2002 missouri water resources law annual reportdnr.mo.gov/pubs/wr71.pdf · 2014-11-18 · 2...
TRANSCRIPT
1
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESGEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DIVISION
Water Resources Report No. 71Water Resources Report No. 71
2002
MissouriWater Resources Law
Annual Report
2002
MissouriWater Resources Law
Annual Report
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESGEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DIVISION
2
MissouriWater Resources Law
Water Resources Report Number 71
2002
Annual Report
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESGEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DIVISION
P.O. BOX 250, ROLLA, MO 65402-0250(573) 368-2100 OR FAX (573) 368-2111
INTEGRITY AND EXCELLENCE IN ALL WE DO
3
Cover Photo: Limestone Creek, Cherryville, Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources’ Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division file photo.
Missouri Classification No. MO/NR. Ge 9:52/002
Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Di-vision, 2002 Missouri Water Resources Law - Annual Report, Water Resources ReportNo. 71, 75 p.
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 a complaint with either the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or the Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DC, 20240
4
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RTMISSOURI WATER RESOURCE LAW
Sections 640.400 to 640.435 shall be known and may be cited as the “Missouri WaterResources Law,” in recognition of the significance of the conservation, development andappropriate use of water resources of Missouri. The law, in its entirety, is located in Appen-dix 1.
5
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RTCONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 7WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY ......................................................................................... 8
Public Drinking Water Systems ........................................................................................... 8Delineating Source Water Areas of Water Wells ............................................................... 11Wastewater Treatment Systems ......................................................................................... 13Water Quality Coordinating Committee ........................................................................... 13Nonpoint Source Pollution ............................................................................................... 13Impaired Waters ................................................................................................................ 14Water Pollution Control Tools .......................................................................................... 15Soil and Water Conservation ............................................................................................. 16Hazardous Wastes ............................................................................................................. 18Storage Tanks .................................................................................................................... 21Solid Wastes ....................................................................................................................... 22Wells for Water, Heat Pumps, Monitoring and Mineral Testing ...................................... 23Abandoned Well Plugging ................................................................................................ 25Wells for Oil, Gas and Underground Injection ................................................................ 27Reclamation of Mined Lands ............................................................................................ 28Environmental Emergency Response ............................................................................... 29
INTERSTATE USE OF WATER ................................................................................................. 32Upper Mississippi River Basin Association ...................................................................... 33Missouri River Basin Association ...................................................................................... 33Arkansas-White-Red Basins Inter-Agency Committee ..................................................... 34Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee ........................................................... 34Interstate Council on Water Policy ................................................................................... 35Mississippi River Parkway Commission ........................................................................... 35Mississippi River Basin Alliance........................................................................................ 35
MONITORING WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................... 36Vulnerability ...................................................................................................................... 37Groundwater Monitoring .................................................................................................. 40Surface Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................... 41Monitoring Program Evaluation........................................................................................ 42
6
INVENTORY OF WATER USE AND AVAILABILITY ............................................................... 43Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 43Groundwater Availability .................................................................................................. 44Groundwater-Level Observation Well Network............................................................... 49Surface Water Availability.................................................................................................. 53Dam Safety ......................................................................................................................... 54Applied Study Projects Underway .................................................................................... 58
STATE WATER PLAN ............................................................................................................... 67Background ....................................................................................................................... 67Phase 1 - State Water Plan Volumes ................................................................................. 68
Volume VII - A Summary of Missouri Water Laws ....................................................... 68Phase 2 - Regional Reports ............................................................................................... 69
Topics in Water Use - Northeastern Missouri, WR No. 59 ........................................... 69Topics in Water Use - Central Missouri, WR No. 60 ..................................................... 70Topics in Water Use - Northwestern Missouri, ............................................................. 71Topics in Water Use - Southwestern Missouri .............................................................. 71Other Regional Reports ................................................................................................. 71
SPECIAL WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS ................................................................ 72INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ................................................................................................. 74
Northwestern Missouri ...................................................................................................... 74RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 75
7
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RTINTRODUCTION
The 2002 Missouri Water ResourcesLaw Annual Report provides an overviewof the activities in the Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources to meet the objectivesof the Missouri Water Resources Law insection 640.426 RSMo. Investigations con-ducted by personnel in specific programsin the department are among the highlightsof this year’s work.
An innovative wetland project usingremote sensing technology to identify wet-lands and a hydrologic calibration study thatcharacterizes watersheds for total maximumdaily loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters, isalso discussed in this seventh Annual Report.
Efforts of several programs of the de-partment are showcased in the 2002 Annual
Report, including how the Land ReclamationProgram’s work remediates acid mine drain-age into streams through the reclamation ofabandoned mined lands, and how the Haz-ardous Waste Program’s surface and ground-water monitoring activities help prevent wa-ter contamination.
