topics in water use: northwest missouri - dnr · 2014-11-18 · topics in water use: northwest...

i

Water Resources Report Number 61

TOPICS IN WATER USE:NORTHWEST

MISSOURI

Integrity and excellence in all we do

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESGeological Survey and Resource Assessment Division

Mimi R. Garstang, Director and State GeologistP.O. Box 250, Rolla, MO 65402-0250

Phone: (573) 368-2100 FAX: (573) 368-2111Web: www.dnr.mo.goV

GE

OL

OGICAL SU

RV

EY

& R

eso

urc

e Assessmen

t Div

isio

n

1853 200315 0 YEARS

ii

Missouri Classification Number: MO/NR Ge9:61

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division, 2002,Topics in Water Use: Northwest Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, GeologicalSurvey and Resource Assessment Division, Water Resources Report Number 61, 76 p., 21 figs., 4 tbls.

As a recipient of federal funds, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color,national origin, age, sex or handicap. If anyone believes he/she has been subjected to discrimination for any of these reasons, he/she may file acomplaint with either the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or the Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, DC, 20240.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2003106473

iii

Page

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1The Watershed Based Approach ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3Temporal Aspect of Water Use ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

3. REGIONAL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7Colleges and Universities ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7Regional Transportation.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Navigation ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9Railroads ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9Aviation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9Highways ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Population Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12Industry, Commerce and Agriculture ................................................................................................................................................................ 12Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16Recreation ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22

4. REGIONAL WATER USE OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................25Public Water Supply ........................................................................................................................................................................................................25Domestic Water Use ........................................................................................................................................................................................................25Industrial and Commercial Water Use .............................................................................................................................................................26Agricultural Water Use ..................................................................................................................................................................................................26Water Use in Power Production ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27Other Instream Flow Uses ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

5. WATER USE PROBLEMS..........................................................................................................................................................................................29DRINKING WATER USE

Public Drinking Water Suppliers ..........................................................................................................................................................................29Missouri Water Law .........................................................................................................................................................................................................30Drought Effects ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................32Lack of Model Contracts for Public Water Supply System’s Cooperation ....................................................................... 37Some Small Water Districts May Not Adequately Supply Water .............................................................................................38Aging Infrastructures of Public Water Supply Systems....................................................................................................................39

AGRICULTURAL WATER USE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 40Improper Land Application of Animal Manure ..................................................................................................................................... 40Atrazine in Water .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 41

INDUSTRIAL WATER USE ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42Mine Runoff ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER USE ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 43Channelization and Associated Sedimentation ...................................................................................................................................... 43

iv

Erosion and Sedimentation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 45Specific Examples ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

Levee Construction and Flood Plain Management ............................................................................................................................. 48Loss of Sensitive Aquatic Species ...................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Site Specific Data ...................................................................................................................................................................................................50Lack of Riparian Corridor ..........................................................................................................................................................................................50Waste Water Treatment Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................................... 51Pharmaceutical/Chemical Contamination of Water ........................................................................................................................... 51

What are Endocrine Disrupters ..................................................................................................................................................................53Combined Sewer Overflows ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 54Urban Sprawl ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................55Aging Water Impoundments.................................................................................................................................................................................... 57Bridge Structural Deficiencies .................................................................................................................................................................................59Competing Uses of the Missouri River ............................................................................................................................................................60Streams Flowing into Missouri from Other States ................................................................................................................................62

Streams from Kansas ..........................................................................................................................................................................................63Biological Contamination of Water ................................................................................................................................................................... 64Does Water Play a Role in Vectoring of TSE? ..........................................................................................................................................66

6. REGIONAL WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSERVATIONS ...............................................................................69Lewis and Clark Celebration....................................................................................................................................................................................69Alternative Water Source Funding .....................................................................................................................................................................69Drinking Water Source Protection ......................................................................................................................................................................69Security Assistance .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70Planned Development Can Prevent a Variety of Water Problems .......................................................................................... 70Possible Increased Base Flow in the Thompson River ..................................................................................................................... 71

7. COMMENTS RECEIVED ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 75

v

List of FiguresFigure No. Page

1. Department of Natural Resources regional office service area ................................................................................................. 22. Counties of northwest Missouri ........................................................................................................................................................................... 63. Locations of colleges and universities ............................................................................................................................................................ 84. Railways and river ports in northwest Missouri ................................................................................................................................. 105. Detail map of railways and river ports in Kansas City .................................................................................................................. 116. Major roads and cities in northwest Missouri ....................................................................................................................................... 137. Missouri average annual precipitation from 1971-2000 .............................................................................................................. 178. Physiographic provinces of Missouri ............................................................................................................................................................ 189. Approximate extent of glacial ice in Missouri ..................................................................................................................................... 19

10. Groundwater possibilities of the glacial drift in northwest Missouri .................................................................................2011. Freshwater-salinewater transition zone ..................................................................................................................................................... 2112. Cross section of the Missouri River alluvium near St. Joseph, Missouri ........................................................................2213. Watershed drainage patterns for northwest Missouri ....................................................................................................................3314. Average annual runoff in Missouri ................................................................................................................................................................ 3415. Estimated annual lake evaporation in Missouri ..................................................................................................................................3516. Hydrographs for watersheds 1, 10, and 25 percent impervious area ................................................................................5617. Missouri River basin .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6118. Streams flowing from Iowa to Missouri .....................................................................................................................................................6319. Thompson River base flow graph................................................................................................................................................................... 7120. Missouri annual precipitation, 2002 ............................................................................................................................................................. 7221. Missouri annual precipitation, based on data pre-1967 ............................................................................................................... 73

List of TablesTable No. Page

1. Northwestern Missouri regional counties and their population ............................................................................................ 142. Summarized census data on northwest Missouri counties ........................................................................................................ 153. Number of state and federal recreational facilities in northwest Missouri ...................................................................234. Listing of 1998 impaired water within Bates and Henry counties .................................................................................... 43

1

Introduction

1.

The Missouri Water Resources Law (RSMo640.400) authorizes the state water resourcesplan to address water needs for the followinguses: drinking, agriculture, industry, recreationand environmental protection. Addressing wa-ter “needs” requires us to establish why theseneeds exist in the first place. In some cases, anexisting water need is tied to one or more unre-solved water problems. For example, commu-nities “need” clean water. To meet this need,communities may have to address problems withwater supply infrastructure, adequate supply, andsource water quality. This report explores cur-rent issues facing the water resources of thenorthwestern Missouri region. It also includes abrief section addressing water use opportuni-ties or success stories. By taking note of suc-cesses (and opportunities for success) we recog-nize approaches that work, and can use themas stepping stones to problem resolution.

As noted in the legislation, there are manyaspects of water use problems. Missouri waterlaw is concerned with protecting both privateindividual water rights and the public health andwelfare. In addition to social and economicneeds, there are the environmental needs of theforests, fish and wildlife of Missouri. Also, tocomplicate matters further, there are the facetsof quantity (supply) and quality of the water re-sources and the political jurisdictions that ad-minister water supplies under Missouri statutes.It is within this matrix of considerations thatthis report approaches these regional water useproblems and opportunities as well as thebroader topic of state water planning.

To ensure equal consideration for all uses,emphasis is placed on identifying water useproblems in each topical area identified in the

Missouri Water Resources Law. Similar topicsare sometimes addressed in more than one cat-egory, reflecting the different viewpoints ofpeople who raised these topics as water useproblems.

Although considered individually in this re-port, water use problems are not truly indepen-dent of each other. When reading water useproblems identified in northwestern Missouri, itwill quickly become apparent that many of themare, in fact, very closely related. In addition,because of the diverse perspectives the variouscontributors bring to this effort, what from onestandpoint may appear to be a “serious prob-lem” may not seem so from another. For thesereasons, the following problems underscore theimportance of working cooperatively in address-ing the water use problems facing northwest-ern Missouri.

Water resource professionals commonlysubdivide the state into physiographic units suchas watersheds or aquifers. While this approachis important for resource-based discussions, itmay not sufficiently address water use problemsor solutions. In this series of reports, the sub-ject is addressed using the broad geographic simi-larities of the six field service areas of the Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources fieldoffices (figure 1). Each of these regions has dis-tinctive physiographic features and socioeco-nomic characteristics, and therefore were cho-sen for the ease of referencing water use prob-lems. This approach allows us to recognizeMissouri’s diversity, and lends itself well to thisphase of the Missouri State Water Plan.

The area served by the department’s Kan-sas City Regional Office is the focus of this re-port. Staff from this office and other state agen-

TOPICS IN WATER USE: NORTHWEST MISSOURI

2

cies dealing with water resources were the pri-mary sources of input for this effort. This en-ables the Missouri State Water Plan staff to drawupon the insight and experience of field staff

who, by virtue of their work, deal with manywater use issues facing northwestern Missourion a daily basis.

Figure 1. Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ regional office service areas.

Dunklin

Pemisc

ot

New M

adrid

Stoddard

Butler

Oregon

Mississ

ippi

ScottWayne

Bolling

erCape

GirardeauMadison

PerryIron

Reynolds

Carter

Shannon

Ripley

Texas

Howell

Ozark

Douglas

WrightWebsterGreene

Christian

Taney

StoneBarry

Lawrence

Dade

McDonald

Newton

Jasper

Barton

Vernon

Bates

Cedar

St. Clair

Henry

Polk

Hickory

Benton

Camden

Dallas Laclede

Morgan

Miller

Pulaski

Maries

Phelps

Dent

Crawford

St.Francois

Ste.Genevieve

Jefferson

Was

hing

ton

Franklin

St. Louis

Gas

cona

de

OsageCole

Moniteau

JohnsonCass

JacksonLafayette

Pettis

Saline

Cooper

Howard

Boone

Callaway

Audrain

RandolphMonroeChariton

Mon

tgom

ery

WarrenSt. Charles

Lincoln

Pike

Ralls

Marion

Lewis

ClarkScotland

Knox

Shelby

Schu

yler

Putnam

AdairSullivan

MaconLinn

Mercer

Grundy

Livingston

CarrollRayClay

Platte

Caldwell

Daviess

Clinton

Harrison

Worth

Gentry

DeKalb

Buchanan

Andrew

Holt

NodawayAtchison

Kansas City Regional Office500 NE Colbern RoadLee's Summit, MO 64086-4710(816) 554-4100FAX: (816) 554-4142

Northeast Regional Office1709 Prospect DriveMacon, Mo 63552-2602(660) 385-2129FAX: (660) 385-6398

Jefferson City Regional Office210 Hoover RoadP.O. Box 176Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176(573) 751-2729FAX: (573) 751-0014

St. Louis Regional Office10805 Sunset Office DriveSt. Louis, MO 63127-1017(314) 301-7100FAX: (314) 301-7107

Southwest Regional Office2040 W. WoodlandSpringfield, MO 65807-5912(417) 891-4300FAX: (417) 891-4399

Southeast Regional Office948 Lester StreetP.O. Box 1420Poplar Bluff, MO 63901-1420(573) 840-9750FAX: (573) 840-9754

MACON

ST. LOUISJEFFERSON CITY

KANSAS CITY

SPRINGFIELD

POPLAR BLUFF

3

The Watershed BasedApproach

Watersheds are defined as the areas of landthat drain surface water runoff into a centralwatercourse. The watershed usually bears thename of its stream, such as the Blackwater RiverWatershed. In the 1990s, federal and state en-vironmental planners began to put a greater em-phasis on consideration of water resources andwater problems within a watershed context. Inthis manner, they hoped to take into consider-ation all the factors that affect water quality,from a geographical perspective. Comprehen-sive watershed assessment, planning, and man-agement of water resources makes sense, butpolitical boundaries (cities, counties, states) rarelyfollow watershed boundaries. Indeed, bound-aries often follow watercourses, effectively di-viding any watershed where this occurs. A casein point would be the Missouri River, a bound-ary for all the counties along the river withinthe northwestern Missouri region. Therefore,cooperation and coordination among all of thejurisdictions within any watershed is critical totaking a watershed approach to the solving ofproblems like nonpoint source pollution. Moreon this topic appears in Chapter 3.

Concerning this watershed-based approach,segments of the separate watersheds are fur-ther subdivided into increasingly smaller “hy-drologic units” so that distinct watersheds maybe broken into more manageable sizes for study.Watersheds have been assigned identificationnumbers that are 2-digit, 4-digit, 6-digit, 8-digit,11-digit, or 14-digits in length. The more digits,

the smaller the watershed identified. The wa-tershed approach has been endorsed by leadingfederal agencies like the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA). It should be rememberedthat these watersheds define surface water drain-age areas only, and while interacting, ground-water areas and political boundaries are butpieces of the bigger picture of the interrelation-ships of water supply and water use.

Temporal Aspect of Water Use

Water usage changes with the times. Justa half century ago, per capita water use waslower than per capita water use of Missourianstoday. Hydropower use has evolved from waterwheels turning the stones of grist mills of earlyMissourians to the large electrical generatingplants of today. Bathing, clothes washing, andother occasional uses of water by Missouri’s pre-vious generations was nothing compared to thewater use demands of the present generation ofMissourians who number in the millions. Notonly has the demand grown because of popula-tion growth, but because of the life styles of to-day and the anticipated changes of the futurethat the State Water Plan must consider to doadequate justice to the topic of water use.Greater demands, in each generation, have re-sulted in efforts to supply ever-greater quanti-ties of finite supplies of water to our popula-tion. Not only are there more people using morewater, but also more water use per capita in agreater variety of ways.

Introduction


4

5

Acknowledgments

The State Water Plan staff thanks the fol-lowing people for their guidance and support inthe preparation of this State Water Plan report:Stephen M. Mahfood, director of the MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources, MimiGarstang, State Geologist and director of thedepartment’s Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division (GSRAD); Mike Wells,deputy director, GSRAD; and Steve McIntosh,director, Water Resources Program withinGSRAD.

The State Water Plan staff is grateful forthe help of the department’s Kansas City Re-gional Office, under the direction of Jim Macy,for initial identification of water use problemsand opportunities in northwestern Missouri. Thestaff also acknowledges the help of consultantJerry Edwards, hydrologist; Sharon Hankins(program secretary) and Mubarak Hamed (wa-ter resource economist) (GSRAD); numerous staffpeople from other programs within the depart-ment, especially Terry Timmons, Kenny Duzan,and Don Scott of the Public Drinking WaterProgram, and Becky Shannon, John Ford, andDarlene Schaben of the Water Pollution Con-trol Program.

In addition, the staff acknowledges the con-tributions made by the State Water Plan, Inter-

agency Task Force. Don Yoest and CindyDeOrnellis representing the Missouri Depart-ment of Agriculture; Alan Buchanan and CindyDiStefano representing the Missouri Departmentof Conservation; Tim Rickabaugh and SallieHemenway representing the Missouri Depart-ment of Economic Development; Todd Blanc,Randy Maley and Karen Yates representing theMissouri Department of Health and Senior Ser-vices; Hans Huenink representing the MissouriDepartment of Public Safety; David Silvester rep-resenting the Missouri Department of Transpor-tation; and David Hammer representing theUniversity of Missouri.

The State Water Plan staff especially ex-press their appreciation to Susan Dunn (graphicartist) (GSRAD) for preparing illustrations, lay-out of this report, and coordinating the print-ing. Steve McIntosh, director of GSRAD’s Wa-ter Resources Program served as project man-ager. Other Water Resources staff members con-tributing to this State Water Plan project in-clude Bob Bacon, Sherry Chen, and John Drew.Special thanks to the State Water Plan staffwithout whose work this would not be possible- Terry Frueh, Richard Gaffney, Charles Haysand Bruce Netzler.

Acknowledgments

2.


6

Figure 2. Map showing counties of northwest Missouri region covered by this report.

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

7

Regional Description

The Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources (the department) has six regional officeslocated throughout the state (figure 1). Theseoffices are designated by the area in which theyare located and include the Kansas City, South-west, Southeast, St. Louis, Jefferson City, andNortheast regional offices. Each office is respon-sible for issues within a particular area definedon the basis of county boundaries.

Within the jurisdiction of the Kansas CityRegional Office are 21 counties in western-northwestern Missouri. These counties areAndrew, Atchison, Bates, Buchanan, Caldwell,Cass, Clay, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry,Harrison, Henry, Holt, Jackson, Johnson,Lafayette, Nodaway, Platte, Ray, and Worth (fig-ure 2).

The State of Iowa forms the northernboundary of the region, and the Missouri Riverforms the western boundary as far south asKansas City, from which point, southward, theState of Kansas forms the western boundary.Nine of the 21 counties in the northwestern re-gion front on the Missouri River, a path of com-merce since Native American times.

The presence of Kansas City is an over-whelming feature for the northwestern Missouriregion. The incorporated territory of KansasCity occupies large portions of Clay and Jack-son counties and part of Platte County. Thislarge city and its suburbia are the urban core to

the region that otherwise is very rural in char-acter. The dichotomy between the very urbancore and the very rural area surrounding it issignificant.

Colleges and Universities

Fifteen colleges and universities are situ-ated in the counties of the northwestern region,mostly in the larger cities. The list includes,alphabetically, Avila College, Kansas City (Jack-son Co.); Central Missouri State University,Warrensburg (Johnson Co.); Cleveland Chiro-practic College, Kansas City (Jackson Co.); DeVryInstitute of Technology, Kansas City (JacksonCo.); Longview Community College, Lee’s Sum-mit (Jackson Co.), Maplewood Community Col-lege, Kansas City (Clay County), MetropolitanCommunity College, Kansas City (Jackson Co.);Missouri Western State College, St. Joseph(Buchanan Co.); Northwest Missouri State Uni-versity, Maryville (Nodaway Co.); Park Univer-sity, Parkville (Platte Co.); Penn Valley Commu-nity College, Kansas City (Jackson Co.);Rockhurst College, Kansas City (Jackson Co.);the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Jack-son Co.), and William Jewell College, Liberty(Clay Co.) (figure 3). There also are branches ofother colleges that offer courses in the region.

3.



8

Figure 3. Locations of colleges and universities in northwest Missouri.

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

9


Regional Transportation

Navigation

River transportation in the northwesternregion of Missouri is entirely by way of the Mis-souri River. Port authorities in the region arethe St. Joseph Regional Port Authority and theKansas City Port Authority. Numerous privatefacilities can be found along the river (figures 4and 5). The St. Joseph Port Authority, in 2001,completed construction of a $1,000,000 devel-opment project (with 20 percent local match toa Missouri Department of Transportation(MoDOT) grant) for this intermodal port facility.Truck and rail service to the port gives truemultimodal capability (Martin, 2001).

The Kansas City Port Authority handlesmany tons of commodities annually. Inboundproducts include such things as bulk fertilizer,tanning salt, steel coil and re-bar, cement clin-kers, and decorative rock. (Amounts and valuesof these commodities constitute proprietary in-formation, and may not be made public.) Theport operator of the Kansas City Port Author-ity is the Midwest Terminal Company. They donot ship outbound by barge. Towboat opera-tors take cleaned, emptied barges from the portto the various private grain terminals in the re-gion where they are loaded with grain for ex-port (Clemens, 2001). The Kansas City Port alsois a true multimodal terminal with on-site railservice.

Kansas City is a hub for barge, rail, air andtruck shipping for raw, semi-finished, and fin-ished commodities. Ports within the northwestregion interconnect with ports upstream, e.g.Omaha, Nebraska, and Sioux City, Iowa, andwith the downstream ports of Howard / Coo-per County Regional Port Authority, Boonville;St. Louis, and New Orleans in handling bothimports and exports.

Railroads

Passenger rail transportation via Amtrakhas two trunk lines across the northwesternMissouri region. One route is from Kansas Citynortheastward to Chicago by way of LaPlata,Missouri. In the other direction, the destination

is the west coast. The other route is east-westbetween Kansas City and St. Louis via the StateCapitol, with connections from the two termi-nals. This route includes stops at Warrensburg,Lee’s Summit, and Independence within the re-gion, with two trains a day in each direction.

There are numerous rail freight service linesin the northwestern region of Missouri. Amongthe Class 1 railroads operating here are theBurlington Northern – Santa Fe (BNSF), theNorfolk Southern Railway (NS), the Union Pa-cific (UP), and the Kansas City Southern Rail-way (KCS). Among the Class 2 railroads are theGateway Western Railway (GWWR) [a subsid-iary of KCS], the regional Missouri & NorthernArkansas Railroad (MNA), the I&M (for Iowaand Missouri) Rail Link (IMRL) [formerly the SooLine], and the inactive Missouri Central Rail-road (on the former Rock Island Line purchasedby the UP) (figures 4 and 5).

Kansas City and the Kansas City SouthernRailway Company are building a huge truck-train intermodal rail hub, called the Kansas CityInternational Freight Gateway. Shipments toand from Mexico will constitute most of the in-ternational traffic in the near future. After Chi-cago, Kansas City already is the second largestrail hub in the U.S.A., and this effort will makeit larger. The facility is located at the formerRichards–Gebauer military air base that is nowclosed for general aviation traffic.

Aviation

The largest airport in the region is the Kan-sas City International Airport (Platte County).Known locally as KCI, it serves major airlinesfor passenger and freight for domestic and in-ternational flights. KCI is also an important mailand package routing center. KCI handles themost freight of any airport in the nation. Therealso is a Kansas City Downtown Airport, thepremier corporate/business airport in the re-gion. The St. Joseph-Rosecrans Airport is lo-cated on the west side of the Missouri River,due to a major river avulsion during the Floodof 1952. Nevertheless, the airport is in Missouri;the state boundary having remained unchangedby the flood. There are numerous other smallpublic and private airports throughout the re-gion.


10

Figure 4. Railways and river ports in northwest Missouri.

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

11


Figure 5. Detail map of railways and river ports around Kansas City.

