project memorandum submitted to P. Haag, ORBES Project Office,
(for distribution to project members) from E.D. Brill, February
18, 1977. Attachment submitted May 15, 1977. A copy is on file
at the Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801.
2. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Water Supply Group. Great Lakes
Basin Framework Study, App. 6. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Basin
Commission, 1975.
3. The Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Ohio River,
in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of H.E.W., Department of the Interior, FPC,
and participating states. Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey,
App. D, F, L. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration, Great Lakes Region; U.S. Army Engineer Division, North
Central; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, for UMRCBS Coordin-
ating Committee. Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin
Study. App. H, J, N. 1970.
5. Project memorandum received from ORBES Project Office, Task I
Report, "Development of Plausible Future Regional Technology
Configurations." October 18, 1976.
6. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce and
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture for
the U.S. Water Resources Council. OBERS Projections: Regional
Economic Activity in the U.S., Vols. 1, 5, 6. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1974.
7. C. Richard Murray and E. Bodette Reeves. Estimated Use of Water
in the United States in 1970. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
676. Washington, D.C., 1972.
8. Personal communication from James F. Blakey, District Chief,
Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbus,
Ohio. Water use inventories by county for 1975 were provided
for the following categories: municipal, self-supplied industrial,
power, rural (including livestock), and irrigation. February 2,
1977.
III-G-75
-------
9. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures, 1972 Spe-
cial Report Series: Water Use in Manufacturing, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1975.
10. Mull, D.S. et al. Public and Industrial Water Supplies of
Kentucky, 1968-69. Information Circular 20, Kentucky Geological
Survey, Lexington, Kentucky, 1971.
11. W.E. Gates and Associates. "Projection of Self Supplied Indus-
trial Water Demand - ORBC Level 'B' Study Area - State of Kentucky."
prepared for the Ohio River Basin Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio.
August, 1976.
12. Personal communication from James R. Villin.es, Division of Water
Resources, Bureau of Natural Resources, Department for Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky
40601. Included computer output of municipal and industrial
withdrawal permit data. January, 1977.
13. Illinois Technical Advisory Committee on Water Resources.
Water for Illinois: A Plan for Action. Springfield, Illinois,
March, 1967.
14. Csallany, S.C. "Water Demand for Illinois Counties." Urbana:
Illinois State Water Survey, mimeograph, November, 1972.
15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture in cooperation with Member Agencies
of the Wabash River Coordinating Committee, Wabash River Basin
Comprehensive Study App. F, H, 1971
16. Stout, Glenn E., "Proceedings of the Workshop on Research Needs
Related to Water for Energy.: Research Report No. 93, Urbana:
Water Resources Center, University of Illinois, November, 1974.
17. Federal Power Commission. The 1970 National Power Survey,
Part 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
December, 1971.
18. Dynatech Research and Development Company. A Survey of Alternate
Methods for Cooling Condenser Discharge Water; Large Scale Heat
Rejection Equipment. EPA Water Pollution Control Research Series
16130 DHS. 1969.
19. Personal communication from Loyd K. Fischer, Professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska, April 8, 1977.
20. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture, 1969. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
III-G-76
-------
21. Illinois Conservation Needs Inventory Committee, Illinois Soil
and Water Conservation Needs. Urbana: University of Illinois,
1970.
22. Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development.
Technical Appendix to the Report on Priority and Planning Ele-
ments for Developing Illinois Water Resources. Springfield,
Illinois, 1970.
23. Personal communication from Marlowe D. Thorne, Professor, Depart-
ment of Agronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois, March 1977.
24. William Prater, "Drought, Land Prices Yield Corn Belt Irrigation
Interest." The Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, March 21, 1977.
25. Kemp, Kenneth. Predictions of Agricultural Irrigation for Indiana.
Indianapolis: State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
1970.
26. Ruttan, Vernon W. The Economic Demand for Irrigated Acreage:
New Methodology and Some Preliminary Projections, 1954-1980.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.
III-G-77
-------
5. METHODOLOGY FOR EXAMINING SURFACE-WATER USE ALONG MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This ^chapter describes the methodology used to examine the total
surface water use throughout 16 major drainage areas within the ORBES
region. The cumulative water use of each river was estimated moving
from the uppermost power plant site to the downstream reaches. Specifically,
the cumulative "consumptive" use (that water not returned to the water
source) was calculated taking into account the municipal, industrial,
and power requirements. Irrigation was not included in this analysis
because of the wide variations in projections.