In an effort to make this report moreaccessible to the public, this edition of theAnnual Report is being published electroni-cally on the web pages of the Department.Those with Internet access can print a re-port for desk use, or one may read the re-port directly from the computer monitor.Refer to www.dnr.state.mo.us./geology/wrp/
8
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY20
02
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RT
RSMo 640.400.2 - The department shallensure that the quality and quantity of thewater resources of the state are maintainedat the highest level practicable to supportpresent and future beneficial uses. The de-partment shall inventory, monitor and pro-tect the available water resources in orderto maintain water quality, protect the pub-lic health, safety and general economic wel-fare.
PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
The Department of Natural Resources(the department) regulates more than 2,700public water systems in Missouri to ensurethe safe quality and adequate quantity ofdrinking water provided throughout thestate. More than 90% of Missouri’s popula-tion is served by public water systems.
A public water system provides waterthrough pipes or other constructed convey-ances, for human consumption, to at least15 service connections or serves an averageof at least 25 people for at least 60 days eachyear. There are three types of public watersystems: Community (such as towns, subdi-visions, or mobile home parks), nontransientnoncommunity (such as schools or factories),and transient noncommunity systems (suchas rest stops or parks). The requirementsfor construction, operation, and water qual-ity monitoring vary among systems, based
on their type, size, and source of water.Regulation is carried out under the author-ity of sections 640.100 through 640.140,RSMo.
Systems must be routinely inspectedand samples from each system must be fre-quently analyzed. The department, in co-operation with the Department of Health,routinely monitors drinking water quality.The results provide early detection of po-tential health problems. The “MonitoringWater Quality” section of this report containsadditional information about thedepartment’s drinking water monitoring ef-forts.
In addition to monitoring, the depart-ment is involved in other initiatives to pro-tect water quality. The State of Missouri andthe U.S. Department of Agriculture signedan agreement on September 15, 2000 thatforms a federal/state partnership to reducecontamination of public drinking water res-ervoirs. The Conservation Reserve Enhance-ment Program (CREP) compensates farmersfor voluntarily removing cropland from pro-duction. This reduces pesticides, excessnutrients and sediment flowing into drink-ing water reservoirs. The department’s Pub-lic Drinking Water Program (PDWP) and Soiland Water Conservation Program are jointlyimplementing the program with the U.S.Department of Agriculture. Eighty percentof the funding to compensate the farmerscomes from federal funds and twenty per-
9
cent comes from state and local funds. Astate incentive payment to farmers is pro-vided from the Rural Water and Sewer Grantfund. Once in place, these agreements willprotect drinking water sources and providewildlife habitat for fifteen years. Eleven com-munities are currently participating in theCREP, with approximately 15,000 acres ofland in critical drinking water system water-sheds enrolled in the program.
The department also offers low-inter-est loans to eligible public water systems.Most of the funding for the loan programcomes from the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA), with a 20 percent matchfrom state funds required. The loan programprovides a mechanism for the departmentto assist public systems in meeting waterquality needs.
The department continues to be activelyinvolved in assisting public water systemsto provide an annual report to their custom-ers on the quality of their drinking water. In2001, community public water systems inMissouri produced their third annual Con-sumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). State andfederal drinking water regulations requirepublic water systems to provide an annualreport to their customers on the quality oftheir drinking water. The PDWP annuallyprovides over 1400 community water sys-tems with nearly complete “skeleton” Con-sumer Confidence Reports (CCR) so they canmeet this requirement with a minimum ofeffort. These reports included data from thedepartment’s environmental laboratory andthe Department of Health laboratory con-cerning drinking water sample results, vio-lation information from PDWP files and stan-dard language required in each CCR. Manysmall systems are able to use these reports
as their official CCR without any modifica-tions. For those who wanted to customizethe report, the PDWP made the report avail-able as an electronic file for use in any wordprocessor. CCRs were completed by watersystems covering nearly 99 percent of thepopulation served by community water sys-tems in Missouri.
There is generally plenty of good qual-ity water in Missouri. By far the largest sourceof water for Missourians is the Missouri andMississippi River systems. The abundantsupply of water in these rivers, and theirproximity to the state’s major populationcenters, makes them popular as a watersource.
Groundwater is the next most usedsource for drinking water for Missouri’s com-munity supplies. This is especially true insouthern Missouri where good qualitygroundwater is easy to obtain and requiresvery little treatment to be used as a drinkingwater source.
Raw water sources vary in quality andquantity from one area of the state to an-other. To produce finished water of satis-factory quality and quantity on a consistentbasis, treatment plants must be designedspecifically for the raw water sources. De-partment staff review engineering plans andreports for the construction or renovation ofpublic drinking water systems to ensure thatessential sanitary standards are met. Con-struction permits are issued as appropriate.Department staff members assure that allpublic water systems are properly operatedand maintained and that they operate undera state permit to dispense water. The publicwater systems must be operated in compli-ance with the law and regulations.
