Panel: Protecting Groundwater One Drinking Water Source at a Time

MRWA/St CloudKristofer Knutson (MPS)

MARCH 9, 2017

1

Protect Water Quality & Water Quantity

Protection of the Aquifer Cooperative planning and zoning with Clay County Consists of Resource Protection Overlay District

Moorhead Public Service (MPS) Water Supply

MPS Water Demand

Buffalo Aquifer Management Plan Drought Planning

2

Presentation Overview

MPS Water Supply Surface Water◦ Red River of the North

Groundwater◦ Buffalo Aquifer ◦ Moorhead Aquifer

3

Drinking Water Supply Management Areas

Red River79.4%

Buffalo Aquifer16.5%

Moorhead Aquifer

4.1%

Percent of water supplied to MHD by source (2006-2015)

Resource Protection Overlay District (Completed in 2009) Defines Permitted Uses in District District covers the geographic extent of the Buffalo Aquifer in

Clay County Resource Protection Overlay covers majority of Drinking Water

Supply Management Area (DWSMA)

Concerns Buffalo Aquifer groundwater level during drought conditions Sustainability of the Buffalo Aquifer MPS Water Treatment Plan operational strategy is subject to change

4

Protection through Zoning

5

OVERLAY OUTLINED IN RED

BLACK=DWSMA

OVERLAY OUTLINED IN RED

BLACK=DWSMA

MPS Water Appropriations

6

SourceAuthorized Use Current Pumping Capacity 2005-2015 Avg.

Use (MGY)MGY MGDe GPM MGD

South Buffalo Wells 730 2.0 1,800 2.59 130.62

North Buffalo Wells 2,363 6.5 1,560 2.25 129.33

Moorhead Wells 225 0.6 550 0.79 65.36

Red River 3,650 10.0 4,970 7.15 1,251.79

Buffalo River 2,363 6.5 0 0 0

Total 9,331 25.6 8,880 12.78 1,577.10

Water Supply Withdrawals

7

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Wat

er W

ithdr

awal

s, M

GY

Year

GroundwaterRiverTotal Withdrawal

Operation of the new water treatment plant

Monthly Intake (Groundwater vs. Surface Water)

8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Jan-

88

Jan-

89

Jan-

90

Jan-

91

Jan-

92

Jan-

93

Jan-

94

Jan-

95

Jan-

96

Jan-

97

Jan-

98

Jan-

99

Jan-

00

Jan-

01

Jan-

02

Jan-

03

Jan-

04

Jan-

05

Jan-

06

Jan-

07

Jan-

08

Jan-

09

Jan-

10

Jan-

11

Jan-

12

Jan-

13

Jan-

14

Jan-

15

Wat

er W

ithdr

awls

by

Mon

ths (

mgd

)

SB #8 SB #9 SB #10 NB #1 NB #2 MDH #6 MDH #6b Red River

Groundwater Levels Buffalo

9

Water Demand (1996-2015)

10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Peak

Day

Pea

king

Fac

tor

Wat

er D

eman

d (m

gd)

Average Day Water Demand Peak Day Water DemandPeak Day Peaking Factor

Monthly Usage (Winter vs. Summer)

11

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Wat

er D

eman

d (m

gd)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Summer Demand

Winter Demand

Per Capita Water Demand (1996-2015)

12

R² = 0.7609

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Per C

apita

Wat

er D

eman

d (g

pcd)

Monthly Usage (By User Category)2005-2015

13

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Wat

er D

eman

d (m

gd)

Residential CommercialIndustrial Wholesale (Regional)Non-Essential (Raw Water Irrigation)

Future Demand Projections

14

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2060 2090

Popu

latio

n

Wat

er D

eman

d (M

GD)

Projected Average Daily Demand (110 gpcd) Projected Maximum Daily Demand (190 gpcd)

Conservative Maximum Daily Demand (170 gpcd) Maximum MPS WTP Treatment Capacity

Current Groundwater Yield Population

Define available capacity of Buffalo Aquifer during drought conditions

Evaluate current and future pumping scenarios

Use worst case scenario (1930’s drought) as baseline for evaluation

Leggette, Brashears and Graham conducted model evaluation

15

Buffalo Aquifer Management Plan

Regional Drought HistoryPalmer Drought Index (1895-2015)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015

