f(
  t*C'. *
0
o
0
CO
            WATER SUPPLY
                 AND
   WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
Ml!    .SOTA RIVER BASIN  RESERVOIRS
             M:     OTA
            SOUTH DAKOTA
                 IOWA
       Study of Heeds and Value of Storage
     for Municipal and industric! Water Supply
           and Water Quality Control
           t
             MINNESOTA
      iTeo

             Ch

-------
                 WATER SUPPLY
                     AMD
         WATER QUALITY COITCROL STUDY
                    RIVER RESERVOIRS
        MIM330TA,  SOUTH DAKOTA,  IOVJA
                Prepared for
           Department  of the  Array
        U. S. Array Engineer District
             St. Paul, Minnesota
   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 05'  THE B1T2RIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTIOIT COHTROL ADHIKISTRATIOIT
             GREAT LAISS REGION
             CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

                JULY, 1969

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


CHAPTER                                                         PAGE NUMBER

   I.
           Authority                                                 1
           Purpose and Scope                                         1
                                                                     2.
  H.      SUMARY AHD CONCLUSIONS                                   3
           Summary                                                   3
           Conclusions                                               U

 III.      DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT                                    7

  IV.      STUDY ARM DESCRIPTIOH                                    8
           Geography and Topography                                  9
           Climate                                                   9
           Principal Communities and Industries                      9
           Navigation and Dams                                      10

   V.      WATER RESOURCES                                          11
           Ground Water                                             11
           Surface Water                                            12

  VI.      THE EC01TOMX                                              lU
           Present                                                  Ik
           Projected Population and Industrial Activity             15

 VII.      WATER REQUIREMENTS, MUNICIPAL AKD INDUSTRIAL             16
           Present Water Uses and Sources                           l6
           Future Municipal and Industrial Water Requirements       l6

VTII.      WATER QUALITY CONTROL                                    19
           Need for Control                                         19
           Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural Pollution         19
           Water Quality Objectives                                 20
           Flovr Regulation                                          21

  DC.      THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RESERVOIRS ON THE WATER
              QUALITY OF THE MOIIIESOTA RIVER                        23

   X.      BENEFITS                                                 26
           Municipal and Industrial Water Supply                    26
           Water Quality Control                                    26
                                    ii

-------
                     TABLE OF OOHTEHTS (Continued)


CHAPTER                                                          PAGE NUMBER

  XI.      MINNEAPOLIS' - ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA                 29
           Surface Water                                            29
           Economy                                                  29
           Water Quality Control                                    31
           Benefits                                                 33

 XII.      BIBLIOGRAPHY-                                             36

XIII.      APPENDIX
           Part A
           Part B
           Part C
           Part D
           Part E

 XIV.      LOCAtCIOIT MAP
                                    iii

-------
                                LIST OP TABLES

TABLE NUMBER                                           FOLLOWS PAGE NUMBER
     1.         RESERVOIRS INFORMATION                           7
     2.         FLOW DATA.                                       12
     3.         BASE AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS                  Ik
     k.         BASE AND PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY          15
     5.         MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES                        A-l
     6.         MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE              A-IO
     7.         BASE AHD PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AND BIDUSTRIAL     17
                   WATER USE
     8.         TOTAL WATER SUPPLY EEEDS                        17
     9.         MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS               D-l
    10.         MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC WASTE LOADS    D-8
    11.         BASE AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL     20
                ORGANIC WASTE DISCHARGES USED TO CALCULATE
                WATER QUALITY PROBLEM AREAS
    12.         LIMITING CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT SUBSTANCES 21
                   AHD CHARACTERISTICS GIVEN IN WATER QUALITY
                   CRITERIA ADOPTED BY MINNESOTA FOR MINNESOTA
                   RIVER FROM BIG STONE LAKE OUTLET TO CARVER
                   RAPIDS
    13.         MISSISSIPPI RIVER BELOW MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL  32
                   LIMITING CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT SUB-
                   STANCES AND CHARACTERISTICS

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NUMBER                                         FOLLOWS PAGE NUMBER

      1.         LOCATION MAP                                   E-2

      2.         ECONOMIC MINOR AREAS                           lk

      3.         SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF WASTE INPUTS              19

      k.         MINNESOTA RIVER BELOW NEW ULM - FLOW           21
      5.         MINNESOTA RIVER BELOW MANKATO - FLOW           21
                    REQUIREMENTS

      6.         MINNESOTA RIVER BELOW HEM ULM - FLOT           21
                    REQUIREMENTS

      7.         HDBCESOTA RIVER BELOW l^KKATO - FLOW           21
                    REQUIREMENTS

      8.         PROTECTION LEVEL (% ASSURANCE) YEAR 1980       22
                    CONDITION

      9.         PROTECTION LEVEL ($ ASSURANCE) YEAR 2000       22
                    CONDITION

     10.         PROTECTION LEVEL (% ASSURANCE) YEAR 2020       22
                    CONDITION AND 20?0 CONDITION

     11.         MISSISSIPPI RIVER BELOW MENHEAPOLIS -          32
                    ST. PAUL - SEASONAL FLOW REQUIREMENTS

     12.         MISSISSIPPI RIVER BELOW MINNEAPOLIS -          35
                    ST. PAUL FLOW REQUIREMENTS SUMMER
                    SEASON

-------
                              I.  INTRODUCTION
Authority

     The District Engineer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,  St.  Paul,
Minnesota, in a letter dated April 25, 19^6, requested the  advice of  the
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare concerning the need for
storage for water supply and water quality control on the Minnesota River
from Lac Qui Parle to the mouth and for water quality control for the
Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area on the Mississippi River, and the
value of benefits resulting therefrom.

     The water supply portion of this study was made in accordance with
the Memorandum of Agreement, dated November U, 1958, between the Department
of the Array and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare relative to
the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended (k3 U.S.C. 390b).   The water
quality control aspects were considered under authority of  the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. h66 et seq.).   Responsibility
for these activities was transferred from the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare to the Department of the Interior by Reorganization Plan  Ho. 2
of 1966, effective May 10, 1966.

Purpose and Scope

     The purpose of this study is to determine the water supply requirements
for both municipal and industrial water usage for the Minnesota River basin
and water quality control needs for the Minnesota River and Twin Cities area
on the Mississippi River.

     The area studied in this report covers all or parts of k3 counties;  36
in the State of Minnesota, five in the State of South Dakota and two  counties
in Iowa.

     This investigation shows the water supply and quality control needs and
benefits (both tangible and intangible) derived from meeting those needs for
the present and future years of 1980, 2000 and 2020.  Needs were continued
at the 2020 level until 20?0 so that the benefits for waste treatment could
be evaluated on a 100 year period consistent with potential reservoir service.
The water supply and quality flow requirements and values are suitable for
project feasibility determinations.

     These reservoirs will provide storage for water supply and quality
control in the Minnesota River basin and will supply water below the
Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area for quality control.  Sections IV
through X of this report deal with the Minnesota River basin, while Section
XI considers the Twin. Cities area.

-------
Acknowledgments^

     The assistance and cooperation of state and Federal agencies  and
individuals are gratefully acknowledged by the Federal Water  Pollution
Control Administration.  Particular appreciation is expressed to the
following for data and advice furnished by their staff members:

     U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St.  Paul, Minnesota.
     Minnesota State Department of Health, Division of Environmental
Sanitation, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
     Minnesota Conservation Department, Division of Waters, Soils  and
Minerals, St. Paul, Minnesota.
     U. S. Geological Survey, Surface Water Branch, St. Paul, Minnesota.
     U. S. Geological Survey, Ground Water Branch, St. Paul,  Minnesota.
     U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries  and Wild-
life, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
     U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
     City of New Ulm Utilities Department, New Ulm, Minnesota.
     City of Granite Falls Water Department, Granite Falls, Minnesota.

-------
                       II.  SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS


Summary

     1.  The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,  St.  Paul District,  is  invest-
         igating the feasibility of multipurpose development at seven
         reservoir sites in the Minnesota River  basin.   The Federal Water
         Pollution Control Administration has been requested to prepare
         a report concerning the water supply and water quality needs in
         the basin and water quality control needs below the Minneapolis -
         St. Paul area.

     2.  This study covered the water supply and water quality  control
         needs of the entire Minnesota River basin with special emphasis
         on the main stem of the Minnesota River from Lac Qui Parle to
         the mouth.  It also covered the water quality control  needs of
         the Mississippi River below the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan
         area.

     3.  Population of the 16,920 square mile Minnesota River basin in 1960
         was approximately 550,000.  Major cities in the basin, excluding
         suburbs of Minneapolis, are Mankato and New UJjn, Minnesota.  The
         population of the Minneapolis - St. Paul 3ts,ndard Metropolitan
         Statistical Area was 1.5 million in 1960.

    'If.  In the past, the economy has depended primarily on agriculture.
         The study area industrial development is closely associated with
         those industries which depend upon agriculture for their raw
         materials.  The Twin Cities SM3A depends primarily on services
         and manufacturing to support its economy.

     5.  Groundwater is generally available in the basin and is used by
         183 communities in part, or as a sole supply.  Only Granite Falls
         is totally dependent on surface water from the Minnesota River
         for its supply.

     6.  Estimated municipal water use in the Minnesota River basin is
         about 20 million gallons per day (mgd).  Industrial usage is
         approximately Mf ragd.  Most of the municipal and industrial water
         supply use is at the cities of Mankato and New Ulm, Minnesota.
         Present total usage at Mankato is 15 mgd; that at Hew Ulm. is 2.6
         mgd.

     7.  There are 123 municipalities with sewer systems serving a total
         population of 209,000.  Most of the waste discharges in the basin
         receive the equivalent of secondary biological treatment, although
         problems such as overloaded treatment plants and plant operating
         problems do occur.  Of the 123 municipalities, 100 have secondary
         treatment, 13 employ primary treatment and the remaining 10 have

-------
         no treatment.   The industrial waste  discharges  in  the  basin
         have a population equivalent of approximately 1.1  million.

     8.  Land runoff is a major water quality problem in the  basin  and
         will require continued attention through better land usage and
         water flow practices.
Conclusions
     1.  The study area population is expected to approach 830,000 people
         by the year 2020.   Less tha.n one-eighth of this figure will be
         farm population.   The Minneapolis  - St.  Paul SMSA is  expected to
         have JJ--.6 million people by 2020.

     2.  The economy of the Minnesota River basin is expected  to  remain
         largely related to agriculture,  recreation, light manufacturing
         and industries closely associated with agriculture (food process-
         ing and canning plants).  Industrial expansion in the electronics
         and instrumentation fields in the  Twin Cities area is expected
         to be very rapid.

     3.  Based on economic projections and projected per ca,pita water use,
         the municipal and industrial water demand in this river  basin will
         increase about sevenfold to an estimated hhO mgd by 2020.

     k.  Present water supplies will be adequate to supply all municipal
         and industrial needs except for Mankato and Kevr Ulm.  The Mankato
         area is projected to have a total water need of 97 mgd by 2020
         while the needs at ilew Ulm will be lU mgd by 2020. Storage to
         yield 6? mgd will be needed in the Mankato area.  This  could be
         supplied from the proposed Blue Earth River reservoir at Mankato.
         New Ulm is expected to have its anticipated 2020 needs  supplied
         by augmenting the present supply with Minnesota River water.

     5.  The annual value of storage to supply projected municipal and
         industrial water needs is based on the most likely alternative
         that would be used in the absence of multiple purpose development.
         In the Mankato area the most likely alternative would be a single
         purpose reservoir on the Blue Earth River at Mankato.  The year
         of first need would be 1985.  The cost of storage at  this reservoir
         site for water supply purposes over the 100 year project life is
         $^00,000 per year, including operation and maintenance.   This plan
         assumes reservoir service from 75,000 acre feet of storage to meet the
         entire demand of 67 mgd.  Final costs for multipurpose  analysis
         should be based on a single purpose reservoir that is comparable
         to the multipurpose allocation and which utilizes direct stresmflow
         in the same manner as the multipurpose plan.

     6.  Water quality standards for the Minnesota River, an interstate
         stream, have been established by the State of Minnesota with con-
         currence by the Secretary of the Interior, in conformance with the

-------
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  as  amended.   These Federal -
     State standards define the basic objectives  for water  quality
     control planning in this study.

 7.  There is a potential need for flow regulation for quality
     control in the Minnesota River below  Mankato to meet the stand-
     ard of 5 rag/1 of dissolved o;cygen. Based on the  estimated cost
     of providing advanced waste treatment as the most likely altern-
     ative, storage of 77>500 acre-feet in a  multipurpose project to
     provide the needed regulation would have a value  of $192,000 per
     year.

 8.  Streamflows in the Mississippi River  below the Minneapolis - St.
     Paul metropolitan area are not sufficient to maintain  the  water
     quality standards under the projected residual waste loadings
     after conventional secondary treatment.   The most favorable altern-
     atives are:  l) flow regulation from  storage on the Minnesota  or
     Upper Mississippi River; 2) flow augmentation by  pumping from  wells,
     and 3) advanced waste treatment.  Of  the last two, comparative cost
     estimates show advanced waste treatment  to be.more economical, at
     a cost equivalent to $3710,000 per year over the assumed  100-year
     economic life of multipurpose reservoir  projects.  The lesser  of
     this figure or the cost of alternative reservoir  storage to provide
     equivalent flow regulation may be used as the benefit  credited to
     water quality control in multipurpose reservoir benefit-cost analyses,
     It is assumed that the Corps of Engineers will develop cost esti-
     mates of the most likely single-purpose  reservoir alternative  and
     determine costs of Mississippi River  Headwaters Reservoir  manage-
     ment for comparison.

 9.  Because the present Federal - State enforcement  conference allows
     the discharge of not more than 68,500 pounds of  5-day  BOD  per
     day in the Minneapolis - St. Paul area,  the  design of  multipurpose
     storage as an alternative to advanced waste  treatment  will have
     to be coordinated with the conference recommendations.

10.  Overgrowth of algae is a potential problem in proposed reservoirs
     in the Minnesota River basin.  Measures  should be taken to improve
     control of agricultural runoff from the  watershed which will reduce
     the transport of silt, decaying plant material,  fertilizers and
     livestock wastes into the reservoir.   As an  added precaution,  and
     because excessive aquatic growth frequently  leads to  observed
     seasonal deficiencies in dissolved oxygen in the  lower reaches of
     deep reservoirs, outlet structures should be designed  to provide
     selectivity in the depths from which reservoir releases are drawn.

11.  The estimated seasonal flow needs for water  quality control given
     in this report are for planning purposes only and are  not  to be
     used for reservoir operation.  Operating procedures, to insure
     that water stored for quality control will meet  its intended purpose,
     must include provisions for monitoring of waste  loads  and  streams

-------
     at strategic points, short-term forecasting of needs and ti:nely
     rclea.se of flows to neet indicated, needs as they occur.

12.  The Federal policy for evaluation of benefits frora inclusion
     of storage for water quality nana.genent is presently undergoing
     review.  Improvement in advanced waste treatment technology may
     subsequently result in lovrer advanced waste treatnent costs.
     These changes and possible deviations in projections of vater
     supply and waste treatment nay allow revision of project operating
     criteria so the water will remain available for the nost beneficial
     uses.  Periodic re-analysis of the conclusions in this report,
     project functions said cost allocations is therefore recommended.

-------
                     III.  DESCRIPTION! OF THE ErlOJBCT
     The project as be ins study by the U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers
includes the consideration of seven multipurpose reservoirs on the
Minnesota River and its tributaries, all located below Sir; Stone Lake.
The Minnesota, River is located in the southwestern portion of Minnesota
with the headwaters of the river located in the northeast corner of the
State of South Dakota.  The headwaters of the Blue Earth Paver, a major
tributary to the Minnesota at Mankato, axe located in north central Iowa.

     The sites selected for the seven proposed reservoirs are:  Carver,
Mankato, He-,/ Ulr.i, Delhi and Montevideo on the Minnesota River; New ULm
on the Cottonwood; end Mankato on the Blue Earth River (see Figure 1 at
the end of this report).  The proposed Mew Ulm and Delhi reservoirs on
the Minnesota River night be combined into a single, larger impoundment.
Tentative conservation pool and iriaxiniujn pool information at each of the
reservoir sites ere listed in Table 1.

-------
                                    TABLE 1

                    MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUD!
                            RESERVOIRS INFORMATION
Dam Site

Minnesota River
Carver
Mandate
New Ulm
Delhi
Montevideo
Combined New Ulm
Delhi
Elevation
Above
Sea Level
Tentative

721
781
808
879
930
and 8l8

Depth (ft)
Conservation Pool

21
21
23
59
10
33

Surface
area
(acre)


8,200
3,^00
8,500
10,000
8,000
13,500

Storage
volume
(acre-feet)


75,000
25,000
60,000
15^,000
40,000
175,000

Blue Earth River

   Mankato

Ctottonwood River

   New Ulm
tLnne s o t a River

   Carver
   Mankato
   New UM
   Delhi
   Montevideo
   Combined New Ulm
   and Delhi

Blue Earth River

   Manka.to

tottonwood River
   826
 62
 1,UOO
   869           U9           2,000

Maximum. Reservoir Pool Available
   975
211
27,000
   65,000
                               56,000
735
815
840
900
950
900
35
55
55
80
30
115
17,^00
13,200
22,800
ill-, 000
38,000
U8,300
250,000
330,000
570,000
Uoo,ooo
500,000
2,700,000
1,900,000
   Hew Ulm
   950
130
 5,700
  370,000

-------
                        IV.  STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
LOG at ion _gn d Boundari e s

     The study area Includes the 16,920 square mile drainage basin of the
Minnesota River, of "which 1^,910 square miles are in Minnesota,  1,6UO
square miles ere in South Dakota and 370 squs.re miles are in Iowa (Figure l).
For purposes of this report} the area from Mankato downstream is called the
lower study area and upstream, the upper study area.

Geography and Topography

     The Little Minnesota River (Headwaters of the Minnesota River) rises
on the eastern slope of the Dakota foothills in South Dakota about 10 miles
south of the North Dakota line end- approximately 30 niles vest of the
Minnesota border, and flows in a southeasterly direction to Big Stone Lake.

     The Minnesota River flows southeasterly from Big Stone Lake for 225
miles to Mankato, where it turns and flows in a northeasterly direction for
106 miles to its confluence with the Mississippi River at Minneapolis - St.
Paul.  Approximately 30 miles of the Upper Minnesota River, part of which
is Big Stone Lake, forms the South Dakota - Minnesota border.