0 10 20 30 Miles


12

Highways

U.S. Interstate Highway transportationroutes include I-29, east of the Missouri River,northwestward between Kansas City and Coun-cil Bluffs, Iowa, by way of St. Joseph; I-35, gen-erally northerly between Kansas City and DesMoines, Iowa, via Cameron and Bethany; I-70,east-west between Kansas City and St. Louis,and beyond in each direction; I-435,circumferentially around greater Kansas City; I-470, in the Independence – Lee’s Summit area,and I-635, crossing the Missouri River at River-side (Platte Co.).

Other major U.S. numbered highways in-clude Route 71, north-south through the north-western Missouri region; Route 136, east-westacross the northern tier of counties; Route 36,east-west through the St. Joseph area of theregion; Route 24, east-west across the regionjust south of the Missouri River; Route 40,roughly parallel with I-70; Route 50, east-west,joining the south side of Kansas City with theCapitol City and beyond in both directions,Routes 59 and 159 in the northwest corner ofthe region, Route 69 from Kansas City toLamoni, Iowa, via Excelsior Springs andCameron, and Route 169, north-south fromKansas City to Iowa. Routes 36 and 50 aremostly four-lane divided highways (figure 6).

Population Characteristics

The 1980 decennial census, when comparedto the censuses of 1990 and 2000, shows thatparts of the northwestern Missouri region aregrowing in population while others have a de-clining population. For the most part, the ruralcounties are either declining or just holding aboutsteady, while the more urban counties are gain-ing. Declining are Atchison, Gentry, Holt,Nodaway, and Worth counties. Caldwell has heldmore or less “steady” over the two-decade span.The rest have gained, with the Kansas City Metroarea counties (Cass, Clay, Jackson, and Platte)gaining large numbers.

The largest city in the region, by far, is Kan-sas City, with nearly 450,000 people. AddingIndependence, at nearly 115,000 people, andthose of the immediate surrounding area, the

metropolitan region holds about three quartersof a million people in Missouri (tables 1 and 2).The greater Kansas City metropolitan area thatincludes Platte, Clay, Jackson, and Cass coun-ties in Missouri, with Wyandotte (158,000 people)and Johnson (451,000 people) counties in Kan-sas, totals approximately one and a third mil-lion people.

Industry, Commerce andAgriculture

Kansas City has long been considered theagri-business “capitol” of the “breadbasket” re-gion of the United States. Much of the grainshipped to export terminals in New Orleanspasses through Kansas City by barge or rail. Infact, it is the second largest rail center in thecountry, in part due to its central location forshipping agricultural commodities.

Northwest Missouri can generally be char-acterized as having rolling hills and deep soils.Agriculture is the dominant use and is clearlyreflected by the ways the land is managed. Crophay fields and pasture are interspersed withsmaller brush and wooded areas. Compared toother areas of Missouri, such as the Bootheel orOzarks, one immediately notices the miles offencing, which illustrates the high productivityof this region’s soils, historically smaller sizedfarms, and the crop-to-grazing rotational farm-ing practices. Land adjacent to larger rivers andstreams is relatively flat, contains good soil andalmost exclusively is used to grow row crops.

Agriculture plays an important role in theeconomy of the northwest region, with salestotaling $984 million in 1997 (OSEDA, 2001).The primary crops (with percent of states’ totalproduction) in the region in 1997 were corn (34.3percent), soybeans (30.8 percent), hay (19.9 per-cent), and wheat (8.3 percent). As of 2000, corngrown in the region was down to only 31.5 per-cent of the state’s total, but the production figureswere 60 percent greater than the 1999 numbers,and 2000 was the record high year for corn inMissouri (records going back to 1919). Soybeanswere 28 percent, but production was 19 percentgreater than the 1999 numbers. Hay was 18 per-cent, 8 percent less than the previous year. Therecord high year for hay production was 1998.

13

Figure 6. Major roads and cities in northwest Missouri.

0 10 20 30 40 Miles



14

County Name County Seat Major Town(s) River Port(s)Andrew-16,492 Savannah-4,762Atchison-6,430 Rock Port-1,395 Tarkio-1,935Bates-16,653 Butler-4,209Buchanan-85,998 St. Joseph-73,990 St. Joseph-73,990Caldwell-8,969 Kingston-287 Hamilton-1,813Cass-82,092 Harrisonville-8,946 Belton -21,730

Raymore-11,146Pleasant Hill-5,582

Clay-184,006 Liberty-26,232 Gladstone-26,365 Missouri City-295Excelsior Springs-10,847 Randolph-45Smithville-5,514Kearney-5,472

Clinton-18,979 Plattsburg-2,354 Cameron-8,312Daviess-8,016 Gallatin-1,789DeKalb-11,597 Maysville-1,212Gentry-6,861 Albany-1,937Harrison-8,850 Bethany-3,087Henry-21,997 Clinton-9,311 Windsor-3,087Holt-5,351 Oregon-935 Mound City-1,193Jackson-654,880 Independence-113,288 Kansas City -441,545 Kansas City –441,545

Lee’s Summit-70,700 Sugar Creek -3,839Blue Springs-48,080 Sibley-347Raytown-30,388Grandview-24,881

Johnson-48,258 Warrensburg-16,340 Holden-2,510Knob Knoster-2,462

Lafayette-32,960 Lexington-4,453 Odessa-4,818Higginsville-4,682 Waverly-806Napoleon-208

Nodaway-21,912 Maryville-10,581Platte-73,781 Platte City-3,866 Riverside-2,979

Parkville-4,059Ray-23,354 Richmond-6,116Worth-2,382 Grant City-926

Regional Population = 1,339,818Source: Census Bureau website: www.census.gov, June 2001

Table 1. Northwestern Missouri region counties and their population.

15


Table 2. Summarized census data for northwestern Missouri counties.

1990 2000

population of region 1,232,458 1,339,818population per square mile 104.9 114.0number of rural residents 251,716population younger than 20 years old1 353,280 28.7% 344,455 25.7%population between 20 and 39 years old1 397,038 32.2% 527,547 39.4%population between 40 and 64 years old1 318,900 25.9% 293,243 21.9%population 65 years old or older1 163,240 13.2% 169,296 12.6%median age 33 yrs., 4 mos. 35 yrs., 6 mos.number of households 478,585 530,386median household income $27,912 $40, 916number of people below poverty level 146,739 11.9% 134,441 10.0%total persons aged 25+ with less than a

9th grade education 61,205 38,933total persons aged 25+ with a

9th to 12th grade education 104,959 97,053total persons aged 25+ with a

high school diploma 280,468 289,677total persons aged 25+ holding

undergraduate degrees 134,907 172,954total persons aged 25+ holding

graduate degrees 46,991 63,273Unemployed 38,324 6.1% 33,152 4.8%population employed in management and

professional occupations 140,361 22.3% 207,368 30.1%population employed in technical, sales or

administrative occupations 199,521 31.7% 183,541 26.7%population employed in service occupations 80,735 12.8% 97,877 14.2%population employed in farming,

forestry or fishing 14,933 2.4% 2,717 0.4%population employed in other occupations 156,402 24.8% 163,626 23.8%Total available workforce 630,276 688,281number of housing units 528,223 573,525average home value $55,754 $87,789

Note: At the time of publication, the complete census data for 2000 was not yet published.1The age breakdowns for the 2000 census were: under 18 years old, 19-44 years old, 44-65 years old, andover 65 years old.

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, www.census.gov, October, 2001.)


16

Wheat was up to 11 percent of state produc-tion, 12 percent greater than the 1999 produc-tion (MASS, 2001).

Among the 21 counties, four of the state’stop ten corn-growing counties are in this re-gion: Atchison ranks 3rd, Nodaway ranks 4th,Lafayette ranks 5th, and Holt ranks 6th. Simi-larly, three of the state’s top ten soybean-grow-ing counties are in this region: Atchison ranks5th, Nodaway ranks 6th, and Holt ranks 10th.Among wheat-growing counties in this region,Bates County ranks 8th in the state. Amonghay-growing counties in this region, JohnsonCounty ranks 3rd in Missouri. Hay is the mostwidely produced crop in Missouri, ranking 3rd intotal value in the state, although normally onlyabout 10 percent of the hay is sold on the mar-ket with the rest being used on the farms (MDA,2001). Sorghum also is grown in the region,with the 2000 crop coming in at 13 percentgreater than the 1999 crop. Henry Countyranked 9th in the state in sorghum grain pro-duction.

Over 80 percent of Missouri’s tobacco isgrown in Buchanan, Clinton, and Platte Coun-ties. Nevertheless, the regional total and thestate total both have declined markedly since1999:

Buchanan, 870,000 lbs., 1999, and 530,500lbs. in 2000, 39 percent less than the previousyear.

Clinton, 83,800 lbs., 1999, and 49,000 lbs.in 2000, 41.5 percent less than the previousyear.

Platte, 2,898,000 lbs., 1999, and 1,818,000lbs., in 2000, 37 percent less than the previousyear.

State Total, 4,635,000 lbs., 1999, and2,968,000 lbs., in 2000, 36 percent less than theprevious year’s total. The center of tobaccogrowing in the region is Weston, Missouri.

The region contains 22 percent of the states’orchards, with Lafayette the second highestcounty in Missouri. In 1997, 15 of the 21 coun-ties had higher crop sales than that of livestock.Although only a moderate producer of livestock,the region had 18 percent of Missouri’s cattle,and produced 7.5 percent of the state’s dairyproducts in 1997. As of 2001, the region heldabout 10 percent of the state’s beef cattle. Bates

County ranked 5th, Johnson County ranked 8th,and Nodaway County ranked 9th in the state innumbers of beef cattle. As of January 1, 2001,there were only 150,000 head of milk cows inMissouri, a record low number, with records go-ing back to 1867.

Jackson County was the 9th highest countyat producing sheep and lambs in the state in1997. The number of sheep in Missouri on Janu-ary 1, 2001, was 73,000, also a record low (recordsdating to 1867). And the lamb crop of the year2000 was only 65,000, another record low. Woolproduction in 2000 was 430,000 lbs., also arecord low figure. This may be due to the factthat the price of raw wool per pound has de-clined markedly: 1997, 45 cents; 1998, 33 cents;1999, 14 cents, and 2000, only 10 cents perpound.

Kansas City is one of the centers of thestock market trading business of the nation.Many firms trading on the New York Stock Ex-change and the Chicago Commodities Exchangehave their corporate offices in Kansas City.Hallmark, Interstate Bakeries, Utilicorp (natu-ral gas), and Farmland Industries are all For-tune 500 companies located in the Missouri partof the Kansas City Metro area.

A sampling of Kansas City’s industry fol-lows: among food processing industries, Redi-Cut Foods prepares packaged salads for chainrestaurants. In manufacturing, there is a Fordassembly plant at Claycomo, and Harley-Davidson Motorcycles. In pharmaceuticals, thereare Pfizer and Quintiles. In addition, there areNational Starch, American Century mutualfunds, and H&R Block.

Physical Characteristics

Northwestern Missouri has a humid, conti-nental climate with average annual tempera-tures from about 52o F to 55o F. Long term an-nual precipitation averages from 35 to 38 inchesthroughout the region (figure 7). Rainfallamounts are generally highest in the spring andlowest in the fall and winter months. Evapo-transpiration, the process of precipitation beingreturned to the air through direct evaporation

17


or transpiration of plants, consumes from 27 to29 inches of annual rainfall. Surface runoff ofprecipitation averages from five to nine inchesannually.

Northwestern Missouri lies mostly in theglaciated plains and Osage plains of the CentralLowlands physiographic province (figure 8).During the last period of glaciation, called the

Wisconsin glaciation, the exposed rocks of north-ern Missouri, eroded by earlier glacial advances,were scoured again by advancing ice sheets. Thefarthest reach of the ice is shown in figure 9.The result of the glacial scouring is a combina-tion of pre-glacial and postglacial eroded sur-faces.

AVERAGE 1971-2000 TOTAL ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

INCHES33.6 - 36.036.1 - 39.039.1 - 42.042.1 - 45.045.1 - 48.048.1 - 51.0

0 25 50 100 150 200 MILES

Figure 7. Missouri average annual precipitation from 1971 – 2000. Source: Office of State Climatologist, University of Missouri-Columbia.


18

Glacial till or drift, composed of sand, clay,silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders, deposited onthe surface and in valleys that were eroded ear-lier, can be quite thick, up to several hundred

ATCHISON

HOLT

NODAWAY

WORTH

HARRISON

GENTRY

ANDREW

DE KALB

BUCHANANCLINTON

DAVIESS

PLATTE

CLAYRAY

CALDWELL

LAFAYETTE

JACKSON

JOHNSONCASS

BATES

HENRY

OSAGE PLAINS

SPRINGFIELD

PLATEAU

SALEMPLATEAU

SOUTHEASTERN

LOWLANDS

ST.

FRANCOIS

MOUNTAINS

DISSECTED TILL PLAINS

EU

RE

KA

SPR IN

GS

E SC

AR

PM

ENT

0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles

0 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers

OZARK

UPLIFT

CENTRAL LOWLAND

OZARK ESCARPM

ENT

Figure 8. Physiographic provinces of Missouri. Source: Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division.

feet (Brookshire, 1997). These glaciated plainsand glacial till are constantly being eroded byrainfall and dissected by runoff, gradually de-stroying the formerly nearly level topography.

19


Figure 9. Approximate extent of glacial ice in Missouri.

Terminus of ice

LEGEND

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 M ile s

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 K ilo m e te rs

AtchisonNodaway

Holt

Worth

Gentry

Andrew

Buchanan

De Kalb

Harrison

Daviess

ClintonCaldwell

Mercer

Grundy

Living

ston

Putnam

Sullivan

Schu

yler

Adair

ScotlandClark

Knox Lewis

Linn Macon Shelby Marion

Platte

Clay RayCarroll

Chariton

Rand

olph

MonroeRalls

Pike

Jackson

Lafayette Saline Howard

Boone

Audrain

Mon

tgom

ery

Callaway

Lincoln

Warren St. C

harle

s

St. Louis

Jefferson

Franklin

Gas

cona

de

OsageCole

Moniteau

Cooper

Morgan

MillerMaries

PettisJohnsonCass

Henry

Bates Benton

St. Clair CamdenHickory

Vernon

Barton

Jasper

Newton

McDonald

Cedar

Dade

Lawrence

Barry

Polk

Greene

Christian

StoneTaney

Dallas Laclede

Webster Wright

PulaskiPhelps

Crawford

Wash

ington Ste.

Genevieve

Douglas

Ozark

Texas

Howell

Dent

Shannon

Reynolds

Iron

St.Francois

Madison

Perry

Oregon

Carter

Ripley

Wayne

Butler

Bollin

ger Cap

e

Girard

eau

Scott

Stoddard Mississ

ippi

NewMadrid

Pem

iscot

Dunklin

The drainage pattern consists of nearly parallelstreams trending north-south toward the Mis-souri River, the major drainage stream. The gla-cial till deposits in pre-glacial valleys can be a

good source of water resources. Many of thewells of this region tap groundwater in glacialtill deposits (figure 10).

covered by glacial ice


20

60 Miles0 20 40

ATCHISONPUTNAM

HOLT

ANDREW

DE KALB

BUCHANAN CLINTONCALDWELL

RAYCLAY

PLATTE

SULLIVANADAIR

MACON

CHARITON

MERCERHARRISON

GENTRY

WORTH

NODAWAY

LIVINGSTONLEGEND

Approximate cummulative thick-ness of clean glacial drift sands

< 10 feet

10 - 100 feet

>100 feet

GRUNDY

LINN

CARROLL

DAVIESS

Figure 10. Groundwater possibilities of the glacial drift in northwestern Missouri.

The glacial drift aquifers, especially the bur-ied glacial channels as shown in figure 10, arevery important water resources, because deepergroundwater is full of dissolved minerals fromthe underlying sedimentary rocks of Pennsyl-vanian age. These strata were laid down whena shallow sea covered Missouri. The deeper

groundwater, therefore, generally is high in so-dium and chloride, and not considered gooddrinking water for that reason. Nearly the en-tire northwestern region of Missouri lies withinthe saline groundwater province of the state (fig-ure 11).

21


Water stored in the flood plain deposits ofthe Missouri River and other streams is calledalluvial groundwater. These deposits are typi-cally very good sources of drinking water andalluvial wells generally yield large quantities ofwater. In recent years, the water company thatserves the City of St. Joseph drilled a well fieldin the alluvium near Amazonia in Andrew

County to provide a reliable source of drinkingwater for St. Joseph residents. Formerly, thecity depended on Missouri River water that wasoccasionally interrupted by summer droughtsor winter ice dams. Kansas City also takes mostof its water supply from alluvial wells (figure12).

Figure 11. Freshwater-salinewater transition zone. Source: Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division.

Salinewater

Freshwater

F r e

s h w a

t e

r -

s a

l

i n e w a tt e r t r

a n s

i t i o n z o n e

AtchisonNodaway

Holt

Worth

G entry

Andrew

B uchanan

De K alb

Harrison

Daviess

C lintonC aldwell

Mercer

G rundy

Livingsto

n

P utnam

S ullivan

S chuyler

Adair

S cotlandC lark

K nox Lewis

Linn Macon S helby Marion

P latte

C lay R ayC arroll

C hariton

R andolph

MonroeR alls

P ike

J acksonLafayette

S aline Howard

B oone

Audrain

Mon

tgom

ery

C allaway

Lincoln

Warren

S t. Charle

s

S t. Louis

J efferson

F ranklin

Ga

sco

na

de

Osage

C ole

Moniteau

C ooper

Morgan

Miller Maries

P ettis

John

son

C ass

Henry

B ates B enton

S t. C lair C amdenHickory

V ernon

B arton

J asper

Newton

McDonald

C edar

Dade

Lawrence

B arry

P olk

G reene

C hristian

S toneT aney

Dallas Laclede

Webster Wright

P ulaskiP helps

C rawford

Washin

gton

S te.G enevieve

Douglas

Ozark

T exas

Howell

Dent

S hannon

R eynolds

Iron

S t.F rancois

Madison

P erry

Oregon

C arter

R ipley

Wayne

B utler

Bol

linge

r C ape

Gira

rdeau

S cott

S toddardM

iss iss ippi

NewMadrid

Pe

mis

cot

Dunklin

F reshwater-salinewatertrans ition zone

L E G E ND

Fres

h

wate

r - saline water trransition z o ne

0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles

0 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers


22

ClaySilt

Sand

Sand, some gravel(sand is predominant)

Sand and gravel(equal amounts)

Alluvium

Bedrock

Feet0

100

River level andgroundwater level on date, as noted.

850

800

750

700

650

850

800

750

700

650

W EM

isso

uri R

iver

Ben

d In

Sec

tion

Ben

d In

Sec

tion

Ben

d In

Sec

tion

Ben

d In

Sec

tion

Ben

d In

Sec

tion

0 5000 10000 Feet

DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVELVERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 100

1-11-673-6-67

50

7-11-67

LEGEND

Figure 12. Cross section of the Missouri River alluvium near St. Joseph, Missouri. Source: Emmett and Jeffery, 1969.

In the glaciated area, particularly near theMissouri River, post-glacial winds carried largequantities of fine silt into the air, subsequentlydepositing it in the “river hills.” These depositsare a noticeable characteristic of the landscapealong I-29 from Kansas City to Iowa. The siltymaterial, deposited in wind-blown drifts (likesand dunes, but finer-grained), is called loess.Because of the way the silt particles were wind-deposited, the particles are “stacked” vertically,and when these deposits must be excavated, asin road-building, the road cuts are typically ver-tical, rather than sloped, to reduce erosion bystormwater runoff.

In the unglaciated Osage plains, ground-water resources are meager and mineralized.Most water districts in this area use surface waterresources. The presence of Harry S TrumanReservoir is a water supply opportunity for resi-dents of this region of Missouri. The parts ofHenry and Johnson counties that lie outside the

saline groundwater province have water re-sources that are not heavily mineralized.

Recreation

The gentle hills, rivers and lakes in north-western Missouri provide a scenic backdrop forten state parks and historic sites, and numer-ous conservation and wildlife areas (table 3). Alltypes of water recreation, including fishing, sail-ing, swimming, canoeing, water-skiing, andmotor boating are available on the area’s reser-voirs (primarily Smithville and Truman), al-though not as many choices exist as in thesouthern part of the state. In addition, severalnatural lakes also provide opportunities for rec-reation, including Big Lake (Holt Co.), Lewis andClark Lake (Buchanan Co.), and Bean Lake(Platte Co.), all of which are found in the floodplain of the Missouri River.

23


Sources:

Brookshire, Cynthia, 1997, Water ResourcesReport Number 47, Missouri water qual-ity assessment, Missouri State Water PlanSeries Volume III, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey.

Clark, Jim, Project Manager, Missouri Depart-ment of Economic Development, Kansas CityRegional Office. Personal communication,October 29, 2001.

Clemens, Loren, Midwest Terminal Co., KansasCity Port Authority, Missouri. Personal com-munication, November 13, 2001.

Emmett, L.F., and Jeffery, H.G., 1969, Recon-naissance of the Ground-Water Re-sources of the Missouri River Allu-vium Between Kansas City, Missouriand the Iowa Border: U.S. Geological

Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-336, 1 sheet.

Martin, Sherry, Intermodal Operations Division,Waterways, Missouri Department of Transpor-tation. Personal communication, November9, 2001.

Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service (MASS),2001, 2001 Missouri farm facts, MissouriDepartment of Agriculture, and U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, 80 p.

Missouri Department of Agriculture, 2001, Mis-souri agriculture, a statistical snap-shot, MDA Annual Report, 36 p.

Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis(OSEDA), 2001, avai lable on l ine atwww.oseda.missouri.edu

County State Parks1 MDC2 Federal3

Andrew 0 14 0Atchison 0 8 0Bates 0 7 0Buchanan 1 17 0Caldwell 0 2 0Cass 0 5 0Clay 1 5 1Clinton 1 2 0Daviess 0 7 0DeKalb 0 0 0Gentry 0 3 0Harrison 0 5 0Henry 0 8 1Holt 1 8 1Jackson 2 17 4Johnson 1 5 1Lafayette 1 9 1Nodaway 0 7 0Platte 1 7 0Ray 1 10 1Worth 0 4 0

Sources: 1www.dnr.state.mo.us/dsp/index.html; 2www.conservation.state.mo.us; 3www.fws.gov/; 3www.usace.army.mil/;3www.nps.gov/; 3www.af.mil/

Table 3. Number of state and federal recreational facilities in northwestern Missouri.