10
SC
AL
E0
2
0
40
60
8
0 M
ILE
S
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0 K
ILO
ME
TE
RS
MIS
SO
UR
I G
RO
UN
DW
AT
ER
MIS
SO
UR
I DE
PA
RT
ME
NT
OF
N
AT
UR
AL
RE
SO
UR
CE
SG
EO
LOG
ICA
L S
UR
VE
Y A
ND
R
ES
OU
RC
E A
SS
ES
SM
EN
T D
IVIS
ION
P.O
. Box
250
, Rol
la, M
O 6
5402
2002
DN
R/G
SR
AD
Fac
t She
et N
o. 4
PR
OD
UC
TIO
N R
EG
ION
SA
ND
AQ
UIF
ER
S
MIS
SO
UR
I AN
D M
ISS
ISS
IPP
I RIV
ER
AL
LUV
IUM
Yie
ld is
nor
mal
ly 1
,000
+ g
allo
ns p
er m
inut
e (g
pm),
wat
er is
sui
tabl
e fo
r irr
igat
ion.
Sof
teni
ng a
nd ir
on
rem
oval
rec
omm
ende
d fo
r dr
inki
ng w
ater
.
GL
AC
IAL
DR
IFT
AN
D A
LLU
VIU
MY
ield
is n
orm
ally
1-1
5 gp
m.
Drif
t-fil
led
preg
laci
alch
anne
ls lo
cally
yie
ld 2
00 to
500
gpm
. A
lluvi
um in
low
er r
each
es o
f maj
or r
iver
s ca
n lo
cally
yie
ld40
0+ g
pm.
Iron
rem
oval
and
dis
infe
ctio
n is
reco
mm
ende
d. B
edro
ck a
quife
rs g
ener
ally
yie
ldm
iner
aliz
ed w
ater
.
CR
ETA
CE
OU
S A
ND
TE
RT
IAR
Y S
AN
DS
,A
ND
AL
LUV
IUM
Allu
vium
typi
cally
yie
lds
1,00
0+ g
pm; T
ertia
ry s
ands
,50
0 to
1,0
00 g
pm.
Bot
h co
ntai
n hi
gh ir
on.
Wel
ls in
Cre
tace
ous
sand
s ty
pica
lly p
rodu
ce 1
50 to
1,0
00gp
m, h
ave
low
er ir
on, a
re s
ofte
r, ha
ve h
ighe
r te
mpe
ra-
ture
wat
ers,
and
may
be
arte
sian
.
PE
NN
SY
LVA
NIA
N A
ND
MIS
SIS
SIP
PIA
NL
IME
ST
ON
ES
AN
D S
AN
DS
TO
NE
SY
ield
1 to
15
gpm
to d
epth
of a
bout
400
feet
.A
quife
rs b
elow
400
feet
yie
ld m
iner
aliz
ed w
ater
.W
ells
in s
hallo
w M
issi
ssip
pian
lim
esto
nes
yiel
d 1
to10
gpm
. D
eepe
r hi
gh-y
ield
aqu
ifers
yie
ld m
iner
aliz
ed
wat
er.
MIS
SIS
SIP
PIA
N L
IME
ST
ON
ES
(S
OU
TH
WE
ST
MIS
SO
UR
I), O
RD
OV
ICIA
N A
ND
CA
MB
RIA
ND
OLO
MIT
ES
AN
D S
AN
DS
TO
NE
SY
ield
15-
500
gpm
, dep
endi
ng o
n de
pth
and
prod
ucin
gfo
rmat
ions
. Y
ield
s lo
cally
exc
eed
1,00
0 gp
m in
som
ear
eas
incl
udin
g S
prin
gfie
ld, C
olum
bia
and
Rol
la.
Yie
lds
dim
inis
h su
bsta
ntia
lly e
ast o
f the
St.
Fran
cois
Mt.
regi
on.
Hig
hly-
prod
uctiv
e aq
uife
rs b
ecom
e m
iner
aliz
ed n
orth
of
fres
hwat
er-s
alin
ewat
er tr
ansi
tion
zone
.
CA
MB
RIA
N A
ND
PR
EC
AM
BR
IAN
RO
CK
SD
olom
ites
typi
cally
yie
ld 1
5 to
50
gpm
. La
mot
te S
and-
ston
e lo
cally
yie
lds
300+
gpm
. P
reca
mbr
ian
igne
ous
rock
s no
rmal
ly y
ield
0 to
15
gpm
.
FR
ES
HW
AT
ER
-SA
LIN
EW
AT
ER
T
RA
NS
ITIO
N Z
ON
EN
orth
of t
his
line,
hig
h-yi
eldi
ng a
quife
rs c
onta
in w
ater
to
o m
iner
aliz
ed to
be
used
with
out e
xten
sive
trea
tmen
t.