     Principal tributary streams are the Chippewa, Cottonwood, Redwood,
Lac Qui Parle, Blue Earth and Yellow Medicine Rivers.  Two of these trib-
utaries, Lac Qui Parle and Blue Earth, rise in other states.  The head-
waters of the Blue Earth River are in Iowa, while the headwaters of the
Lac Qui Parle are in South Dakota.  The tributary streams have steep slopes
except in the Minnesota River Valley where they flatten out as they join the
main stera.

     Above Mankato, the tributaries from the south are all similar in
character, each having a well developed drainage pattern, and each descend-
ing rapidly from much higher ground.  Thus comes the ability for producing
sudden high and devastating flood flows which are frequently greater than
the flow in the main stem.  The tributaries from the north also contribute
large volumes of water, but their rise is generally slower and their peaks
of longer duration.  Althoxxgh 2000 square miles of water shed are tributary
to the Minnesota below Mankato, the tributaries in this area are small and
their contribution is not significant.

     The Minnesota River has a flat slope (about 0.8^ foot per mile) with
the steepest gradient in the Granite Falls vicinity, where for a short
distance the fall is 11 feet per mile.  The width of the river flood plain
varies from three-quarters of a mile to three miles.

     Low rolling hills and outvash plains predominate in the west and south-
west; steep hills and lake-dotted moraines abound in the east and northeast
and a table land, 20 - 30 miles wide and rising several hundred feet above
the river valley, forms the southern portion of the basin.  The upland top-
ography is essentially that produced by glaciation.

                                     8

-------
     In the northwestern and north central parts of southern Minnesota
these ancient rocks consist of granites and related crystalline rocks,
which out crop in a nunber of localities or lie within a few hundred feet
of the surface.  Granite outcrops are found in more or less continuous
exposures from Ortonville to Hew Ulm along the Minnesota River and in
several outcrops in the high prairie region to the southwest in Brown,
Lyon and Yellow Medicine Counties.  Where the surface deposits over this
granite are more than 100 feet thick, the drift commonly contains several
beds of sand and gravel that yield sufficient water for ordinary purposes,
This drift is generally the only dependable source of ground water over
these granite formations.

     In some localities, as at Granite Falls, the drift is thin and is de-
void of any satisfactory water bearing beds, and in this community the
Minnesota River is used as the source of water supply.

     Western Minnesota is in the Barnes Soils area.  Studies conducted on
this type of soil have shown it to be highly erodible during periods of con-
centrated rainfall and that erosion damage is often a serious problem.  These
soils in the South Dakota - Minnesota Boundary area are dark medium to fine
textured high lime soils which support a cash grain and livestock agriculture.
Here the land is more undulating than the eastern portion of the basin.

     The south central portion of Minnesota has soils of high productivity,
medium to fine textured, and well supplied with lime, similar to those in
the west.

Climate

     The climate of the basin is in the transition zone between the huraid
and serai-arid short summer type with monthly mean temperatures varying from
12 F. to 68F.  The average mea.n temperatures in the four seasons ore winter
12F., spring UlF., summer 67F. and fall ^-5F.  Extreme temperatures record-
ed are -59F. in February, 1899 and February, 1903; and vUiF. in July, 1936.
The average annual precipitation varies uniformly from 22 inches in the Big
Stone LsJbe area to 28 inches in the Mankato - LeSueur area.  Thunderstorms
are the principal source of rainfall during the growing season.  The average
growing season for the basin ranges from 130 - l60 days, during which time
more than half of the year's total annual precipitation normally falls.

Principal Cities and Industries

     The principal communities in the lower study area and their 1960 pop-
ulations are:  (excluding the Twin Cities metropolitan area) Mankato, 23,800;
New Ulra, 11,100 and Fairmont, QjSOO.  Major cities in the upper study area.
are Montevideo and Morris, Minnesota with I960 populations of 5>?00 and ^,200
respectively.  The two principal cities in the South Dakota portion of the
upper Basin are Milbank, 1960 population 3,500 and Sisseton, 1>60 population
3,300.  In the lower area the Minnesota River forms the boundary between the
southern two counties of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.  The City of
Bloomlngton, located within the Twin Cities SMSA on the lower Minnesota River,
had a 1960 population of 50,500,

     The largest industries in the Minnesota River basin, excluding the Twin

                                     9

-------
Cities metropolitan area., employing from 500 - 999 people are:  California
Packing Corporation of Sleepy Eye, Minnesota; Stokely Van Camp, Inc., at
Fairmont, Minnesota, and Tony Downs Food at St. Jaiues, Minnesota.

Navigation and Dems

     The Minnesota River is considered naviga.ble for small craft from its
mouth to Mankato during wet seasons (medium to high flows).  The U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers s.nd private interests have developed a 9-foot channel
frora the mouth to approximately nine miles below Shakopee and a k-foot channel
to Shakopee, Minnesota.

     Development of water power in the basin has been limited by erra,tic and
low stream flows and by the absence of suitable storage sites.  A dam to
operate a run-of-the-river hydro-electric plant is located at Granite Falls,
Minnesota, and is operated by the City of Granite Falls.  The dam has an 18
foot head.  Another darn, located two miles down river from Granite Falls was
previously operated by northern Steles Power Company (liSP) for power product-
ion.  The head is 19 feet.  This dam creates a reservoir which is used as a
source of cooling water for HSP's present steam-electric plant.

     A total of five darns exist on the Minnesota River.  Big Stone Lake,
mentioned previously in this report, is at the headwaters of the basin.  A
Federally owned reservoir (Lac Qui Parle), located in the upper reaches of
the Minnesota River, is operated to control extreme high river flows.  Floods
are controlled in this reservoir by:  A main control works at the outlet, a
structure upstresra between Ms.rsh Lake and Lac Qui Perle for control of l&rsh
Lake reservoir; and a dam and diversion channel for diverting flood waters
from the Chippewa River into Lac Qui Parle Reservoir.  The Lac Qui Parle and
Marsh Lake Reservoirs combined have a flood control stors,ge capacity of 180,000
acre-feet.  These two reservoirs would be inunde.ted by the proposed reservoir
at Montevideo.  These reservoirs, as well as other lakes in this area, are
used quite extensively for recreational purposes.
                                     10

-------
                            V.  WATER RESOURCES


Ground Water

     Qugjrbity.  The availability of ground water in the Minnesota River
basin for use as a water supply is very significant and practically all
cities and industries use this source.  Out of a total of l8k communities
served by central water sv.pplies 183 communities use ground water.  The
l&i- central plants serve approximately 250,200 people or roughly 50/o of
the total population in the river basin.  Suburbs served by the Minneapolis
water system are not included in these figures.  The remaining 50$ is farm
population or small communities having no central water system.  Data are
not available for these individual sources but it is assumed that practically
all use ground water as a source of supply.

     The occurrence of ground water and the abundance of water in the
aquifers are related primarily to the local geological conditions as veil
as to climatic factors, such as precipitation and evaporation.  The upper
portion of the Minnesota River basin (Big Stone Lake ^o Mankato) has the
lowest average precipitation in Minnesota with evaporation rates ranging
from medium to high.  Shallow sand and gravel aquifers can be found along
some river valleys in the southern part of this portion.  Above Montevideo
some wells are known to have yielded as much as 1500 gallons per ;,.:. uce
(gprn), although average yields are considered to be aboivt. 5-10 gpni.
Below Montevideo to the Granite Falls area the glacial drift is thin as
evidenced by the frequent granite outcropings.  As a result of the scarcity
of ground water in this area. Granite Falls obtains their water suppj_y from
the Minnesota River.

     The water yielding units in Cretaceous rocks, which lie west of
Mankato, have not been adequately studied but several wells yielding more
than 300 SF11 have been developed.  The average yield is about 10 gpra.

     The Lower Minnesota River basin (Mankato to mouth) is one of the best
areas in the State of Minnesota for obtaining water from shallow sand and
gravel aquifers, especially along the river valleys.  It is also one of
the most favorable areas for developing deep wells.  Precipitation is medium
to high and evaporation is low to medium while infiltration is generally
good.  Ground water storage is provided in the Paleozoic sandstones, dolomites
and limestones.  Average yields from this type of geologic rock formation
are from 500 to 2,000 gpin.

     Some of the Minnesota River Valley is overlain by compact impermeable
glacial till which holds large quantities of water but releases little to
streams.  The potential of these beds of gravel within the till is very
important but extensive studies are required to map them.  Most of the
Minnesota River basin has not been mapped to show this potential.
                                     11

-------
     Quality.  The chemical quality of the ground water from the aquifers
in the Minnesota River basin is generally good, although in sorae areas
hardness is moderate to extreme, with excessive amounts of iron and mangan-
ese present.

     There is a marked decrease in mineralization "between the ground waters
of the -western parts of southern Minnesota and those of the eastern part.
The cause is found in the composition of the glacial deposits.  Glacial
deposits of the western counties are derived from Cretaceous sediments which
produce highly mineralized water.

     High sulfates are present in the ground water throughout the Basin.
In all cases the sulfate content exceeds the limit of 250 mg/1 recommend-
ed not to be exceeded in the U. S. Public Health Service Drinking Water  
Standards, (1962).  Lyon County well water has sulfate concentrations averag-
ing over 1,600 mg/1.  This county's ground water also has the highest
calcium content in the basin, about 300 rag/I.

     East of Mankato, deep wells obtain generally good quality water from
Paleozoic rocks.  Frora Mankato northeast toward the metropolitan area of
Minneapolis - St. Paul good quality water can be obtained from shallow sand
and gravel deposits.  However, this water is susceptible to contaminatior.
because the permeable surface of the beds is commonly exposed at the land
surface.  Southwest of Minneapolis - St. Paul, most of the Minnesota Valley
is mantled with glacial drift that yields fair quality water from shallow
wells, however, the water is high in sulf ate arid total dissolved minerals.

Surface Water

     Quantity.  The annual average runoff in the Minnesota River basin
varies uniformly frora one inch in the Big Stone Lake area to four inches
at its confluence with the Mississippi River.

     A rough estimate of the amount of water contributed to streams from
ground water sources csxi be made by observing the winter flow of the streams
in the basin.  With the exception of a snail araount of outflow from lakes,
winter flows are almost entirely ground water discharge.  The wide fluctu-
ations in streaja flows experienced in the basin are shown in Table 2 where
the flow data from the U. S. Geological Survey gaging stations for the major
streams in the basin ere tabulated.

     The topography of the basin, the steep slopes of the tributaries,
the gentle slope and small capacity of the Minnesota River all combine to
cause severe floods in the Minnesota Valley.  \Then a heavy rainfall occurs
in the basin, the water forms pool areas, thereby flooding many of the low
areas.  Thus, water takes several days to run off an area where the land
would normally drain in a few hours if a greater slope were present.  Yet,
at certain periods of the year, there is practically no flow in most of the
streams and many of the smaller strea^os are completely dry.  Minimum or
                                     12

-------
                TABLE 2




MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
Location
Minnesota River
Ortonville, Minn.
Odessa, Minnesota
Lac Qui Parle, Minn.
Montevideo, Minn.
Judson, Minnesota
Mankato, Minnesota
Carver, Minnesota
Little Minnesota River
Peever, So. Dakota
Yellow Bank River
Odessa, Minnesota .
Whetstone River
Big Stone City, So.
Pomme de Terre River
Appleton, Minnesota
Lac Qui Parle River
Lac Qui Parle, Minn.
Drainage
Area Abo\
(Sq. Mi.

1,160
1,340
4,050
6,180
11,200
14,900
16,200

447

398

Dak. 389

905

983
FLOW DATA
j Flows (cfs)
re
, ) Average

116
129
646
645
1,518
2,503
3,174

47.8

56.4

45.8

98.6

117
Min. Max.

0
0
0
0
17
26
79

0

0

0

0

0

3,060
3,070
19,700
, v24,500
U'l6,100
94,100
117,000

4,730

6,260

5,710

5,050

11,100
Period of
Record
(Climatic
Years) '^J

1938 -
1945 -
1943 -
1943 -
1939 -
1939 -
1939 -

1940 -

lQ4o 

1931 -

1935 -

1931 -

61
61
6l
61
49
60
61

61

6l

6l

61

62
7-Day Avg. 1-Day
Low Flow Low Flow
1 in 10 1 in 30
Years Years
(cfs) (cfs)

0
0
8
28
32
100
170

0

0.1

0

0

0

0
0
0
5
10
60
90

0

0

0

0

0

-------
                  TABLE  2  (Continued)
        MDMESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                      FLOW DATA
                                                           7-Day Avg.
Location
Chippewa River
Milan, Minnesota
Yellow Medicine River
Granite Falls, Minn.
Redwood River
Marshall, Minnesota
Redwood Falls, Minn.
Cottonwood River
New Ulm, Minnesota
Blue Earth River
Rapidan, Minnesota
LeSueur River
Rapidan, Minnesota
Mississippi River
St. Paul, Minnesota
Drainage
Area Above
(Sq. Mi.)
1,870

653

307
697

1,280
2,130

1,100
36,800
Flows (cfs) '1'
Average
*7

102

99^3

257
795

372
10,080
Min. Max.
0 6,930

o 11,800

0 5,370
o 19,700

0.5(3)26,000
(o)
6.9^^3,100

1.6(3)2^,700
632(3) 171,000
Period of
Record
(Climatic
Years) (2/
1938 -

1935 -

1935 -

1935 ?
19^0 -

19^0 -
19^0 -
61

62

62
62

63
61

61
6k
Low Flow
1 in 10
Years
(cfs)
1.0

0.2

0
0

2.0
10

2.0
1950
Low Flow
1 in 30
Years
(cfs)
0

0

0
0

0
5

0.5
1250
(1)    Entire station period of record used to  compute these flows.
(2/    Period of Record used to compute low flows.
      Daily discharges.

-------
critical flows in this basin usually occur in the fell or early -winter.
The raany natural impoundments in the basin, principally lakes and swamps,
tend to retain a portion of the spring runoff.  This stored water augments
the flow during the dry sunnier months and shifts the critical low flow period
from, late summer into fall.  Ice generally has a sufficient effect on runoff to
develop a critical low flow period during the winter from December to
February.

     Quality.  The chemical quality of the surface waters in the .Minnesota
River basin differs fron the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and from time
to time.  Quality is dependent upon climate, geology and other factors.  As
an example of the water quality change, the water in the streams in the
Upper Basin is of the magnesium bicarbonate or magnesium sulfate type at
low flow and changes to a calcium bicarbonate or calcium sulfate type a.t high
flows.  The concentrations of calcium eJid magnesium, are very high for most
streams in the southern end western parts of Minnesota, which includes almost
all of the Minnesota River basin.  Because these high concentrations exist
at nearly all discharges, the water is consistently very hard or in excess
of 130 mg/1 hardness expressed as calcium carbonate.

     Streams in the Minnesota River basin have higher concentrations of
sulfate than other streams in Minnesota.  Many have sulfate concentrations of
more than 250 mg/1, the limit recommended not to be exceeded in the U. 3.
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards (1962).

     Concentrations of chloride, fluoride, and nitrate are generally low,
but iron and. manganese in some streams exceed the limits recommended not
to be exceeded in the 1962 Drinking Water Standards of the U. S. Public
He3.1th Service.

     The Minnesota River is quite turbid, having a high suspended sediment
concentration.  The largest suspended sediment load of any stream in
Minnesota has been reported to be the Minnesota River at Mankato and was
about 102,000 tons per day in April, 1962 -when the river was at flood stage.
Most of the material in suspension is clay and silt.  Soil erosion is the
primary source of sediment, especially on the small tributaries.  Stream-
bank and gully erosion are secondary in the production of sediment.

     Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) are quite high in the
waters of the Minnesota River basin, although algae problems have been re-
ported to date in only one area - Big Stone Lake.  Applied fertilizers are
the primary source of nutrients and are carried to the streams by land run-
off.  Secondary sources are municipal and industrial discharges and cattle
feedlots.

     Some problems of high bacteria counts and low dissolved oxygen presently
occur in the basin during periods of low flow.  These areas will, however,
be eliminated with the installation of adequate treatment and proper disin-
fection of wastes.

-------
                              VI.  THE ECONOMY


     The projected economic development of the Minnesota River basin v;as
 used as the basis for determining future municipal and industrial water
 requirements and waste  loads on which quality control requirements were
'determined.  Data used  was that prepared by the National Planning Assoc-
 iation for the North Central Division, Corps of Engineers for use in the
 Upper Mississippi Biver Comprehensive Basin Study.

     The basin was divided into minor areas by grouping together counties
 of similar economic activity for water supply and waste load appraisal
 purposes.  Figure 2 shovrs the  economic minor areas.  Econov.iic activity of
 the seven county Minneapolis - St. Paul Standard Statistical Area (SMSA)
 is covered in Section XI of this report.

 Present

     The total 1960 population of the Minnesota River bs.sin was approx-
 imately  550,000.  Approximately 2C#  of the basin population is located in
 the lower  area  (MH-8),  which is part of the Minneapolis - St. Paul SMSA.
 This portion of the SMSA, consisting of Scott County and part of Carver,
 Dakota and Hennepin Counties,  constitutes approximately J$  of the total
 river  basin drainage  area.  The remaining 30$ of the basin  population is
 widely and. rather  sparsely  distributed throughout  a  2h county area  (MN-1 -
 7). The major portion of the  population in this 2k  county  area lives in
 the lower part.  The  I960 population for this area was ^31>000 with 62$
 of the total population classified  as non-farm.  Table 3 lists the popu-
 lation by  county  and  minor  area.