24

25

Regional Water Use Overview

The following description of water use innorthwestern Missouri is included to providecontext for the water use problems identified inthis report. The categories used below are thesame as those used by the United States Geo-logical Survey (USGS) in the National Water-Use Information Program. Most of the wateruse data provided in this section were collectedthrough this program. Many of the water useproblems included in this report address drink-ing water and industrial issues, demonstratingthe importance of those uses to the region. Do-mestic and industrial applications are the pre-dominant water uses of northwestern Missouri.These uses combined represent 64.2 percent ofnorthwestern Missouri’s total water use (exclud-ing power generation) of 207 million gallons perday (USGS, 2001).

Public Water Supply

The percentage of publicly supplied waterallocated to commercial and public uses withinthe region is lower than statewide averages. Thepercentage of publicly supplied water for do-mestic use in the northwest region in 1995 wasapproximately 68 percent compared to 65.2percent for Missouri statewide (USGS, 2001).Public water use is often defined as community-wide applications of water, such as firefightingand filling public swimming pools. Public wateruse also includes transmission losses, which iswater lost from leaking pipes and joints whilebeing delivered to domestic, commercial andindustrial users. Nearly 17 percent of north-western Missouri’s publicly supplied water wasdelivered for public uses in 1995, compared to21.8 percent statewide (USGS, 2001).

4.

Similarly, 1995 commercial use of publicwater supplies was slightly lower in northwest-ern Missouri than for the state overall. Com-mercial water use is defined by the USGS as“water for motels, hotels, restaurants, office build-ings, other commercial facilities, and institutions”(Solley, et al., 1993). In 1995, approximately 9.4percent of northwestern Missouri’s publicly sup-plied water was delivered to commercial waterusers compared to 10.3 percent statewide (USGS,2001). Public water supply deliveries for indus-trial purposes in northwestern Missouri, con-versely, were lower than the statewide averagein 1995. Compared to the statewide figure of24.4 percent, industrial water users in north-western Missouri accounted for only 21.8 per-cent of total public water supply usage (USGS,2001).

Some 54 percent of the population ofnorthwestern Missouri receiving water frompublic water systems are supplied by ground-water. It is important to note that the majorityof this groundwater comes from the MissouriRiver alluvium in the Kansas City region andnear St. Joseph. The Missouri River and a num-ber of small public water supply lakes supplythe remaining population. In northwestern Mis-souri, 87 percent of citizens are connected to apublic water supply.

Domestic Water Use

Domestic water use is often defined as “wa-ter used for household purposes,” such as drink-ing, cooking, bathing, and washing clothes anddishes. Excluding thermoelectric and hydroelec-tric power generation, domestic water use is thepredominant use of water in northwestern Mis-



26

souri. The National Water-Use Information Pro-gram of the United States Geological Survey(USGS) estimated 1995 domestic water use (de-liveries + withdrawals) in northwestern Missouriat 34.2 billion gallons of water. USGS figures indi-cate that per capita usage was approximately 75.6gallons/day for public supply domestic usage.However, self-supplied per capita use was only60.0 gallons/day. While 89 percent of northwest-ern Missouri’s domestic water requirements aresupplied by public water systems, the rest is self-supplied. However, these numbers are slightly bi-ased in that the Kansas City metro area (with near100 percent public supply) is a large percentageof the population, whereas rural areas have a lowerpercentage on public supply. For example,Harrison County has only 78.3 percent of thepopulation on public water systems. Approxi-mately 164,000 people in northwestern Missouridrew water from private supplies in 1995 (USGS,2001). USGS data from 1995 indicate that 100percent of self-supplied domestic water withdraw-als came from groundwater sources, although itis likely that a fraction of a percent of usersobtained water from surface water sources. Inthe 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Hous-ing, approximately 5,057 housing units in north-western Missouri reported using “some othersource” for water, a catch-all category which theCensus Bureau defines as “water obtained fromsprings, creeks, rivers, lakes, cisterns, etc.”

Industrial and CommercialWater Use

Industrial water use in northwestern Mis-souri is about the same as the state’s average,and accounts for 22 percent of public water sup-ply deliveries. Industrial water use is water usedfor industrial purposes such as fabrication, pro-cessing, washing, and cooling. Industrial waterusers across Missouri typically rely on public-supplied rather than self-supplied water. In1995, industrial water users in northwesternMissouri received 9.7 billion gallons of water frompublic water systems, approximately 68 percentof their total water use (withdrawals + deliver-ies) (USGS, 2001). In 1995, 56 percent of total

self-supplied withdrawals for industrial use camefrom groundwater sources. USGS data indicatevarying levels of industrial water use through-out northwestern Missouri, with 13 out of 21counties showing no industrial water use at all.

In northwestern Missouri, commercial wa-ter use was less than industrial water use. Com-mercial water use is water used for motels, ho-tels, restaurants, office buildings, other commer-cial facilities and institutions. Commercial wa-ter use (withdrawals + deliveries) in northwest-ern Missouri totaled nearly 5.5 billion gallons in1995, 38 percent of that used for industrial pur-poses. Commercial water use in northwesternMissouri depends upon both public water sup-ply deliveries and private supplies, with publicwater systems supplying approximately 76 per-cent of the region’s commercial water require-ments (USGS, 2001).

Agricultural Water Use

Farmers in northwestern Missouri withdrawwater both to irrigate farmlands and to watertheir livestock. Irrigation water withdrawal farexceeds water withdrawn for livestock water-ing in both statewide and northwestern Missouritotals. Groundwater sources account for mostof northwestern Missouri’s agricultural waterwithdrawal. In 1995, 60 percent of the 14.2 bil-lion gallons of water withdrawn for all agricul-tural operations in northwestern Missouri wastaken from the region’s groundwater (USGS,2001).

Irrigation water withdrawal in northwest-ern Missouri surpassed livestock withdrawals in1995, exceeding 9.5 billion gallons of water.However, ponds and cisterns are not considered,and they are often sources of water for live-stock. Approximately 24 percent of irrigationwithdrawals in northwestern Missouri came fromsurface water sources in 1995, in sharp contrastto the statewide value of 6 percent (USGS, 2001).Two thirds of irrigation water withdrawal was inAtchison County, 18 percent in Andrew, Cass,and Holt counties, with the rest of the countiesmaking up the remaining 13 percent.

Three-fourths of livestock water withdraw-als were from surface water sources, consistent

27

with the state as a whole. Livestock productionis more evenly distributed across northwesternMissouri, with individual counties withdrawingup to 475 million gallons of water per year(USGS, 2001). A variety of livestock is raised innorthwestern Missouri, each of which must haveaccess to water throughout the year. Farmersin northwestern Missouri withdrew slightly morethan 4.7 billion gallons of water for their live-stock in 1995.

Water Use in Power Production

The Major Water Users Database of the Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources estimatedthat the total thermoelectric power generationwithdrawals in northwestern Missouri were ap-proximately 404 billion gallons of water in 2000(Barnett, 2001). Withdrawals for thermoelectricpower generation are used primarily for powerplant cooling and come almost entirely from sur-face water sources. Although thermoelectric powergeneration requires vast amounts of water, verylittle of it is actually consumed. Statewide, morethan 99 percent of all thermoelectric power with-drawals were returned to their source waters. Innorthwestern Missouri, six facilities (Hawthorne,Sibley, and Trigen in Jackson County; Iatan inPlatte County; Lake Road in Buchanan County;and Montrose in Henry County) account for theregion’s thermoelectric power generation. Thesethermoelectric plants include coal, petroleum, andgas-fired facilities. There are no hydroelectricpower generation facilities in northwestern Mis-souri.

Other Instream Flow Uses

Fish and other aquatic organisms in north-western Missouri’s lakes and streams dependupon flowing water for survival and aquatichabitat preservation. Many municipalities in theregion rely upon flowing water to safely releasewastewater back into the environment. Riverbarges on the Missouri River require flows suffi-cient to permit safe navigation. Although nowater is withdrawn, each of these is a “use” of

water as well. Collectively, these are often re-ferred to as “instream” uses.

Preservation of aquatic wildlife and habitatis an important “instream” use of water. Mostof the region falls within the Prairie AquaticFaunal Region, with sections along the MissouriRiver falling in the Big River Aquatic Faunalregion (Pflieger, 1989). Many of the uplanddrainages may become dry during drought con-ditions, and even some of the major rivers (i.e.Platte, One Hundred and Two, Tarkio) have hadseveral periods of no flow during drought.

Many communities in northwestern Mis-souri release treated wastewater into nearby riv-ers and streams. In 1995, the USGS estimatedthat the region’s rivers and streams assimilated105.5 billion gallons of treated wastewater(USGS, 2001).

Sources:

Barnett, Jeanette, Major Water Users DatabaseManager, Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Geological Survey and Resource As-sessment Division, Water Resources Program.Personal Communication, September, 2001.

Pflieger, William L., 1989, Aquatic commu-nity classification system for Missouri,Missouri Department of Conservation, AquaticSeries Number 19, 70 p.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geo-logical Survey and Resource Assessment Divi-sion, 2001, Major water users database.

Solley, W.B., Pierce R.R., Perlman, H.A., 1993,Estimated use of water in the UnitedStates in 1990, United States GeologicalSurvey Circular 1081, 76 p.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, Census ofpopulation and housing, 1990.

USGS National Water Use Data [Online] (2001).Available at water.usgs.gov



28

29

Water Use Problems

DRINKING WATER USE

Public Drinking WaterSuppliers

Problem:

Public drinking water suppliers can endan-ger public health when their water supply doesnot meet the standards.

Discussion:

The Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources’ Public Drinking Water Program (PDWP)has been charged with assuring that public wa-ter systems supply safe and adequate drinkingwater to their customers. They accomplish thisby following the federal Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) and Missouri Safe DrinkingWater standards that are designed to ensure thatthe public health is not threatened by contami-nated drinking water. These standards are calledMaximum Contaminant Levels (MCL’s). Theyare risk-based concentration units for a set ofknown contaminants. The supplier samples thewater at various points after it has been throughthe drinking water treatment plant and sends itto approved water quality testing labs to makesure it meets the standards.

If the water fails to meet these standards(MCL’s), the PDWP notifies the supplier of theviolation and helps them determine how to com-ply with the standards. The PDWP administersa program to provide loans and grants for capi-tal improvements and technical assistance.

Additional treatment may be needed to bring asystem back into compliance.

In addition, the PDWP helps the publicwater supply systems design a Drinking WaterSource Water Assessment Plan, whereby thesupplier works with local entities (farmers, busi-nesses, etc.) in the region who may be compli-cating the contamination problem, to get themto initiate practices (e.g. Best Management Prac-tices (BMP), watershed protection practices)which will help address the contaminant prob-lem. First, the sources of possible contamina-tion are identified and located, pursuant to statelaw. Then the water supplier works with thosewho own the possible contaminants to preventpossible contamination to surface or ground-water sources. The advantage of the SourceWater Assessment Plan is that, by identifyingthe potential contaminants, such as stored fer-tilizer within the area of influence for the publicwater supply, one does not have to test the wa-ter for every known contaminant, which wouldbe expensive. The supplier would only be re-quired to test for what has been identified inthe assessment. One potential problem withquarterly testing is that a pollution event couldoccur between the testing periods and thus notbe reported for up to three months.

If the supplier is unwilling or unable to com-ply with the standards (MCL’s), the PDWP cantake formal enforcement action, including liti-gation, penalties based on statutory authority,or referral to the U.S. EPA for federal action(MacEachen, 2002).

The supplier is mandated to notify theircustomers if it is in violation of the standards,but occasionally they do not (MacEachen, 2001).This still leaves the public at risk since they may

5.

Water Use Problems


30

still be drinking the contaminated water. State-wide news releases are issued by the depart-ment alerting the public of the violation whenthey are concerned that the public hasn’t beenproperly notified. However, there is no guaran-tee that the public will understand the notifica-tion, nor that they will receive notification in atimely manner. If the department determinesthat the contaminant poses an acute risk, thesupplier in violation must notify the public assoon as possible through television and radioannouncements. This is usually accompaniedby a recommended action (e.g. water boilingwhen contaminated with e-coli) (MacEachen,2001). However, there may be consumers whoare not aware of the media announcements,which leaves them in a vulnerable position.They may unknowingly continue drinking con-taminated water.

If there is a contamination problem exceed-ing an MCL, switching to a non-contaminatedalternate source of drinking water is the onlyoption that can fully prevent the public healthrisk. However, this is not always possible due tologistics (e.g. there is no other source of wateravailable) or because of the supplier’s financialsituation (e.g. it may be too costly to switch watersources).

The supplier is mandated to provide its cus-tomers with Consumer Confidence Reports(CCR) once a year. These reports contain theresults of water quality tests and report any vio-lations that have occurred within the last year(Missouri Water Resources Law - Annual Re-port, 2000). The CCRs provide an opportunityfor consumers to learn about their drinkingwater, which can increase their awareness ofthe quality of the water they consume.

Sources:

MacEachen, John; Environmental Specialist,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Water Protection and Soil Conservation Di-vision, Public Drinking Water Program. Per-sonal communication, January, 2001.

MacEachen, John; Environmental Specialist,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

Water Protection and Soil Conservation Di-vision, Public Drinking Water Program. Per-sonal communication, November, 2002.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Di-vision of Geology and Land Survey, 2000Missouri water resources law - annualreport, Water Resources Report Number 66,62 p.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Pub-lic Drinking Water Program, 2001. Homepage:w w w . d n r . s t a t e . m o . u s / d e q / p d w p /homepdwp.htm.

Missouri Water Law

Problem:

There is an absence of statutory waterquantity law, which would define the entitlementof each water user.

Discussion:

Missouri is a riparian water law state. Assuch, the laws guiding the quantity of individualand municipal water withdrawal is almost en-tirely established through court decisions ratherthan legislated law. The overall guidance thatan individual can garner from a comprehensivecourt case review may be marginal. Under thelaw, each riparian has the same rights. Follow-ing the principles of riparian case law, a ripar-ian landowner has the legally protected right towithdraw a reasonable quantity of water andput it to personal beneficial use. However, theamount withdrawn cannot be so much that itadversely impacts another riparian water user.When the actions of one riparian adversely af-fect another, it is up to them to either work outa solution with each other or failing that, to bringsuit in a court of law to enforce water quantityrights and to seek legal relief and reparation.The state is not typically a party to disputesinvolving water quantity issues between indi-vidual riparian landowners.

31

Water Use Problems

Legislated law does not address the quan-tities of water a riparian can withdraw for use.“There is no body of statutory law in Missourithat addresses quantities of withdrawal of wa-ter by riparian tenants” (Gaffney, 2001). Apply-ing to both watercourses and groundwater, Mis-souri courts, which have addressed water quan-tity issues, have fairly consistently held thatwater withdrawal and use issues as well as ques-tions of allowable amounts are an instance-by-instance issue of which the state court systemis the sole determiner. Following this line ofreasoning, no riparian can be completely sureof exactly how much water he is entitled to with-draw, exactly which beneficial uses are recog-nized or prioritized, or under what weather,stream flow, or groundwater table conditions canwater be withdrawn and avoid the legal liabilityof “using too much water” (Levi, 1969). Theobvious result of these guidelines is that thequantity and the timing of what can be legallywithdrawn are ever changing. As demand growsand/or supplies shrink, an individual’s legallyrecognized “reasonable” quantity to which heor she is entitled decreases (Levi, 1969). In timesof plentiful supplies, the quantity that an indi-vidual can legally use may not be the same asduring times of drought.

The northwest area of the state has rela-tively poor groundwater resources (when com-pared to other parts of the state), and relies onsurface water for most water supply needs(Vandike, 1995). Meteorologically, the north-western portion of Missouri generally has lowerprecipitation amounts than the rest of the state,ranging from 34 to 38 inches annually. Theaverage annual runoff is generally between 5and 9 inches (Miller and Hays, 1995). Surfacewater sources are supplied predominately fromrain and snowfall runoff, and as such the sur-face water supplies expand and contract follow-ing the precipitation patterns. River corridoralluviums are notable resources for greater andmore consistent water supplies than are mostsurface and other types of groundwater sourcesin the region.

Large quantity water users, like municipali-ties and industry, have water source optionswhich private individual rural users within the

region may not. Cities, towns and industriesnot only have greater water quantity demands,but also have greater financial resources to se-cure supplies that will meet their needs. Pri-vate individual rural users do not. While theprivate individual is pretty much limited to drill-ing their own shallow well or “hooking on” tothe local public water supply district, cities, townsand businesses may also have the option of drill-ing deep wells, tapping alluvial supplies, or con-structing reservoirs or surface water intakesalong larger streams and rivers. Thus, the userswith greater demand and more financial back-ing can develop their own supply source(s) tomeet their needs and thereby, to a certain mea-sure, insure themselves a specific quantity ofwater. But even then, the quantity they canwithdraw is not guaranteed – there is stilldrought and there are still the unclear limits ofriparian water law.

Riparian water rights in Missouri are nei-ther owned nor transferable in the sense thatproperty is owned and transferred. At the sametime, each riparian does have legal right to usethe water resources, the right to use being at-tached to land ownership rights. This can be aconfusing concept. Similar to air, water is gen-erally recognized in Missouri courts as a non-commodity or free good, to which each personis entitled but no one owns.

Because, under riparian water law, there isno guarantee to the quantity of water that alandowner riparian can use, this can be an eco-nomic disincentive to the development of long-term, large quantity water uses. Individuals, ag-riculture, businesses and industry may be reluc-tant to invest in an expensive water supply sys-tem because they may be legally prohibited fromusing the system in the future. This also carrieswith it negative social and environmental im-pacts: negative social impacts, in that whilewater is a “free good,” only those with the fi-nancial means can fully develop the supplysources. This general economic disincentive ofwater source development may translate intomore restricted general economic development.Also, when water is in short supply, as during adrought, environmental needs almost alwaystake a back seat to social and economic needs.


32

Sources:

Gaffney, Richard M., Chief Watershed Planner,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Geological Survey and Resource AssessmentDivision, Water Resources Program. Personalcommunication, May, 2001.

Gaffney, Richard M., Charles Hays, William J.Bryan and Amy Randles, 2000, Missouri StateWater Plan Series-Volume VII, A summaryof Missouri water laws, Water ResourcesReport Number 51, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey.

Levi, Donald R., Spring, 1969, “Highest and bestuse: an economic goal for water law,” Mis-souri Law Review, 34:165-177, Columbia,Missouri.

Miller, Don and Charles Hays, 1995, Missouridrought response plan, Water ResourcesReport Number 44, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey.

Vandike, James E., 1995, Missouri State WaterPlan Series-Volume I, Surface water re-sources of Missouri, Water Resources Re-port Number 45, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey.

Drought Effects

Problem:

Drought effects in northwestern Missouriare especially problematic due to a combina-tion of water supply and water use factors.

Discussion:

Groundwater resources within the regionare generally of poor quality. Most groundwa-ter wells outside river corridor alluvia or buriedglacial channels (figure 10) yield relatively lim-

ited quantities of water even during times ofabove-normal precipitation. During periods ofdrought, groundwater quantities, adequate tomeet needs, may not be able to be pumped fromthe shallow water-bearing glacial deposits. Be-sides the generally poor quantities of shallowgroundwater found in the region, the deeper bed-rock water-bearing formations of the northwestregion lies within the saline-groundwater zoneand contains calcium and sodium carbonates,chlorides, and sulfates causing the water to bepoor in quality (figure 11).

Broadly stated, the region is more depen-dent upon surface water than groundwater.Streams in the region are dependent upon pre-cipitation and receive little, if any, appreciablegroundwater recharge. Surface water impound-ments and larger streams and rivers comprisethe greatest sources of substantial quantities ofwater and are at high risk during drought events.Base flows in streams are dependent upon pre-cipitation. Consequently, the region has numer-ous man-made impoundments to store water,ranging from small farm ponds to large lakesthat are built and maintained by the federal gov-ernment. During periods of drought, these sur-face water resources are obviously “lower” thannormal. This drought-induced shortage is com-pounded by the fact that the human demandsplaced on these already less than normal sup-plies can increase due to the dry weather. Thiscompound cause-and-effect cycle can lead, andhas led in past instances, to severe water short-ages.

The surface physical characteristics of mostof the northwestern region initially were formedby glaciers that left thick deposits of unconsoli-dated sediments. The deposits average 100 feetin thickness but can be as much as 300 feetthick. This glacial till, consisting chiefly of clay,silt, sand, gravel and boulders, has been dissectedby post-glacial erosion from runoff. Much ofthe resulting watershed drainage pattern con-sists of nearly parallel streams that trend fromthe north to the south and drain into the Mis-souri River (figure 13).

For the area of northwestern Missouri northof the Missouri River, annual runoff averages 5inches per year in Atchison County to 7 inchesper year in Ray County (figure 14). Average

33

Figure 13. Watershed drainage patterns for northwest Missouri.

Thompson10280102

Keg-WeepingWater10240001

Nishnabotna10240005

Tarkio-WolfTributaries10240005

102 River10210013

LowerMissouri-Crooked10300101

Lamine103000103

Blackwater103000104

SouthGrand10290108

Harry STrumanReservoir10290105

Little Osage10290103

Marais desCygnes10290102

Kansas10270104

Independence-Sugar10240011

Nodaway10240010

UpperGrand10280101

Water Use Problems


34

annual precipitation averages 34 inches per yearin the northwest corner, lowest in the state, to39 inches per year in the southeast corner ofRay County, to 42 inches in southern BatesCounty (figure 7). The average annual lakeevaporation rate is approximately 40-44 inchesin the northwest region (figure 15). This combi-nation of moderate precipitation amounts, rela-tively high evaporation, deep soils, and relativelyshorter growing seasons than other parts of thestate, contribute to the northwestern region’swater supply vulnerability to drought. In the

last century, the northwestern region has expe-rienced approximately 24 mild to moderatedroughts, 15 moderate to severe droughts and 2severe to extreme droughts (Drew and Chen,1997). Thus, over a 100-year period, there were41 droughts of varying severity, which is quite ahigh average.