WA
YN
E
BO
LLIN
GE
R
CA
PE
GIR
AR
DE
AU
SC
OT
T
ST
OD
DA
RD
MIS
SIS
SIPP
I
NE
WM
AD
RID
DU
NK
LIN
PE
MIS
CO
T
ATC
HIS
ON
NO
DA
WA
Y
HO
LT
WO
RT
H
GE
NT
RY
AN
DR
EW
HA
RR
ISO
N
ME
RC
ER
PU
TN
AM
SCHUYLER
PL
ATT
E
GR
UN
DY
DE
KA
LB
BU
CH
AN
AN
DA
VIE
SS
CA
LDW
ELL
CLI
NT
ON
CL
AY
RA
Y
LIV
ING
ST
ON
CA
RR
OLL
SU
LLIV
AN
LIN
N
CH
AR
ITO
N
JAC
KS
ON
LA
FAY
ET
TE
SA
LIN
EH
OW
AR
D
AD
AIR
MA
CO
N
SC
OT
LA
ND
CL
AR
K
KN
OX
LEW
IS
SH
ELB
YM
AR
ION
MO
NR
OE
RA
ND
OLP
H
RA
LLS
LIN
CO
LN
PIK
E
AU
DR
AIN
BO
ON
E
MONTGOMERY
CA
LLA
WA
YS
T. C
HA
RLE
SW
AR
RE
N
OS
AG
E
GASCONADE
FR
AN
KLI
N
CO
LE
MO
NIT
EA
U
PE
TT
IS
CO
OP
ER
JOH
NS
ON
BE
NT
ON
MO
RG
AN
HE
NR
Y
MIL
LER
MA
RIE
S
ST.
LO
UIS
JEF
FE
RS
ON
CR
AW
FO
RD
WA
SH
ING
TO
N
ST.
FR
AN
CO
IS
ST
E.
GE
NE
VIE
VE
PE
RR
Y
PH
ELP
S
CA
SS
BAT
ES
VE
RN
ON
ST.
CL
AIR
HIC
KO
RY
CA
MD
EN
PU
LA
SK
I
BA
RT
ON
JAS
PE
R
NE
WT
ON
McD
ON
ALD
CE
DA
R
DA
DE
LA
WR
EN
CE
BA
RR
Y
PO
LK
GR
EE
NE
DA
LLA
S
TE
XA
S
LA
CLE
DE
WE
BS
TE
RW
RIG
HT
CH
RIS
TIA
N
ST
ON
ETA
NE
Y
DO
UG
LA
S
OZ
AR
K
HO
WE
LL
DE
NT
IRO
N
MA
DIS
ON
RE
YN
OLD
S
SH
AN
NO
N
CA
RT
ER
OR
EG
ON
RIP
LEY
BU
TLE
R
11
DELINEATING SOURCE WATERAREAS OF WATER WELLS
Groundwater is always on the move. Itsdirection of flow is from recharge areas todischarge areas. At recharge areas, ground-water is replenished by precipitation thatpercolates downward through surficial ma-terials and bedrock on its vertical descent tothe water table, which is the top of thegroundwater system. Within the system,groundwater moves both laterally and verti-cally through interconnected pores and frac-tures in rock materials. The pathways andpatterns of flow may be simple or complex.Eventually, old groundwater leaves the sys-tem at discharge areas, which include pe-rennial streams, springs, and water wells.The amount of time required for groundwa-ter to travel from recharge areas to dischargeareas can vary from days to millennia, de-pending on distance traveled, steepness ofhydraulic gradient, and the nature of geo-logic materials. To summarize, groundwa-ter systems, in addition to being dynamicsystems, are most definitely open systems.New water continually enters, existing wa-ter continually flows within, and old watercontinually exits.
Because of their openness, groundwa-ter systems are to varying degrees suscep-tible to contamination by a variety of chemi-cal and biological substances. Contaminantsthat are spilled or dumped onto the groundsurface may migrate downward on their ownaccord or otherwise be carried down by in-filtrating surface waters to the groundwatersystem. Having entered the system, contami-nants may travel along with groundwater todischarge areas. When the point of dischargehappens to be a water well, the conse-quences can be dire.
The Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division (GSRAD), Water Re-sources Program (WRP), is engaged in de-
lineating source water areas for public wa-ter supply wells. The work is being done aspart of Missouri’s Source Water AssessmentProgram (SWAP). Source water area is de-fined as the tract land around a well thatsupplies recharge to the well within a speci-fied time interval. Accordingly, source wa-ter areas are being delineated for one-, five-, ten-, and twenty-year times-of-travel (TOT).These areas serve to predict when a well ismost likely to receive water from a contami-nated recharge event that occurs at somegiven distance from the well. For example,a recharge event involving contaminants thatoccurs at the outer edge of the 10 year TOTsource water area would be expected to ar-rive at the well in 10 years. Source waterareas can also serve as templates for plan-ning land use around water wells.