     In  3.960 there were only  two  cities with  over  10,000 population,
 namely Mankato  (23,79?) in  Blue Earth County  end Hew Ulra  (11,11^) in Brown
 County.  There were  six other  cities with  over  5,000 population, the
 largest  of which was  Fairmont  (9,7^5)  in Martin County.  Minor Areas Jtl 1-7
 showed little  change  in population  between  19^0 and  I960.   Only Blue Earth
 and Hicollet  counties showed any  significant  growth  from  19^0 to 1960.
 Blue Earth had  a  22 percent increase from  its  19^0 base of  36,^00 while
 Nicollet had a  27 percent  increase  from its  19^0 population of lS,200.
 These  areas  are predominately rural with small communities  and have  corn  and
 small grain production as the  principal agricultural activity.  Dairy farm-
 ing and livestock feeding are also quite  extensive.  The  study area indust-
 rial development  is  closely associated with those  industries which  depend
 iupon agriculture  for  their  raw materials  (i.e.  food  processing or canning plants),
 Although there  axe no large concentrations  of manufacturing, there  are  a
 considerable  number  of plants  engaged in poultry packing,  and  in the  canned
 and frozen foods  industry.   The larger plants engaged in  poultry packing  are
 in the following Minnesota counties:  Brown,  Faribault, Lyon and Watonwan.
 Plants in the canned and frozen foods industry ere located primarily in the
 following Minnesota counties:   Brown,  Faribault, LeSueur,  Martin, Renville,
 Sibley,  Waseca and Watonwan.   There is  a soybean  oil mill in Lac Qui Parle

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                                                 TABLE 3
State
County
         MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                   ECONOMIC MINOR AREAS
             BASE AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS

    I960              1980            2000             2020
Total    Non-Farm Total  Non-Farm Total  Non-Farm Total  Non-Farm
Minor Area MN-1
Minnesota
South Dakota
South Dakota
Minor Area MDT-2
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minor Area MN-3
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minor Area MCT-4
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Big Stone
Grant
Roberts
Subtotal
Douglas '
Pope
Stevens
Swift
Subtotal
Chippewa
Lac Qui Parle
Yellow
Medicine
Subtotal
Lincoln
Lyon
Redwood
Renville
Subtotal
8,900
9,900
13,200
32,000
13,800
11,900
11,300
14,900
51,900
16,300
13,300
15,500
45,100
9,600
22,600
21,700
23,200
77,100
5,300
5,500
6,900
17,700 29,000 31,200 34,900
6,000
5,900
6,1*00
8,900
27,200 48,200 50,100 57,300
10,300
6,600
8,400
25,300 47,800 53,900 68,800
4,300
15,600
12,300
11,800
44,000 76,500 88,500 109,000

-------
                                                  TABLE 3  (Continued;
                                        MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                                 ECONOMIC MINOR AREAS
I960
BASE AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS

           1980                2000
                                                                                              2020
State
Minor Area MPT.- 5
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minor Area MN-6
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minor Area MN-7
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minor Area MN-8
Minnesota
Minnesota
County
Brown .
Cottonwood'2/
Subtotal
Blue Earth
Le Sueur
Ni collet
Sibley
Waseca
Subtotal
Faribault
Martin
Watonawan
Subtotal
Carver
Scott
Subtotal
Total
27,700
12,200
39,900
19J,900
23,200
16,200
16,000
119,700
23,700
27,000
lit, 500
65,200
21,UOO
21,100
^2,500
Non-Farm Total Non-Farm Total Non-Farm Total Non-Farm
19,700
5,000
2^,700 1+7,500 57,500 75,100
3^,500
12,500
16,700
8,000
9,800
81,500 155,700 189,800 256,600
1U,800
18,200
9,000
1*2,000 81,800 99,700 131,900
15*300
29,600 55,000 70,300 93,800
Total Minor Areas            U73,toO 292,000    5^1,500 1+05,300     6ttl,000  529,^00    827,^00  725,800

      Y-)  Cities of Alexandria, Carlos and Osakis are not  included as they  are  out of river basin,
      (2)  City of Windom is not included  as it is out of river basin.
      (3)  Does not include Hennepin or Dakota Counties.

-------
County, Minnesota.  There gre other small plants in the area in the food
industry (i.e. dairy products) es well as other manufacturing plants not
in the large water using or waste producing categories.  Agricultural
activity is a large part of the total activity in the basin, accounting
for 38 percent of the population and 38 percent of the total employment
in I960.  Almost 628,000 cattle and calves, and 2 A million hogs and pigs
were sold in 1959.  In 1966 approximately 2,600 acres were irrigated.  In
1959 about 8.8 million acres of cropland were harvested.

     Mining activity consists of sand and gravel, crushed stone and dimension
stone.

Projected Population and Industrial Activity

     The total population of the Minnesota River basin, excluding that part
in Hennepin and Dakota counties, is expected to increase by 68,000 or
Iki) by 1980 from its I960 base of 14-73,000; by 2020 total population is expect-
ed to reach approximately 827,HOO.  Farm population is expected to decline
from its 1960~base of 181,000 to 136,000 in 1980 and to 102,000 in the year
2020.  Table 3 lists the expected population increases by county and ninor
area.

     From the above figures, it can be expected that the predominantly rural
counties will show very little increase in total population by 2020.  Two
counties, Pope in Minnesota and Roberts in South Dakota, are expected to
decrease in total population by 2020.  Counties which are expected to show
the largest increase in total population are:  Blue Earth, Brown, Martin,
Nicollet, Carver and Scott.  These counties have the industrial areas of
Mankato, New Ulm, Fairmont, and North Mankato, and will be influenced by
the growth of the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area.  Counties which
are expected to show the largest rates of increase are:  Blue Earth (factor
of 2.5), Brown (2.3), Martin  (2.2), Carver (2.l), Hicollet  (2.l) and
Chippewa (2.l).

     Total manufacturing activity is expected to increase to more than two
and one-half times its present level by 1980 with comparable growth rates
in succeeding decades.  Industrial water intake will almost double by that
yeaj1.  Table k shows the Base and Projected Industry Activity.  Rates of
growth will vary as between industries (i. e. food industry is likely to
increase 150 percent by 1980 whereas the chemical industry will grow much
more rapidly - as much as sevenfold by 1980).

     Demand for water for livestock purposes is expected to increase about
one-third by 1980 from its present base of 2U.7 million gallons per day,
and increase to 89 million gallons per day by the year 2020.

     Per capita income is expected to increase from its present base of
$1,600 per year to $3,600 per year by 1980.  Such increases will cause an
increase in the per capita consumption of domestic water use due partially
to increased use of household appliances.

                                      15

-------
                                  TABLE
                   MINNESOTA RIVER BASOT RESERVOIRS STUDY

                   BASE AND PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

                    Number (xlOOQ)
Indexes


Minor Areas MN-1 -
I960
1980
1990
2000
2020
f&nor Area MN-8*
I960
1980
1990
2000
2020
Major
Industry
Employment
m-7
10.9
14.2
16.5
**
-

121
177
199
232
-
Major
Industry
Output (I/Dollars

98,778
250,000
393,057

-

983,190
2,789,605
4,608,821
-
-
Major
Industry
Employment

100
135
151
..
-

100
146
164
192
.
Major
Industry
Output

100
260
399
_
-

100
284
468
-
.
Industrial
Water
Intake

100
197
275 / \
388 ;2'
76o(2)

100
215
316 , .
463 f2
1,000 (2)
Part of Minneapolis - St. Paul SMSA.
                         I960 dollars.
                         I960 - 1990 average growth rate extended.
                     Note:  I960, 1980, 1990 Industrial water
                            intake indexes are an average of
                            employment and output indexes.

-------
             VII.  WAT3R REQiUIESMEHTS, MUNICIPAL MID INDUSTRIAL


Present Water Uses and Sources

     Municipal water use in the Minnesota River basin is 19-5 million
gallons per day (mgd) not including cities served by the Minneapolis water
system.  Table 5 (in the Appendix - Part A) lists the communities with
their average daily water use.  Major usage is by Mankato and New Ulm,
Minnesota.  All communities, except one, obtain most or all of their water
supply from wells.  Granite Falls obtains its supply from the Minnesota
River.  Fairmont uses the waters of Budd Lake in addition to wells.

     The present municipal and industrial water use for the River basin is
listed by county and totaled for econor.iic minor areas in Ta.ble 6 in Part A
of the Appendix,

     Industrial water use is estimated at 43-8 mgd for the basin.  These
estimates were based on the 1963 Census of Manufacturers, McGraw Hill list-
ing of industrial concerns, and the State of Minnesota Directory of
Manufacturers (Bibliography references 18, 2U and 25).  Almost all of the
industries have one or more wells from which they obtain their water supply.
Usage varies seasonally with many of the canning industries such as the
Green Giant Company of LeSueur, California Packing Company of Sleepy Eye,
and Stokely Van Camp Company in Fairmont engaged in canning corn and peas
during June through August, while the American Crystal Sugar Company in
Chaslca produces sugar and molasses from sugar beets and operates from
early October through January.  The remaining major industrial water use
centers in Mankato.

     The States of Minnesota, South Dakota and Iowa require a permit to
appropriate the surface and underground waters of the State.  From a
listing of these permits, approximately 13 mgd was used for irrigation in
1960 in the Minnesota River basin.  About 10.5 ragd "3-S appropriated from
surface sources and the remaining 2.5 Eigd from, ground water.  The major use
was in Big Stone, Swift, Sibley and Renville counties.  These figures do not
include any part of Hennepin County, Minnesota in the Minnesota River basin.

Future Municipal and Industrial Water Requirements

     All projected demands for water a.re based on the economic and demo-
graphic projections prepared by the National Planning Association for the
North Central Division of the U.' S. Army Corps of Engineers for use in the
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study.'37  The methodology per-
taining to water use projections used in the Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Basin Study was similarly applied to this study.

     Municipal water use was projected as shown in Part B of the Appendix
to this report.  A more detailed methodology may be found in the Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study Report, Appendix H.

                                      16

-------
     Industrial water use was projected to increase at the same rate as the
average of the rates of increase of the employment and output indexes.
Factors used are those of Table U.

     Municipal water supply needs for the Minnesota River basin are expected
to increase from the present average per capita water use of 78 gallons per
day (sped) to Ilk sped by 2020.  The economic and demographic studies show
the population served is expected to increase by 100 percent by 2020.  Total
municipal water use is therefore expected to increa.se to 82.7 nigd by 2020.

     Industrial water use for the basin is expected to increase to 357-^
mgd by 2020.  Part of this need (lU.9 mgd) will be supplied by municipal
systems.  Table 7 shows the expected municipal and industrial water use
by minor areas for 1980, 2000 and 2020.

     The future use of ground and surface waters for irrigation will de-
pend mainly on the increase in yields desired.  The annual benefits to be
obtained must exceed the annual costs of the irrigation system or the in-
vestment would not be worthwhile.  A large number of formers do not raise
high value commercial crops and probably will not do so in the future;
consequently, it is not expected that future irrigation water needs will
constitute a large portion of the future water demand in this river basin.

     Ground, water is available in sufficient quantity to handle the pro-
jected needs of all communities in the basin except four.  These four
communities \rith their needs expressed in ngd on 3, see,sonal basis and the
year in which additional water is needed are shown in Table 8.

     Summer usage is higher because of lawn watering and other uses.  At
Fairmont, the seasonal industrial use is reflected in the quantity needed.

     The aquifer from which the City of Mankato and the industries in the
area withdraw their supply is estimated to have a sustained yield of 30 mgd
if a combination of shallow and deep wells is used.  The needs for Mankato
are projected to reach an average of 51 end 97 sigd by 2000 and 2020, thus
requiring an additional water source.

     Fairmont, which obtains its water supply from wells and a lake has a
sustained yield potential from these combined sources of approximately 15.0
mgd.  The needs in this area, are projected to reach 23.5 xigd by 2020 with
a summer season high of 3^.0 ingd.  An additional water source will be re-
quired by 2020 to meet these demands.  The summer season use for 2000 can
be met by storing water through -the fall, winter and spring seasons.  Ground
water recharge or other lakes in the srea are the alternates which will need
to be investigated by the local entities.

     Marshall obtains its supply from several wells penetrating buried out-
wash and is estimated to have a sustained yield of 5-0 mgd.  A very careful
well analysis would have to be iso.de to achieve this potential.  The
municipal and industrial use for this area is projected to 8.0 mgd by 2020,


                                     17

-------
                      TABLE 7
       MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
BASE AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
 I960                   1980                  2000
2020

Minor Area MN-1
Central Supplies'^'
Industry (M)
Industry (S;
Subtotal
Minor Area MtT-2
Central Supplies
Industry fM)
Industry (s)
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-3
Central Supplies
Industry (M;
Industry (s)
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-1*
Central Supplies
Industry (M)
Industry (s)
Subtotal
Per Total Per
Pop. Capita Use Pop. Capita
Served (GPCD) (MGD) Served (GPCD)
15,765 79 1.2l* 17,210 95
0.0k
0.73
2.01
19,110 88 1.68 26,550 105
0.02
0.18
1.88
22,760 77 1.76 33,290 90
0
0.28
2.0V
35,750 71 2.52 52,160 8k
0.01
1.6l
k.lk
Total
Use Pop.
(MGD) Served
1.6 21,910
0.1
1.1*
3.1
2.8 33,600
0.1
O.k
3-3
3.0 1*2,050
0
0.6
3.6 .
k.k 68,560
0
2*2
7.6
Per Total Per Total
Capita Use Pop. Capita Use
(GPCD) (MGD) served (GPCD) (MGD)
100 2.k 27,700
0.2
2.8
5.1*
Uli. 3.8 l*l*,100
0.1
0.7
1*.6
107 4.5 58,260
0
1.1
5.6
99 6.8 91,130
0.1
6.2
13.1
Hi* 3-2
0.3
111
9.0
119 5-3
0.2
1.1*
6.9
113 6.6
0
2,1
8.7
111 10.1
0.1
12.2
22.1).

-------
                 TABLE 7 (Continued)

       MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
BASE AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE

Minor Area MW-5
Central Supplies \1/
Industry (M)
Industry s)
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-6
Central Supplies
Industry (M)
Industry (s)
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-7
Central Supplies
Industry (M.)
Industry (S;
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-8
Central Supplies
Industry Cm
Industry (S;
Subtotal
I960
Per
Pop. Capita
Served (GPCD)
22,315 85
71,445 79
39,305 69
23,745 86

Total
Use Pop.
(MGD) Served
1.90 36,400
0.36
2.72
4.98
5.66 127,430
1.53
17.34
24.53
2.72 64,720
0
8.82
11.54
2.05 47,500
0.00
10.18
12.23
1980
Per
Capita
(GPCD)
102
95
81
103

Total
Use Pop.
(MGD) Served
3.7 48,400
0.7
24
9.8
12.1 165,700
3.0
34.1
49.2
5.3 85,000
17.4
22.7
4.9 64,200
0.0
21.8
26.7
2000
Per
Capita
(GPCD)
in
109
96
112

2020
Total Per
Use Pop, Capita
(MGD) Served(GPCD)
5.4 66,600
1.4
10.6
17.4
18.1 232,600
5.9
67.2
91.2
8.2 117,400
0
34.2
42.4
7.2 88, '00
0.0
47.0
54.2
117
114
109
118

Total
Use
(MGD)
7.8
2.7
20.7
31.2
26.5
11,6
131.8
169.9
12.8
0
67.0
79.8
10.4
0.0
101.8
112.2

-------
                                          TABLE 7 (Continued)
                           MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                    BASE AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WD INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
                                  I960                1980                   2000                2020
                                 Per   Total          Per    Total          Per    U'otaj.        p^r	Total"
                         Pop.  Capita   Use    Pop.  Capita   Use    Pop. Capita   Use    Pop.  Capita  Use
                        Served  (GPCD) (MSP)  Served (GPCD)  (M3P)  Served (GPCD) (MGD)  Served (GPCD) (MGJD)
Total Minnesota River Basin
Central S
Industry
Industry
upplies
(M)
(s)
GRAND TOTAL
250,195 78 19.
1.
in.
MMM
63.
53 .1*05,260 93
96
86
MM*
35
37
3
8h
*MBM
126
.8 529,^20
 9
 .3
.0
106 56.4 725,790 ni
7.7
169.8
233-9
4- 82
Ik
3U2
kho
.7
.9
.5
.1
(M)  Municipal Supplied
(S)
     Self Supplied

(l)  All Central Supplies include both domestic and commercial usage.

-------
               TABLE 8




MINNESOTA. RIVER BASIH RESERVOIRS STUDY




 WATER SUPPLY PROBLEM AREAS AND HEEDS
        Approximate
Total (MGD)
City
Mankato
Mankato
Fairmont
Marshall
New Ulra.
Year
2000
2020
2020
2020
2020
Winter
43.0
82.0
20.0
7.0
12.0
Spring
51.0
9Y-0
23-5
8.0
lU.O
Summer
61.0
116.0
3^.0
9.0
16.0
Fall
51.0
97-0
23.5
8.0
lU.O

-------
1,;hus requiring an additional water source.  The community can probably meet
its future water supply use by development of storage in local impoundments
and/or recharging the ground water aquifer.

     The fourth community whose future needs cannot be supplied by ground
water is Hew Ulm.  The aquifer from which New Ulm and the industries in New
Ulm withdraw their supply is estimated to have a sustained yield of 8.0 mgd.
The future requirement of the area is 1^.0 mgd by 2020, therefore requiring
an additional water source.  The 1-day in 30 years low flow of the Minnesota
River is approximately 10 - 15 cfs and could therefore be used as a supple-
mental supply to meet the demands through 2020.

     Approximately 75 - 85$ of the future water needs in these areas is
expected to be by industry.  In each of the four areas, the ground water
potential would be sufficient to meet the projected municipal needs.  It is
conceivable, therefore, that as more costly water supply sources are develop-
ed and water becomes more expensive, more industrial in-plant reuse and con-
servation measures may take place.  This would result in lower projected in-
dustrial water use.  An inexpensive source of adequate water supply of suit-
able quality is an important consideration to many industries planning the
location or expansion of industrial activity.
                                       _ o
                                       lo

-------
                       VIII.  WATER QUALITY COHTROL


Heed for Control

     The use of water for municipal and industrial purposes inevitably results
in the production of liquid waste.  After providing an adequate level of treat-
ment to these wastes, it is still possible that the quality of the waters in
the receiving stream, might be degraded.  Since the quality of the water deter-
mines the uses for which it is suitable, the quality must be maintained such
that the benefits of the various water uses may be enjoyed.  Recognition must
be given to all water uses such that the quality of the receiving streams are
kept at acceptable levels.  The potential of streamflow regulation to contrib-
ute to the maintenance of good quality water has been recognized in provisions
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. h66 et seq.).
This Act requires consideration of the inclusion of storage in Federal reser-
voirs for regulation of streamflow for quality control in the survey or plann-
ing of a reservoir by any Federal construction agency.  Section 3b of the Act
expressly states that any such storage and water releases shall not be pro-
vided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling
waste at their source.  Higher degrees of waste treatment or other measures
are required, therefore, as population and industrial activity increase to
maintain the quality of the water in the stream.  If provision of the degree
of treatment presently considered adequate in the usual situation is not
sufficient to protect stream quality during periods of low stream flow, con-
sideration must be given to flow regulation so that the effect of the plant
effluent on the stream can be controlled.  This section will deal only with
the control of water quality on the main stem of the Minnesota River.  Control
of water quality on the Mississippi River below the Twin Cities will be dis-
cussed in Section XI.

Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural Pollution

     Minimum acceptable waste treatment plant efficiencies and municipal and
industrial organic waste loads expected in the future are discussed in Part C
of the Appendix.

     Table 9 of this report (see Part D of the Appendix) lists all municipal-
ities with public sewer systems located in the Minnesota River basin, except
Bloomington, which discharges to the Minneapolis - St. Paul Sanitary District.
These 156 systems have a present before treatment population equivalent of
208,14-00.  The industrial organic waste load of this river basin has a present
before treatment population equivalent of 1,100,000.  All of these waste
sources were used in calculating the water quality needs in the Minnesota
River basin.  Figure 3 is a schematic drawing of the river basin showing the
relative locations of the major waste sources.

     Municipal and industrial organic waste loads are listed by county and
economic minor areas in Table 10  (see Part D of the Appendix).

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
     The base  and projected municipal and industrial organic waste dis-
charges are  listed by economic minor areas in Table 11.   These projected
waste loads  v/ere based on the economic and demographic projections prepared
by the National Planning Association and the water use projections listed
in Table 7.

     Animal  wastes and their effects can be just as detrimental to the streets
as municipal and industrial wastes in that the oxygen resources in the stream
can be depleted frora the organic wastes.  Some counties  (ifertin, Renville,  and
Lyon) in this  rural basin had approximately 165,000 to 200,000 animals (cattle,
pigs and sheep) on the farns in 196*1.  The population equivalent of the  wastes
frora these animals was approximately 580,000 to 720,000.   For the entire
Minnesota, River basin, the population equivalent in 1964 was nearly 10.5
million.  This was about nineteen tines the total I960 population of the basin.
The problem  created by the animal wastes becomes apparent when the animals  are
concentrated in fcedlots along streams.

     The amount of nutrients contributed from agricultural sources is much
greater than from municipal and industrial sources in this b?,sin.  Results  of
the Twin Cities Upper Mississippi River Project completed by the Federal V/ater
Pollution Control Administration in July, 1966 showed that out of 3,900 pounds
per day of nitrogen reaching the mouth of the Minnesota  River, only 1,300
pounds per day was from municipal and industrial sources.  In this sane  study
municipal and  industrial waste sources on the Minnesota  River contributed only
1,100 of the total 2,800 pounds per day of phosphorus reaching the mouth of
the Minnesota  River.  Over enrichment of nutrients can cause severe water de-
gradation i.e. algal blooms, etc.

     The importance of agriculture as a source of nutrients becomes more
apparent when  the nitrogen and phosphorus potential contributions are calcul-
ated from the  total animal population and use of fertilizers in the basin.
Animal wastes  are estimated to contain approximately 560,000 and 120,000 pounds
of nitrogen  and phosphorus per day, respectively.

     Fertilizer application was. from 20,000 - 25,000 tons per year in one
county (Renville) alone in 196*1.  For the entire basin over 240,000 tons of
dry and liquid fertilizers were used in 1964.  Stxidies conducted by Smith,
1959; Allison, 1955; Borman and Likens, 1966; Sylvester, 196l; and others,
have shown that 10 - 25 percent of the fertilizers applied to the land was  lost
through drainage \26 - 32 in Bibliography).  With the installation of more  drain-
age tiles, which is increasing in the basin, a larger quantity of nutrient
laden land runoff will reach the water courses.   Better land use and water flow
practices on the individual farm would materially reduce the nutrient and sed-
iment load reaching the streams.

Water Quality  Objectives

     The major water uses in the basin are for recreation, fish and wildlife
propagation, municipal and industrial water supply, livestock watering, waste


                                      20

-------
                              TABLE 11

                MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
      BASE AMD PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AHD INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC WASTE DISCHARGES
           USED TO CALCULATE WATER QUALITY PROBLEM ARSIS (l)

Minor Area t-ET-1
Domestic & Conner cial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-2
Domestic and Commercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area MM- 3
Domestic & Co:rciercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-4
Domestic & Cor/mercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area I-3K-5
Domestic & Commercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area l-Ei-6
Domestic & Commercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-7
Domestic & Commercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minor Area KN-8
Domestic & Cornmercial
Industrial
Subtotal
Minnesota River Basin
Domestic & Commercial
Industrial
Grand Total
I960
Population
Equivalent
Loading
1,840
4,750
6,590
2,580
	 0
2,580
2,600
110
2,710
4,350
11,100
15,450
2,820
11,600
9,250
51,950
55*800
60,250
3,350
4o,ooo
43,350
31,240
166,060
197,300
1980
Population
Equivalent
Loading
1,720
2,100
3,820
2,660
	 0
2,660
3,330
620
3,950
5,220
4,550
9,770
7,400
11,540
12,740
34,500
47,240
6,470
23,800
30,270
4,750
39,300
44,050
41,030
112^70
153,300
2000
Population
Equivalent
Loading
2,180
3,920
3,360
	 0
3,360
4,200
1,130
5,330
6,860
8,550
15,410
5,480
12,500
17,980
16,600
61,100
77,700
8,500
44,500
53,000
6,4oo
65,000
7i,4oo
53,580
156,700
250,280
2020
Population
Equivalent
Loading
2,760
7,720
10,480
4,400
	 0
4,400
5,820
2,300
8,120
9,100
16,800
25,900
7,500
25,500
33,000
23,200
122,000
145,200
11,740
87,500
99,24o
8,800
i44,ooo
152,800
73,320
405,820
479,1^0
See methodology in Part C of the Appendix

-------
disposal and esthetics.  A limited use is for irrigation purposes.   The water
quality criteria adopted by the State of Minnesota in accordance with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 for the sections of the Minnesota
River analyzed in this report are listed in Table 12.  Water quality standards
for the State of Minnesota were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on
June 18, 1968.

Flow Regulation

     The consideration of storage for streamflow regulation has been based on
the provision of adequate treatment for all municipal and industrial wastes.
For purposes of this study, adequate treatment for municipal and industrial
wastes is considered to be veil operated secondary treatment providing Sp/o BOD
removal for the present and 90$ for 19o03 and beyond.  (See Part C of the
Appendix to this report for synopsis of methodology).

     Of all pollutants discharged to streams in the Minnesota River basin,
organic wastes are the most significant in terms of the potentially damaging
effects on vater quality.  They cause a reduction in the dissolved oxygen con-
centration of the vater which, in turn, affects fish and other aquatic life.
For this reason, dissolved oxygen was used as the basis for evaluating future
water quality management needs.  Analysis of the effects of anticipated waste
loads for the years 1980, 2000 and 2020 in the Minnesota River below the pro-
posed reservoirs indicate that two main areas of oxygen depletion will occur
between Lac Qui Parle and the confluence with the Mississippi River.  One
area will occur below Kew Ulm as a result of the industrial and municipal
waste loads discharged from New Uln.  The other will occur below Mankato as
a result of the municipal and industrial wastes discharged in the vicinity of
Mankato.

     Flow needs were analyzed for each season in these two critical areas.
Figures k and p show the amount of flow required for the four seasons to main-
tain a 5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen concentration with anticipated waste loads end
treatment in the foreseeable future.  Figures 6 and  7 show the flow require-
ments for the winter (critical) season to maintain other dissolved oxygen
levels.  The figures for the Minnesota River below Mankato have curves of flow
requirements increasing slightly to year 2000, after which the requirements
jump quite rapidly.  This is based on the assumption that the power plant
located on the river will be phased out in and around the year 2000.  The
elimination of the heated discharge will cause the river to become ice covered
thereby practically stopping reaeration to the river (see Part C of the Appendix
for further explanation).  These are the minimum stream flows at which the
anticipated waste treatment plant" effluent can be discharged without reducing
water quality below the water quality standards.  In the event flow regulation
is instituted, the actual regulation of flow should  be based on a downstream
water quality monitoring system.  The growth of industries and municipalities
would probably be more irregular than the projections so the rates of flow must
be adjusted accordingly.

-------
                               TABLE 12

                 MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
          LIMITING CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT SUBSTANCES'
     AND CHARACTERISTICS GIVEN HI WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ADOPTED
                   BY MINNESOTA FOR MINNESOTA RIVER
             FROM BIG STONE LAKE OUTLET TO CARVER RAPIDS
SUBSTANCE OR CHARACTERISTIC

    Dissolved Oxygen

    Temperature

    Ammonia (N)

    Chromium (Cr)

    Copper (Cu)

    Cyanides (CN)

    Chlorides (Cl)

    Hardness

    Oil

    pH Value

    Phenols

    Turbidity Value

    Total Coliform Organisms


    Radioactive Materials
                                        LIMIT OR RANGE

                                    5 mg/1

                                    86F.

                                    1 mg/1
                                               *
                                    1 mg/1

                                    0.20 mg/1

                                    0.01 mg/1

                                    100 mg/1

                                    250 mg/1 (surface)

                                    Not to  exceed a trace.

                                    6.5 - 9.0

                                    0.001 mg/1

                                    25

                                    1,000 most probable  number
                                    per 100 milliliters

                                    Not to  exceed the  lowest
                                    concentrations permitted to be
                                    discharged to an uncontrolled
                                    environment  as prescribed by
                                    the appropriate authority having
                                    control over its use.

^'Approved by Secretary of the Interior on  June  18, 1968

   A limit of U,000 most probable number per 100  milliliters
   is allowed from. Big Stone Lake outlet to  Granite Falls.

-------
100-
                                         MINNESOTA   RIVER  BELOW  NEW  ULM
                                         SEASONAL  FLOW  REQUIREMENTS
                                         TO  MAINTAIN  DESIRED  QUALITY
                                         OF  5 MG./L   DISSOLVED  OXYGEN
  I960
                                                                                                    2020
                                                                                              FIGURE  4

-------
                                                MINNESOTA  RIVER  BELOW  MANKATO

                                                SEASONAL  FLOW  REQUIREMENTS

                                                TO  MAINTAIN   DESIRED  QUALITY

                                                OF  5  MG./L  .DISSOLVED  OXYGEN
   600-
Q
z
o
o
LJ
V)

ce
ai
a.
OJ
ui
(JL


O
5
o
o
500-
400-
^.  300-
o
_i
u.
   2OO-1
   100-
                                                                                    ANTICIPATED   POWER

                                                                                    PLANT  PHASE  OUT
      I960
                     1970
1980
 1990


YEARS
2000
20IO
2020
                                                                                                      FIGURE  5

-------
                                         MINNESOTA RIVER  BELOW  NEW  ULM
                                         FLOW  REQUIREMENTS  FOR
                                         WINTER   SEASON   FOR
                                         DIFFERENT  WATER   QUALITY
100-
   1960
                                                                                                  202O
                                                                                             FIGURE G

-------
                                    MINNESOTA  RIVER  BELOW  MANKATO
                                    FLOW   REQUIREMENTS  FOR
                                    WINTER  SEASON  FOR
                                    DIFFERENT  WATER  QUALITY
                                                                   ANTICIPATED  POWER

                                                                   PLANT  PHASE  OUT
I960
                                                                          2010
202O
                                                                                   FIGURE  7

-------
     The.required draft-on-storage was calculated by routing synthetically
 generated* monthly flows through a series of different sized reservoirs,
 neglecting the effect of evaporation, sediment storage and reservoir manage-
 ment.  From the results of this analysis, it was determined that storage for
 water quality for the area of oxygen depletion below Kew Uln, Minnesota will
 not be required.  According to the historical flow records, river flows will
 be sufficient to maintain the dissolved oxygen above the required levels
 throughout at least 90 of the years to the year 2020.  Storage for water
 quality control or other control measures, will be needed for the critical
 area below Maiikato.  To obtain the regulation needs for this area, expected
 flows were routed through a. single purpose reservoir at the proposed Blue
 Earth River Reservoir site above Mankato.  Regulation at this site would be
 precluded if the reservoir were constructed without water quality management
 storage.  Available data indicates that this would be the raost economical
 site to satisfy flow regulation requirements.  Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the
 draft-on-storage for several levels of water quality at different protection
 levels for waste load conditions anticipated in the years 19uO, 2000 pnd 2020.
 These figures were prepared by routing a 250 year synthetic flow trac;, through
 each dam size and recording the failures (number of years in which the within-
 year monthly flow requirements were not met).

     Studies on other streams have indicated that a dam size selected by this
 method has a coefficient of variation of 10 percent.  This reflects the variation
 inherent in the hydrologic record.

     Provision for a draft-on-storage of 77,500 acre-feet would provide 90
 percent assurance of meeting the minimum quality standard of 5 ng/1.  It may
 be noted in Figures 3, 9 and 10 that when a. greater assurance than 90 percent
 is desired, the storage requirements increase quite rapidly.
     ^Synthetic flows were generated based on analysis of the monthly flow
records  available on the Minnesota River, considering seasonal chs.nges and
serial correlation between succeeding seasons.


                                      22

-------
  6000-
  3OOO-
LJ
Ul

*- 4OOO-1
a:
o
  3000-

V)
o
til
u
z

z
o

p
< 2000
19
Ul
a:
  IOOO-
                              BLUE EARTH  RIVER RESERVOIR
                              ABOVE  MANKATO
                              DRAFT  ON  STORAGE FOR
                              DIFFERENT  WATER QUALITY
                              AT  VARIOUS  PROTECTION LEVELS
                              1980  CONDITIONS
       IOO
 I
90
 i
80
 i
70
                                                         60
 i
50
                               PROTECTION    LEVEL  ( % ASSURANCE)
                                                               FIGURE  6

-------
35.OOO-
  5.OOO
                            BLUE EARTH  RIVER  RESERVOIR
                            ABOVE  MANKATO
                            DRAFT  ON  STORAGE  FOR
                            DIFFERENT  WATER  QUALITY
                            AT VARIOUS  PROTECTION  LEVELS
                            2OOO  CONDITIONS
      IOO
                            PROTECTION
               5O

( % ASSURANCE)
                                                              FIGURE  9

-------
                            BLUE  EARTH  RIVER RESERVOIR
                            ABOVE  MANKATO
                            DRAFT  ON  STORAGE  FOR
                            DIFFERENT  WATER  QUALITY
                            AT VARIOUS   PROTECTION  LEVELS
                            2O20 CONDITIONS
9O.OOO-
 2O.OOO
      1OO
90          80          70          60          SO

         PROTECTION  LEVEL   ( / ASSURANCE )
                                                            FIGURE  10

-------
                IX.  EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RESERVOIRS OH THE
                     WATER QUALITY OF THE MIMIESOTA RIVES
     The construction of artifical impoundments on a stream will alter
the biological, chernlcs,! end physical characteristics of that stream.
These characteristics arc so interrelated that changes in one will affect
the others.  Environmental changes occurring as a result of impounding the
waters may be beneficial or detrimental.

     Possible benefits to the Minnesota River will be a reduction in
turbidity, hardness, BOB, color and colifomi organisms, and a general
equalizing action, smoothing the concentration of various incoming pollut-
ants.  The detriments to the quality of the waters in some or all of the
reservoirs resulting from the reduced mixing and lovrer reaeration will be
an accumulation of certain pollutants, possible algal blooms, and thermal
stratification.

     Of the changes in the quality of the Minnesota River waters, probably
the most noticeable will be the increased clarity of .the waters.  Lovrer
velocities and longer detention times will permit the larger soil particles
to settle to the bottom of the reservoir.  Many of the finely divided clay
particles can be expected to floculate and settle as well.

     With this decrease in turbidity, one of the most noticeable detri-
mental effects expected in the quality of the waters will be the develop-
ment of nuisance algal blooms.  ITitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in
excess of 0.3 and 0.01 mg/1, respectively, are generally considered sufficient
to TDroduce nuisance algal blooms in reservoirs.  The nutrient concentrations
presently found in the Minnesota River are well above these figures.  Up to
now nuisance algal blooms on the Minnesota River below Ortonville have been
rarely noted, as other necessary conditions (temperature, pH and clear water)
have not been met.  Reducing the turbidity will satisfy one of these conditions,
thereby increasing the probability of algal blooms.

     In the deeper reservoirs, the detriment to the water quality most likely
to occur is thermal stratification.  Characteristically in deeper reservoirs,
three layers of water develop.  The upper layer, or epilimnion, is the warm,
more or less freely circulating region of essentially uirfjTum temperature.
It may vary in thickness from 10 feet to Vo feet or more in deeper reservoirs.
The middle layer, or thermocline, is the region of rapid change in tempera-
ture.  The lower layer or hypolimnion, is the  cold region of approximately
uniform temperature.  This layer is sealed off from circulation with upper
waters and consequently no significant reaeration occurs during periods of
stratification.  During prolonged periods of stratification, this layer may
become devoid  of dissolved oxygen (DO) as a result of accumulated organic
materials.  When the IX) concentration reaches  zero, several reactions may
take place:  iron and manganese may go into solution, odorous hydrogen sul-
fide may be formed, excess carbon dioxide may  be created, and the pH of the
water may "be lowered.  If the reservoir outlet is at the bottom of the reser-
voir, "Door quality water will be discharged downstream..  To alleviate this

                                    23

-------
problem, when reservoirs are constructed with depths of over 40 - 50 feet,
facilities should be provided to permit release of water from the upper,
middle or lower levels.  In some reservoirs it may also be desirable to
provide facilities to create an artificial mixing of the water layers to
alleviate this problem, as it also improves the quality within the project
as well as below it.  It nay, however, also make more nutrients available
for algal growths.  Direct pumping from the hypolinnion and mixing with the
epilinnion, jet action nixing of incoming water and "bubble guns" have been
used successfully in sone reservoirs.

     The shallow reservoirs will behave differently from those deeper ones
in which the thermocline forms.  In the non-stratified reservoirs, all of
the nutrients will be available for utilization by algae.  In stratified
reservoirs, only the nutrients in the epilimnion will be available for algal
utilization, except during brief periods of turnover in the spring and fall
when complete mixing will occur.