PDSI

Extreme Moist Spell Very Moist Spell Unusual Moist Spell Moist SpellIncipient Moist Spell Near Normal Incipient Drought Mild DroughtModerate Drought Severe Drought Extreme Drought

16

Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer

Layer 1: Lake Agassiz Sediments

Layer 2: Till

Layer 3: Till

Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer

Well

Max Drawdown Level

Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer

Layer 1: Lake Agassiz Sediments

Layer 2: Till

Layer 3: Till

Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer

Well

Max Drawdown Level

~6 years

~9 Years

Drought MonitoringWeighting Factor represents the importance of a indicator

National Indices U.S. Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) – 15% Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) – 15%

Local Parameters Stream Flows – 50% Red River of the North at Fargo, ND (USGS 05054000) Bois De Sioux River Near White Rock, SD (USGS 05050000) Otter Tail River Below Orwell Dam Near Fergus Falls, MN (USGS 05046000)

Reservoir Levels – 50% Reservoir Orwell Lake Traverse

Groundwater Levels – 50% South Buffalo Aquifer North Buffalo Aquifer Moorhead Aquifer

21

Drought Monitoring and Tracking FormIndicator

Weighting Factor

Sub-Weighting Factor

Effective Weighting

FactorPDSI 15% 15.0%SPI 15%

6-Month 50% 7.5%12-Month 50% 7.5%

Stream Flow Exceedance 50%Red River of the North at Fargo, ND 50% 25.0%Bois De Sioux River Near White Rock, SD 7% 3.5%Otter Tail River Below Orwell Dam 43% 21.5%

Reservoir/Lake Levels 10%Orwell 75% 7.5%Traverse 25% 2.5%

Groundwater Levels 10%North Buffalo Aquifer 40% 4.0%South Buffalo Aquifer 35% 3.5%Moorhead Aquifer 25% 2.5%

Total Weighting 100.0% 100.0%

22

Drought ResponsesIndicator

Drought Response LevelStage 1 Normal Stage 2 Advisory Stage 3 Warning Stage 4 Emergency

Drought Indicators

PDSI -1.99 and above -2.99 to -2.0 -3.99 to -3.0 -4.0 and below

SPI (6 and 12 month) -0.99 and above -1.49 to -1.0 -1.99 to -1.5 -2.0 and below

Stream FlowUp to 85%

Exceedance85% to 90% Exceedance 85% to 90% Exceedance

Above 90% Exceedance

Reservoir and Lake Levels

Orwell Above 1064.0 ft 1060.0 to 1064.0 ft 1050.0 to 1060.0 ft Below 1,050.0 ft

Traverse Above 976.0 ft 974.0 to 976.0 ft 974.0 to 976.0 ft Below 974.0 ft

Groundwater levelsUp to 65%

Exceedance65% to 75% Exceedance 75% to 90% Exceedance

Above 90% Exceedance

South Buffalo Aquifer Above -35.3 ft -36.8 to -35.3 ft -39.0 to -36.8 ft Below -39.0 ft

North Buffalo Aquifer Above -27.7 ft -31.5 to -27.4 ft -34.7 to -31.5 ft Below -34.7 ft

Moorhead Aquifer Above -182.1 ft -184.2 to -182.1 ft -189.0 to -184.2 ft Below -189.0 ft23

Drought Monitoring Model

24

Data Input (1954-2014) National Indices Local Parameters

Drought Monitoring Model Findings Majority at Normal Condition or Drought Advisory Stage Drought Emergency Stage did not happen

Outcomes Simulate possible Drought Stages Evaluate the impact of one particular source on the overall drought

conditions

25

Planning is the Key!

Overlay districts can refine future land use, protect aquifer from future contamination

Aquifer Modelling can determine adequacy of supply during drought scenarios

26

Conclusions

MnDNR

MDH

AE2S

Legette, Brashears, and Graham

MPS Staff/Commission

27

Acknowledgements

Questions? ContactKristofer Knutson

MPS Water Division Manager

kknutson@mpstuility.com

218-329-9528

@kristoferjk

28