With the exception of the Missouri Riveralluvial corridor, the northwestern region lieswithin an area that is designated by the Mis-souri Drought Response Plan as having highdrought susceptibility. Within this area, surface

Figure 14. Average annual runoff in Missouri. Source: Skelton, 1971.

AtchisonNodaway

Holt

Worth

Gentry

Andrew

Buchanan

De Kalb

Harrison

Daviess

ClintonCaldwell

Mercer

Grundy

Living

ston

Putnam

Sullivan

Schuy

ler

Adair

ScotlandClark

Knox Lewis

LinnMacon Shelby Marion

Platte

ClayRay

Carroll

Chariton

Rando

lph Monroe

Ralls

Pike

JacksonLafayette

Saline Howard

Boone

Audrain

Mon

tgom

ery

Callaway

Lincoln

WarrenSt. C

harles

St. Louis

Jefferson

Franklin

Gas

cona

de

OsageCole

Moniteau

Cooper

Morgan

Miller Maries

PettisJohnsonCass

Henry

Bates Benton


Vernon

Barton

Jasper

Newton

McDonald

Cedar

Dade

Lawrence

Barry

Polk

Greene

Christian

StoneTaney

Dallas Laclede

Webster Wright

PulaskiPhelps

Crawford

Was

hingt

onSte.

Genevieve

Douglas

Ozark

Texas

Howell

Dent

Shannon

Reynolds

Iron

St.Francois

Madison

Perry

Oregon

Carter

Ripley

Wayne

Butler

Bolli

nger Cap

e

Girard

eau

Scott

StoddardM

ississ

ippi

NewMadrid

Pem

isco

t

Dunklin

20

18

16

14

12

11

10

8

6

5

7

LEGEND

Lines of equal average annual runoff, inches (Skelton, 1971)

9

18

0 20 40 60 80 100 MILES

0 20 40 60 80 100 KILOMETERS

35

water sources usually become inadequate dur-ing extended droughts and groundwater re-sources are severely limited. Public, domestic,and industrial water sources are typically fromreservoirs, river intakes and river alluvium wells.Virtually all of the rural private domestic waterneeds within the region are supplied by shallowwells.

Agriculture uses are usually some of thefirst to feel the effects of drought since row cropsare extensive in this area of the state, and irri-gation is not extensive due to economic feasi-

bility. Where irrigation is used, in Atchison,Nodaway, Holt and Andrew counties, the with-drawals for crops can adversely affect other uses.Whether supplied by surface or groundwatersources, drought combined with agriculturaldemands can quickly overtax the limited watersupplies. Farm ponds, which can be and usu-ally are severely impacted by prolonged, severedroughts, typically supply livestock water needs.Livestock grazing is not as vulnerable as rowcrops to short duration droughts. This is espe-cially true during certain phases of the crop

AtchisonNodaway

Holt

Worth

Gentry

Andrew

Buchanan

De Kalb

Harrison

Daviess

ClintonCaldwell

Mercer

Grundy

Living

ston

Putnam

Sullivan

Schuy

ler

Adair

ScotlandClark

Knox Lewis

Linn Macon Shelby Marion

Platte

Clay RayCarroll

Chariton

Rando

lph MonroeRalls

Pike

JacksonLafayette

Saline Howard

Boone

Audrain

Mon

tgom

ery

Callaway

Lincoln

WarrenSt. C

harles

St. Louis

Jefferson

Franklin

Gas

cona

de

OsageCole

Moniteau

Cooper

Morgan

Miller Maries

PettisJohnsonCass

Henry

Bates Benton


Vernon

Barton

Jasper

Newton

McDonald

Cedar

Dade

Lawrence

Barry

Polk

Greene

Christian

StoneTaney

Dallas Laclede

Webster Wright

PulaskiPhelps

Crawford

Was

hingt

onSte.

Genevieve

Douglas

Ozark

Texas

Howell

Dent

Shannon

Reynolds

Iron

St.Francois

Madison

Perry

Oregon

Carter

Ripley

Wayne

Butler

Bolli

nger Cap

e

Girard

eau

Scott

StoddardM

ississ

ippi

NewMadrid

Pem

isco

t

Dunklin

Lines of equal average

annual lake evaporation,

inches (1946-1955 data).

May-October evaporation

in precent of annual.

(From U.S. Weather

Bureau, Technical paper

No. 37, 1959, modified from Skelton, 1968).

76%

42" 40"

38"

78%

36"

78%

78%36"

44"74%

46"46"

46"

44"

42"

40" 74%

76%

36"

38"

LEGEND

Figure 15. Estimated annual lake evaporation in Missouri.

Water Use Problems


36

growth. Approximately three-fourths of thedemand for livestock water is met by surfacewater supplies, while groundwater resources sup-ply over 90 percent of the water used in irriga-tion (DuCharme and Miller, 1996).

Commercial barge navigation on the Mis-souri River requires adequate river water levelsfor the tows and their barges to operate. Se-vere drought conditions affecting flows of theMissouri River can hamper or completely stopbarge traffic.

One of the largest uses of water in this re-gion is for power generation. All types of elec-trical power generating plants “use” massivequantities of water for cooling or steam genera-tion or falling water to power turbine wheels.Power suppliers are especially susceptible todroughts that occur in the summer or the win-ter, as these are the two peak electrical demandseasons. Again, low river stages can curtail op-erations, if water intake pipes cannot draw fullyfrom the river.

Not only does drought adversely impact do-mestic, agricultural, and industrial water sup-plies and needs, it also hurts fish and wildlife.Seasonal and cyclical variation in precipitationamounts is natural. However, as drought con-ditions worsen, habitat can deteriorate to criti-cal levels. This scenario is even more damagingin an already over-burdened system where thelimited water resources are needed for other uses.

There is a current transition from privatelysupplied water to public water suppliers. Bypooling financial resources into multi-user pub-lic supplies, the resultant systems are less proneto drought impacts. Even so, small systems arestill more susceptible to drought impacts thanlarge systems and even large systems are notimmune.

In the rural areas of the region, many smallcommunities operate their own city water works.Often, in periods of drought, these communitiesare especially hard hit. This is due to under-sized and poorly maintained reservoirs and wa-ter wells and inefficient, aged, leaking pipes andinfrastructure.

The Missouri River alluvium provides mostof the drinking water for metropolitan Kansas

City and St. Joseph. The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (COE) controls much of flow of theMissouri River. A combination of events havearisen in recent years with the COE invokingcertain river management practices and someupstream states have taken steps to withholdwater from the lower portion of the river, effec-tively denying Missouri water that it needs.

Three counties in the region, Jackson, Cassand Bates, abut the Kansas state border. This issignificant in two aspects. Kansas, unlike Mis-souri, practices prior appropriation water lawdoctrine. In the event of drought, Kansas mayprevent surface water flows from leaving thatstate and entering Missouri. Obviously, this is adetriment to those three Missouri counties.

Sources:

Brookshire, Cynthia N., 1997, Missouri StateWater Plan Series-Volume III, Missouriwater quality assessment, Water Re-sources Report Number 47, 172 p., MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources, Division ofGeology and Land Survey.

Drew, John D., and Chen, Sherry, 1997, Mis-souri State Water Plan Series-Volume V, Hy-drologic extremes in Missouri: floodand drought, Water Resources Report Num-ber 49, 104 p., Missouri Department of Natu-ral Resources, Division of Geology and LandSurvey.

DuCharme, Charles B., and Miller, Todd M., 1996,Missouri State Water Plan Series-Volume IV,Water use of Missouri, Water ResourcesReport Number 48, 150 p., Missouri Depart-ment of Natural Resources, Division of Geol-ogy and Land Survey.

Gaffney, Richard M.; Hays, Charles R.; Bryan,William J., and Randles, Amy E., 2000, Mis-souri State Water Plan Series-Volume VII, Asummary of Missouri water laws, WaterResources Report Number 51, 292 p., Missouri

37

Water Use Problems

Department of Natural Resources, Division ofGeology and Land Survey.

Hays, Charles R.; Chief Planner, State WaterPlan, co-author of Missouri drought re-sponse plan (1995), Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources, Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division. Personal com-munications, 2001.

Miller, Don E., and Hays, Charles R., 1995, Mis-souri drought response plan, Water Re-sources Report Number 44, 44 p., MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources, Division ofGeology and Land Survey.

Miller, Don E., and Vandike, James E., 1997, Mis-souri State Water Plan Series-Volume II,Groundwater resources of Missouri,Water Resources Report Number 46, 210 p.,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geology and Land Survey.

Skelton, John, 1971, Carryover storage re-quirements for reservoir design in Mis-souri: Missouri Geological Survey and Wa-ter Resources, Water Resources Report No.27, 60 p.

Vandike, James E., 1995, Missouri State WaterPlan Series-Volume I, Surface water re-sources of Missouri, Water Resources Re-port Number 45, 122 p., Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey.

Vineyard, Jerry D., 1997, Missouri State WaterPlan Series-Volume VI, Water resourcesharing, the realities of interstate riv-ers, Water Resources Report No. 50, 76 p.,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geology and Land Survey.

Lack of Model Contracts forPublic Water Supply Systems’Cooperation

Problem:

Public water suppliers frequently enter intocontractual agreements with other public wa-ter suppliers. Standard contracts have not beendevised to help streamline this process, and of-ten poorly written contracts between water sup-pliers contain language that is disadvantageousto one or both parties.

Discussion:

When communities throughout Missouri be-gan developing public water supply systems toprovide safe drinking water to their residents,rural water districts had not yet been createdand the distance between towns made intercon-nection an unrealistic alternative. Therefore,most western Missouri municipalities, even thosewith populations of only a few hundred people,developed community public water supplies.Depending on their locations and potential wa-ter sources, they constructed reservoirs, installedriver intakes, or drilled wells to provide rawwater, and built treatment plants to supply fin-ished water.

Construction of many water supplies be-gan before or during the Depression of the 1930s,when labor costs were relatively low. Rising costsof new supplies and the need to replace out-dated reservoirs and treatment plants have madeit difficult for many smaller northwestern Mis-souri communities to continue to supply waterto their residents. They can no longer providesufficient financial support for their water sup-plies, making interconnection with another sup-ply desirable. The legal aspects of interconnec-tion can, however, create difficulties for thoseinvolved. In the past, contracts between watersuppliers have included terms unfavorable to oneor both parties. Standardized contracts, whichwould include terms favorable to all, have notbeen developed for agreements between water


38

suppliers. Without standard contracts, strugglingpublic water suppliers in northwestern Missourimay be reluctant to pursue interconnection withother supplies, despite the potential benefit.

Some Small Water DistrictsMay Not Adequately SupplyWater

Problem:

Small public drinking water suppliers some-times have difficulty supplying adequate waterquality and quantity to their customers.

Discussion:

Small public water supply systems some-times face water supply/water quality problemsthey are inadequately prepared to solve. In manycases, existing rate structures do not cover thecosts of capital improvements and maintenance,and managers of small water systems often fo-cus upon daily operations rather than financialissues. Consequently, many small public sys-tems are not able to maintain adequate cashreserves to repair, upgrade, or construct newfacilities. Combining systems is a solution, butmany districts are reluctant to combine.

Many of northwestern Missouri’s public wa-ter suppliers serve small communities. Over 50percent of the public water supply systems foundwithin the region have service populations of1,000 or fewer people. Many small municipalsystems have been in operation for a half cen-tury or more; the average age of municipal sys-tems serving fewer than 1,000 people or less is39 years, and 17 percent of them are more than50 years old (Missouri Department of NaturalResources, 2000). These older systems requirereplacement or upgrades more and more fre-quently.

An adequate and fair rate structure is es-sential to the operation of any utility. This al-lows the utility to generate funds for propermanagement, operation and maintenance, andamortization of any outstanding loans. How-ever, in many small water supply systems, thereis a lack of earnings to accomplish these re-

sponsibilities, resulting in substandard serviceand poor water quality (USEPA, 1991).

There are examples of communities innorthwestern Missouri not setting the appro-priate rate structures. This situation may arisefor several reasons. The managers of a smallpublic water supply system may be so occupiedwith facility operations that they may have littletime to address financial issues. Passing capitalcosts on to the service population is sometimesa concern and many water systems wait too longbefore increasing user service charges for im-provements because they fear adverse customerreaction (USEPA, 1991). Operational costs, suchas electricity, chemicals, payroll and training,must be accounted for in the rate structure aswell.

In recent years, in addition to the Commu-nity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programof the Missouri Department of Economic De-velopment (DED), there now is a Missouri Wa-ter and Wastewater Review Committee. Thisincludes the CDGB Program, DED; the RuralDevelopment Program of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, State Office (Columbia), and theDepartment of Natural Resources Financial Ser-vices Office (Revolving Loan Funds). This bodymeets twice each month to discuss criteria formaking loans and grants to local governments,and make recommendations and suggestions tolocal governments, relative to rate structures,regionalization of water supplies, etc.

In the past, in some instances, CommunityDevelopment Block Grants have been used toprovide an alternative to rate restructuring tomake capital improvements. However, somecommunities do not have the economic foun-dation to raise the needed capital improvements,and they let their system degrade to the pointwhere it becomes a human health and economiccrisis.

Substandard service can manifest itself inmany ways. In some cases, a utility may not beable to provide new water supplies and addi-tional infrastructure needed to support growthin the service area. Aging facilities and infra-structure may require upgrades or replacement,and a utility may lack the necessary funds. Waterquality problems may call for new, improvedtreatment measures that a utility may be un-able to provide.

39

Water Use Problems

Historically, every community has had itsown water supply and sewage treatment plant.These communities usually want to be in con-trol of their respective systems. In part, this isdue to economic circumstances since the rev-enue from the water district sometimes is a majorsource of revenue for the community. They fearlosing this revenue were they to combine withother districts. Pride and a sense of indepen-dence can also be factors in a community want-ing to maintain their own water supply. Theyfear that if someone else is in control of thesupply, their customers will pay more for water.However, they are often not charging enoughfor the water in the first place. There is some-times a lack of infrastructure that would enablethe systems to combine. Also, there are in-stances of outdated contracts which forbid awater system from selling or purchasing waterfrom someone other than the supplier stipu-lated in the contract.

Sources:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Di-vision of Environmental Quality, 204 p., 2000,Inventory of Missouri public water sys-tems, 2000.

United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), 1991, Manual of small publicwater supply systems, 193 p.

Aging Infrastructure of PublicWater Supply Systems

Problem:

The basic equipment, structures and instal-lations public water suppliers use to provideservices can become less efficient or break withage and become undersized with increasing de-mand. It is difficult for many communities tofind the money to adequately update their sys-tems. Since much of the population of north-western Missouri is served by public water sup-plies, any problems associated with aging watersupply infrastructure will need to be addressed.

Discussion:

The National Water Use Information Pro-gram of the USGS estimated in 1995 that 87percent of the population of northwestern Mis-souri was served by public water supplies. Whilethe ages of municipal water supply systems andpublic water supply districts in northwesternMissouri range between 9 and 126 years, 45percent of them are between 31 and 50 yearsold, and 15 percent of them are 71 years old ormore.

The problems caused by aging water sup-ply infrastructures are many. Aging water linesmade of materials inferior to those allowed bycurrent technology become fractured and beginto leak. Leakage, also called “transmission loss,”reduces system efficiency and can have a nega-tive impact on the system’s revenue generation.This, in turn, may make it more difficult for thewater supply system to finance much neededimprovements in the future. A more commonproblem is the rupture of old water lines, whichmeans that customers are without water untilthe lines are fixed, and there can be significantdisturbance above-ground since workers haveto tear up the surface (often a road) to get tothe pipes (Ryser, 2001).

Aging water supply infrastructures may alsoimpact water quality. Outward leaking pipesalso can leak inward if there is a sudden loss ofpressure, allowing the system to become con-taminated. In addition, service connections mayhave lead joints, which may leach lead into drink-ing water. In the human body, accumulationsof lead as well as prolonged exposure to evenvery small amounts of lead can result in serioushealth problems. Older systems may also have“dead-end” lines in which water may becomestagnant and undrinkable. Some rural waterdistricts laid water lines with an older form ofPVC piping, which now leaches vinyl chloride(a known human carcinogen) into the waterwhen it is at a dead end for a while (Timmons,2001).

Quite often, lines and facilities that wereadequate when they were first constructed, areundersized when it comes to present servicerequirements. With age, systems may no longerbe able to convey the amount of water that sys-tem users need. Present household, industrial


40

and public uses (such as firefighting and droughtresponse) may be limited. Without viable alter-natives, future development may also be re-stricted as potential users are discouraged fromlocating their facilities in a service region un-able to support their needs.

Kansas City is an example of the problemscaused by aging infrastructure. It is an old sys-tem, functioning since 1875. In 1996, theypassed a $150 million bond to maintain andupgrade their drinking water supply system.This bond will help replace about 10 percent oftheir mains by 2007. However, at a cost of$400,000 to $500,000 per mile, they won’t beable to fully replace their system as it ages, thusthe age of the entire system is increasing. Inaddition, they have 600-700 main breaks peryear, which costs a lot of money and inconve-niences people (Ryser, 2001).

Sources:

Ryser, E., Manager of Systems Engineering Di-vision, Kansas City Water Department. Per-sonal communication, February, 2001.

Timmons, T., Missouri Department of NaturalResources, Water Protection and Soil Con-servation Division, Public Drinking Water Pro-gram. Personal communication, February,2001.

AGRICULTURAL WATER USE

Improper Land Application ofAnimal Manure

Problem:

Improper land application of animal ma-nure can impair water quality. Confined animalfeeding operations (CAFOs) have caused seri-ous water quality problems in northwest Mis-souri and may also have affected water quan-tity.

Discussion:

If animal wastes are applied to cropland orpasture at rates greater than can be used bygrowing plants (the agronomic rate), runoff car-ries excess nutrients into surface waters. Ex-cessive nutrient concentrations that migratefrom the land and enter waterbodies may leadto increased algal growth, toxic blue-green al-gae blooms, magnified diurnal oxygen cycles thatnegatively impact aquatic species, and reducedaquatic invertebrate species diversity. Increasedbacterial loads can cause or promote fish andwildlife diseases and make the water unsafe forhuman recreational use. Over time, these wa-ter quality problems can cause the decline ofsensitive fish species such as the Topeka shiner.

Large volumes of fresh water are requiredfor some types of CAFO operations. Construc-tion of impoundments that supply livestockwater can reduce base flow in headwaterstreams. This base flow is most critical duringdry periods. Aquifers may also be locally im-pacted by CAFOs that rely on groundwater fortheir water supply.

There are currently 38 large, permittedCAFOs in the northwest Missouri region – ninein Bates County, 11 in Henry County, and 18 inJohnson County. These operations house a to-tal of 69,950 animal units (Bates 13,099; Henry5,851; and Johnson 51,000) (Tackett, 1999).Twenty pollution incidents were attributed tolivestock manure in the Kansas City Region from1990 to 1999. Hog manure caused 16 of theproblems, cattle manure, three, and poultrymanure, one.

Two streams with chronic problems areCamp Branch and Campbell Branch in BatesCounty. One producer near Camp Branch wasdocumented polluting on at least three differ-ent occasions over a seven-year period (1992-1998). Six of the 20 documented pollution inci-dents caused by CAFOs have occurred in thesetwo small streams.

Sources:

Missouri Department of Conservation, Pollutionincident and fish kill information, 1968-1999,Jefferson City, Missouri.

41

Water Use Problems

Tackett, Scott, Environmental Specialist, Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources, Divi-sion of Environmental Quality, Water Pollu-tion Control Program. Personal Communi-cation, June, 1999.

Atrazine in Water

Problem:

Elevated concentrations of atrazine indrinking water may pose a risk to human health.The presence of atrazine in both surface andgroundwater may increase the cost to publicwater suppliers for treating drinking water.Herbicides such as atrazine may have negativeimpacts on the aquatic communities of surfacewaters in Northwest Missouri.

Discussion:

The herbicide atrazine was first introducedin 1959. Since that time, because of its effec-tiveness, atrazine has become the number oneherbicide for use in corn production. Atrazinecan enter surface waters through runoff fromcrop fields located in the watershed. Atrazinebreaks down slower in water than on land, witha half-life in northern lakes (including north-western Missouri) of 8-16 months. Since atra-zine does not adsorb to soil particles and doesnot decay quickly, it can be transported togroundwater.

The nonpoint-source runoff of herbicidesinto surface waters used as drinking water sup-plies is a concern to human health. It is alsobelieved to be carcinogenic (USEPA, 2000).Many public water suppliers in NorthwesternMissouri use surface water as their source ofraw water. Elevated concentrations of atrazineare very common in this raw water during thespring and summer following the application ofherbicides to row crops. The U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) established an MCL(maximum contaminant level) of 3 ppb for atra-zine in drinking water in 1993. In 1994, three

water supplies in Northwest Missouri were outof compliance due to atrazine concentrations.

To meet EPA guidelines, public water sup-pliers must remove the atrazine, which has in-creased the cost of treating drinking water.Powdered activated charcoal (PAC) is the mostcommon treatment used. At least four publicwater supplies in Northwestern Missouri(Dearborn, Hamilton, Jamesport and Cameron)have spent funds to remove atrazine from drink-ing water.