     The large agricultural base in the Minnesota, River basin, with the
highly enriched runoff from agricultural lands will greatly affect water
quality in the proposed impoundments on the Minnesota River and its trib-
utaries.   Studj.es in a similar basin in Iowa have shown marked increases
in nutrients and organic content since the construction of the reservoir.
Birring periods of precipitation, the oxygen demand exerted on the Iowa River
from agricultural land runoff was equal to that produced by a city of three-
quarters of a million people.  The large animal population and heavy use  of
liquid fertilizers in the Minnesota River basin will likely produce similar
conditions in the proposed Minnesota River reservoirs.  If reservoirs are
constructed it nay be necessary to provide for better control of runoff
from agricultural lands, if severe blooms of algae are to be avoided.

Proposed Reservoirs

     Characteristics of the seven proposed reservoirs in the Minnesota River
basin are given in Section III of this report.  The alternative whereby two
sites are combined is also described in this section.

     At the conservation pool level three of these sites could be classified
as deeo reservoirs:  Minnesota at Delhi, Blue Earth at Mankato and the
Cottonwood River site at New Ulia.  These three will probably exhibit thermal
stratification characteristics mentioned previously in this section.

     The remaining five sites or alternatives will be shallow, with depths
ranging from 10 - 33 feet at the conservation pool.

     At the maximum pool level (flood control pool) six of the eight altern-
atives will exhibit the characteristics of deep reservoirs.  This means that
at the larger t>ool, in addition to the above listed sites, the Minnesota
River at Mankato, the Minnesota River at Hew Ulm, and the combined New Ulra
and Delhi reservoirs could undergo thermal stratification if the flood pool
is kept full during the summer.  This is not the usual situation, however,
as the spring waters are generally released prior to sunnier.

-------
     At the nutrient levels anticipated, algal blooms can be exraectea at
all proposed sites.  The severity will probably be greater than"any exper-
ienced on this river previously, unless land use practices are improved.

     The more stabilised stream flow and reduced solids load in the
Minnesota River will ii.rorove environmental conditions for bottom organisms.
Presently some of the rocky, rubble areas are disturbed during oeriods or
high stream flow ana then left high and dry during low flow periods.  With
sustained flows of good quality water these places may become favorable
spawning erA feeding areas for game fish and the Minnesota. River and its
tributaries could provide more recreational opportunities with reservoir
development than the river can now support.  Careful planning will be
essential, however, to realise the potentials inherent In these Isrre

-------
                              x.  BJS-IEFITS
     This section describes the benefits anticipated from provision of
storage for we.ter supply end water quality control in proposed multi-
purpose projects on the Minnesota River from. Lac Qui Parle to the mouth.
Benefits from improved water quality in the Mississippi River below the
metropolitan area of Minneapolis - St. Paul are discussed in Section XI
of this report.

Municipal and Industrial '.7ater -Supply

     The need for future vrater supply can be met by ground water at most
of the communities in the basin.  Storage in the proposed projects could
be used at Kankato, Minnesota.  Hew Him, the other major city in the basin
located on the main stem of the Minnesota River, has a projected 2020  need
which will require a 6 ngd beyond that considered available from ground
water, however, it can be supplied by the Minnesota River without a need
for storage.

     Mankato ho.s a projected municipal and industrial water supply need
which will require a 67 mgd supply from a source other than ground water.
A number of alternatives were investigated to supply this need.  Among these
were:  Reservoir on Minnesota, Reservoir on Blue Earth River and piping  in
from distant wells.  The most feasible alternative is to supply this water
from a single purpose reservoir loca.ted on the Blue Earth River at the
Mankato site.  The total cost of constructing a single purpose reservoir
capable of supplying the anticipated needs Is $16,500,000 with an annual
maintenance and operation cost of $11,000.  All reservoir costs used in
this report to determine benefits were obtained from the St. Paul District,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.  This total cost takes into account storage
for evaporation and sediment.  The year of first need would be 1985.  Using an
interest rate of h 7/oc'3 (the current Federal rate) discounted to 1970 and
amortised over a one hundred year period (life of the reservoir), the value
of the benefits resulting from provision of water supply in the Mankato
reservoir to meet anticipated needs would be $^00,000 per year.  This  is
assuming that the entire demand of 67 mgd would be served by reservoir
storage.  Direct stream flow could be utilized in addition to reservoir
storage in time of need.

Water Quality Control

     Preserving and/or improving the quality of the surface waters of the
Minnesota River basin will  contribute to the economy of the entire area.
The assured maintenance of  adequate water quality will preserve the^waters
for agricultural purposes,  municipal and industrial supply, recreation,  fish
and wildlife propagation, end for esthetic enjoyment.  Presently these streams
and lakes are used extensively for recreational activities.  An increased
use of"these waters for recreation can be expected in the future.  It is
reasonable to exoect that the people of the Minnesota River basin, plus the
population located in the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitsn  area, will make
greater use of the recreational opportunities made possible by control of
                                    26

-------
water quality.

     Benefits derived from the increased water use made possible by control
of water quality will accrue to those who use the waters for fishing and
recreation, for direct use, and for esthetic enjoyment and are considered
widespread in scope.  These benefits are based on the premise that adeauate
treatment will be provided at all waste sources.  While a partial value of
the benefit of storage for water quality control can be estimated from the
fishing and recreational use anticipated, these and other benefits have been
evaluated on the basis of the cost of the most economical alternative to the
multipurpose project which will achieve the water quality standards.

     The alternatives considered to be most feasible to alleviate the water
quality problem in the Mankato area, which is anticipated to begin about the
years 1995 - 2000, were the following:

     1.  A single-purpose dam at the Minnesota River site above Mankato.

     2.  A single-purpose dam at the Blue Earth River site above Mankato.

     3.  Advanced waste treatment.

     In addition to these, however, a number of other alternatives could be
considered:  Part reservoir storage and part advanced waste treatment; stor-
age of industrial wastes during the winter season; or advanced waste treat-
ment of these wastes prior to discharging to the municipal sewage treatment
plant; in-stream aeration, effluent irrigation and/or combinations of these
means.

     The most economic reservoir site to supply the storage needed to main-
tain satisfactory water quality below Mankato through 2020 would be the Blue
Earth River site.  This site was chosen by using the techniques developed by
Fiering and Pisano (base assimilation model), which determined that the
storage should be sufficient at this site to yield a release on demand of
77,500 acre-feet annually.  The total cost of a single purpose reservoir to
supply this amount would be $17,000,000 with an annual maintenance operation
cost of $11,100.  The year of first need would be  1995-  At the current
Federal Rate of h 7/8^ discounted to 1970 and amortized over a one hundred
year period, the cost of flow regulation at the Mankato site would be
$256,000 per year.

     Advanced waste treatment costs were the third alternative investigated.
At the projected waste loads and flow rates of the Mankato  sewage treatment
facility and assuming that a 90 percent 5-day BOD  removal of the municipal
and industrial sewage is the maximum of conventional treatment, advanced
waste treatment will be needed about the year 1995.  In order to meet the
stream standards for the Minnesota River, a treatment removal of 98 percent
would be needed four months out of the year  (November, December, January
and February).

     Many varying  combinations of treatment processes  could be used to pro-
vide this percent of removal.  The method of treatment  chosen consisted of


                                       27

-------
chemical coagulation and. sedimentation plus filtration through sand plus
aeration of the final effluent "before final discharge.  The treatment would
be applied to the effluent of tlie Mankato secondary sewage treatment plant.

     Using this method of treatment, the capital costs for a 68 mgd plant
(flow expected year 2020) would be  approximately four million dollars with
operation and maintenance costs being about $57 per million gallons.  Amort-
izing the capital costs and  adding  the annual operation and maintenance costs
gives the plant cost per yea,r from  1995 to 2020., considering a. 25 year life
for the sewage treatment plant.  On a comparative basis vith the reservoir
storage, the same plant would have  to be replaced in the years 2020 and.
SOl*?.  At the cxu-rent rate of If 7/8$, discounted to 1970 and capitalized over
a 100 year period, the cost  of advanced waste treatment without flow augment-
ation to Mankato would be $192,000  per year.

     The annu.3,1 cost of advanced waste treatment is somewhat lower then the
cost of reservoir storage, thereby  indicating that advanced waste treatment
might be the most desirable  alternative.  The added fecture of advanced waste
tres.tr.ient is that in addition to BOD removals of S?4> total phosphate re-
movals in the area of 95^> would also be achieved.  An additional consideration
exists here.  It must be kept in mind that projections are being made 50 years
into the future.  In other words, advanced waste treatment can serve to make
the wastes completely suitable for  a vide range of reuses.  It is anticipated
that there will be a need for an additional water supply in the Mankato area
in the future.  It is reasonable, therefore, to ass one that this need could
be supplied by the rcnove.tion of the vaste waters.  This could be accomplish-
ed by adding an additional  stage  (absorption with activated carbon, electro-
dialysis, or evaporation) to the stages  of coagulation, sedimentation and
filtration considered here  in the advanced waste treatment process.

-------
            xi.  rairaAPOLis  - ST. PAUL METROPOLITAII AREA


     The second part of this  study was to appraise the water quality control
needs below the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area on the Mississippi
River.  This section of the report will cover the possible contributions of
the meeting of water quality  control needs below the Tv.-in Cities area.  Dis-
cussed are the water resources, economy, water quality control needs and the
benefits for the metropolitan area.

Hater Resources

     Water supply for the metropolitan area was not a consideration in this
report.  Available information indicates that ground water is available in
the area and will be used for water supply purposes.  No provision of sur-
face water for water supply purposes is needed at this tine.

Surf s.ce Water

     Three major rivers - the Mississippi, the Minnesota and the St. Croix
Rivers - converge in the metropolitan area.  Their combined watershed area
is nearly ^5,000 square miles.  The U. S. Geological Survey gaging station
at St. Paul records the combined flows of the Minnesota ejnd Mississippi.
Rivers.  As the entire municipal water supply of Minneapolis and St. Paul
is taken from the river above this station end is returned to the rivers
below at the sewage treatment plant at Pigs Eye Island, nean daily and annual
flows for the St. Paul station are adjusted for this diversion.  The average
flow at this station is about 10,000 cfs with a range of 630 - 171,000 cfs.
Minimum stream flow visually occurs in the latter part of the summer due to
sparse precipitation and decreased ground water levels and in winter when
cold weather results in no surface runoff, retention -of ws.ter in frozen
marshes and continued low ground water levels.  The 7-day average, 1 in 10
year winter low flow is 1,950 cfs while the summer low flow is 1,900 cfs.
Daras on the Mississippi River in the metropolitan area ere at Coon Rapids,
St. Anthony Falls, the Ford Bridge Dem (Lock and Dam No. l) and at Hastings
(Lock and Dam Mo. 2).

     The chemical quality of the Mississippi River where it is used for
water supply by the Tvrin Cities area is good.  Generally all chemical con-
stituents are below the naxinum concentration limits set by the U. S.
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards (1962).  Available data show
the water to have a low mineral solids content usable for municipal and
industrial supply purposes.  Color and turbidity of the water in the Mississippi
River sometimes exceed the limits of the Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards but satisfactory levels are easily attained by treatment.

Economy

     Present.  The Minneapolis - St. Paul Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SliSA) had a I960 population of 1.5 million people, which was almost

                                     29

-------
100$ non-farm.  The area depends primarily on services and manufacturing to
support its economy.  The Twin Cities metropolitan area is a major market-
ing, distribution and transportation center.  It is ideally situated in re-
lation to the heavy industrial centers to the east, the agricultural indust-
rial complex to the soxith and southeast, the agricultural plains region to
the west and northwest and the timber and mineral resources found to the
north.  Its primary trade area includes all of Minnesota, the Dakotas and
Montana.

     The industry of the area is primarily light manufacturing, transport-
ation and trade.  Most prominent of the industries are food processing, in-
cluding meat packing, malt beverages and flour milling, electronics  and
instruments, machinery and fabricated metals, abrasives, plastics,  chemicals
and petroleum products, and printing and publishing.  The large number of
persons employed in transportation and warehousing and in wholesale  and re-
tail trade contribute to the generally stable economy and steady employment
situation.  The mineral resources of the area are used in glass, architect-
ural stone, brick and concrete products manufacturing.

     The area is served by an excellent system of transportation facilities.
Nine major railroads converge here and four  of these have their headquarters
in the Twin Cities.  More than 100 authorized motor freight carriers operate
in the area.  Freight and passenger transportation is provided by seven
scheduled airlines using the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport at
Wold Chamberlain Field.  Pipelines from the  Kansas - Oklahoma, North Dakota,
Indiana and Canadian fields bring crude petroleum, refined petroleum products
and natural gas to the area.  Commercial navigation on the Mississippi River
includes commodities shipped into the area,  chiefly petroleum products and
coal and shipments out of the area, primarily grain and  soybeans.

     Most of the power produced in the metropolitan area is generated steam-
electric by the northern States  Power Company at two  plants  (Riverside and
High Bridge) located on  the Mississippi River and  one plant  (Black Dog) on
the Minnesota River, as  well as  one plant  (Allen S. King Plant) on the St.
Croix River.  The presently rated generating capacity of these four plants
is  about 1.9 million kilowatts.

     future.  Based on projects of the National Planning Association, the
population of the Minneapolis  - St.  Paul SMSA  is  expected to  increase from
the I960 base of 1.5 million to 2.h million by 1980;  3-3 million by 2000
and k 6 million by  the year 2020.  These projections  compare  favorably with
the projections made by  the Twin Cities  Metropolitan  Commission and the
State of Minnesota, Department  of Conservation.

     Industrial expansion in the Twin Cities is expected to be very rapid
in such lines as electronics  and instruments.   These  companies do not require
a great deal of water.   Among  the  companies requiring water in the  future,
the greatest increase  can be  expected in the paper, chemical and petroleum
industries  and in  the  stone,  clay,  rubber and plastics group.  The  increased
market  in this  area is  expected to  have a significant effect on the demand

                                     30

-------
for food, minerals  and forest products and manufacturing throughout the
Upper Mississippi River basin.

     With increasing population more emphasis will be directed toward
service industries.  One  of the foremost of the service industries vn.ll be
the recreation business.

     Prom results of a Minneapolis - St. Paul Metropolitan Sanitary District
study (^-7), the present industrial load is approximately two-thirds of the
domestic load.  With the  primary  industrial expansion being "dry" industries,
with increasing restrictions on water use caused by public interest in con-
serving water, and" with increased costs of waste treatment, it is expected
that industries will actively search for more in-plant water conservation
and waste reduction measures, so  that this ratio will remain about the same
for the foreseeable future.

Water Quality^jControl

     Municipal and Indxistrial^aUjition. The major organic waste contrib-
utions are to the main stem of the Mississippi River JLn the metropolitan
area of Minneapolis - St. Paul.   Analysis of water quality problems in this
area is complicated by the multiplicity of sanitary districts serving the
area.  The passage of the Metropolitan Sewer Bill by the 1969 Minnesota
legislature helps the problem considerably, although the centralized con-
cept of treatment versus  regional sewage treatment plants is yet to be decided
and probably will not be  decided  in the near future.  The bill's main feature
is that of one overall authority  for operating all waste treatment plants in
the seven county metropolitan area.

     There is a strong possibility that several smaller regional plants will
be constructed in the area.  The  centralized concept of sewage treatment for
the metropolitan area was considered to be most conservative and was used in
the calculations in this  report.  Until such time that legislative action
establishes new sanitary  districts, this concept is valid.  Any changes in
the waste disposal practices of the metropolitan area such as the creation
of new districts would necessitate a revaluation of the calculations con-
tained herein although it is not  anticipated that drastic change would be
required.

     The present municipal  and industrial organic waste discharge below
Minneapolis - St. Paul is limited to 68,500 pounds 5-day BOD per day.  This
restriction was set as a  result of the Twin Cities Upper Mississippi River
Federal - State Enforcement  Conference (^8) and is the limit on treatment
plant effluent for this reach of  the river set by the State of Minnesota.
Treatment of organic wastes  will  have to be improved such that 87.5$ of the
BOD must be removed to meet  this  standard.  For the future years it has been
assumed that 95$ of .the total organic load remaining in the sewage treatment
plant effluents in the Minneapolis - St. Paul seven county metropolitan area
will be discharged to the Mississippi River below Minneapolis - St. Paul as
a point source waste load.   The remaining 5$ be discharged to the St. Croix
River, to lagoons or to other disposal points.  The pounds of waste material
expected to be treated in the year 2000 were compared with the values used by

                                     31

-------
the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities area in the Council's study
completed in November, 1968.  The projections coinpared quite favorably.

     Water Qualitv^Obnectives.  The quality objectives for the Mississippi
River in the reach below the l>iinneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area used
in this report are those recommended by the Twin Cities Upper Mississippi
River conferees and established under its classification procedures by the
State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  The summary of the Conference
(standards and recommendations) vra.s issued by the Secretary of the Interior,
June 17 j 1967.  The waters were classified for use for industrial processes,
general industrial cooling, stock and wildlife watering, restricted irrig-
ation, disposal of treated sewage and waste effluents, fish survival,
esthetic enjoyment of the river scenery, and passage of watercraft.  In
connection with navigation, pleasure boating was expected to be carried out
in such a manner as to avoid close, frequent, or prolonged contact with the
water.  The standards to meet these objectives are given in Table 13.

     As in the calculations on the Minnesota River, dissolved oxygen was
used as a primary measure for appraising present and future conditions.

     Flew Regulation.  The analysis of the effects of anticipated waste
loads on the Mississippi River below the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan
area was based on the provision of adequate treatment for all municipal and
industrial wastes.  Adequate treatment for the wastes of this area is con-
sidered to be well operated secondary treatment providing 87-5 percent BOD
removal for the present and 90 percent for the future years.

     The water quality analysis completed on the critical #rea shows that
even after adequate treatment (90p) has been provided for all collectable
wastes in the metropolitan area, dissolved oxygen concentrations anticipated
will be below those set forth in the State - Federal water quality standards
for the Upper Mississippi River.  Therefore, the development of storage for  .
quality management would need to be coordinated with the conference recommend-
ations .

     Flow needs were analyzed for each season in this area.  Part E of the
Appendix shows the computations used.  Figure 11 shows the flows required
to maintain 3 mg/1 dissolved oxygen for the four seasons.  The critical
season is the summer months.  Studies completed by Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration in July, 1966 indicated that at the summer low flow
the waste loading would need to be limited to 68,500 pounds of 5-day, 20C.
BOD per day to maintain a minimum of 3 mg/1 dissolved oxygen in the river.
Figure 11 shows the flow requirements for the critical summer season.  These
flows  are based on an anticipated economic growth and effective  application
of available treatment on a continuing basis.  The actual regulation of flow
must be based on water quality monitoring.  Data from the three Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration's water quality monitors  now in oper-
ation  in the Twin Cities area should be of  assistance in determining the
actual flows which should be released to maintain water  quality  under con-
ditions actually prevailing.