It is shown that the cumulative water consumption estimates are
extremely high when compared to the 7-day 10-year low flows in many of
the rivers. The implication is that large water storage projects would
be needed or that different development patterns would be required.
5.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The rivers were divided into reaches by the power plant sites
since significant increases in water use occur there. Only plants
specified by the ORBES scenario under study were taken into account,
in defining reaches. The exact location of a dividing point is defined
to lie at the downstream boundary of the county containing the corresponding
plant.
Water requirements were assumed to be met continuously from
the major river sources. Water storage was not considered, but the need
for it was identified.
5.2.1. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USES
The municipal and industrial water requirements are the same for
the four different ORBES scenarios. The county projections made as part
of this project, and referenced in Chapter 4, were to estimate incremental
withdrawal levels. These needs were assumed to be supplied from surface
water and groundwater--based on the proportions established by the historical
trend.
Consumptive use levels were estimated (as discussed in chapter 4)
at 20% of the withdrawals by municipalities and at 6% of the withdrawals
by industries.
5.2.2. POWER WATER USES
Different types of power plants were assumed to use water
consumptively at the rates indicated in Chapter 4. The planned additions
and removals of power plants by 1985 and the plants specified under each
ORBES scenario were considered.
Note that cooling towers were assumed for all energy facilities
in this analysis. It is shown, however, that water storage would be
required in many areas if the if the specified requirements were to be met.
III-G-79
-------
Another assumption, a conservative one, is that the first two
power plants in the most upstream reaches of each tributary were assumed
to operate at their full rated capacities. After a third plant was added,
however, a 55% load factor was applied in calculating the cumulative
water consumption (except that the cumulative estimates were not allowed
to drop below the level specified by the first two plants).
5.2.3. WATER CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO THE 7-DAY 10-YEAR LOW FLOWS "
For each river basin the total water consumption was first
calculated for the most upstream reach. The water requirements for all
counties which drain to this reach were included in this calculation.
The resulting consumptive loss was then expressed as a ratio of the
7-day 10-year low flow in that reach. Such ratios are termed consumption
ratios in this report.
The second reach and the other downstream reaches were then
analyzed in turn using the cumulative consumptive water loss. The
consumption ratio values provide a profile of the water loss along each
river.
In carrying out the analyses of the Ohio River and the Mississippi
River, the consumption ratios were calculated taking into account the
consumptive losses from their tributaries in the ORBES region. Also,
for these rivers, water utilization for municipal and industrial purposes
was included for the nearby areas in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri,
and Iowa that are contained in the main-stem drainage basins. These areas
are described in References (1) and (3), which also provide the necessary
water use projections.
5.3. IMPACT OF WATER LOSSES FROM MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
The ratios of consumptive water losses to 7-day 10-year low flows
of the major rivers are described in Tables III-G-10, III-G-11, III-G-12,
and III-G-13 for the BOM 80/20, BOM 50/50, FTF 100/0, and FTF 0/100
scenarios, respectively. These tables are contained in Chapter 2 where a
discussion of impacts and issues is also provided. Figures III-G-1 and
III-G-2, also given in Chapter 2, illustrate the profile of the consump-
tion ratios for the Ohio River under the different ORBES scenarios.
III-G-80
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Ohio River, in
cooperation with the The Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of H.E.W., Department of The Interior, F.P.C., and
participating states. Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey, App. D,K.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, in cooperation with
Member Agencies of the Wabash River Coordinating Committee. Wabash
River Basin Comprehensive Study, Main Report, App. C,F. 1971.
3. U.S. Department of The Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Great Lake Region, Chicago and Minneapolis Offices. Upper Mississippi
River Comprehensive Basin Study, App. H. 1970.
4. Personal communication from James F. Blakey, District Chief, Water
Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio, February
2, 1977.
5. Project memorandum submitted to P. Haag, ORBES Project Office, (for
distribution to project members) from E. D. Brill, February 18, 1977.
Attachment submitted May 15, 1977, Lists major assumptions. A copy
is on file at the Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801.
6. Project memorandum received from ORBES Project Office, Task 1 Report,
"Development of Plausible Future Regional Technology Configurations."
October 18, 1976.
III-G-81
------- |