Proposed ambient aquatic life water qual-ity criteria for atrazine have been developed byEPA. Freshwater aquatic animals should not benegatively affected if the four-day average con-centration of atrazine does not exceed 12 ppbmore than once every three years on the aver-age, and if the one-hour average concentrationdoes not exceed 330 ppb more than once everythree years on the average. For the protectionof freshwater aquatic plants, and indirectly foraquatic animals, the four-day average concen-tration of atrazine should not exceed 49 ppb(USEPA, 1997).

Extensive research has been conducted onthe impacts of atrazine to aquatic communities(USEPA, 1997). Significant reductions of bothspecies richness and total abundance of insectswas observed at 20 ppb in experimental pondsin Kansas (deNoyelles et. al,. 1989). The lowestconcentration of atrazine that has resulted innegative effects on abundance of aquatic plantsand animals occurred at 15-20 ppb. Concen-trations above 50 ppb cause more severe re-ductions in productivity, plant biomass and com-munity structure as well as indirect effects onherbivorous invertebrates and fish. (USEPA,1997). Atrazine levels in surface waters in north-western Missouri have exceeded levels found tohave adverse impacts on the aquatic commu-nity.

Sources:

deNoyelles, F., W.D. Kettle, C.H. Fromm, M.F.Moffett and S.L. Dewy, 1989, “Use of ex-perimental ponds to assess the effects of apesticide on the aquatic environment,” in:


42

Using mesocosms to assess theaquatic ecological risk of pesticides:theory and practice, Voshell, J.R. (Ed),Miscellaneous Publications Number 75, En-tomological Society of America, Lanham,Maryland.

Scott, Donald, 1997, Summary of 1997 atra-zine survey, Missouri Department of Natu-ral Resources, Division of EnvironmentalQuality, Public Drinking Water Program.

Smith, M. and M. Sobba, 1997, Goodwater agday research and reports, July 18,1997, Missouri MSEA Water Quality Project,Outreach and Extension, University of Mis-souri-Columbia, 22 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),1997, Ambient aquatic life water qual-ity criteria for atrazine (draft), CASRegistry Number 1912-24-9, Office of Water,Health and Ecological Criteria Division,Washington, D.C., 144 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),2000, Re-evaluation by the FQPA SafetyFactor Committee, available at: www.epa.gov/pes t i c ides/rereg i s t ra t ion/at raz ine/fqpa_rpt.pdf

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1994,Occurrence of herbicides, nitrites, ni-trates, and selected trace elements ingroundwater from northwestern andnortheastern Missouri, July, 1991 and1992, OFR 94-332.

INDUSTRIAL WATER USE

Mine Runoff

Problem:

Erosion, sedimentation, acid mine drainage,high sulfate concentrations, and iron manganesedeposits, are all problems associated with stripmining and its runoff. Currently all mining op-erations are required to reclaim mined lands,which should help to sustain and improve wa-ter quality. Many of the older strip mine areasin western Missouri are in need of reclamationto reduce acid mine runoff to streams.

Discussion:

Marais de Cygnes River, Miami Creek,South Grand River, and Tabo Creek have all beennegatively impacted by run off from abandonedand active strip mining operations. WalnutCreek, Mulberry Creek, Park Branch, New HomeCreek, and Miami Creek are tributaries to theMarais de Cygnes River that have been nega-tively impacted by runoff from coal strip mines.Walnut Creek is the most impacted of thestreams listed. As of 1992, nine miles of Mul-berry Creek and four miles of Walnut Creek weremineralized by coal mine drainage, but nostreams were believed to be acidified (Dent etal., 1997). Tabo Creek is the most heavily im-pacted stream, associated with acid mine drain-age, in the South Grand River watershed. Theseall are tributaries to Harry S Truman Reservoir.

Table 4 shows streams affected by minedrainage from the list of 1998 Impaired Watersprovided by EPA and the Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources’ (303(d)). Within the twowatersheds (Marais de Cygnes and South Grand)represented in Table 4, problems with minedrainage make up 33 percent of the listings forboth watersheds and 64 percent of the listingsfor the South Grand River watershed, with 100percent of the listed waterbodies affected in theTabo Creek watershed being related to miningrunoff.

43

Water Use Problems

Runoff from mined areas has been respon-sible for eight fish kills (Henry County) totalingover 116,000 fish (MDC, 1968-1999). The ma-jority of these kills occurred in the 1960s (2),1970s (5), and 1980s (1). Fish kills have beengreatly diminished, since the mined lands havebeen reclaimed.

Sources:

Dent, R., D. Fantz, W. Heatherly, and P. Yasger,1997, West osage river inventory andmanagement plan. Missouri Departmentof Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1998.Missouri 1998 impaired waters (303 (d)).

Missouri Department of Natural Resources [On-line]. South Grand Available at www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/10290108_303d.html, BlackwaterAvailable at www.epa.gov/iwi/303d//1030104_303d.html, and Lower Marais deCygnes Available at www.epa.gov/iwi/303d//10290102_303d.html

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC),1968-1999, Pollution incident and fish kill in-formation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

ENVIRONMENTAL WATERUSE

Channelization andAssociated Sedimentation

Problem:

Stream channel incision is widespread innorthwestern Missouri. This is the deepening andassociated widening of stream channels result-ing after channelization and increased runoff asa result of land use practices.

Discussion:

Channelization was a widespread govern-ment-supported and condoned stream manage-ment practice from 1908 to the 1970s. The in-tent was to prevent streams from meandering,thereby assuring farmers their fields would notslough off into the stream. Streamchannelization has been common in most wa-tersheds in northwestern Missouri. In down-stream reaches, the channel capacity decreases,resulting in more flooding and sediment depo-sition.

Channelized reaches of streams are lessproductive to fish and wildlife (due to loss offish habitat, spawning habitat and wetlands) andless diverse than unchannelized reaches. A study

Stream County Parameter of Concern Source of ImpairmentTrib. to Baker Creek Henry PH Grey Coal AreaBig Otter Creek Henry PH Otter Creek Coal AreaTrib. to Big Otter Creek Henry PH Otter Creek Coal AreaHoney Creek Henry Sulfate Reliant Coal AreaEast Fork Tabo Creek Henry PH Triple Coal AreaMiddle Fork Tabo Creek Henry Sulfate and pH New Castle Coal AreaWest Fork Tabo Creek Henry Sulfate Spangler Coal AreaMulberry Creek Bates Sulfate Mulberry Creek Coal Area

Table 4. Listing of 1998 impaired water within Bates and Henry counties, Missouri. Source: EPA, 1998.


44

on the Platte River in Northwestern Missourifound an 85 percent reduction of fish biomassfrom a channelized to an unchannelized reach.The study also found a 77 percent reduction inthe number of harvestable size (>10 inches) fishand a 90 percent reduction in the pounds ofharvestable size fish from channelized tounchannelized reaches (Michaelson, 1971).

In the Platte River watershed over 250stream miles have been channelized. This rep-resents about a 20 percent loss reduction ofstream mileage within the basin (Bayless andTravnichek, 1997). Ninety-four of the original105 miles of the mainstem Nodaway River withinMissouri have been channelized, and over 75percent of the original stream mileage withinthe basin has been altered by channelization(Horton and Bayless, 1998).

The Blackwater River watershed in south-eastern Johnson County has been channelized.Forty-seven of the original 103 miles (46 per-cent) of mainstem North and South Fork Black-water Rivers, the mainstem Blackwater River,and Davis Creek have been channelized (Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources, 1986).

The pilot channels in the Blackwater Riverwatershed created problems that continue to-day. United States Geological Survey (USGS)records show that the stream bottom at the BlueLick gage station has aggraded six feet from 1922to 1975. During this same period, the upperreaches of Davis Creek and the Blackwater Riverhave degraded 30 feet or more. As a result, thefall of the stream has been reduced from theoriginal 85 feet to the present 49 feet in a dis-tance of 50 miles (a reduction of 0.7 ft./mi.)(USDA, 1977).

Downstream flooding attributable to chan-nel straightening is responsible for major eco-nomic losses to agriculture, roads, bridges, andbuildings (USDA, 1977). An estimate of pro-jected economic losses caused by flooding forthe Blackwater River watershed for the year2000 was $2,544,850 (USDA, 1977).

Seventy of the original 159 mainstem miles(44 percent) of the South Grand River (BatesCounty) have been channelized. An additional62 miles (39 percent) have been impounded byHarry S Truman Reservoir, for a combined al-teration and loss of 132 miles (83 percent) oforiginal stream channel.

The largest channelization project in thenorthwestern region involved the Marais desCygnes River. In the early 1900s, this river wasconsidered the most sinuous in Missouri(Atkenson, 1918).

The lower 44 miles were channelized to cre-ate the 23-mile long Bates County DrainageDitch. Currently, head cutting has caused nu-merous sections to become over 60 feet deepand 200 feet wide. The Marais des Cygnes Riveris one of the most extensively channelized riv-ers in western Missouri (Dent, R. et al., 1997).

In addition to construction of the BatesCounty Drainage Ditch, 12 miles of tributarystreams were subject to “lateral straightening.”During this same period, the lower 4.5 miles ofMiami Creek (Bates County) were channelized,creating the 5.7-mile Miami Drainage Ditch. Thisproject relocated the stream’s confluence withthe Marais des Cygnes 9 miles downstream fromthe original site, increased stream length by 1.4miles, and increased overall length by three per-cent. This channelization has increased sedi-mentation in many portions of the channel(Dent, R., et al., 1997).

The latter two channelization projects, inaddition to being hydrologically and biologicallyunsound, were also poorly engineered, as indi-cated by the many portions of the ditches thatdid not “take.” For example, only 1.9 miles ofthe 5.7-mile Miami Drainage Ditch are part ofthat stream’s permanent flow channel. In addi-tion, the upper 3.1 miles of the Bates CountyDrainage Ditch have never become the perma-nent flow channel of the Marais des CygnesRiver. Permanent flow in the Marais des CygnesRiver above the confluence of Miami Creek oc-curs only during flood events. The old riverchannel is rapidly filling with sediment (Dent,R., et al., 1997).

Channelization has caused the Marais desCygnes River to virtually cut a new river valley.During periods of low flow, the river tends tomeander through this wide valley. Head-cut-ting has reached bedrock in many areas. There-fore, lateral instability will continue and resultin additional erosion and sedimentation down-stream. Sedimentation is already extensive inthe upper reaches of Truman Lake. Erosion andinstability will continue until the stream reachesgradient equilibrium by increasing its length by

45

Water Use Problems

meandering through a wide valley. This processcould take centuries (Dent, R., et al., 1997).

Sources:

Atkenson, W.O., 1918, History of Batescounty, Missouri, Historical PublishingCompany, Topeka, Kansas, pp. 292-297.

Bayless, M. and V. Travnichek, 1997, Platteriver basin inventory and managementplan, Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City, Missouri.

Dent, R., D. Fantz, W. Heatherly, and P. Yasger,1997, West Osage river inventory andmanagement plan, Missouri Departmentof Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Horton, R. and M. Bayless, 1998, Nodawayriver basin inventory and managementplan, Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City, Missouri.

Michaelson, S.M., 1971, Fish population inchannelized and unchannelized sec-tions of the Platte river, Missouri, Pre-sentation at the 33rd Annual Midwest Fishand Wildlife Conference (Missouri Departmentof Conservation internal document).

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Di-vision of Geology and Land Survey, 1986,Missouri water atlas, 100 p.

United States Department of Agriculture(USDA), 1977, Blackwater-Lamine riverbasin in Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Erosion and Sedimentation

Problem:

By the very nature of the topography andgeology of the region, both in the glaciated areanorth of the Missouri River, and Cherokee Prai-ries soils of the Osage Plains region of westernMissouri, sedimentation is a major natural char-

acteristic of all streams. One of the most wide-spread water quality and stream habitat issuesin these areas is excessive deposition of soil instreams and lakes from human-related activi-ties. Soil erosion and sedimentation from rowcropping, grazing practices, construction sites,and the change of water flow rates caused byurbanization have impacted stream habitat andaquatic life in many of the watersheds in theregion.

Discussion:

Soil erosion is a natural physical feature ofthe region due to the area’s precipitationamounts, precipitation patterns, slope, soil type,soil thickness, topographic, and geologic char-acteristics. Unlike the streams of the Ozarks,for example, the prairie type streams in north-western Missouri have naturally occurring mudbottoms. Streams within the Grand River basinare typically turbid. Historical accounts indi-cate many basin streams have always beenmuddy (Pitchford and Kerns, 2001). The physi-cal characteristics of most of this region are aresult of Pleistocene glaciers. These glaciers leftbehind deposits of extremely variable thickness,in places nearly 400 feet thick (Brookshire, 1997).These are unconsolidated sediments on top ofPennsylvanian- and Mississippian-age bedrock.This glacial till has, over the ages, been dissectedby runoff-caused erosion. The drainage pat-tern of the region consists of semi-parallelstreams that trend from the north to the south,draining to the Missouri River (Vandike, 1995).“The combination of channel alterations and in-adequate corridors has resulted in tallstreambanks that are rapidly eroding. Exceptin the uppermost portions of the watershed,nearly all streambank erosion problems are toosevere for biotechnical measures to be practi-cal” (Pitchford and Kerns, 2001). This region,the Dissected Till Plains, is characterized by gla-cial till that has very low permeability, and there-fore, infiltration is low and runoff rapid. Thislow permeability and the lack of groundwaterinflow into streams make for very low basestream flows during dry weather (Vandike, 1995,and Miller and Vandike, 1997).

The area immediately south and south eastof Kansas City is called the Osage Plains. Their


46

soil characteristics are of glacial till coveringMississippian-age bedrock (Miller and Vandike,1997, and Vandike, 1995). Some loess was de-posited in the Missouri River alluvial valley(Miller and Vandike, 1997) and south of the Mis-souri River in the Cherokee Prairies soils sub-region of the Osage Plains (Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources, 1986). The silt has lowpermeability in many areas. The till is exposedby erosion through the loess as watercourseserode the layers of soil. It is not so much theglacial till as it is the loess that causes the sedi-ment problem. This is what leads to high loadsof suspended sediment in streams, and muddybottoms.

Human activities, land development andagriculture have increased the naturally occur-ring rates and locations of erosion and sedimen-tation. The Osage and the Dissected Till Plainsregion, are extensively row-cropped, with theresult being that the loess and glacial till areeasily eroded, especially on steeper slopes. Thiscombination leads to high suspended sedimentloads in many rivers and streams (Vandike, 1995).Some factors that contribute to increased sedi-mentation are short-term, short-duration events,while others may affect water quality and quan-tity over long periods of time (Brookshire, 1997).Heavy rains and flash floods are examples ofshort-term/duration events that increase sedi-mentation while major land use changes suchas converting a forested area to row crops orsuburbs can be cited as long-term events. Inareas adjacent to suburban developments, ex-cessive sedimentation can be even more pro-nounced.

Soil erosion increases water turbidity, whichcan have negative impacts on aquatic life. Manyof the aquatic life species have developed a cer-tain tolerance to muddy water. However, whensedimentation is excessive, it can adversely ef-fect even the highly evolved and specialized sedi-ment-tolerant species. While a certain degreeof sedimentation is necessary and can createspawning habitat and rearing areas, excessivesediment can fill pools and shallows, makingthem less desirable or even unsuitable for aquaticlife. Additionally, this can cause some aquaticspecies to be more susceptible to terrestrial spe-cies predation. Sediment also fills lakes andponds, which also reduces this type of habitat

for certain aquatic species (see “Aging Water Im-poundments” topic write-up).

Excessive sedimentation and excessive tur-bidity can reduce the individual species numberand species diversity of naturally occurring andadapted aquatic invertebrates and vertebratesthat require deep pools or shallows. Turbidityand siltation can also result in the reduction orloss of fish populations. This is usually not theresult of direct mortality, but rather caused bysublethal effects like reduced feeding and growth,respiratory impairment, reduced tolerance to dis-ease, stress, and reduced reproductive successbrought on by over-concentration.

The deposition of excessive sediment fillsin stream pools. As these pools lose the abilityto hold water, adjacent stream banks are sub-jected to increased scour and bank erosion ispossible. Excessive sedimentation in streamchannels can increase the likelihood of local-ized flooding because the channel has less ca-pacity to carry floodwater. Deep pools are criti-cal refuges to certain species during low flowperiods especially in summer and winter. Lossof these deeper water habitats can concentratethe animals in marginally suitable habitats wherecompetition among and between species in-creases. This also increases the susceptibility tostress, disease and predation. Water quality prob-lems in pools may also become magnified, asless deep-water habitat is available.

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES:

Within the northwest region, five miles ofDog Creek in Daviess County, and 0.2 mile ofLong Creek in Caldwell County, are listed as1998 category 1 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)waters due to sediment from point sources, spe-cifically quarry operations. Ten counties arelisted as category 2 CWA Section 303(d) streamsbecause they are sediment impaired from non-point agricultural sources. The counties andstream miles affected in category 2 include:Johnson County-54 miles, Harrison County-18miles, Daviess County-17 miles, Ray County-14miles, DeKalb County-47.5 miles, GentryCounty-50 miles, Nodaway County-14.5 miles,Bates County-18 miles, Andrew County-11 milesand Atchison County-17.5 miles. The Maraisdes Cygnes River has been proposed for inclu-

47

Water Use Problems

sion on the 2002 Section 303(d) list for sedi-ment pollution caused by agricultural erosion.

Lakes on Reed Conservation Area in Kan-sas City have received large amounts of sedi-ment from construction sites in the watershed(s).This sediment has reduced the depth and lifespan of these lakes.

Gross erosion amounts in the BlackwaterRiver watershed are estimated to average 12.7tons per acre annually. Of this, an estimated3.3 million tons arrives in suspension where theBlackwater River enters the Lamine - MissouriRiver. Erosion and sediment yields have in-creased as woodlands on private land have beenconverted to cropland (USDA 1977).

Sedimentation is a problem in the upperreaches of Truman Reservoir. Both the SouthGrand River and the Marais des Cygnes River,tributaries of the Osage River, flow into TrumanReservoir.

Sources:

Bayless, Mike, and Travnichek, Vince, 2001,Platte river watershed inventory andassessment, Missouri Department of Con-servation, Northwest Regional Fisheries, St.Joseph, Missouri , available atwww.conservation.state.mo.us/fish/water-shed/platte.htm

Brookshire, Cynthia N., 1997, Missouri StateWater Plan Series Volume III, Missouri wa-ter quality assessment, Water ResourcesReport Number 47, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey, pp. 17 & 77-82.

Category 1 Recommended Section 303(d) Wa-ters, 1998 Listing www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/tmdl/tmdl_list.pdf

Fantz, Debra K.; Heatherly, William G.; Yasger,Patricia A.; and Dent, Ronald J., 2001, WestOsage river watershed inventory andassessment, Missouri Department of Con-servation, West Central Regional Fisheries,Sedalia, Missouri , available atwww.conservat ion . s ta te .mo .us/ f i sh/watershed/wosage.htm

Horton, Rick; Bayless, Mike; and Kerns, Harold,2001, Nodaway River watershed inven-tory and assessment, Missouri Depart-ment of Conservation, Northwest RegionalFisheries, St. Joseph, Missouri, available atwww.conservat ion . s ta te .mo .us/ f i sh/watershed/nodaway.htm

Miller, Don E. and Vandike, James E., 1997, Mis-souri State Water Plan Series Volume II,Groundwater resources of Missouri, Wa-ter Resources Report Number 46, Missouri De-partment of Natural Resources, Division of Ge-ology and Land Survey, pp. 153-162 & 175-181.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Di-vision of Geology and Land Survey, 1986,Missouri water atlas, pp. 4 and 5, Soilsand Physiographic Regions of Missouri.

Pitchford, Greg, and Kerns, Harold, 2001, Grandriver watershed inventory and assess-ment, Missouri Department of Conservation,Northwest Regional Fisheries, St. Joseph, Mis-souri, available at www.conservation.state.mo.us/fish/watershed/grand.htm

Proposed Changes to Missouri’s Impaired WatersList, Attachment B, Waters Proposed DuringPublic Notice on 2002 303(d) MethodologyDocument www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/tmdl/wpc-2002-303d-AttachB.htm

Proposed Changes to Missouri’s Impaired Wa-ters List, Attachment A, Preliminary Draft ofthe Missouri 2002 Section 303(d) Listww.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/tmdl/wpc-2002-303d-AttachA.htm

United States Department of Agriculture(USDA), 1977, Blackwater-Lamine riverbasin in Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Vandike, James E., 1995, Missouri State WaterPlan Series Volume I, Surface water re-sources of Missouri, Water Resources Re-port Number 45, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey, pp. 7-11.


48

Levee Construction and FloodPlain Management

Problem:

Levees are relied upon to hold back waterduring floods but no coordinated system of over-sight exists to ensure their ability to function asintended.

Discussion:

As part of the Pick-Sloan Plan for reduc-ing flood damages on the Lower Missouri River(and for augmenting low flows on the Missourifor the benefit of water supplies, power genera-tion, irrigation, and navigation), Congress passedlegislation in 1944 that called for the construc-tion of large dams and reservoirs in the UpperMissouri Basin, and for the building of leveesalong the mainstem of the lower river (FederalFlood Control Act of 1944.)

In addition to the construction plan fordams and levees, there is an operating plan forthe river, governed by the Master Water Con-trol Manual, under which Annual OperatingPlans (AOPs) are adopted by the NorthwesternDivision of the Corps. It is the AOPs that gov-ern the manipulation of the stages of the Mis-souri River. Despite the large capacity for floodcontrol inherent in a system of six major damsand their reservoirs, floods and droughts stilloccur in the Missouri River Basin. Most of theState of Missouri (and the entire northwesternregion) is situated within the Lower MissouriRiver Basin.

Following the flood of 1993, which affectedthe Upper Mississippi Basin and the MissouriBasin, a number of agencies prepared reportson the flooding, identifying factors that reducedor aggravated flood damages. They made rec-ommendations, which would help to reduce fu-ture flood damages.