                                    32

-------
                             TABLE 13

           MISSISSIPPI RIVER BELOv-7 MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL
LIMITING CONCENTRATIONS OP IMPORTANT SUBSTANCES AID CHARACTERISTICS
Substance or Characteristic

Dissolved Oxygen


Temperature

Ammonia (N)

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Cyanides (CN)

Fluroide

Oil

pH range

Phenols

Total coliform organisms

Radioactive  materials
      Limit or Range

3 mg/1 at the 7-consecutive day,
once in 10-year low flow.

93F.

2.0 mg/1

1.0 mg/1

0.2 mg/1

0.02 mg/1

2.0 mg/1

10 mg/1

6.0 -  9-5

0.1 mg/1

5,000  per  100 ml.

Not to exceed the  lowest concen-
trations permitted to be dis-
charged to an uncontrolled  environ-
ment as prescribed by the Federal
Authority  or by  the State Board of
Health.

-------
  3500-
   3OOO-
o
z
o
u
LU
ce
Ul
Q.
tu 25OX>-
u.
u
03
Z.  2000-
                                                  MISSISSIPPI  RIVER  BELOW
                                                  MINNEAPOLIS - ST  PAUL  METRO  AREA
                                                  SEASONAL  FLOW  REQUIREMENTS
                                                  TO  MAINTAINTAIN  DESIRED  QUALITY
                                                  OF  3  MG. / L. DISSOLVED   OXYGEN
          19so crs
                                                    SUMMER



                                           T COHSECOTIVE  DAY  I  IK  10   YEAR   LOW  SUMMER   FLOW
l-
z

U   I5OO-
o
o
    1000-
    500-
                                                                  SPRING
                                                                     G
                                                                  V/INTER
       .I960
                         I97O
I98O
   1990

YEARS
                                                                             2000
                                                                                              	,	

                                                                                               2010
                                                                                                                20 2O
                                                                                                         FIGURE  II

-------
     No problems are expected during the winter months with the listed
limitation of loading even though ice cover will occur in some sections.
Computer studies conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration indicated that a minimum of approximately 7.5 mg/1 of dissolved
oxygen will occur during the winter months at the low flow with the. limit-
ation of loading.  This is because of aeration in open water areas  (heated
discharges, -periodic ice breakup), aeration over Lock and Dam Number  2, and
because the decrease in dissolved oxygen downstream occurs at a much  lower
rate in the winter than the summer as the winter deoxygenation rate is less
than 10 percent of the summer rate.

     The work in this study for the metropolitan area was limited to  deter-
mining needed flows.  No storage requirements employing the base assimilation
model were calculated as the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers will
determine storage requirements.

Benefits

     Water Quality Control.  Benefits obtained by the control of water
quality may be tangible or intangible.  By maintaining the proper water
quality, the uses for which the waters of the Mississippi River below
Minneapolis - St. Paul are classified will be assured.  Riparian property own-
ers, as well as others, will enjoy improved esthetics stemming from the main-
tenance of quality conditions necessary for the use of surface waters and a
satisfactory public health environment.  The benefits are considered  wide-
spread in scope and are based on the premise that adequate treatment  will be
provided at all waste sources.

     The determination of benefits for water quality  control on the Mississippi
River below the metropolitan area of Minneapolis - St. Paul must be evaluated
on the basis of the most economic alternative which will achieve an assured
level of water quality.  A number of alternatives should be considered which
would alleviate the anticipated water quality problem area below the  Twin
Cities in the future years.  These alternatives are presented herein:

     1.  Storage with regulated releases from reservoirs in the Minnesota
         River basin (at Carver or in the Blue Earth  River reservoir above
         Mankato.)

     2.  Releases from existing reservoirs  located in the headwaters  of the
         Mississippi River.

     3.  Pumping from ground water aquifers to the Mississippi River at
         some distance north of the Twin Cities  (exact  location to be deter-
         mined by an engineering survey).   The area would need to be outside
         of the zone of drawdown of Twin Cities ground water pumping.

     It.  Advanced waste treatment  of the collected municipal  and industrial
         vastes from the seven county metropolitan area at  the Pig's Eye
         Plant.

                                    33

-------
     These four were considered to be the most feasible.   Other means  con-
sidered were effluent irrigation and in-stream aeration.

     Alternatives numbers 1 and 2 will be evaluated by the U.  S. Army  Corps
of Engineers as part of the multipurpose reservoir development analysis.
The reservoir release requirements for the Twin Cities do not  coincide with
the Mankato requirements and could, therefore, be considered independently.

     Alternative number 3 was evaluated.  The veils -were assumed to be
drilled in the area of St. Cloud to Little Falls, spaced at about 1,000
feet along the river and distance back from the river to a maximum of  one
mile.  Using the 7-day, one in 10 year low flow, 1,130 veils (2020 need)
would be needed assuming that each well is capable of producing 1 mgd.
An initial battery of 500 wells would be developed in the year 1970.  The
additional 630 wells would be drilled about the years 1995 - 2000.  A
conservative time that the pumps would need to be operated was considered
to be four months out of the year.  The cost of an individual well system
complete with pumping equipment was estimated at $14-5,000 with replacement every
25 years.  At the current Federal rate of k 7/8%, discounting the costs  on
a time schedule when the wells would be needed and amortizing them over  a 100
year period, to provide comparison with reservoir storage costs, the annual
cost would be &U, 900, 000.

     Alternative number ^ considered employing advanced waste treatment  for
the wastes of the metropolitan area.  Considering that 90 percent removal
of 5-day BOD is maximum for conventional treatment, and the limit to be  dis-
charged in this area imposed by the Federal - State conferees would require
a degree of treatment equal to this percentage, advanced waste treatment
would be needed about the year 1970.  The year 2000 anticipated waste  loads
and flow rates were used for the plant which would serve 1970 - 1995,  con-
sidering a 25 year life for a sewage treatment plant.  A conservative  time
that this h7k mgd plant would need to be operated would be four months out
of the year.  The degree of removal of  all wastes needed would be 9h%.  The
plant constructed in 1995 would be designed for the anticipated waste loads
and flow rates of 2020.  A BOD removal  of all wastes  required would be 95. 1$.
A conservative time that this 662 mgd plant would need to be operated would
be four months out of the year.

     To attain the degree of removals required  in these cases,  chemical
coagulations and sedimentation plus filtration  through sand and aeration of
the final effluent with pH  adjustment before  final discharge was  considered.
     For this type of treatment, the capital costs for a kjh mgd and a 662
mgd sewage treatment plant are estimated about 19 million,  and 26 million
dollars, respectively.  The operation and maintenance costs of these plants
vould  be approximately $50 per million gallons.

     At the current" rate of k 7/8$, amortizing the costs of these two plants,
with a replacement in the year 2020 and 20^5, over a 100 year period (reser-
voir life), the cost of advanced waste treatment without flow augmentation
would  be $3,710,000 per year.  This cost is less than the pumping alterna-
tive number 3 with the reservoir storage costs yet to be determined.  As

-------
mentioned previously in this report, with advanced waste treatment,  the added
benefit obtained is phosphate removal.  Water renovation is also a possibil-
ity in this metropolitan area, where the lack of water is expected to be a
problem in the future years.

     There is one additional alternative which should be considered  in the
development of a complete metropolitan plan.  This is the possibility of
raising the water quality standards for the Mississippi River below  the Twin
Cities metropolitan area.  The existing limitation on BOD loadings establish-
ed by the Federal - State enforcement conference would therefore have to be
revised.  A complete analysis of this alternative cannot be evaluated at
this time but is mentioned only to assist in any future planning efforts.
Figure 12 shows the streamflow needed to maintain k mg/1 dissolved oxygen
if adequate secondary treatment is provided.
                                      35

-------
 eooo-i
  SCOO-
O
o
U)
a: 4000
u
0.
Ul
u
u.
  3000-
o
u.  2000-
  1000-
MISSISSIPPI   RIVER  BELOW
MINNEAPOLIS'-  ST  PAUL  METRO AREA
FLOW  REQUIREMENTS  FOR
SUMMER   SEASON  FOR
DIFFERENT   WATER   QUALITY
                                                          IN  10  YEAR  LOW SUMMER  FLOW
                                       7 CONSECUTIVE  DAY
       I960
                                                            2020
                                                                                                    FIGURE  12

-------
                               BIBLIOGRAPHY
 1.   Letter from Corps of Engineers,  U.S.  Array District, St. Paul, dated
     April 25,  1966.

 2.   Notes on Sedimentation Activities Calendar Year  1965,  compiled by
     Bureau of Reclamation, Department of  the Interior, August 1966.

 3.   National Planning Association Population Projections of Upper Mississippi
     River Basin for North Central Division,  U.S.  Corps of  Engineers,
     Report Upper Mississippi River Basin Planning Suboreas.  Regional
     Statistic Office, U. S. Department of the Array,  Horth Central Division,
     Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi Basin Above TvrLn Cities Minnesota - South Dakota, Planning
Status Report, Federal Power Commission, Bureau of Power, 19oU.
 5-


 6.   Water Use for Irrigation in Minnesota, State of Minnesota., Department
     of Conservation, Division of Waters, Bulletin No.  17,  April  1962.

 7.   Water Resources of the Minneapolis  St. Paul Metropolitan Area, State
     of Minnesota, Department of Conservation, Division of  Waters, Bulletin
     No. 11, August 1961.

 8.   Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters  of Minnesota,
     Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission, June 19o?.

 9.   Census Data Sewage Disposal Facilities, Minnesota Department of Health,
     State of Minnesota, January 1, 19t>7-

10.   Water Quality Ssnpling Program, by the Section of Water Pollution Control,
     Division of Environmental Sanitation, Minnesota Department  of Health,
     1957-1960.

11.   United States Census of Population South Dakota, Minnesota  and Iowa,
     U. S. Department of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1960.

12.   United States Census of Agriculture by County, 196k, U. S.  Department
     of Commerce, Bureau of Census, "19W.

13.   A Comprehensive Program for Hater Pollution Control for the Minnesota
     River Basin, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
     Health Service,
ll^  The Minnesota River Valley, Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Resources
     Commission, State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota, 19-65.

"15.  Bip- Stone Lake - Whetstone River, Project Modifications - Minnesota.
     and South Dakota/ U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
     Service,
                                      36

-------
16.  Hydrologic Atlas pf^I'Iinnesota, State of Minnesota,  Department of
     Conservation, Division of Waters Bulletin, No.  10,  April 1959.

17.  Municipal Water Pg^cilities, Ig63 Inventory ^ Region  VI,  U.  S.
     Department of Heelth, Education and Welfare, Public HeeJLth Service.
3-8.  1963 Ccnsus^of MaiuJ acturers , V.'ater Use in J^feniif^cj^rlng^ U.  S.
     Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

19.  Pollution of the Upper Mississippi River and Major Tributaries,
     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Twin Cities - Upper
     Mississippi River Project, July 1966.

20.  Report of the Minnesota River Valley Development Interim Commission,
     submitted to the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, January
21.  Industrial Waste Census Data, State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department
     of Health.

22.  Surface Water Records of Minnesota, U. S. Department of the Interior,
     Geological Survey.

23.  Public Water Supply DataA Division of Sanitary Engineering, South
     Dakota Department of Health, July 1^61.

2k.  Listing of Upper Mississippi River Basin Indus tr i el Census , unpublished
     information done for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
     by McGrav Hill.  1966.

25.  Minnesota Director of Manufacturers, 1963-196*1.  Minnesota Department
     of Business Development, 196^.

26-  Phosphorus Enrichnent of Drainage Waters from Farm Lands , M. W. Smith,
     Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 887-895. 1959-

27.  The Enirana of Soil Nitrogen Balance Sheets.  In:  Advances in Agronomy,
     Academic Press, Inc., N.Y.A.G. Ifarman (ed), F. E. Allison, P. 213, 1955-

28.  Comparative Nutrient Losses in Solution and in Particular Matter from
     en Undisturbed Northern Hardwood Ecosystem.   F. H. Bormann, and G. E.
     Likens, 1966.  Bulletin Ecological Society of America, Vol. Vf, No. 3,
     p. 115.

29.  Nutrient Content of Dra.ins.5e Water from Forested., Urban and Agricultural
     Areas ? Algae and Metropolitan Wastes.  R. 0. Sylvester, 1961.  U.~'S".
     Public Heelth Service, SEC TR W61-3, PP- 80-87-

30.  Pesticides and Other Contoninants in Rainfall and Runoff, S.R. Weibel,
     R. B. Weidner, - J."~M. Cohen ! 'and A.G. Christiansen, 1966 .  American Water
     Works Association, Vol. 58, No. 8, pp. 1075-108U.

                                      37

-------
31.  Nitrogen a-nd^JPhgspliorus in the JDraina.^ Effluent^ W. R. Johnston,
     F. Ittihadieh, R. M. Daum and A. F. Pillsbury, 1565.  Soil Science,
     Vol. 29, p. 287.

32.  Nitrogen Compounds in ITetuxalJ-7sjer - A Review.  J. H. Feth, 1966.
     Water Resources Research.  Vol. 2, No. 13 pp. h1-^>8.

33-  Wa.ter Resources Activities in the United States, ''Future Water Require-
     ments for Municipal Use," Committee Print No. 7, Select Committee  on
     the National Water Resources, U. S. Senate, January 1960.

3^-  Water Resources Activities in the United Sjfaates , "Water Supply and
     Derisxtd" , Committee Print No. 32, Select Committee on the National
     Water Resources, U. S. Senate, August I960.

35   Ine President's Water Resource Council, Policy , Standards , and
     Procedures in thj? Forraulati on, Evaluation e,nd Review of Flans for  Use
     and Development of Water and Related Land Resources,,. Senate Document
     No . 97 , . 1$2^

36 .  Water Resources Study Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs Minnesota
     "Study of PotentisJL Needs sjid Value of Water Storage for Municipal,
     Industrial and Quality Control Purposes," U. S. Department of Health,,
     Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Region VT.  Kansas City,
     Missouri, December
37.  The Effects of a Flood Control Reservoir on Water Quality by D. B.
     McDonald and R. D. Schnickle, Water and Sewage Works, November
38.  Influence of Impoundments on Water Quality, U. S. Department of Health,
     Education "and Welfare, Public Health Service, October 196^.

39-  Symposium on Stream Floi? Regulation for Quality Control.  U, S.
     Department of Health, Education  ajnd Welfare, Public Health Service,
     June 1965.

40.  Rj.ver^ Basin Simulation Progrein,  Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
     istration, Division of Technical Control, Comprehensive Planning and
     Programs, March 1967-

Ifrl.  Oxygen Relationships in Streams, Tharp and Gardner, CB-SRBP Technical
     Paper No. 3, U. S.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
     Health Service.

h2.  Tmn Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission, Metropolitan Population
     Study, Metropolitan Planning Report No. 2, August 1959-

43.  Fitting the Red' River of^the North Basin to the General River Basin
     Simulation Program^ Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
     Division of Technical Control, Comprehensive Planning and Programs,
     April 1967.

                                      33

-------
Management _ of Farm Animals , National Symposium on Animal Waste
Management, ASAE Publication No. SP-0366, May 1966.

Water Resources Planning Policy and Procedure Manual,  Revised
February 1965.

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study, Prepared under
supervision of UMRB Coordinating Committee, Main Report and Appendices
A - Q, to be released December 19&9 by u- s- Army Corps of Engineers,
North Central Dvision, Chicago, Illinois.

Summary Report on a Comprehensive Sewage Works Plan for the Minneapolis
Stv Paul Metropolitan Area, prepared by the Cities of Minneapolis and
St. Paul and by the Minneapolis - St. Paul Sanitary District, October
Recommendations and Summary of Conference , Pollution of the Interstate
and Intrastate Waters of the^Upper Mississippi River and its Tributaries
(Wisconsin - Minnesota), issued June 17, 1967.