Two methods are being used to de-lineate source water areas. The first is thecylindrical displacement method (CDM), inwhich (a) aquifer effective porosity, (b) satu-rated thickness of the aquifer above wellbottom, (c) pumping rate, and (d) time-of-travel are used to calculate the radius of acylindrical volume of aquifer that surroundsthe well. The radius of the cylinder is theradius of the source water area. Conse-quently, CDM source water areas are per-fect circles that are centered on the wells.CDM source water areas have been delin-eated for all the approximately 4000 activepublic water supply wells that reside in Mis-souri. A computational database automatesthe recurrent task of revising CDM sourcewater areas to accurately reflect additions,deletions, and changes of information in welldatabases. Strengths of CDM include sim-plicity and speed. Its major weakness is thatit does not take into account the hydraulicgradients that are always present in ground-water systems. In the real world, gradientsprofoundly affect the sizes, shapes, and ori-entations of source water areas.
12
13
Comparison of ten-year time-of-travelsource water areas delineated by two dif-ferent methods. The perfectly circular ar-eas are drawn via the cylindrical displace-ment method. The greatly elongated (eel-like) source water area is drawn via com-puter groundwater modeling. The modeledarea more accurately depicts the actualsource water area. The two wells producefrom shallow tributary alluvium in whichgroundwater flows primarily to the south-eastward. This map was produced by theGroundwater Section, Water Resources Pro-gram, Geological Survey and Resource As-sessment Division, Rolla.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Many agencies and organizations areclosely associated with water quality issues,however, the Department of Natural Re-sources is the agency responsible for main-taining and improving water quality inMissouri’s streams, lakes and groundwater.It is also the agency responsible for enforc-ing the Missouri Clean Water Law.
Missouri water quality standards arerules made by the Missouri Clean Water Com-mission. The standards list the classifiedwaters of the state, their beneficial uses, andthe allowable concentrations of various pol-lutants.
The department requires all pointsource discharges of contaminants (otherthan from single-family residences and cer-tain stormwater discharges) to obtain a wa-ter pollution control permit and comply withits terms.
Permits cover point-source dischargessuch as treated sewage from towns, subdi-visions or businesses, industrial wastewaterdischarges, and runoff from large concen-trated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),mines, quarries, large construction sites, and
chemical storage areas. The permits limitthe amount of pollutants that can be dis-charged so those water quality standards setfor streams, lakes, and groundwater are notviolated.
The State of Missouri issues permits thatare recognized by the federal governmentas equivalent to federal permits (commonlyreferred to as National Pollutant DischargeElimination System or NPDES permits un-der the federal Clean Water Act). This del-egation of authority means that the state hasthe primary responsibility for permitting,inspection and enforcement activities onregulated facilities.
WATER QUALITY COORDINATING COMMITTEE
There is an ad hoc assembly of roughly30 organizations meeting under the aegis ofthe Water Pollution Control Program, calledthe Water Quality Coordinating Committee.This group is an informal interagency andpublic committee dealing with water qual-ity issues. It meets on the third Tuesday ofeach month at 10:00 A.M. in Jefferson Cityor Columbia. Nonprofit organizations, busi-ness representatives, agency employees andcitizens attend to discuss water quality is-sues. This is a partnering effort that has beengoing on for several years, and is designedto keep attendees informed so that thosewith an interest can interact with each otherefficiently.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) is de-fined as contamination caused by diffusesources that are not regulated as pointsources. This type of pollution is normallyassociated with agricultural, silvicultural andurban runoff. It results in human-made or
14
human-induced alteration of the chemical,physical, biological or radiological integrityof the water. In practical terms, nonpointsource pollution does not result from a dis-charge at a specific single location (such asa pipe), but generally results from land run-off, precipitation, atmospheric deposition orpercolation. In simpler terms, it is pollutionthat enters waterways by overland flow orinfiltration, as opposed to through convey-ances such as pipes or channels.
The Missouri Nonpoint Source Manage-ment Plan was developed to address thesenonpoint sources. The plan focuses stateand federal activities and funds related tononpoint source pollution. The stated mis-sion and goals of the plan are as follows-Mission:
Preserve and protect the quality of thewater resources of the state fromnonpoint source impairments.
Goals:Continue and enhance statewide waterquality assessment processes to evaluatewater quality and prioritize watershedsaffected by nonpoint source pollution;Improve water quality by implementingnonpoint source-related projects andother activities;Maintain a viable, relevant, and effectiveNonpoint Source Management Programwith the flexibility necessary to meetchanging environmental conditions andregulations.Specific, quantifiable objectives have
been developed to help achieve these goals,accompanied by methods to be used inevaluating success in meeting the goals andobjectives.