An analysis of the four major reports pre-pared after the 1993 flooding found, amongother things, that “more state involvement inthe whole [levee] topic area was universally rec-ommended, especially in oversight and permits”(Gaffney, 1996). All four of those major reportsmade recommendations about levees, highlight-

ing the importance of levees in reducing (or ag-gravating) flood damages, and in raising floodstages. Included were discussions of setbacksfor levees, giving rivers more lateral space tospread out during high flows.

In particular, The Report and Recommen-dations of the Governor’s Task Force on FloodPlain Management, 1994, called for a levee per-mit system, which bordering states Kansas andIllinois already have. The purpose is for devel-oping design criteria, for consideration of set-backs from the riverbank, for consideration ofother uses of flood plain land, and for maxi-mum use of the Wetland Reserve Program andthe Conservation Reserve Program to reduceflood damages (Gaffney, 1996).

The flood of 1993 on the Missouri Riverwas a very large flood, the magnitude of whichvaried with the reach of the river. In most loca-tions, it was considered to have been a “morethan one hundred-year flood,” that is, one whichwould be expected to recur less frequently thanonce every century. Following the flood of 1993,there was the flood of 1995. Statistically, it ispossible to have “hundred-year floods” back-to-back, or in rapid succession.

The 1995 flooding did not cause the devas-tation of the 1993 flooding because a numberof flood plain recommendations had been car-ried out in the interim. One of the measurestaken was the removal of many flood pronedwellings from the flood hazard areas along theriver. These “buy-outs” were made possible bycreative financing, using a number of federal andnon-federal revenue sources, catalyzed by theDepartment of Natural Resources, Water Re-sources Program personnel during the flood re-covery period, 1993-1994.

Some of the damages from the 1993 flood-ing were caused by levee failures. Some weredesign failures (such as overtopping), but somewere structural failures. When a levee “blows,”that is, when a levee gives way under the pres-sure of floodwater, the force of the flow of wa-ter passing through the crevasse often causesdeep scouring of the land, and subsequent depo-sition of sediment below the scour holes.

A later study showed that a forested ripar-ian corridor between the river and any leveehad a marked effect on the force of floodwatersagainst a levee. A width of 300 feet of woody

49

Water Use Problems

vegetation was shown to be most effective inprotecting a levee against failure, even in high-energy areas of the Missouri River (Dwyer, 1997).

Levees also raise flood heights (stages) byconstraining the lateral spreading of floodwa-ters. Like the nozzle of a garden hose, the nar-rowing of a river at high flows by the place-ment of levees or floodwalls has two principaleffects: the raising of flood stages and the in-crease of current velocity. Both of these effectscause damages to property along the river’sreach.

Despite the severity of damages attributedto levee failures, levee setback and other rec-ommendations made by the post-flood reportshave not had the public impetus of “buy-outs”and other post-flood measures. The reports’ rec-ommendations regarding levees have not beenacted upon.

Sources:

Drew, John D., and Chen, Sherry, 1997, Mis-souri State Water Plan Series Volume V, Hy-drologic extremes in Missouri: floodand drought, Water Resources Report Num-ber 49, Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Division of Geology and Land Sur-vey.

Dwyer, John P.; Wallace, Douglas; and Larsen,David R., April, 1997, “Value of Woody RiverCorridors in Levee Protection along the Mis-souri River in 1993,” in Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Associa-tion, Volume 33, Number 2, pp. 481-489.

Federal Flood Control Act of 1944. H.R. 4485was adopted by the 78th Congress, Dec. 22,1944, as 58 Stat. 887. It also may be cited asPublic Law 78-534. See U.S. Code, Anno-tated.

Gaffney, Richard M., 1996, Flood reportanalysis, Water Resources Report Number54, Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Division of Geology and Land Sur-vey, 44 p.

Governor’s Task Force on Flood Plain Manage-ment, 1994, The report and recommen-dations of the governor’s task force onflood plain management, Jefferson City,Missouri.

Loss of Sensitive AquaticSpecies

Problem:

Land management practices and resultingdegradation of stream habitats are causing therange of sensitive aquatic species to be reducedin Northwest Missouri. This degradation is re-sulting in the reduction of some sensitive spe-cies of fish from entire basins in Northwest Mis-souri.

Discussion:

Stream habitat degradation is widespreadthroughout Northwest Missouri. This degrada-tion is in part due to sedimentation and nutri-ent enrichment from some land managementpractices. The construction of Truman Reser-voir has also been responsible for major streamhabitat reduction in Henry and Bates counties.

The crux of the problem lies in the factthat, under state law, landowners have legal,reasonable expectations that they can use theirland to their benefit to, among other things, growcrops and raise livestock. Not all landownershave the time, knowledge, incentive, money orresources to make stream habitat mitigation andrestoration their number one priority. For ob-vious reasons, state and federal wildlife agen-cies also do not have the staff, resources andfunding needed to purchase critical sections ofland to manage it solely for sensitive aquaticspecies.

Several fish species found with limited rangein Northwest Missouri are state or federally listed.The Topeka shiner, state and federally listed asendangered, and the trout-perch, state listed S1-critically imperiled, are found in Northwestern


50

Missouri streams. Four fish species, Highfincarpsucker, Mooneye, Ghost shiner, and paddle-fish are state ranked based on specific levels ofrelative endangerment. Major threats to long-term survival of these species include riparianclearing, and nutrient enrichment of streamsresulting from livestock (Pflieger, 1997; Kerns etal., 1999).

Freshwater mussels are the most endan-gered fauna in North America, with over 45percent of the 300 species in jeopardy (extinct,endangered, threatened, or in decline). Thisholds true for Missouri mussels, particularly inareas such as the Northwestern Region wherea combination of changes in physical habitatand declines of water quality have altered thefree-flowing stream habitat required by fresh-water mussels. Because of their unique repro-ductive strategy where their larval stage(glochidia) is released into the water columnwhere it must contact, encyst upon and meta-morphose on native fish, mussels are particu-larly susceptible to changes in water quality. Notonly are the larvae extremely sensitive to waterquality changes, any change in habitat that im-pacts a particular species of fish can impactmussel species that rely on that fish for repro-duction.

Site-Specific Data:

Though once widespread across the North-western Region, the Topeka shiner is now re-stricted to the Sugar Creek basin in Daviess andHarrison counties (Gelwicks and Bruenderman,1996; Pflieger, 1997). The trout-perch was wide-spread across Northwestern Missouri and is now“on the verge of disappearing from our state”(Pflieger, 1997). The loss of these species is at-tributed at least in part to poor agricultural landuse practices, mainly row cropping on highlyerodible land and the subsequent sedimentationand pollution delivered to streams. Concentratedanimal feeding operations in the region nowpose an additional threat to remaining popula-tions.

Sources:

Gelwicks, G.T., and S.A. Bruenderman, 1996,Final report: status survey for the To-peka shiner in Missouri, Missouri Depart-ment of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, 22p.

Kerns, H.A., J. Bonneau, T. Grace, A. Salveter,and M. Winston, 1999, An action plan forthe Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) inMissouri, Missouri Department of Conser-vation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 39 p.

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC),June, 1998, Missouri species of conser-vation concern checklist, Missouri De-partment of Conservation, Jefferson City, Mis-souri.

Pflieger, W.L., 1997, The fishes of Missouri,Missouri Department of Conservation, Jeffer-son City, Missouri.

Lack of Riparian Corridor

Problem:

Streamside clearing, combined with accel-erated lateral channel erosion, has resulted inextensive stream reaches with inadequate ripar-ian corridors. Loss of streamside vegetation re-sults in accelerated bank erosion and floodplainscour, channel widening and shallowing, an in-crease in stream temperature, and loss of aquaticand riparian habitats.

Discussion:

Clearing of streamside vegetation is a seri-ous long term problem in western Missouri thathas been occurring over the last 100-150 years.Many streams have few, if any, trees on theirbanks. A healthy riparian corridor (a corridorof trees and other vegetation along the streambank) should be between 50 to more than 200feet wide, depending upon the size of the stream.

51

Water Use Problems

Healthy riparian corridors can improve thequality of water by removing pollutants in run-off, and increase the biological diversity and pro-ductivity of stream communities by improvinginstream habitat and adding to the organic foodbase. Streamside vegetation can intercept pol-lutants from both surface and shallow ground-water before they enter streams. Nutrient addi-tions to streams increase algal production andbiomass, but extreme nutrient levels can causeexcessive algal productions, which increase bio-chemical oxygen demand. Sedimentation nega-tively affects fish behavior, fish reproduction, fishspecies diversity, and general system produc-tivity. Streamside vegetation may impede sedi-ment-laden runoff, causing the deposition ofsediment in riparian corridors, rather than di-rectly into the stream. Streams shaded by ri-parian vegetation have lower temperatures insummer than do unshaded streams. Lower sum-mer temperatures allow higher dissolved oxy-gen concentration, which sustain stream biota.In Missouri, riparian forests supply a significantproportion of the energy, in the form of leaflitter, supporting food webs in streams.

Numerous stream sites within both thePlatte and Nodaway River basins have been sur-veyed by the Missouri Department of Conser-vation, and most had little or no woody corri-dor (Bayless and Travnichek, 1997; Horton andBayless, 1998). None of the sites surveyed hada 100 feet wide corridor, and most had less than50 feet of woody vegetation along eitherstreambank. Fencing of corridors was rare. Landuse at over half of the sites surveyed was rowcrop production, often with farming up to thestreambank.

Sources:

Bayless, M. and V. Travnichek, 1997, Platteriver basin inventory and managementplan, Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City, Missouri.

Horton, R. and M. Bayless, 1998, Nodawayriver basin inventory and managementplan, Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City, Missouri.

Waste Water TreatmentFacilities

Problem:

Several municipal Waste Water TreatmentFacilities (WWTFs) throughout the region havebeen documented to be affecting the health andbiota of the region’s streams. Unauthorized dis-charges of raw and poorly treated sewage haveoccurred resulting in fish and other aquatic or-ganism kills. These discharges also impairwhole-body contact recreation as well as otherdownstream water uses.

Discussion:

Throughout the recent past (late 1960sthrough the present) problems with areaWWTFs have occurred. Occasional dischargesrelated with uncommonly heavy rains or out-dated or malfunctioning equipment can be ex-pected from time to time. As area populationshave grown, so too has the demand on munici-pal sewage treatment.

Fourteen known fish kills have been causedby sewage discharges in the area, for a total ofnearly 50,000 fish known killed. Another twentyincidents of unauthorized sewage enteringstreams were recorded over the same period(MDC, 1968-1999).

Sources:

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC)1968-1999, Pollution incident and fish kill in-formation, Missouri Department of Conser-vation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Pharmaceutical/ChemicalContamination of Water

Problem:

Surface waters and groundwaters of Mis-souri are being contaminated by various pollut-ants, including pharmaceuticals and personalcare products (PPCPs), and other chemicals.


52

Discussion:

In a presentation given on April 17th, 2001,to the Missouri Water Quality CoordinatingCommittee, Don Wilkison of the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey (USGS) offered some preliminaryfindings of a current (2001) investigation on“Emerging Contaminants in Urban Watersheds,”Contaminants, related to wastewater discharges,are being studied in low- and storm-flows withinthe Blue River watershed of the greater KansasCity area, on both sides of the Kansas-Missouristate boundary. A portion of this watershed isserved by combined storm and sanitary sewers,which can, during intense rainfall events, com-bine and discharge untreated wastewater directlyinto receiving streams. Additionally, there arefour sewage treatment plants that dischargetreated wastewater in the basin.

Wastewater can contain trace amounts ofprescription and over-the-counter drugs, deter-gent metabolites, and the remains of personalcare products, such as cosmetics. The effectson the environment of many of these com-pounds are poorly understood, said Mr. Wilkison.

Many compounds would be expected toaccumulate in sediments and organic matter,while other, more soluble compounds, woulddissolve in water. Some components of deter-gents become more environmentally persistentand toxic as they break down. Some compoundsare suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals(EDCs), which can affect the glandular (hormone)systems of aquatic life (see side-bar information).Recent information on endocrine disrupters inthe environment extends the scope of biologi-cal and ecological impacts of EDCs.

Among the details offered by Mr. Wilkisonare the following:! 96 percent of low-flow water samples ana-

lyzed have caffeine detected (probably fromcoffee and soft drinks);

! 71 percent have bisphenol A (found in plas-tics), suspected in endocrine disruption;

! 85 percent have triclosan (a disinfectant/an-timicrobial), that may contribute to antibioticresistance in bacteria;

! 100 percent of samples contain DEET, a com-ponent in some insect repellants; and

! 84 percent contain 5 methyl-1H-benzotriazole(an antioxidant).

Among the pharmaceuticals found in low-flow water samples are:! over-the-counter pain killers and anti-inflam-

matory drugs (e.g., acetaminophen andibuprofen);

! cotinine (the major metabolite of nicotine);! codeine (an ingredient in some pain killers

and flu medications); and! antibiotics prescribed for urinary tract infec-

tions (e.g. trimethiprim and sulfamethoxazole).It is likely that some of the pharmaceuti-

cals are passed through the human body andout into the sewerage system. Pills that areflushed for disposal may also enter wastewater.Many drugs are only partially removed by typi-cal sewage treatment processes.

The environmental and human health con-sequences of continuous low doses of chemicalsin water are not known at this time but are be-ing studied by many scientific groups.

In May, 2001, a panel of academic, govern-ment, and industry scientists determined thatthere is “credible evidence” that some hormone-like chemicals can affect test animals’ bodilyfunctions at very low level doses—well belowthe “no effect” levels that were determined bytraditional testing.

A 36-member panel working for the Na-tional Institute of Environmental Health Sci-ences said the chemicals, called “environmentalestrogens” and “endocrine disrupters,” deservegreater scrutiny and additional research. Someof the chemicals, like hormones, occur naturally.Other chemicals are manufactured (synthesized)for packaging, plastics, and other products ofmodern life.

The panel found enough evidence of lowlevel effects to recommend additional studies oflow level doses of bisphenol A, a plastics build-ing block used for a wide line of products, fromsafety helmets and impact resistant eye glasslenses to food packaging. In addition, the panelfound evidence of changes in reproductive or-gans from low doses of estrogenic compounds,including the insecticide methoxychlor, and thefungicide vinclozolin (ScienceDaily, 2001).

Regardless of other studies reported, few toxi-cological studies have been done, to date, to evalu-ate the risks posed to humans and creatures inthe natural environment, with chronic exposureto trace concentrations of various drugs.

53

Water Use Problems

What are endocrine disrupters? The endocrine system is the part of the human oranimal body that regulates the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of the organism.It consists of glands that secrete hormones, and parts of cells that are deemed hormone receptors.The concern about endocrine disruption is rooted in the knowledge that certain chemicals (espe-cially synthetic organic compounds) can mimic the hormones that serve as messengers, regulatingthe endocrine system that regulates our bodies.

One of the great technological marvels of the 20th Century was the proliferation of syntheticorganic chemicals, from synthetic rubber in World War II to many modern pharmaceuticals. Thisaccomplishment, however, has been associated with many warnings about the potential for unin-tended outcomes. In past decades, concerns about various effects and side effects of such com-pounds have triggered some regulations (ending the use of DDT in the U.S.) and calls for more.

The concern remains that some of these synthetic organic chemicals may be affecting thehuman and natural environment in subtle and insidious ways, by interfering with the endocrinesystems of humans and wildlife. A growing body of literature deals specifically with the endocrinedisrupter issue.

In the human endocrine system, there are seven kinds of glands. The adrenal glands, forexample, secrete some 30 different hormones that control many functions of the body. An ex-ample of how a synthetic organic chemical compound may act as an endocrine disrupter is theman-made ethinyl estradiol, which is used in birth control pills on purpose to mimic the body’snatural estrogen hormone. The success of the chemical is due to the fact that it behaves in that way,flooding the body’s cells to prevent real estrogen from combining with the cells’ hormone receptors.The receptors link to the cells’ DNA structure, to turn on or turn off certain genes, modifying celloutcomes. In the example, the cells are unable to trigger sexual reproductive processes due to theinterference (disruption, or blocking action) of the synthetic chemical (Trussell, 2001).

While the whole concept is sometimes deemed a hypothesis, the reality is that the concepthas been proven in wildlife. Studies have been done showing the masculinization of certain mol-lusks, the feminization of certain fish, and the decline of alligators in Florida, as a result of traceamounts of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the water.

Recent information (Fox et al., 2001) shows how chemical signals between alfalfa plants andsoil bacteria determine nitrogen fixation in a symbiotic relationship. Some EDCs also interferewith (disrupt) this symbiotic signaling. Nitrogen fixation is a significant process that is critical toplant growth and development in the biosphere.

Investigators at Tulane University, New Orleans, La., have shown that some pesticides andplanar phenolic EDCs can interfere with the exchange of signals between the plant and Rhizobiumbacteria in the nitrogen-fixation symbiosis, exposing a previously unrecognized similarity to theeffects of EDCs on vertebrate endocrine signaling.

David Epel, of Stanford University’sHopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, Califor-nia, expressed to the symposium a special con-cern about new drugs called efflux-pump in-hibitors. Designed to keep microbes from eject-ing the antibiotic intended to slay them, efflux-pump inhibitors also impede the cellular pumpsthat nearly all animals use to get rid of toxi-cants. Epel worries that if pump-inhibiting drugsenter the aquatic environment, they might ren-der wildlife vulnerable to concentrations of pol-

lution that previously had been innocuous.(Raloff, 2000).

Sources:

Campagnolo, Enzo R., et al., 1999, Report tothe state of Iowa department of publichealth on the investigation of thechemical and microbial constituents ofground and surface water proximal tolarge-scale swine operations, October-


54

December, 1998, National Center for En-vironmental Health, Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Fox, Jennifer E.; Starcevic, Marta; Kow, Kelvin Y.;Burrow, Matthew E.; and McLachlan, John A.,September 13, 2001, Nitrogen fixation: en-docrine disrupters and flavonoid signal-ling, in Nature, Volume 413, pp. 128-129.

Guillette, L., et al., Developmental abnor-malities of the gonad, and abnormalsex hormone concentrations in juve-nile alligators from contaminated andcontrol lakes in Florida, in Environmen-tal Health Perspectives, Volume 102:680.

Metcalfe, Chris, Professor, November 6, 2001, TrentUniversity, Ontario, Canada, in news releasefrom the Geological Society of America,(www.geosociety.org) published as A fishnamed wayne-wanda? in ScienceDailywww. sciencedaily.com

Raloff, J., April 1, 2000, More waters test posi-tive for drugs, in Science News, Washing-ton, D.C., Volume 157, Number. 14, p. 212.

ScienceDaily, 5/15/2001, on-line atwww.sciencedaily.com, More study recom-mended on long-term reproductive ef-fects of traces of both natural and man-made hormone-like chemicals, adaptedfrom a news release issued by the NationalInstitutes of Health/National Institute of En-vironmental Health Sciences.

Trussell, R. Rhodes, February, 2001, Endocrinedisrupters and the water industry, inthe Journal of the American Water Works As-sociation, pp. 58 – 65.

Wadman, Meredith, January 18, 2001 Groupurges survey of antibiotics in animals,in Nature, London, U.K., Volume 409, Num-ber 6818, pp. 273.

Wilkison, Don, April 17, 2001, United States Geo-logical Survey (USGS), Independence, Missouri,presentation to the Missouri Water Quality Co-ordinating Committee, Columbia, Missouri.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Problem:

Several municipalities mix sanitary sewageand stormwater runoff in combined sewer sys-tems (CSSs). During heavy rains, the large vol-ume of runoff overwhelms the system, andflushes untreated sewage into surface waters.The economic costs to rehabilitate systems arelarge. In addition, combined sewer overflows(CSOs) increase operational costs for wastewa-ter treatment facilities (WWTF) because theytreat a larger volume of waste.

Discussion:

Before clean water regulations, municipali-ties sometimes sent untreated sewage directlyinto receiving bodies of water. Thus, it was con-venient to design systems that combined thesewage and the stormwater runoff (known as acombined sewer system, CSS) since they weredirected to the same place. Passage of the CleanWater Act (CWA) mandated that all sanitarysewage be treated before being released into theenvironment, and that stopped construction ofCSSs.

All of the flows in a CSS have been redi-rected to a wastewater treatment facility fortreatment. However, when there is excessiveflow caused by a rainstorm or snowmelt, it canexceed the capacity of the treatment facilityand/or the CSS. Then, this excess flow is di-rected to surface waters without treatment, andthis outfall is termed a combined sewer over-flow (CSO). This overflow of untreated sanitarysewage is a pollution discharge and can violatethe CWA.

Municipalities are in the process of imple-menting a Combined Sewer Overflow ControlPlan initiated by US Environmental ProtectionAgency. They must characterize their CSOs (i.e.frequency, flow, pollution levels, etc.) and startusing minimum technology-based controls tominimize the impact of these on the environ-ment. Finally, they must develop a long-termcontrol plan (LTCP) which should ensure thatall their discharges comply with the Clean Wa-ter Act. There are three basic LTCP abatement

55

Water Use Problems

options: eliminate the overflow by separatingstormwater and sanitary sewage, provide treat-ment of the overflow, or maintain and monitorthe overflow to ensure that what comes out issufficiently diluted as to not pollute significantly(USEPA, 2001). The latter could be a problemdown the road as minimum contaminant levelsare lowered, thus what was once acceptable mayno longer be so.

The only CSOs that exist in northwesternMissouri are in Kansas City and St. Joseph.Kansas City has approximately 220 they knowof, and are still finding ones they didn’t knowabout. Their efforts to reduce CSO impacts havebeen successful. Their main effort has been fo-cused on keeping the system free of blockagesthrough regular inspections, and installing equip-ment that properly directs the flow. They arecurrently starting to develop a long term con-trol plan. A big obstacle to this is finding themoney for the abatement measures. For ex-ample, the city of Cape Girardeau spent $23million and 5 years rehabilitating their CSOs(Cook, 2001), and that system was but a frac-tion the size of Kansas City’s system. There isalso the question of the outfalls that they don’tknow about, and it has been very difficult tolocate them all. In addition, there’s the addedcost of treating the extra water that comes fromthe storm sewer system.