Sewerage and Water Planning Report,. Metropolitan Council of the Twin
Cities Area of Minneapolis, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., November 1968.
                                 39

-------
APPENDIX

-------
                         APPENDIX PART A
Appendix Pert A is  composed entirely of Tables 5 and 6.
                             A-l

-------
                                                    TABLE 5

                                     MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                           MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
>
State County Community
Minnesota Big Stone Barry
Beardsley
Clinton
Corren
Odessa
Ortonvine
Minnesota Blue Earth Arriboy
Eagle Lake
Good Thunder
Lake Crystal
Madison Lake
Mankato
Map let on
Pemberton
Rapidan
Saint Clair
Skyline
South View Hts.
Vernon Center
Minnesota Brown Cccifrey
Han ska
I
-------
                                              TABLE 5 (Continued)
                                     MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                           MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                                                       I960      Source
                                                    Population     of         Rated Plant
(JO
   Minnesota

   Minnesota
Dakota

Douglas
Burns vine

Brandon
Evansville
Kensington
5,800

  310
  380
  280
Wells

Wells
Wells
Wells
0.62

0.28
0.35
H. A.
                                                                                Average  Plant
                                                                                   Output
State
Minnesota






Minnesota




Minnesota



County Qoiranunity
Carver Chanhassen
Chaska
Cologne
Mayer
Norwood
Waconia
Young America
Chippeva Clara City
Maynard
Milan
Montevideo
Watson
Cottonwood Jeffers
Mountain Lake
Storden
West Brook
Served
60
2,500
U55
180
9^5
2,050
V75
1,500
1+30
U8o
5,700
300
525
1,950
koo
1,000
Supply
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
WeUs
Wens
Capacity (MGD)
H. A.
1.30
jff. A.
N. A.
N. A.
1.20
N. A.
0.72
0.31
0.33
1.59
N. A.
O.Ik
0.57
0.28
0.22
(MGD)
0.005
0.188
0.01*1
0.016
0.085
0.185
0.043
0.060
0.039
0.0lf3
0.500
0.013
0.0^5
0.175
0.015
0.091
0.520

0.050
0.0^3
0.020

-------
                                           TABLE 5 (Continued)
State
County
    MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
          MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                      I960      Source
                   Population     of         Rated Plant
Community           Served      Supply     Capacity (MOD)
Average Plant
  Output
  (MGD)
Minnesota Faribault










Minnesota Freeborn


Minnesota Grant


Minnesota Kandiyohi



Blue Earth
Bricelyn
Delauran
Easton
Elraore
Frost
Kiester
Minnesota Lake
Walters
Wells
Winnebago
Alden
Freeborn
Hart land
Ashby
Barrett
Hofjftnan
Pennock
Prinsburg
Raymond
Ros eland
U,200
5^0
320
too
1,100
380
7^0
700
mo
2,900
2,100
700
320
330
380
280
590
260
1*60
610
100
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
2.10
0.80
0.11
0.08
0.33
0.20
0.30
0.82
0.20
0.86
1.05
0.58
0.29
N. A.
0.29
0.73
0.29
0.36
N. A.
N. A.
N. A.
0.200
O.OU8
0.012
0.006
0.050
0.02^
0.060
0.063
0.009
0.260
0.190
0.060
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.017
o.oUo
o.oUo
o.oHo
0.075
0.009

-------
                                                TABLE 5 (Continued)
     State
County
    MINNESOTA. RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
          MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                      I960      Source
                   Population     of         Rated Plant
Community           Served      Supply     Capacity (MOD)
VJl
Average Plant
  Output
  (MGD)
Minnesota





Minnesota





Minnesota


Minnesota






Lac Qul Parle Bellinghara
Boyd
Dawson
Madison
Marietta
Nashua
LeSueur Cleveland
Elysie.n
Le Center
Le Sueur
Montgomery
New Prague
Lincoln Hendricks
Ivanhoe
Tyler
Lyon Balaton
Cottonwood
Lynd
Marshall
Minneota
Russell
'iracy
325
k20
1,770
2,500
330
100
390
380
1,600
3,310
2,120
2,5^0
800
720
l,lto
725
715
-195 .
7,000
1,300
U50
2,860
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
0.51
O.U3
l.hk
0.86
0.13
W. A.
0.20
0.20
0.52
3.90
0.93
0.58
O.lU
0.33
0.18
N. A.
0.2k
0.07
1.79
N.A.
0.58
1.30
0.030
o.oto
0.160
0.150
0.030
0.005
0.035
0.007
0.090
0.300
0.190
0.125
0.035
0.060
0.063
0.055
0.060
0.11*0
0.550
o.okk
0.035
0.200

-------
         TABLE 5 (Continued)
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
      MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                            Source
Average Plant
State
Minnesota




Minnesota

Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
County Community
Martin Fairmont

Granada
Northrop
Sherburn
Trimont
Truman
Welcome
Nicollet Court land
Lafayette
Nicollet
No. Uankato
Saint Peter
Otter Tail Dalton
Pipestone Ruthton
Pope Cyrus
Glenwood
Lowry
Starbuclc
Population of Rated Plant
Served Supply Capacity (MGD)
9,7^5

1*20
190
1,230
9^0
1,260
735
2^0
520
5,925
220
U75
350
2,300
270
1,000
Budd Lake and
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
11.50

0.20
0.10
O.U6
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.30
0.30
0.09
U.50
2.30
0.^3
0.25
0.11
0.71
0.72
Output
(MGD)
0.^50

O.OlfO
0.030
0.110
0.080
0.110
0.070
0.020
0.050
o.oUo
0.700
0.760
o.oUo
0.017
0.020
0.210
0.030
0.120

-------
                            TABLE 5 (Continued)

                   MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                         MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                                     I960      Source
                                  Population     of         Rated Plant
                                                                                                Average Plant
                                                                                                  Output
State County
Minnesota Redwood












Minnesota Renville







Community
Bel view
Lambert on
Lucan
Milroy
Morgan
  1 \ J* O_-_,^J|
nortn Keuwoou
Redwood Falls
Revere
Sanborn
Vesta
Wabasso
Walnut Grove
Wanda
Bird Island
Danube
Fairfax
Franklin
Morton
Olivia
Renville
Sacred Heart
Served
400
1,140
225
280
975

4,465
200
520
320
790
885
160
1,350
495
1,490'
550
625
2,355
1,400
750
Supply Capacity
Wens
Wells
WeUs
Wells
Wells

Wells
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
(MGD)
0.25
0.33
0.10
o.n
0.29

2.16
0.10
0.15
O.Q9
0.14
0.43
0.10
0.40
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.14
2.30
0.40
0.23
(MGD)
0.025
0.100
0.025
0.010
0.042

0.286
0.006
0.050
0.015
0.045
0.050
0.025
0.100
0.020
0.100 .
0.050
0.020
0.210
0.034
0.040
Minnesota
Rice
Lonsdale
540
Wens
N.A.
0.050

-------
                                                TABLE 5 (Continued)
>
co
                                       MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                             MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                                                         I960      Source
                                                      Population     of         Rated Plant
Average Plant
  Output
State County
Minnesota Scott





Minnesota Sibley





Minnesota Stevens




Minnesota S^dLft



Community
Belle Plaine
Jordan
Kew Market
Prior Lake
Savage
Shakopee
Arlington
Gaylord
Gibbon
Green Isle
Henderson
VJinthrop
Albert a
Chokio
Donnelly
Hancock
Morris
Applet on
Benson
DeCfraff
Hollo-j-ay
Served
1,930
1,U80
210
850
1,095
5,205
1,600
1,630
' 900
330
730
1,380
100
^60
3^0
890
'4,100
2,100
3,JK)0
- 180
210
Supply C
Wens
WeUs
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells
Wens
Wens
Wens
Capacity (MGD)
1.25
1.20
N.A.
N, A.
0.51
2.90
1.25
0.32
0.23
0.1'*
0.30
1.80
0.12
0.23
0.20
0.32
1.35
1.50
2.50
o.iU
O.P3
IMGD;
0.120
0.111
0.016
0.06U
0.082
O.H70
0.100
0.035
0.080
0.030
0.135
0.120
0.010
o.oUo
0.050
o.oUo
0.300
0.200
0.300
0.020
0.006

-------
                                           TABLE 5 (Continued)
 State

Minnesota
County
Swift
    MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
          MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                      I960      Source
                   Population     of         Rated Plant
 Community           Served      Supply     Capacity (MGD)
Kerkhoven
Murdoch
600
370
Minnesota
Minnesota



Minnesota





Minnesota





Traverse Browns Valley
Waseca Jancsvine
Kew Rich' land
Waldorf
Was ecu
Watonwan Butt erf ield
Darfur
Le^d-crille
Madelia
Orms'by
Saint Jaiies
Yenow Medicine Canby
Clarkfield
Echo
Granite Fans
Hanley FtuJ-s
Wood Lake
1,030
1,^25
1,0^5
270
5,900
600
190
375
2,150
220
4,175
2,200
1,100
U6o
2,850
335
550
Wells
Wells

Wells

Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens

Wells
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wens

Wells
Wens
Wells
Minn. River
Wells
Wens
OA3
0.09

0.36

0.36
2.60
o.kk
5.20

0.50
N. A.
Q.Ik
0.72
K. A.
1.20

0.93
0.35
0.29
2.16
0.17
0.86
                                                Average Plant
                                                  Output
                                                  (MGD)
0.070
0.030

0.065

0.075
0.090
0.020
0.350

0.050
0.01k
0.030
0.200
0.020
0.280
                                                                                                 O.llk
                                                                                                 0.100
                                                                                                   .oko
                                                                                                   .207
                                                                                                 0.030
                                                                                                 0.035
                                                                                  0.
                                                                                  0.

-------
State
County
         TABLE 5 (Continued)

MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
      MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
                  I960      Source
               Population     of         Rated Plant
                Served      Supply     Capacity (MOD)
Community
Average Plant
  Output
  (MOD)
South Dakota Deuel




South Dakota Grant



> South Dakota Roberts
i
H
0 

Iowa Kossuth

Iowa Winnebago

Astoria
Brandt
Clear Lake
Gary
Toronto
Bis Stone City
Milbcnk
Strjidburg
Tv;in Brooks
Peever
Siseeton
Suwrnit
Wilrnot
Lakota
Ledyard
Buffalo Center
Rake
175
150
1,130
1*70
250
710
3,500
no
75
200
3,250
275
550
1*60
290
1,11*0
330
Wens
Wells
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wens
Wens
Wens
0.16
0.06
0.1*5
0.29
0.08
0.1*3
0.1*7
o.oi
N. A.
O.ll*
0.92
O.ll*
0.22
O.ll*
N. A.
N. A.
N. A.
0.020
0.010
0.090
0.0^0
0.020
0.030
0.310
0.008
0.006
0.015
0.250
0.020
0.060
o.oi*o
0.022
0.100
0.025
N. A.-Information not available.

-------
                               TABLE 6
               MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
I960
Population Served
Central From From
State County Supplies Total Ground Surface
Minor Area MN-1
Minm  Big Stone
Traverse
So. Dakota 3euel
Grant
Roberts
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-2
> Minnesota Douglas
[L Grant
H Otter Tail
Pope
Stevens
Swift
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-3
Minnesota Chippeva
Kandiyohi
Lac Qui Parle

6
1
5
Ij.
U
20

3
3
1
1+
5

22

5
If.
6
Yellow Medicine 6



3,890 3,890
1,030 1,030
2,175 2,175
**,395 ^,395
I*, 275 ^,275
15,765 15,765

970 970
1,250 1,250
220 220
3,920 3,920
5,890 5,890
6,860 6,860
19,no 19,no

8,1*05 8,U05
1,1*25 1,^25
5,1*35 5,1*35
7,1*95 1*,6U5


0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0_
0

0
0
0
2,850

Domestic & Commercial
Water Use (MOD) Per
Total

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.
1.

0.
0.
0.
0.


29
07
17
36
_35
2U
,
n
12
02
38
kk
61
68

65
16
1*2
53

From
Ground

0.29
0.07
0.17
0.36
0.35
1.2l*

0.11
0.12
0.02
0.38
0.1*1{-
0.6l
1.68

0.65
0.16
0.1*2
0.32

From
Surface

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0.21

Estimated ^J
Industrial
Capita Major Water Use
(GPCD) sources (MGD)

7U
68
80
82
82
79

113
91*
91
97
75
82
88

77
109
77
71


Wells
Wells
Wells
Wens
Wells


Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells


Wells
Wens
Wells
Minn. R.
& Wells

0
0
0
0
0
-
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0


.22
.00
.00
.21
31*
.77

.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
.17
.20

.00
.00
.22
.06

Subtotal
21    22,760 19,910   2,850  1.76  1.55    0.21
77
0.28

-------
TABLE 6
(Continued)
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
MUNICIPAL MD INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
Number I960 Domestic & Commercial
of Population Served Water Use (MOD)

State

County
Central
Supplies

Total
JfTTT^n
Ground
Prom
Surface

Total
From
Ground
Per

Frcm Capita MaJ or
Surface
(GPCD,
) Sources
Estimated W
Industrial
Water Use
(MOD)
Minor Area MIT- 4
Minnesota





Minor Area
Minnesota


Minor Area
Minnesota





Lincoln
Lyon
Pipestone
Redwood
Renville
Subtotal
MI-5
Brown
Cotton-wood
Subtotal
MN-6
Blue Earth
Le Sueur
Mlcollet
Sibley
Waseca
Subtotal
3
7
1
13
JJ
32

5
4
9

13
6
5
6
4
34
2,660
13,240
475
10,360
^015
35,750

18,435
3,880
22,315

30,250
10,330
15,660
6,565
8,640
71,445
2,660
13,240
475
10,360
_9;_015
35,750

18,435
. 3,880
22,315

30,250
10,330
15,660
6,565
8,640
71,445
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0.16
1.08
0.02
0.69
0^57
2.52

1.58
0.32
1.90

2.63
0.75
1.24
0.51
0,53
5.66
0.16
1.08
0.02
0.69
0.57
2.52

1.58
0.32
1.90

2.63
0.75
1.24
0.51
0.53
5.66
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
67
81
42
67
63
71

86
1
85

87
72
79
78
61
79
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells


Wells
Wells


Wells
Wells
Wells
' Wells
Wells

0.00
l.o4
0.00
0.00
0.58
1.62

3.04
o.o4
3.08

11.43
5.66
0.24
0.74
0.80
18.87

-------
H
CO
TABLE 6
(Continued)
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
MUNICIPAL AMD INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
Number I960 Domestic & Commercial
of Population Served Water Use (MGD) Per

State
Minor Area
Minnesota




Iowa


Minor Area
Minnesota







County
MI- 7
Faribault
Freet>orn
Martin

Watonwan
Kossuth
Winnebago
Subtotal
MN-8
Carver
Dakota
Rice
Scott
Subtotal
Grand Total
fT)
x""/ Include,
Central
Supplies

11
3
7

6
2
2
31

7
1
1
6
15
184
a both st

Total

13,485
1,340
14,510

7,750
750
1,470
39,305

/ ss 
0,005
5,770
540
10 , 770
23,745
250 } 195
-If CUT3T)!
From
Ground

13,485
l>34o
4,765

7,750
750
1,470
29,560

6,665
5,770
540
10 770
23,745
237,600
li e>ft anr
From

Surface Total

0
0
9,745

0
0
0
9,74?

0
0
0
0
0
12,595
! MIHITP^

0.92
0.12
0.89

0.62
0.06
0.11
2.72

0.56
0.52
0.05
- 0.92
2.05
19.53
Tia 1 ai?r.
From
Ground

0.92
0.12
0.44

0.62
0.06
0.11
2.27

0.56
0.52
0.05
0.92
2.05
18.87
;r>1 *, a A ti
From
Capita
Surface (GPCD)

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0.
ro-f-et* ^i<

69
90
.45 61
&
80
80
12
.45 69

84
90
90 .
85
86
.66 78
a a
Estimated fr)
Industrial
Major Water Use
Sources

Wells
Wells
Budd Lake
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells


Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells



(KGD)

2.35
0.00
4.03

2.44
0.00
0.00
8.82

5-50
0.00
0.00
4.68
10.18
43.82


-------
                            APPENDIX PART B
     Domestic and cojmaercial water use was expected to increase at the
compounded rate of one per cent per year from the data year used,  I960,
to a maximum of 108 gallons per capita per day (sped).  After this max-
imum was reached, a rate of 0.25 per cent per year to a maximum of 130
gpcd was used.  These increases allow for increases in per capital in-
come and resultant greater use of household appliances using water.  The
increases are lower than are generally used nationally, however, in cooler
areas water use is less.

     Present industrial water use where actual water use was unknown was
obtained by using the gallons/employee/day figure calculated from the 1963
Census of Manufacturers by the U. S. Bureau of the Census.  The number of
employees was obtained from the McGraw Hill listing and checked with the
State of Minnesota Census of Manufacturers.

     From data available, it was estimated that all municipal usage over
90 gpcd would be municipal supplied industrial water use.

     Future industrial water use was obtained by multiplying present water
use by the average of the employment and output indexes (industrial water
intake - Table if) which were based on the National Planning Association
study for the North Central Division U. S. Corps of Engineers.
                                     B-l

-------
                            APPENDIX PART C

          CALCULATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY NEEDS - MINNESOTA RIVER
     The standard Phelps-Streeter oxygen sag formula was used to determine
the flow requirements needed to maintain specific levels of quality.   In
using this formula it was necessary to determine the following constants:
Deoxygenation and reaeration rates, initial dissolved oxygen concentration,
water temperature, depth and velocity of flow.  The following table shows
the values used in this study.

                                  Winter      Spring   Summer   Fall
                                Dec., Jan.   Mar. Apr. July,Aug. Oct.,
Constant	Feb.    May, June	Sept.   Nov.
Incoming River Deoxygenation Rate
River Reaeration Rate
Average water temperature C .
Velocity of flow, ft/sec
Depth - Feet
*
#
00
0.5
1.7
0.07
0.15
8
1.6.
5.0
0.10
0.35
22
0.7
2.2
0.09
0.33
1U
0.8
2.3
          Initial saturation of dissolved oxygen (all seasons) - 80$

*f ecmal to 2.0 was used for years prior to 2000 and f equal to 0.1 was used
for years 2000 and thereafter.
     The assimilation models  indicate two critical sections on the Minnesota
River between Lac Qui Parle and the confluence with the Mississippi River.
Ice cover with subsequent  low reaeration will cause a reduction in dissolved
oxygen below New Ultn during the winter months.  Presently the Minnesota River
below Mankato is ice covered  during the winter season except for a 0.5 mile
reach below a steam - electric generating plant.  The heated discharge from
this plant will maintain open water and thus good reaeration until the years
1995 - 2000.  According  to USP personnel, it is expected that this plant will
be replaced around  the years  1995  - 2000, probably at a different location,
using a more efficient means  of producing electric power.  Without a heated
discharge the river will freeze over, thus  eliminating reaeration.  It is
anticipated that a  water quality problem will result.

     In order to evaluate  the need for flow regulation, anticipated water
quality in the river was analyzed  under existing flow conditions.  The State
of Minnesota, in its standards submitted as required by the Water Quality
Act of 1965, has set a minimum of  5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen (DO) on these
sections of the Minnesota  River.   The following table shows the flows in
cubic feet per second  (cfs) required to meet this standard:

Year     Winter                Spring                Summer          Fall
                 Minnesota River Below New  Ulra, -Minnesota
I960       11                   2.5                    5             3-5

1980       %      -             I                     1?             12
2000       te                   o                       'if
2020       82                   15                   30             20

                                     e-i

-------
Year
Winter
                                  Spring
          Summer
                                                                    Fall
                       Minnesota River Below Mankato ,  Minnesota
I960
1980
2000
2020
  19
  30
 285
 550
                                   15
                                   25
                                   50
                                  100
            30
            U5
           100
           190
                                                                      20
                                                                      30
                                                                      70
                                                                     130
     The winter season below these areas has the low flows for the year,
consequently this is the critical season.  All the other seasons have lesser
flow requirements .