IMPAIRED WATERS
There has been heightened interest atboth the state and national level in sections
of the Clean Water Act pertaining to the iden-tification and restoration of impaired waters.The 1972 federal Clean Water Act requiresstates to list all waters that do not meet es-tablished water quality standards. This list-ing of impaired waters is referred to as the303(d) list, referencing the section of the lawthat contains the listing requirement. The303(d) list must be periodically updated. Thedepartment is currently working from theEPA-approved list of impaired waters devel-oped in 1998. The next revision must besubmitted to EPA in 2002. There are 174impaired lakes, streams or stream segmentson Missouri’s 1998 303(d) list.
The state is obligated to complete stud-ies to determine actions needed to return thewaters to compliance with water quality stan-dards. These studies are used to determinewhat are referred to as Total Maximum DailyLoads (TMDLs). Based on existing data, cal-culations are performed to determine themaximum pollutant load a water body canreceive without becoming impaired. Thisload is then divided up, or allocated, to allexisting sources of the pollutant. Implemen-tation plans are also part of the TMDL docu-ment and will identify the load reductionneeded from all sources of the impairment.This includes point and nonpoint sources.The goal is to use existing regulations toaddress point source concerns and promotevoluntary actions on the part of nonpointsources through the provision of funding forthe installation of best management prac-tices. The recent emphasis on this part ofthe Clean Water Act has resulted in increasesin federal funding to address both point andnonpoint sources of pollution.
There have been legal actions in 40states related to TMDLs. The policies regard-ing TMDLs and the process for the develop-ment of restoration plans are constantlyevolving. All agency actions related to thisissue require public involvement and the
15
opportunity for public comment. For moreinformation, visit the department’s TMDLweb site at http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/wpc-tmdl.htm or contact the WaterPollution Control Program at 573-751-1300.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TOOLS
There are many methods the state usesto protect its waters or repair damaged wa-ters. These include monitoring water qual-ity and the status of pollution control facili-ties, permitting, financial and technical as-sistance and enforcement.
Monitoring water quality is fully de-scribed in a separate chapter. Monitoringinformation is compiled into several reports,the most notable being the “305(b) report,”which is required by the federal Clean Wa-ter Act, Section 305(b). This report docu-ments how waters in each state meet thatstate’s water quality standards. For example,it identifies the mileage of waters that pro-vide for safe swimming, and those that areexpected to be safe, but are not. These re-ports also provide the basis for establishingimpaired waters lists and other managementactivities. The 305(b) reports are preparedevery two years and the data are reported toCongress.
In addition to monitoring water qualitythroughout the state, the department com-piles lists of water pollution control needs,which support the state’s requests for fed-eral grant and loan assistance. The NeedsSurvey, as it is known, documents the workthat must be done to bring water quality re-lated facilities into compliance with designstandards or other conditions where they willnot damage water quality. Federal grant andloan funds are apportioned to the states inrelation to their needs.
The Department of Natural Resourcesadministers a program that distributes grants
or low-interest loans for the construction ofwastewater treatment and drinking watertreatment facilities. The funds for this pro-gram come from the state and the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. In 1998, thisloan program dispensed loans valued at $68million.
The loan program has been in effectsince 1990 and requires that most of the bur-den of funding falls on cities. From 1972 to1992, a state-federal grant program fundedup to 90 percent of the construction costs ofwastewater treatment facilities, which helpedmeet the needs of both expanding popula-tions and replacement of aging facilities.Today, there is concern about the ability ofthe present funding system to continue tomeet construction needs.
In addition to permits described underWastewater Treatment Systems, permits arerequired for concentrated animal feedingoperations (CAFOs). The permits ensure thatproperly designed facilities are constructedfor holding animal wastes. Letters of Ap-proval (LOA) are offered for animal feedingoperations smaller than 1,000 animal units.An animal unit is the equivalent of one beefsteer. This voluntary program was devel-oped two decades ago, and has been oper-ated by the department as a free service toagricultural producers.
In 1995, the department entered intoan agreement with the Department of Ag-riculture to operate an agricultural loanprogram. Under this program, the depart-ment will loan funds to the Agricultural andSmall Business Development Authority(ASBDA). The ASBDA will use the fundsto finance, at subsidized interest rates, ani-mal waste facilities for producers. Theloans are limited to animal feeding opera-tions of less than 1,000 animal units. Pro-ducers’ repayments are used by ASBDA torepay the loan. The department has com-mitted $10,000,000 to these loans. Another
16
$10,000,000 is available if the program issuccessful.
Enforcement actions related to waterpollution are sometimes necessary. During1998, there were about 258 active cases in-volving violations of the Clean Water Law orregulations. Of these, 83 cases were re-solved, and the facilities returned to compli-ance during the year. These settlements in-cluded collection by the department and theattorney general’s office of more than$1,200,000 for environmental damages andpenalties.