Sources:

Cook, Steve, May, 2001, Environmental ServicesCoordinator, City of Cape Girardeau. Personalcommunication.

United States Environmental ProtectionAgency/CSO homepage (USEPA), 2001:www.epa.gov/owm/cso/htm

Urban Sprawl

Problem:

Urban Sprawl adds to a number of water-related problems. These include instream sedi-mentation, increased flooding and drought im-

pacts, increased watercourse pollution, increasedwater demand, increased spending on infrastruc-ture, and increased human health and propertydamage risks.

Discussion:

The population around Kansas City hasboth increased and spread out into previouslyrural areas. The Missouri counties surroundingJackson (Cass, Clay, Johnson, and Platte), whereKansas City is located, grew by 22 percent(70,000 people) during the 1990s (note that therehas been a corresponding population increasein the surrounding Kansas counties, which addsto the problems, as water movement doesn’t nec-essarily respect state boundaries). The popula-tion has increased in Jackson County as well,where cities such as Blue Springs increased by25 percent. This spread of suburbia, often termedurban sprawl, leads to a host of water problems.

During construction, ground is often leftbare. Heavy rains cause the soil to erode andwash into streams, causing turbidity and sedi-mentation. This in turn can cause problems foraquatic species (see above, “Erosion and Sedi-mentation”). Contractors are supposed to in-stall sedimentation mitigation measures, such asplastic fences to keep soil on site. However,often they are not installed effectively and theyare only mandated for sites over 5 acres (to bechanged to 1 acre effective in spring, 2002) (Ma-dras, 2001).

The increased impervious area (roofs andpavement) from the new development in wa-tersheds can exacerbate stream problems relatedto both flooding and drought. These hard sur-faces don’t allow for infiltration of the water intothe soil and subsequently the groundwater. In-stead, this water is shed quickly to thestormwater system. Many local government sub-division regulations require that stormwater beshunted as quickly as possible into the nearestwatercourse in order to prevent local flooding.Since more water is added to the system in lesstime, a higher flood peak with a shorter lag be-tween rainfall and flooding occurs (figure 16).This flooding also causes greater streambankdestabilization because of the increased fre-quency of higher peak flows.


56

Since many of the impervious surfaces getvery hot from sunshine, the water that runs offthem is heated and can increase the overall tem-perature of nearby streams, lakes and ponds. Ifthis thermal pollution significantly decreases theamount of oxygen dissolved in water, it maystress fish, possibly to the point of producing afish kill.

Some of the water shunted to thestormwater system would normally infiltrate tothe groundwater, which in turn seeps back tothe surface at streams (termed a stream’s baseflow). This is especially important during

drought, as this base flow is what keeps enoughwater flowing in streams to sustain aquatic life.This stormwater also carries an increased pol-lution load into local waterways (Smith, 2001).Oil on pavement, road salts, floatables, and lawn-care chemicals are among the pollutants. Anincrease in pollution can render the treating ofwater for drinking more costly. This pollutioncan also kill or seriously impair the survival ofaquatic biota.

There is a greater demand put on drinkingwater systems that were originally built to servesmaller populations. Increased demand comes

Hydrographs With Variable Impervious Area

Dis

char

ge (

cfs)

Tho

usan

ds

Hours

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

00 2 4 6 8 10 12

Contributing drainage area = 20 sq. mi.Recurrence interval = 25 years

= 1% impervious = 10% impervious = 25% impervious

Figure 16. Hydrographs for watersheds with 1, 10, and 25 percent impervious area. Drainage area and storm magnitude arethe same in the three watersheds.

57

Water Use Problems

both from a rise in population, but also a rise inper capita demand. This situation can stressthe resource, especially in communities that arenot close enough to the Missouri River to use itor its alluvium as a source of water. This in-creased demand can necessitate expandingtreatment plants, a cost state taxes might cover.In addition, the increase in infrastructure costsmight be spread throughout the entire locality,raising everybody’s property taxes.

Development is currently spreading into ar-eas that are prone to flooding along the Mis-souri River and associated tributaries, therebyincreasing the risk of property damage and hu-man health problems (Gaffney, 2001). Althoughthere are levees and floodwalls to protect theseareas, they can fail, with disastrous results tohumans and their property.

The Federal Insurance Administration, partof the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), which implements the National FloodInsurance Program (NFIP), will accept Corps ofEngineers’ certification of a levee that meets astandard of protection from a once-in-a-hun-dred-years levee (i.e., a one percent chance floodprotection levee), plus freeboard. Such certifi-cation allows the Federal Insurance Adminis-tration to make the previously flood hazard area(Zone A) behind the levee a “Zone X” (less thanone percent chance of flooding). The presenceof the certified levee greatly reduces the floodrisk, and therefore greatly reduces the flood in-surance premium on structures and contents inthat zone. Property owners and renters pay theflood insurance premiums. Flood insurance, likeearthquake insurance, is not a “rider” on anowner’s or renter’s policy, it must be purchasedseparately from the agent.

Unfortunately, levees can and do fail. Alllevees have a design limitation, such as height.Levees can be overtopped (called a design fail-ure). Levees, like chains, are only as strong astheir weakest links. Structural failures also oc-cur during flood events, particularly in “highenergy areas” of the river, such as on outsidebends. In 1993, there were numerous levee fail-ures, even the failures of certified levees, here inMissouri. Where levee failures occurred in de-veloped areas, such as in Chesterfield Bottoms,millions of dollars in damages were realized.

The deleterious effects of urban sprawl on

water resources are widespread, from pollutionto flooding to ruining fish habitat. These effectsare not easily categorized, and cross many dis-ciplines. This makes addressing the issues moredifficult because of their diverse nature.

Sources:

Drew, John and Chen, Sherry, 1997, MissouriState Water Plan Series Volume V, Hydro-logic extremes in Missouri: flood anddrought, Water Resources Report Number49, Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Division of Geology and Land Sur-vey, 104 p.

Gaffney, Richard M., Chief Watershed Planner,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Geological Survey and Resource AssessmentDivision, Water Resources Program. Personalcommunication, May, 2001.

Madras, John, Missouri Department of NaturalResources, Water Protection and Soil Con-servation Division Water Pollution ControlProgram. Personal communication, April,2001.

Smith, Andrew, June, 2001, New satellitemaps provide planners improved ur-ban sprawl insight, www.gsfc.nasa.gov/GSFC/EARTH/Landsat/sprawl.htm

Aging Water Impoundments

Problem:

Many small reservoirs constructed utilizingfunding assistance of the United States Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA), Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) are reaching theirdesign life and may not be able to provide allthe benefits they were originally designed toprovide.

Discussion:

A number of smaller reservoirs have beenconstructed with the assistance of the USDA


58

Natural Resources Conservation Service to pri-marily help provide flood control, prevent ero-sion, and sediment control pursuant to PublicLaw 83-566. These impoundments provideother important benefits as well. The followingcomplete list of benefits was provided by NRCS.

! Flood control - by temporarily detaining run-off that has flowed to the dam and safely re-leasing it downstream through a pipe throughthe dam.

! Improved water quality - by settling out con-taminants and sediment in the reservoir, thusprotecting downstream streams and rivers.

! Water supply - by storing the water duringrainy seasons for use by communities or ag-ricultural irrigation later in the year when itis needed for crop production.

! Drinking water - by storing water in the res-ervoir for use by municipal and industrial en-tities.

! Fish and wildlife habitat - by improving wet-land and vegetative habitat that creates bet-ter shelter and food sources.

! Habitat to threatened and endangered spe-cies - by creation of special features to en-hance and protect threatened and endangeredspecies.

! Wetland habitat - by creating vegetative ri-parian areas along the upper reaches of thereservoir.

! Restoration of riparian habitat - by providingprotection of downstream channel areas thatallows vegetative growth and improvement ofthe riparian areas.

! Recreation for local residents - by providinga source of quality fishing, hunting, picnick-ing, etc.

! Fire protection in rural communities - by pro-viding a supply of water to be used for firefighting (NRCS, 2002).

Many small reservoirs are nearing the endof their designed 50-year life span. Although,one of the purposes of these dams is to trapsediment, the years of effective sediment trap-ping eventually lowers the effective life of thereservoir, and decreases the flood-buffering ca-pacity. The source of much of the sedimentseems to come from construction sites and some

agricultural practices which leave land open forerosion. When a stream carrying this sedimentreaches an impoundment, the water slows anddrops its sediment load. Over time, this silts inthe reservoir, thereby diminishing water stor-age capacity. The siltation may also degrade fish-eries by making for poor habitat, and increasesturbidity, which also may negatively impact somefish. The sedimentation may also degrade rec-reational opportunities.

It is estimated that Missouri will need $2 mil-lion/year over the next ten years to take care ofthe problem (NRCS, 2001). The local sponsors (pri-marily local soil and water conservation districts,with a few public drinking water supply districts)will have to meet 35 percent of the cost, whichcould be difficult for them. The aging dams arealso a problem in that their integrity is decreasedfrom deterioration.

Dams are classified according to the risk ofdownstream damage in the event of a failure.Classifications basically are low, moderate, andhigh. When the structures were first built, therewere usually agricultural land, fields and forestsdownstream. Today, in some situations, wherea dam once was a low risk dam, there now aresubdivisions downstream on land not owned orcontrolled by the dam owner. This may createa situation that may put people’s lives at risk ifthe dam breaks. The Dam and Reservoir SafetyProgram is requiring these two dams to be up-graded to address the increased risk downstream.

In the Tabo Creek Watershed, sixty-fourgrade stabilization dams have been installed forerosion and sediment control. Dams in thiswatershed have many of the same problems ofother dams across the country which are ap-proaching their 50-year design life. These prob-lems include deteriorating pipes and sedimentfilling up the reservoirs. It is estimated that itwill cost $6 million to replace 44 corrugatedmetal pipes, and five reservoirs have problemswith siltation. Unfortunately, these dams andothers like them, because of their height under35 feet, do not fall within the authority of theDam and Reservoir Safety Program which regu-lates all non-federal, non-agricultural dams over35 feet in height.

Sedimentation also degrades fisheries. Itfills areas of a reservoir, making the water shal-

59

Water Use Problems

lower, which is poor quality habitat for the lake-adapted species. In addition, it makes the wa-ter turbid, which makes feeding difficult for sight-feeders. Pony Express Lake in DeKalb Countyis an example. There is decreased sedimenta-tion as compared to 30 years ago because theMissouri Department of Conservation ownsmore of the watershed and manages it to re-duce siltation. However, it still received a lot inits earlier years, that sediment is still there.Whenever it gets windy, this sedimentation nearthe surface of the lake gets stirred up easily,thereby making the lake turbid (Bonneau, 2001).Shallow-water vegetation can help hold downthe sediment, however it is difficult to establishit when the water is turbid.

Sedimentation also causes problems for wa-ter managers. When exact amounts of sedi-mentation are unknown, the managers don’thave an accurate assessment of how much wa-ter they have. This problem becomes exacer-bated under drought conditions. In addition tothe water quantity problem, there are water qual-ity issues that may develop. As reservoir levelsapproach the bottom of the reservoir taste, odor,and turbidity problems may arise. Also, sinceso many communities depend on reservoirs astheir drinking water source, the unchecked silt-ation of reservoirs could result in these reser-voirs being unusable. Rehabilitating the reser-voirs by dredging the silt may not be economi-cally viable.

In Jackson County, there are four reser-voirs managed by the Jackson County ParksDepartment. Prairie Lee Lake has large prob-lems with stormwater runoff. It carries a lot ofsediment from construction sites. In addition,there is a lot of trash washed into the reservoirduring storms. Because of urbanization, thestorm runoff peak flow is increased, which causesa nuisance to nearby landowners since their landis partially inundated (Staller, 2001). Part of theproblem for many lakes is that there haven’tbeen sufficient studies to quantify how long be-fore the lake silts in. Smithville Reservoir ishaving siltation problems, although it appearsto be happening slower than the designed 100-year life span.

Sources:

Bonneau, Joe, Fisheries Biologist, Missouri De-partment of Conservation, Northwest Region.Personal communication, February, 2001.

Heimann, D.C., 1995, Physical, chemical,and biological characteristics of 3 res-ervoirs in west-central Missouri, 1991-1993, USGS Water Resources InvestigationsReport 95-44120, 120 p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)2001, Aging watershed infrastructurewebsite, www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/pl566/agingwater/infra.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),2002, Aging watersheds question andanswers website, www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/p1566/agingwater/question_ans.html

Staller, Will; Jackson County Parks representa-tive. Personal communication, February, 2001.

Bridge Structural Deficiencies

Problem:

The structural integrity of our bridges is de-creased by the decay of aging construction andstreambed scouring. If bridges fail, they pose avariety of environmental/human health, com-mercial transport, recreation, economic, and le-gal problems.

Discussion:

Missouri’s bridges are decaying, which hap-pens with all bridges as they age. Of all thebridges the Missouri Department of Transpor-tation (MoDOT) controls, 29 percent were struc-turally deficient in 2000, which is the secondhighest percentage among the states. Althoughthis is down from 40 percent in 1992, it still is apercentage that warrants attention (FHWA,


60

2001). A bridge that is structurally deficient isone that is restricted to light vehicles, requiresimmediate repairs to stay open or is closed.These data do not include the county roads. Thedirector of MoDOT estimates that it would takeabout an extra $1 billion annually over the nexttwo decades to finance answers to Missouri’stransportation needs (including bridges)(Hungerbeeler, 2001). The longer the problemsare put off, the costlier and more hazardous theybecome. For every dollar spent to keep a goodbridge in good shape, there are ten dollars spentto rehabilitate a bad bridge (Nemmers, 2001).In addition, the delays increase the risk of bridgefailure.

Scour can also cause bridge failure. This isthe process whereby water removes the stre-ambed material supporting the footing of thebridge, which causes it to collapse. Usually, thisoccurs when there is a large flow. With largerflows, as in flooding, water travels faster andwith more turbulence, thereby increasing thestreambed–erosion capability of the river. TheUnited States Geological Survey and MoDOTare working on a multilevel assessment of bridgescour. They did an initial look at 3,300 bridges,from which they determined 225 needed fur-ther investigation (approximately 30 percent ofthese are in northwestern Missouri). It shouldbe noted that their investigations have limita-tions (such as they are specific to a point in time),but rivers change, sometimes dramatically andquickly. Also, they cannot investigate many ofthe smaller roads because of unknown construc-tion variables. This means there are numerousbridges for which no scour potential has beendetermined, leaving the public at risk.

Bridge failure can cause a number of prob-lems. Bridges carry water and wastewater lines(as well as power and telecommunications lines).If a bridge were to collapse, these lines wouldrupture, causing inconvenience for people andpossibly contaminating the river with raw sew-age. Since it takes a long time to replace a bridge,these services could also be disrupted for anextended period of time. A downed bridge in ariver can impede the flow of commercial andrecreational navigation, which causes economiclosses and inconveniences for people, impact-ing all the river ports upstream and at St. Louisor other endpoint ports. The port of Waverly

has part of its terminals under the bridge, whichcould be destroyed by a bridge collapse (Hays,2001). This would further impede commercialnavigation on the river. Without a bridge, a riverbecomes an obstacle to the flow of traffic andgoods across the river.

Sources:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.Department of Transportation, Bridge pro-gram, www.fhwa.dog.gov/bridge/bripro.htmMarch, 2001.

Hays, Charles, Chief State Water Planner, Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources, Geo-logical Survey and Resource Assessment Di-vision, Water Resources Program. Personalcommunication, March, 2001.

Hungerbeeler, Henry, February 20, 2001, quotedin State bridges in trouble, ColumbiaDaily Tribune.

USGS Missouri Water Resources webpage:www.mo.water.usgs.gov

Nemmers, Charles, March 12, 2001, quoted inStates roads rank near bottom, Colum-bia Daily Tribune.

Competing Uses of theMissouri River

Problem:

The Missouri River is a major feature ofthe economic, environmental and social land-scape of northwestern Missouri. The sheer sizeand complexity of the river makes it a very dif-ficult resource to manage and presents specialchallenges to our state.

Discussion:

The Missouri River is large, in terms of theland area it drains, the volume of water that itcarries, the uses to which its water is put, andthe day-to-day economic, recreational and so-

61

Water Use Problems

cial effects it has on the lives of literally millionsof Missourians. However, its flow and capabili-ties for use are finite, and these limitations attimes may lead to conflicts among users.

The headwaters of the Missouri River is inthe Rocky Mountains of Wyoming and Mon-tana. Its middle reaches (from eastern Mon-tana, through the Dakotas, and northern partsof Nebraska) are contained in a series of six mainstem reservoirs (Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Gar-rison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, Oahe Dam andLake, Big Bend Dam and Lake Sharpe, FortRandall Dam and Lake Francis Case, and GavinsPoint Dam and Lewis & Clark Lake). The reachof the river below Gavins Point Dam (the low-est dam on the main stem of the river) is con-strained by levees and has a navigation chan-nel, which the Corps of Engineers maintains(figure 17).

Figure 17. Missouri River Basin. Names in heavy black type are the main-stem dams that the Corps of engineers use to controlthe flow of the Missouri River.

CANADAUNITED STATES

HelenaBismark

WatertownPierre

Lincoln

NebraskaCity

Omaha

Ka nsasCityTope ka

St. Louis

JeffersonCity

SiouxCity

Billings

Che yenne

Denver

N E B R A S K A

M I S S O U R I

K A N S A S

M I N N.

I O W A

S O U T H

D A K O T A

W Y O M I N G

C O L O R A D O

M O N T A N A

N O R T H

D A K O T A

FORT PECK

GARRISON

OAHE

BIG BEND

FORT RANDALL

GAVINS POINT

M

ississippi

River

River

ssourilatte Ri

Yellow s

tone R

iver

River

Missouri

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

LOCATION MAP

The management of the Missouri River goesfar beyond the borders of the state. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers has been given theresponsibility to manage the Missouri River res-ervoir releases. To accomplish this task theCorps of Engineers has developed a MissouriRiver Master Water Control Manual (MasterManual) directing how they are to operate themain stem dams of the river. To help with thistask the Corps has asked for input from inter-ested parties. This input has come from nu-merous state and federal agencies, special in-terest groups, individual citizens, Indian tribesand the Canadian government.

The management of the river must addressits many uses. The principal economic-socialuses of the Missouri River are drinking watersupply, industrial-commercial water supply, ag-ricultural (irrigation) water supply, hydroelectric


62

power production, cooling for thermoelectricpower generation, navigation; and environmen-tal-social-economic uses include recreation, andfish and wildlife. Other considerations includewater quality, river alluvium and adjacent areagroundwater recharge, sediment and flood con-trol, and environmental benefits (USACE, 1994).

Due to the complexity of each of these usesand how they affect each other further detail con-cerning them is beyond the scope of this publica-tion. Detailed information can be obtained from avariety of websites and other sources.

Sources:

Drew, John, Missouri Department of NaturalResources, Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division, Jefferson City, Missouri.Personal communication, February, 2002.

River Control Center, Missouri River Division,U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE), Sep-tember, 1994, Draft 1994-1995 MissouriRiver Main Stem Reservoirs AnnualOperating Plan and Summary of Ac-tual 1993-1994 Operations, 113 pp. plusplates and appendices.

Vineyard, Jerry D., 1997, Missouri State WaterPlan Series Vol. VI, Water Resource Shar-ing, The Realities of Interstate Rivers,Water Resources Report No. 50, 76 pp. Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources, Divi-sion of Geology and Land Survey.

Streams Flowing into Missourifrom Other States

Problem:

Watercourses flow into Missouri from Iowa,a riparian water law state, and from Kansas, aprior appropriation water law state. Missouridoes not have agreements with these other statesto assure streamflow. This, along with a lack ofsurface water impoundments and poor overallgroundwater quality/quantity, presents a chal-lenge to those living in this area.

Discussion:

The four counties on the Iowa state line innorthwestern Missouri receive water from Iowaby way of several rivers and creeks, some ofwhich have dams built on them or on their tribu-taries in Iowa (figure 18). Streamflow typicallyis from north to south in this area.

The northwestern corner of Missouri, wherethe rivers mentioned above enter the state, gen-erally receives the least amount of rainfall inthe state, averaging 35 inches or less, per year,over the long term (Vandike, 1995). Accord-ingly, this is an area where drought can take aserious toll.

In addition, because shallow wells can useonly the limited supplies found in glacial till aqui-fers, and deep wells have water that is not po-table, cities and other major water users typi-cally must develop surface water reservoirs forlarge supplies.

The Corps had proposed to build a seriesof dams in northwestern Missouri, which havenot been built to date. These would have in-sured adequate water supply in the case ofdrought. Smithville Dam was the only one ofthe group of proposed dams ever constructed.The fact is that northwestern Missouri remainsvery vulnerable to drought, and Missouri has noguarantee that the rivers will keep flowing outof Iowa.

Other, smaller reservoirs have been builtover the years. Mozingo Lake is one example.It is the largest impoundment built in Missouriby the Natural Resources Conservation Service,USDA, and the local Soil and Water Conserva-tion District.

As it is, many residents and businesses ofthis part of Missouri are dependent on shallowglacial till aquifers or meager surface water sup-plies for all purposes. This fact limits economicdevelopment opportunities, such as value addedprocessing of rural products, like meat process-ing and meatpacking, and grain crop process-ing, such as ethanol production. “Lack ofgroundwater and insufficient surface water inwest and north Missouri has been a major fac-tor in out-migration of population due to a lackof industry development opportunities” (McIn-tosh, 2001.)

63

Water Use Problems

Without some sort of agreement betweenthe State of Missouri and the State of Iowa rela-tive to the continuing flow of water into Mis-souri during any future drought, the meagersources of water that exist today in the regioncould disappear at some future time. Several ofthose streams that cross into Missouri from Iowahave river gauges on them, and many of thosegauges recorded no flow (0 cfs) during the “DustBowl” years.