     The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, provides that
"... storage and water releases shall not be provided as a substitute for
adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source . "
The quantities of water required for water quality control were computed  on
the premise that adequate treatment will be provided.  The degree of treat-
ment used presently and expected in the future, along with the expected
increase in organic waste load per capita, is as follows:
                                            5-Day BOD Removal
Year    Pounds 5-Day BOD/Capit a/Day
Municipal
                                                             Industrial
1960
1980
2000
2020
0.167
0.19
0.20
0.20
85
90
90
90
85
90
90
90
     The industrial water  use determined by the method mentioned earlier
in Part B of the Appendix  was raultipled by the return flow (percent of in-
take) to determine future  waste flows.  Estimated return flows obtained
from Federal Water Pollution Control Administration unpublished reports
were used for each category of industry.
                                    C-2

-------
                           APPENDIX PART D

     Part D of this Appendix is composed entirely of Table 9 (Municipal-
ities with Sewer Systems) and Table 10 (Municipal and Industrial Organic
Waste Loads).
                                     D-l

-------
                 TABLE 9

MINNESOTA RIVER BASDT RESERVOIRS STUDY
  MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
State County Community
Minn. Big Stone Barry
Clinton

Odessa
Ortonville
Minn. Blue Earth Amboy
Eagle Lake
Good Thunder
i Lake Crystal
M Mankato
Mapleton
Southview Hts.
Vernon Center
Minn. Brown Corafrey

Hew Ulra
Sleepy Eye
Springfield
Minn. Carver Cologne

Chanhassen

Chaska
Uorwood
Waconia

Estimated
I960 Population
Population Served
60
565

23k
2,67k
629
506
^1-68
1,652
23,797
1,107
200
333
616

ll,llk
3,k92
2,701
k5k.

2kk

2,501
9k5
2,0^8

50
510

230
2, too
570
500
k20
I,k90
26,800
1,000
200 
300
550

10,000
3,1^0
2,k30
kio

220

2,250
850
l,8ko

Type
of
Tr^at-
Little Minn. R.
Soil absorption
overflow to rcarsh
Minnesota F.iver
Minnesota River
Maple River
Ditch to LeSueur R
Maple River
Lily Lake
Minnesota River
Cobb River
Minnesota River
Blue Earth River"
Ditch to Little
Cottonwood River
Minnesota River
Sleepy Eye Creek
Ccttorr.-rccd River
Neuwisser R. to
Carver Creek
Ditch to Rice
Marsh Lake
Minnesota River
Ditch to Beners Cr
Waconia Lake to
Carver Creek
P
S

S
S
P
. s
ITone
S
P
S
P
P
s

s
s
s
s

s

s
. s
s

P.E.
Untrca -cu
50
510

300
2,800
570
500
k20
Ik90
k3,8co
1,000
200
300
550

15,000
3 > iko
2,'!30
kip

220

2,250
850
l,8kO

(BODl
 c-3-^-
30 (10)*
80

50
koo
370 (90)
80
k20 (UO)
220
2S,kOO (6,600)
150
130 (30)
190 (50)
80

2,300
k70
370
60

ko

350
130
270


-------
                                                           TABLE 9

                                         MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS  STUDY
                                            MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
t)
Type
Estimated of
I960 Population Treat
St&te County Community Population Served Discharged To ment
Minn. Chippeva Clara City
Maynard
Milan

Montevideo
Watson
Minn. Cottonwood Mountain Lake

Westbrook

Minn. Dakota Cedar Grove

Burnsville

Minn. Douglas Brandon
Evansville

Kensington

Garfield
Minn. Faribault Blue Earth
Bricelyn

East on
Elmore

Minnesota Lake
Wells
Winnebago

429
482

5,693
267
1,943

1,012

2,500

10,721

353
411

324

240
4,200
542

4ll
1,078

697
2,397
2,088
1,220
390
480

5,120
240
1,750

910

2,200

4,400

320
410

290

240
3,780
490

370
970

630
2,610
1,830
Hawk Creek S
Havk Creek S
Ditch to Lac Qui S
Parle Lake
Chippewa River S
Chippewa River S
Soil absorption S
& Mountain Lake Cr.
Ditch to Highwater S
Creek
Swampy area to S
Minnesota River
Svarnpy area to S
Minnesota River
Slough P
Ditch to Lake S
Fanny
Slough to Chippewa S
River
Ditch to Lake Ida S
Blue Earth River S
E. Fk. of Blue None
Earth River
Maple River None
Co. Ditch 41 to S
Blue Earth River
Cobb River S
Ditch to Maple R. S
Blue Earth River S
t
r*
P.E. (BOD)
Untreated Discharged
1,220
390
480

9,000
240
1,750

910

2,200

4,4oo

320
4io

290

240"
3,780
490

370
970

630
2,610
1,880
"180~
60
80

-l,4oo
4o
250

140

400

700

210
60

40

40
580
490

370
150

100
4io
280














( 50)






( 70)

(60)






-------
                                                         TABLE 9
                                        MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                          MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
>
S~ate County Community
Minn. Freeborn Alden

Minn. Grant Ashby
Barrett
Hoffman
Minn. Lac Qui Parle Daws on
Madison
Minn. Le Sueur Cleveland
Le Center
Le Sueur
Montgomery

New Prague
Minn. Lincoln Hendricks
Ivanhoe
Tyler

Minn . Lyon Cottonwood

Marshall
j.linneota
Estimated
1960 Population
Population Served Discharged To
69k

Mt-3
3^5
575
1,766
2,380
389
1,597
3,310
2,118

2,533
797
719
1,138

717
700

Uoo
350
^50
1,590
2,1^0
350
1,M*0
2,9So
1,910

2,280
720
650
1,020

650
Ditch to East Fk.
of Blue Earth R.
Little Grant Lake
Pomme de Terre R.
Chippewa River
Lac Qui Parle R.
Lac Qui Parle R.
Cherry Creek
Le Sueur Creek
Minnesota River .
Sand Cr. to Lake
Pep in
Creek to Sand Cr.
Lake Kendricks
Yellow Medicine R.
Soil absorption &..
overflow to Ditch :
Cottonwood Lake to
Type
of
Treat-
ment
S

P
S
S
P
S
P
S
s
s

s
s
s
-S
Ik
s
P.E. (BOD)
Untreated
700

Uoo
350
1*50
1,590
2,lUO
350
1,M-0
2,930
1,910

2,280
720
650
1,020

650
Yellow Medicine River
6,681
1,297
6,010
1,170
Redwood River
So. Br. of Yellow
Medicine River
s
s
6,010
1t\ T~ff\
,170
Discharged
100

260
50
70
i,oUo
320
230
220
I \ _
hhO
300

330
110
100
150

100

810



(60)


(2lK>)

( 50)













-------
                 TABLE 9

MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
  MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
State County Community
Minn. Lyon Russell
Tracy

Minn. Martin Fairmont
Northrop

Trimont

Truman
Welcome
y Minn. Nicollet Lafayette
1
Estimated
I960 Population
Population Served
M+9
2,862

9,7^5
189

9*4-2

1,256
733
516

^ No. Mankato 5,927
St. Peter
Minn. Pope Cyrus
Glenwood

Lowry

Starbuck

Minn. Redwood Belview

Lamberton

' Morgan
8,U8k
362
2,631

29^

1,099

JlOO

l,liil

975
koo
2,580

8,770
170

9UO

1,130
660
U60

5,900
7,640
330
2,370

260

990

360

1,030

880
Type
of
Treat-
Discharged To ment
Redwood River None
No. Br. of S
Plum Creek
Center Creek S
Judicial ditch S
to Elm Creek
Cedar Run Cr. to S
Elm Creek
Ditch to Perch Cr. S
Lily Creek S
County Ditch UO-a S
to Rush River
Mankato Sewage Treatment
Minnesota River S
Chippewa River P
Creek to Lake S
Minnewaska
Ditch to Little S
Chippewa River
Lake Emily outlet P
to Chippewa River
Ditch tc Minnesota S
.uivcr
Dutch Charlie Cr. S
to Cottonwood R.
Ditch C-109 S
P.E.
Untreated
Uoo
2,580

8,770
170

9UO

1,130
660
U60

Plant -
9,300
330
2,370

260

990

360

1,030

880
, (BODl
Discharged
liOO
380

270
20

IkO

170
100
70


1,1*00
220
370

ho

660

60

150

. 130


(60)













(50)




(150)







-------
                 TABLE 9

MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
  MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
:^&te
Minn.





Minn.








Minn,




Minn.

County Community
Redwood Redwood Falls
Sanborn
Wabasso

Walnut Grove
Wanda
Renville Bird Island

Fairfax
Franklin
Morton
Olivia

Renville
Sacred Heart
Scott Belle Plaine
Jordan
Prior Lake
Savage
Shakopee
Slbley Arlington
Caylcrd
Estimated
1960 Population !
Population Served Discharged To
l+,285
521
789

886
160
i;38l+

I,lt89
5^8
62^
2,355

1,378
696
1,931
1,^79
8U8
1,09^
5,201
1,601
If *" *!
5O^)J.
3,860
1+70
710

800
lUo
1,250

1,3UO
If 90
560
2,120

1,2-1+0
630
1,7*+0
1,330
760
1,700
it, 680
1,M+0
1,^70
Redwood River
Cottonwood River
Ditch to Big
Sleepy Eye Creek
Ditch to Plum Cr.
Willow Creek
Ditch to E. Fork
of Beaver Creek
Ditch to Rock R.
Purgatory Creek
Minnesota River
S
S
S

S
S
None

S
None
S
East Fk. of Beaver S
Creek
County Ditch
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Credit River
Cr. to Minn*. R.
Minnesota River
High Island Cr.
Mud Lake -

S.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Type
of
Preat-
P.E.
(BOD)
ment Untreated Discharged
3,860
1+70
710

800
1UO
1,250

1,3^0
625
560
2,120

l,2to
630
1,7^0
1,330
760
1,700
i+,680
1,1+1+0
1,1+70
560
70
110

120
20
1,250

200
625
90
320

180
100
260
200
120
250
680
220
220

(70)




(190)


(100)













-------
                 TABLE 9

MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
  MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
State County Community
Minn. Sibley Gibbon

Henderson
Winthrqp
Minn. Stevens Chokio
Hancock

Morris
Minn. Swift Applet on
Benson
V Hollovay
-<
 DeGraf f

Minn. Traverse Browns Valley

Minn'. Waseca Janesville
New Richland
Waldorf
Uaseca
Minn. Watonwan Butterfield

Lewisville

Madelia
I960
Population
896

728
1,381
1*93
9^2

U,199
2,172
3,678


196

1,117

1,^26
l,0'-;6
270
5,898
601

375

2,190
Estimated
Population
Served
810

660
l,2kO
If50
850

3,780
1,950
3,310
2^1-0

180

1,000

1,280
9^0
2hO
5,310
5^0

3^0

1,970
Discharged To
Ditch to C-2U to
Rush River
Type
of
Treat-
ment
S

Minnesota River None
Ditch to Rush R.
Drainage Ditch
Ditch to Chippewa
River
Pomme de Terre R.
Pomme de Terre R.
Chippewa River
Ditch to Chippewa
River
Dry run to E. Br.
Chippewa River
Little Minnesota
River
Le Sueur River
Le Sueur River
Little Cobb R
Le Sueur River
No. Br. of
Watonwan River
S
S
S

S
S
S
S

None

S

S
S
S
S
S

So. Fk. of None
Watonwan River
Watonwan River

S
P.E.
Untreated
810

660
1,2^0
1*50
850

3,780
1,950
3,310
2^0

180

1,000

1,280
9^0
2^-0
5,310
5^0

3^0

1,970
(BOD)

Discharged
120

660
190
70
130

580
300
510
hQ

180

150

190
1^0
uo
810
80

3^0

300


(100)









( 30)









(60)



-------
                                                   TABLE 9

                                  MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                    MUNICIPALITIES WITH SEWER SYSTEMS
Estimated
1960 Population
State County Community Population Served Discharged To
Minn. Watonwan St. James k,
Kinn. Yellow Medicine
Canby 2,
Clarkfield 1,
Echo

Granite Palls 2,
Hanley Falls

Riverside County
Sant. (Granite Falls)
00 So. Dak. Deuel Gary
Grant Milbank 3,
Roberts New Eff ington
Sisseton 3,
Wilmot
17U

1^6
100
^59

728
33^

U8.

558
500
280
218
5^5
3,760

1,930
990
UlO

2,U60
300

1*8

.600
3, toO
270
3,200
5UO
St. James Creek

Lac Qui Parle R.
Hazel River
Ditch C-l to
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Yellow Medicine
River
Minnesota River

Laughing Water C.
Whetstone River
Lagoon
Little Minn. R.
Trib. to
Type
of
Treat-
P.E. (BODl
ment Untreated Discharged
S

S
s
s

s
None

P

P
S
S
s
s
3,760

1,930
990
kio

2,U60
300

50

600
7,700
270
3,200
5^0
560

290
160
60

360
300

30

390
1,200
ho
500
90







(50)

(10)

(100)




                                                          Whetstone  Creek
(  ) P.E.  Discharged after 85$ removal used in calculations

-------
               TABLE NO. 10
tOTNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY'
MUNICIPAL AND INDUi
Number I960
of Population
State County Systems Served
Minor Area MN-1
Minnesota Big Stone
Minnesota Traverse
So. Dakota Deuel
So. Dakota Grant
So. Dakota Roberts
Subtotal
Minor Area"MN-2
Minnesota Douglas
Minnesota Grant
Minnesota Pope
Minnesota Stevens
Minnesota Swift
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-3
Minnesota Chippewa
Minnesota Lac Qui Parle
Minnesota Yellow Medicine
Subtotal
Minor Area MIT-4
Minnesota Lincoln
Minnesota Lyon
Minnesota Redwood
Minnesota Renville
Subtotal
1
1
1
2
10
k
3
k
3
k
18
5
2
6
13
5
8
_J
23
3,200
1,000
600
3,^00
U,010
12,210
1,260
1,200
3,950
5,OCo
5,680
17,170
7,1*50
3,730
6,1^0
17,320
2,390
10,810
8,250
7,630
29,080
STRIAL ORGANIC WASTE LOADS . . Estimated
Untreated  Untreated Ind.
Domestic and Commercial Pollutional
Pbllutional Load Load
Major Discharge Area (P. E.) (?. ?.,)
Minnesota River
Little Minnesota River
Laughing Water Creek
Whetstone River
Little Minnesota River
Chippewa River
Chippewa River
Lake Minnewaska
.Pomne de Terre River
Chippewa River
Chippewa River
Lac Qui Parle River
Minnesota River
Yellow Medicine River
Redwood River
Redwood River
Beaver Creek
3,200
1,000
v 600
3,^00
U,010
12,210
1,260
1,200
3,950
5,080
5,680
17,170
7,1*50
3,730
6,lUQ.
17,320
 2,390
10,810
8,250
29,080
6,190
0
0
2,370
23,000
31,560
0
0
0
0
	 0
0
0
770
0
770
0
66,850
0
7,100
73,950

-------
                                             TABLE NO. 10 (Continued)
State
County
                                      MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS STUDY
                                   MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC WASTE LOADS
Number        1$60
  of        Population
Systems      Served- :' 'gyre-Major Discharge, Area,
Untreated
Domestic and
Commercial
Pollutional
Load (P.E.)
Estimated
Untreated
Industrial
Pollutional
 Load (P.E.)
Minor Area MN-5
Minnesota Brown
Minnesota Cottonwood
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-6-
Minnesota Blue Earth
*? Minnesota Le Sueur
^ Minnesota Nicollet
Minnesota Sibley
Minnesota Waseca
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-7
Minnesota Faribault
Minnesota Freeborn
Minnesota Martin
Minnesota Watonvan
Subtotal
Minor Area MN-8
Minnesota Carver
Minnesota Dakota
Minnesota Scott
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
k
2
6
8
5
2
5
U
2k
7
1
5
17
5
2
Ji
12
123
.16,120
2,660
18,780
31,280
8,960
8,100
5,620
jjjro
61,730
10,730
700
11,670
6,610
29,710
5,570
6,600
10,210
22,380
208,380
Minnesota River
Mountain Lake Creek
Minnesota River
Minnesota, River
Minnesota River
High Island Creek and Rush River
Le Sueur River
Blue Earth River
Blue Earth River
Center Creek
Watonwan River
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
16,120
2,660
18,780
31,280
8,960
8,100
5,620
7,770
61,730
10 > 730
700
11,670
6,610
29,710
5,570
6,600
10,210
22,380
208,380
76,7^0
koo
77,1^0
133,920
95 , koo
170
32,900
22,U80
28U,8?0
99,300
0
90,200
181,600
371,100
229,100
0
267,500
1,106,890

-------
                            APPENDIX PART E

              CALCULATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY REEDS MISSISSIPPI RIVER
                 BELOW MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA


     The standard Phelps-Streeter formula was used to determine the flow
requirements needed to maintain the desired water quality level.  The con-
stants used in this formula were those which were evaluated for the Mississ-
ippi River by the Twin Cities Upper Mississippi River Enforcement Project.
The following table shows the values used:
Constant
Incoming river deoxygenation rate
River reaeration rate
Average water temperature
Incoming river 5- day BOD (mg/l)
Incoming river DO (rag/l)
Summer
July, Aug.
Sept.
0.05
O.OU
30C.
2.5
7.0
Fall
Oct.
Nov.
0.05
0.05
1^C.
2.5-
8.3
Spring
Mar . , Apr . ,
May, June
0.05
0.05
8C.
3.0
9-5
Winter
Dec., Jan.
Feb.
0.05
0.035
0C.
3-0
10.2
     In order to evaluate the need for flow regulation, conditions in the
river -were analyzed with the flow presently available.  The Federal - State
Conference for the Twin Cities Area specified a maximum load of 68,500
pounds of 5-day (20C.) BOD to the Mississippi River below the Metropolitan
area.  This will insure a minimum dissolved oxygen level of 3 mg/l in the
river at the 7-consecutive day,  once  in  10 year low summer flow of 1,950 cfs.
To  stay within the maximum discharge  limit, would require the waste treatment
plant to operate at  an 87.5$ removal  rate  based on 1965 loading rates. ^This
was, therefore, the  percent removal used to evaluate the present conditions.

     Percent of treatment  considered  adequate along with increase in waste
load per  capita expected in the future is  as follows:

                                                5-Day BOD Removal
                                                Municipal        Industrial^
1980
2000
2020
0.19
0.20
0.20
90
90
90
90
90
90
      The following table shows the flows in cfs required by seasons  to
 maintain 3 mg/l in the Mississippi River below Minneapolis - St.  Paul:
Year
196?
1980
2000
2020
Summer
1,950
2,100
2,900
3,700
Fall
820
925
1,150
1,1*00
Spring
600
625
725
875
Winter*
600
650
725
925
                          *
                           Assumes ice cover is not complete
      The summer season is the critical period in this area and is the only
                                     E-l

-------
season during which an alternative to achieve an assured water quality is
needed.

     It was assumed that in the future 95$ of the total population  in the
metropolitan area will be sewered with the sewage treated by a single main
plant on the Mississippi River.

     The municipal and industrial waste flows were based on a 90$ return
of the total water use.
                                     E-2

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------