SOIL AND WATERCONSERVATION
Currently, the Special Area Land Treat-ment (SALT) program is being expanded toaddress agricultural nonpoint source pollu-tion (AgNPS) issues associated with runofffrom production agriculture. The SALT pro-gram is a voluntary approach to natural re-source management and conservation. Aproject grant is made available to local soiland water conservation districts to providegeneral support for the project, technicalassistance, and information and educationactivities in the watershed. Financial assis-tance is available to landowners to encour-age the adoption and implementation of bestmanagement practices (BMPs).
SALT projects are coordinated with theNatural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) for planning and technical sup-port. AgNPS SALT projects can be includedin other programs to achieve maximum re-sults from the resources provided to treatassociated water quality problems. The En-vironmental Quality Incentive Program(EQIP) is a federal watershed program ad-
ministered by the NRCS that may fit with anAgNPS project to address water quality prob-lems.
Other state and federal programs avail-able that support AgNPS SALTs include theWater Pollution Control Program’s Section319 grants, the Missouri Department ofConservation’s (MDC) wildlife incentive pro-grams, and the Missouri Department ofAgriculture’s Animal Waste Treatment Sys-tem loan program. Partnerships betweenprograms are extremely important to accom-plish environmental goals because they canbring together the resources needed to havea successful project. Missouri is fortunate tohave these partnerships coming together totake on the water quality issues in the state.
The intent of the pilot AgNPS SALTprojects is to provide a basic level of re-sources to make significant contributions tothe control and reduction of nonpoint sourcewater pollution from agricultural runoff. Theconcept is based on numerous partners con-tributing to the project and various tools uti-lized to accomplish project goals. Throughjoint efforts, limited resources and fundingcan be used in a cost-effective manner.
There are currently 28 approved pilotAgNPS SALT projects throughout the state.Currently, 12 more soil and water conserva-tion districts are in the final planning phasesof a watershed plan awaiting approval fromthe Missouri Soil and Water Districts Com-mission for an AgNPS SALT Project. Thecommission’s intent is to offer a call for moreAgNPS SALT projects at the beginning ofevery state fiscal year. Because boundariesof AgNPS SALT projects are based on hydro-logic (or watershed) units, many of theprojects span more than one county. Thepilot projects are located in the followingcounties depicted in the map shown below:
17
18
Some of the water quality issues beingaddressed in the pilot projects include: Sedi-mentation, nutrification (by nitrogen andphosphorus), chemical contamination frompesticides and herbicides, loss of aquatichabitat, stream-bank erosion, fecal coliformbacteria from animal wastes, and karstgroundwater contamination. Often, AgNPSSALT projects provide a springboard for land-owners to address additional natural re-source problems. Landowners working to-gether in this way can address additionalresource goals, such as improved water qual-ity and improved pasture management,along with erosion treatment and control.The AgNPS SALT projects provide cost-shareand low interest loan incentives to install andmaintain conservation practices. To ensurethe effectiveness of the practices used on thefarm and to be eligible, practices have to beinstalled and certified complete according toNRCS or MDC technical specifications.
Two other programs administered bythe Soil and Water Conservation Program arethe Cost-Share and Loan Interest-Share Pro-grams. These programs help landownerscarry out conservation plans and the goalsestablished in the Soil and Water DistrictsCommission’s “Plan for the Future”. Thecost-share program funds up to 75 percentof the cost of installing conservation prac-tices on agricultural land. Through this pro-gram, the state has installed some 128,023conservation practices, saving over 160.3million tons of topsoil on about 2 millionacres of cropland and pastureland. The loaninterest-share program refunds a portion ofthe interest on loans for purchasing conser-vation equipment. Conservation tillage isan excellent practice for conserving soil andkeeping sediment out of streams and lakes.
The Soil and Water Districts Commis-sion considers local soil and water conser-vation districts to be the delivery system forits conservation programs. As such, a major
point of the Plan for the Future is tostrengthen the role of the local districts. Dis-tricts receive grants to provide technical as-sistance for landowners and other opera-tional costs.
Finally, the Commission assisted in com-pleting the initial inventory of Missouri’s soilresources (December 2001) and will continueto work with the NRCS on updating andimproving information on Missouri’s soil re-sources. The soil survey is used by a num-ber of different occupations to provide valu-able soils information to the citizens of Mis-souri. Soils information is highly regardedwhen working on soil conservation and re-lated water quality issues.
Missouri is a leader in soil conservationas a result of soil and water conservationdistricts’ work and the voluntary commitmentof Missouri farmers. These soil successeswill pay off for the state’s water quality aswell.
HAZARDOUS WASTES
The department regulates hazardouswaste to protect human health and the envi-ronment and to ensure that any contamina-tion is remediated as quickly as possible. Thedepartment oversees groundwater and sur-face water monitoring at hazardous wastesites within the state. As part of thedepartment’s oversight, hazardous waste fa-cilities are required to determine the impactof past and present waste management prac-tices on water quality. This includes deter-mining the extent of contamination, the dis-tribution of contamination, and the poten-tial impact on other waters or water users.If contamination is found to pose a threat,the department will ensure that remedialactions are taken.