Such an occurrence would have human andenvironmental impacts. There is no large res-ervoir of potable water north of Smithville Res-ervoir. There is little regionalization of watersupply systems in this region, and if a watersupply were to dry up, there would be no alter-nate source of water for human consumption.Wildlife also is dependent on water to live. In asevere drought, wild creatures suffer and die.There is no reserved minimum flow for aquaticlife.

Streams from Kansas

In the southern part of the region, the flowof streams is from west to east. The KansasRiver is the largest river flowing east out ofKansas, entering the Missouri River at KansasCity. Numerous tributaries of the Kansas Riverare dammed for flood control and other pur-poses. Examples are Milford Lake, near Junc-tion City; Tuttle Creek Lake, near Manhattan;Perry Lake, east of Topeka; and Clinton Lake,near Lawrence.

Kansas is a prior appropriation water lawstate. This means that the state considers thatit owns the water on behalf of the people ofKansas, and may use all of the water that iswithin the boundaries of the state. The KansasWater Office allocates water to those residentswho claim it.

Another major stream that flows out ofKansas into Missouri is the Marais des Cygnes

Figure 18. Streams flowing from Iowa to Missouri.


64

River, which is dammed above Melvern, Kan-sas, to form Melvern Lake. It flows out of LinnCounty, Kansas, into Bates County, Mo. This isthe principal tributary of the Osage River inMissouri (Vandike, 1995).

A major tributary of the Marais des CygnesRiver is dammed above Pomona, Kansas, to formPomona Lake. So, two major reservoirs, andtwo smaller reservoirs, retain water of this riverin Kansas. Kansas claims to own all the waterwest of the state boundary. In time of drought,the state is not duty bound by its water law torelease water into Missouri.

Bates County, Missouri, is at least partlydependent on water from the Marais des CygnesRiver, which flows out of Kansas. Butler, theseat of Bates County, uses water intakes in theMarais des Cygnes River and its tributary, Mi-ami Creek, as well as a 67-acre reservoir in theMiami Creek watershed (Vandike, 1995). If theMarais des Cygnes River went dry, the City ofButler would not have adequate water supply.

The Marais des Cygnes Waterfowl Refugeis situated in Linn County, Kansas (just west ofthe state line), so it is likely that Kansas will tryto keep some water flowing into that area, evenin the event of a major drought. Without somesort of agreement between the State of Mis-souri and the State of Kansas relative to thecontinuing flow of water into Missouri duringany future drought, the possibility exists of thatriver running dry before it crosses the state line.The human and environmental consequencesof that happening would be disastrous.

Sources:

Gaffney, R.M., and Hays, C.R., 2000, Water Re-sources Report Number 51, A Summary ofMissouri Water Laws, Missouri State Wa-ter Plan Series Volume VII, Missouri Depart-ment of Natural Resources, Division of Geol-ogy and Land Survey, 292 p.

McIntosh, Steve, Water Resources Program Di-rector, Geological Survey and Resource As-sessment Division, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, in a response to a survey,November 9, 2001.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 1986,Missouri Water Atlas, 100 pp.

U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City Dis-trict, map K-1-734, issued in February, 1994.

Vandike, James E., 1995, Water Resources Re-port Number 45, Surface water resourcesof Missouri, Missouri State Water Plan Se-ries Volume 1, Missouri Department of Natu-ral Resources, Division of Geology and LandSurvey, 122 p.

Biological Contamination ofWater

Problem:

Surface waters and groundwaters of Mis-souri could be contaminated by various diseasevectors and other pollutants, including antibi-otic resistant bacteria and viruses, from on-sitesewage disposal and stormwater runoff.

Discussion:

The principal reason for sewage treatmentis to remove or destroy illness-causing patho-gens from wastewater, so as to prevent diseaseamong human beings. Unfortunately, some sew-age treatment methods do not completely ac-complish this purpose under all circumstances.Also, stormwater runoff is not treated to removepathogens.

In northwestern Missouri, much of the ter-ritory is rural, and many of the residents rely onseptic tanks and leach fields for on-site sewagetreatment. There also are livestock operationsthat rely on sewage lagoon systems for on-sitewaste treatment. The issue is that many of theseon-site systems have inherent problems and highfailure rates. Stormwater running off from pas-tures and feedlots has no treatment at all.

In a report entitled, “Virus Transport fromSeptic Tanks to Coastal Waters, in Small FlowsQuarterly, Summer, 2000, we are told that fail-ing or malfunctioning septic systems are the

65

Water Use Problems

most frequently reported source of groundwa-ter contamination in the U.S.

There are numerous issues related to sep-tic tanks and leach fields that can cause failureor malfunction in septic systems. The primaryissue is siting. The location of any on-site sew-age treatment system is important, but septictanks and leach fields require certain kinds ofsoils for them to function properly.

In northwestern Missouri, many of the soilshave severe limitations for proper functioningof septic systems. Leach fields, also called ab-sorption fields, are areas in which effluent froma septic tank is distributed into the soil throughsubsurface tiles or perforated pipe.

County soil survey reports show, in moredetail, soils and limitations for specific parcelsof land. Soil survey reports are available fromcounty USDA Service Centers, or by calling theNatural Resources Conservation Service stateoffice in Columbia, Missouri. For actual sitingof septic systems, it is necessary to examine soilcharacteristics in the field.

In addition, a soil percolation test deter-mines the rate at which water will soak into ahole in the ground. Local and State HealthDepartments require soil percolation tests priorto permitting any prospective on-site sewagedisposal system on house lots under three acresin size. This is mandated by state law, (Sections701.025 – 701.039, RSMo) in order to protectthe public health. For more information seeGaffney and Hays, 2000, p. 99.

The highest percentage of soils suitable foron-site sewage disposal are located in the loesshills area where steep slopes complicate the sit-ing process. All-in-all, about 86 percent of thesoils in the northwestern region of Missouri havesevere limitations for septic tank absorptionfields. The main limitations for septic tank leachfields in the northwestern Missouri region arehigh water tables, low permeability, flooding, andslope (Young, 2001).

Microbes can pass through septic systemsthat are not properly functioning. For example,according to the Small Flows Quarterly ar-ticle, micro-organisms that are a high risk to

water quality and public health include enterovi-ruses, coxsackieviruses, hepatitis A viruses, theNorwalk virus associated with diarrhea, asepticmeningitis, and myocarditis viruses. Their smallsize (nanometer range) and structure (a proteincoat surrounding a core of nucleic acid) enhancestheir transport and survival (Rose, et al., 2000).

Stormwater, particularly the “first flush” ofrunoff from either farm fields or paved urbanareas, contains fecal coliform bacteria, and fecalstreptococcus bacteria. Quantities vary with thesources. The bacteria come primarily from do-mestic animal wastes. In a study done in Inde-pendence, Missouri, during 1991-1993, the U.S.Geological Survey found tens of thousands ofcolonies of these bacteria in samples ofstormwater from residential, commercial, and in-dustrial watersheds (Schalk, 1994).

Whether from stormwater or from fertil-ized, irrigated fields, contaminated water flow-ing overland can enter wells that are not prop-erly cased and grouted, thereby polluting ground-water. A number of pathogens, especially vi-ruses, can live months in groundwater.

Because livestock are routinely given non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to promotegrowth and good health, many people havecharged that pathogenic microbes are becom-ing antibiotic resistant. Such resistant disease-causing “germs” are frustrating physicians andhospital administrators as they attempt to com-bat human diseases (Wadman, 2001).

In some streams in northwestern Missouri,effluent (treated discharges) from wastewatertreatment plants constitute most or all of theflow in the streams during dry months, espe-cially during periods of drought. The effect ofthis condition on bottom dwelling organisms canbe detrimental.

One innovation over the past decade hasbeen the use of constructed wetlands for “finalfinishing” of treated wastewater. This refers tothe use of wetland plants to take up nutrientsand contaminants, and to trap microbes, wherethey can do no more harm. More study of thevarious alternative treatment methods is on-going.


66

Sources:

Blevins, Dale W., 1984, Quality ofstormwater runoff in the blue river ba-sin, Missouri and Kansas, July-October,1981, and April-July, 1982, U.S. Geologi-cal Survey, Water-Resources InvestigationsReport 84-4226 (Prepared in cooperationwith the Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Division of Environmental Quality).

Brookshire, Cynthia N., 1997, Missouri StateWater Plan Series Volume III, Missouri wa-ter quality assessment, Water ResourcesReport Number 47, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey, 172 p.

Campagnolo, Enzo R., et al., 1999, Report tothe state of Iowa department of publichealth on the investigation of thechemical and microbial constituents ofground and surface water proximal tolarge-scale swine operations, October-December, 1998, National Center for En-vironmental Health, Centers for Disease Con-trol and Prevention.

Gaffney, Richard M., and Hays, Charles, 2000,Missouri State Water Plan Series VolumeVII, A summary of Missouri waterlaws, Water Resources Report Number 51,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geology and Land Survey, Rolla,Mo., 292 p.

U.S. Water News, September, 2001, Environ-mentalists urge EPA to ban lagoon sys-tems, Volume 18, Number 9, 10 p.

Bench Mark, 2001, Makin’ bacon—withoutthe mess, Burns & McDonnell - Kansas City,Number 2, 7 p.

Rose, Joan B., Griffin, Dale W., and Nicosia, LaraW., Summer, 2000, Virus transport fromseptic tanks to coastal waters, in SmallFlows Quarterly, West Virginia University,Volume 1, Number 3, pp. 20-23.

Schalk, G., 1994, Quantity and quality ofbase flows and stormwater runoff inIndependence, Missouri, U.S. GeologicalSurvey.

Wadman, Meredith, January 18, 2001, Groupurges survey of antibiotics in animals,in Nature, London, U.K., Volume 409, Num-ber 6818, page 273.

Young, Dr. Fred J., November, 2001, Soils ofthe DNR Kansas City region: suitabil-ity for septic tank absorption fields, bythe Natural Resources Conservation Service,USDA, Columbia, Missouri.

Does Water Play a Role inVectoring of TSE?

Problem:

A series of transmissible spongiform en-cephalopathies (TSE) are appearing in variousmammal species. Some are clearly transferableto humans, others may not be. These diseasescan affect both livestock and wildlife. Does wa-ter play a role in its spread?

Discussion:

Unlike most other communicable diseases,the suspected infectious agent in TSEs, prionprotein or prion (rhymes with “Leon”) is not alive(as opposed to a virus or bacteria, which arealive). Prions normally exist within all brains.Various forms of mutant prions can exist in liveanimals’ brains by developing spontaneously orby being introduced by eating something thatcontains the prions. The disease grows withinthe body by mutant prions converting the struc-ture of the regular prions into that of the mu-tant form. TSE causes the brain to develop holeshence, “sponge-form”, which always causesdeath.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the cattle TSE (madcow disease, also known as bovine spongiform

67

Water Use Problems

encephalopathy, or BSE) was widespread in theUnited Kingdom. It is believed that BSE wasconcentrated in the U.K. cattle population bytheir being fed protein supplements made withrendered body parts of ruminants (primarilycattle and sheep) that are suspected to have hadthe disease. When humans consume this in-fected beef, they can develop a human form ofTSE, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD).The diseases’ incubation time in cattle is 30months; in humans, it could be 15-20 years ormore. Another form of TSE, chronic wastingdisease (CWD), occurs in deer and elk. Colo-rado recently completed a field test in whichthey validated the first test available for detect-ing CWD in live animals. Previous research hasshown that aberrant prion protein accumulatesin deer tonsils beginning in early stages of thedisease, making tonsillar biopsy a potential de-tection tool (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2002).This test is reportedly not effective on elk.Northwestern Missouri has plenty of deer, cattle,and other species which are susceptible to vari-ous forms of the diseases, including the humanswho eat these animals.

It has been shown that CWD is highly con-tagious among elk. An uninfected herd of elkwas moved to an area where there had previ-ously (two years earlier) been infected elk, andthe new herd developed CWD (Kleiboeker, 2001).They believe the transfer was from grazing inthe same place, although the exact mechanismsfor transfer are not understood. The MissouriDepartments of Conservation and Agricultureare continuing to step up efforts to protect thestate from the threat of CWD. The agenciesrecently signed a formal agreement to focus onidentifying and implementing steps to reducethe risk of CWD entering Missouri (Ramsey,2002).

There are currently many uncertaintiesabout the disease. Exactly how it destroys the

brain is not known. The Missouri Departmentof Conservation states “evidence suggests in-fected deer or elk may transmit the diseasethrough animal to animal contact or by con-taminating feed or water sources with saliva,urine or feces (Ramsey, 2002).” It appears thatthe mutant prion is not soluble in water, butlittle is known about how it might be transportedin the environment. Could it be moved attachedto sediment or other substances in a stream?Could it move up the aquatic food chain? Un-like many other proteins, the mutant prions arevery difficult to destroy, persisting unchangedfor over two years in soil (Brown, 2001). Thispersistence increases the opportunities that itcould move within the environment. Also, wa-ter acts as a gathering point for both livestockand wildlife to drink, thereby creating an op-portunity for concentrating the prions that mightcome from saliva, urine, or feces.

Sources:

Brown, Paul, CJD Researcher, National Insti-tutes of Health. Personal communication, Feb-ruary, 2001.

Colorado Division of Wildlife, June 10, 2002,wildlife.state.co.us/cwd/chronicupdate.asp

Hansen, Lonnie, Deer Biologist, Missouri De-partment of Conservation. Personal commu-nication, February, 2001.

Kleiboeker, Steven, Professor of VeterinaryPathobiology, University of Missouri-Colum-bia. Personal communication, February, 2001.

Ramsey, Stephanie, February 7, 2002, StateAgencies Prepared to Protect Missouri’s Deerand Elk, MDC.online.


68

69

Regional Water Use Opportunities and Observations


This report documents water use problemsthat have been identified in northwestern Mis-souri. In the process of creating this report, sev-eral “success stories” and opportunities in wa-ter use have been recognized as well. Althoughthe goal of this series is to identify problemsrather than offer solutions, some of these find-ings are described below. By taking note of suc-cesses (and opportunities for success), we rec-ognize approaches that work, and can use themas stepping stones to problem resolution. Wa-ter use opportunities are presented in this sec-tion to stimulate further thought and discussion,without endorsement of feasibility or merit.

Lewis and Clark Celebration

The bicentennial celebration of the Lewisand Clark Journey of Discovery is coming inthe years 2004-2006. Many tourists will becoming to the area, with the Missouri River asthe focus of activities. This is an opportunity forriver communities to open their doors to tour-ists, bringing in dollars to the local economies,as well as create possibilities for expanded rec-reation on the river in the future. However, theymust be prepared with the infrastructure to ef-fectively welcome them. This is also an excel-lent opportunity to educate the public about thesocial, economic and environmental aspects ofthe “Big Muddy.”

6.

Alternative Water SourceFunding

The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is starting pilot project funding for alter-native water sources beginning in 2002. Thesemonies are for projects “…designed to providemunicipal, industrial, and agricultural water sup-plies in an environmentally sustainable mannerby conserving, managing, reclaiming, or reusingwater or wastewater…” (Steiert, 2001). This ispertinent in the northwestern part of Missouri,an area particularly susceptible to drought.Many of the rural areas do not have a large fi-nancial base from which to draw. These fundscould help strengthen water systems, which inturn could stimulate economic growth by as-suring commercial and industrial enterprises anadequate source of water.

Source:

Steiert, Robert, USEPA, Region VII. PersonalCommunication, July, 2001.

Drinking Water SourceProtection

Rural areas of northwestern Missouri usu-ally depend on surface sources for their drink-


70

ing water, often from reservoirs. This source ofwater may be contaminated due to various landuse practices. There is a new program, MOCREP(Missouri Conservation Reserve EnhancementProgram), designed to help reduce the numberof contaminants entering public water supplyreservoirs. Under contractual agreements, theprogram pays farmers to put land into the pro-gram for 15 years. These lands, which convertcropland and/or pastureland to native grasses,trees, wildlife plantings, cool season grasses, etc.,act to filter chemicals entering the water, therebyhelping to decrease contamination of water sup-ply reservoirs. This funding could help localcommunities augment the quality of their sourceof drinking water.

MoCREP is Missouri’s program that is tai-lored after the national CREP (Conservation Re-serve Enhancement Program) program and usesstate and federal resources to help solve con-servation problems. The program combines anexisting USDA program, the Conservation Re-serve Program (CRP), with state programs tomeet specific state and national environmentalobjectives.

Sources:

Baclesse, Gary, Missouri Department of NaturalResources, Water Protection and Soil Con-servation Division, Soil and Water Conserva-tion Program, Personal communication, Oc-tober, 2001.

Farm Service Agency – U.S. Department ofAgriculture website. www.fsa.usda. gov/pas/spotlight/ohwvcrep/default.asp

Security Assistance

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist at-tacks, security of water supplies and other wa-ter-related infrastructure (dams, source water,treatment plants, commercial navigation) hasbeen a concern. As this is a new issue in termsof it being a larger problem, there currently isno agency coordinating this protection. The newfederal Office of Homeland Security (OHS) has

a mission to help protect U.S. citizens, whichincludes protecting water-related infrastructure,supply and quality. The OHS has the potentialto help coordinate this process, with the help oflocal, state and federal agencies.

Planned Development CanPrevent a Variety of WaterProblems

Although there are several regulations de-signed to prevent water problems (e.g.stormwater abatement during construction,storm sewer design standards, etc.), a coordinatedapproach incorporating water into the planningprocess is not widespread or used within theregion. This is despite ample literature on thesubject (such as Planning and Land and Watermagazines) and the availability of technical as-sistance within the industry. A study in Minne-sota indicated “…unplanned and poorly manageddevelopment results in significant environmen-tal and fiscal costs…” (EQB, 1998). This conclu-sion is probably applicable in Missouri as well.Code enforcement is not the issue. The issue isthoughtful, educated planning of new develop-ments. One way this could be enhanced is bytrue-costing water and water problems: If a de-veloper or community were held monetarily li-able for the impacts related to their develop-ment (instead of, for example, passing it to some-one downstream), they would do a lot more fromthe beginning of the project to prevent theseproblems (prevention is usually cheaper thanmitigation).

For example, a housing development of over100 homes in Davis, California, was one of thefew places in town not to have flooding in thewinter of 1995, due to the developers’ foresightto incorporate swales into the layout of the sub-division (Frueh, 2001). These swales also en-able better groundwater recharge, and their lawnirrigation is decreased as compared to other sitesin town. Although this cost the developer a bitmore up front to design and build the subdivi-sion this way, the houses sold for more moneyand continue to sell for approximately 10% morethan comparable houses elsewhere in the city.

71


Sources:

Environmental Quality Board (EQB), 1998,Soundings: a Minnesota water plan as-sessment, St. Paul, Minnesota, 29 p.

Frueh, Terry, Hydrologist, Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources, Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division, Water Re-sources Program. Personal communication,2001.

Possible Increased Base Flowin the Thompson River

Based on USGS Water Supply data andwork done with a USGS computer program“HYSEP,” which performs hydrograph separa-tion, estimating the groundwater or base flowcomponent of stream flow, it appears that dur-ing the past sixty years, base flows of the Th-ompson River (Harrison, Grundy, and Livingston

Figure 19. This graph is based on Thompson River USGS gage data at Trenton, Missouri, gage number 06899500, at thislocation from August, 1928, through the present. The channel of the river was straightened by dredging early in the 20th Century,prior to the period of record. Senior Hydrologist Jerry Edwards (USDA, Retired), used a USGS computer program to separatebase flow from total flow to determine the base flow as a percentage of the total flow in the Thompson River. The “sawtooth” lineon the graph shows those data for the time period covered by the gage. Only the 1993 data were omitted from the analysis, dueto the exceptional flooding conditions of that year. This graph was produced in September, 2002.


72

INCHES33.6 - 36.036.1 - 39.039.1 - 42.042.1 - 45.045.1 - 48.048.1 - 51.0

0 25 50 100 150 200 MILES

Figure 20. Missouri annual precipitation, 2002. This is based on late 20th Century data from more than 100 stations coveringthe period from 1971-2000 (30 years). Source: Office of State Climatologist, University of Missouri - Columbia.

counties) have been on a long-term rising trend(figure 20). Precipitation also has been risingin this part of Northwestern Missouri duringthis same time period (figure 21). Compare tofigure 22 which shows rainfall averages up to1967.

No attempt has been made to estimatethe cause and effect of changes in base flow.Base flow estimates will be different for eachstream because of changes in rainfall, upstreamreservoirs, soil types and infiltration, vegeta-tion, topography, and land treatment practicesincluding tillage.

73


Figure 21. Missouri annual precipitation, based on data pre 1967. This is for comparison to present data shown in Figure 20.

32

32

36

36

40

40

44

44

48

48

36

36

Sources:

Edwards, Jerry, September 4, 2002, MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources (consultinghydrologist), personal communication.

Hu, Steve, 2002 draft report, Missouri Depart-ment of Natural Resources (consulting clima-tologist).

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Di-vision of Geology and Land Survey, 1986, Mis-souri water atlas, 100 pp.

USGS, Missouri Water Year 2002, annualreport of stream gage data.


74

75

Topics in Water Use: Northwest Missouri wasreviewed at several stages of preparation. Ulti-mately, the draft report was placed on the De-partment of Natural Resources’ Geological Sur-vey and Resource Assessment Division’s Internetweb page for access and comment by the pub-

7.

Comments Received

lic. This request for comments was publicizedstatewide by the issuing of a newsrelease ad-vertising this action. The department soughtpublic comment for 30 days on this report. Al-though the report was accessed by many people,no public comments were received.

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESGeological Survey and Resource Assessment Division

Mimi R. Garstang, Director and State GeologistP.O. Box 250, Rolla, MO 65402

(573) 368-2125

recycled paper

topics in water use: northwest missouri - dnr · 2014-11-18 · topics in water use: northwest...

Documents