Groundwater and surface water moni-toring activities, and any subsequent
19
remediation, can occur at five different typesof sites:
1. Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) treatment, storage and dis-posal facilities (TSDs);
2. Superfund cleanup sites, including Fed-eral Facility sites;
3. Voluntary cleanup sites;4. Enforcement directed cleanup sites;
and5. Leaking storage tank facilities
As of January 3, 2002, there were 2,801of Missouri’s hazardous waste generatorsconsidered “small quantity generators” and477 considered “large quantity generators.”There presently are 99 TSD’s in Missouri.
The department may require RCRA TSDfacilities whose practices might affect largebodies of surface water in Missouri to imple-ment a surface water monitoring program.Currently, nine RCRA TSD facilities in Mis-souri are monitoring surface water for vari-ous contaminants. These facilities are re-quired to report to the department at leastonce per year. The results of the monitor-ing are examined and tracked by the depart-ment. In accordance with state regulation,a TSD facility that is subject to federalgroundwater monitoring requirements mustconduct groundwater monitoring on a regu-lar basis until released from such obligationby the department. Currently, 47 TSD sitesare conducting groundwater monitoring inMissouri. Of these 47 sites, 21 are activelyremediating groundwater contamination toimprove the quality of water that may ulti-mately migrate to surface water bodies ordrinking water sources.
Each TSD facility must submit an an-nual groundwater monitoring report to thedepartment for an official evaluation. Theevaluation includes determination of con-tamination data trends and the extent of con-tamination resulting from TSD facility opera-tion. All groundwater monitoring data from
RCRA TSDs in Missouri is entered into a da-tabase where it can be tracked and evalu-ated. The department periodically conductsgroundwater monitoring field audits at TSDfacilities to help ensure that their samplesare collected and analyzed in accordancewith accepted standard operating proceduresand that the sampling data generated byTSDs is reliable.
The Federal Facilities Section is moni-toring groundwater and surface water at 43sites. There are currently 7 ground waterremediation techniques being used at 3 sites.The remediation techniques include 3 pumpand treat systems at 3 sites, 2 permeable re-active walls at 2 sites, 1 in situ chemical oxi-dation at 1 site, and 1 phytoremediation at 1site. Two sites have proposed the use ofenhanced natural attenuation and concur-rence on this request is pending. The re-maining 40 sites are undergoing surface andgroundwater investigation for characteriza-tion of contamination and migration.
Additional hazardous waste sites fallunder the “Superfund” law and its amend-ments. Superfund includes the authority toinitiate and remediate actions when contami-nation is determined to present a threat tohuman health and the environment. TheDepartment of Natural Resources performssite assessments on potential Superfund sitesand from these assessments determines thedegree of surface and groundwater investi-gations that will be required. Currently, 62Superfund sites are undergoing some typeof groundwater investigation. An additional19 sites are undergoing regular groundwa-ter and surface water monitoring. Of the 62sites, 33 have initiated some form of ground-water remediation. The Superfund Sectionhas four sites that are conducting ground-water investigations under Consent Agree-ments, and six additional sites that have com-pleted investigations and are undergoingremediation. Remediation technologies in-
20
clude the use of in-situ chemical oxidationand permeable reactive barriers.
In 1994, a state law was passed allow-ing responsible parties to voluntarily initiatea cleanup of their site under the oversight ofthe department. These cleanups are super-vised through the department’s Voluntary
Cleanup Program (VCP). In order to be eli-gible, VCP sites cannot be a RCRA TSD cat-egory, cannot be on the Superfund NationalPriority List (NPL), and cannot be eligiblefor the state Registry of Confirmed Aban-doned or Uncontrolled Hazardous WasteDisposal Sites in Missouri
Before Voluntary Clean-up – Former Kansas City Terminal Railroad Coach Yard Roundhouse
After Voluntary Clean-up –Westside Business Park
21
If a site is determined to be eligible, theresponsible party must consent to remediatetheir site in accordance with an agreementwith the department. Currently, 146 sites areundergoing voluntary cleanup, and 106 othersites have completed cleanup and receivedcertificates of completion (clean letters). In2001, four VCP sites began utilizing new in-situ technologies for groundwaterremediation such as hydrogen release com-pounds (approved for use in Missouri). InSeptember 2001, the Department publishedan updated Tier 1 table for its guidance docu-ment, Cleanup Levels for Missouri (CALM).The department worked closely with theMissouri Department of Health to update theTier 1 standards. This is the first update ofTier 1 standards since the release of the CALMdocument in 1998.
The Hazardous Waste Enforcement Sec-tion also directs and provides oversight onsites with hazardous waste contaminationand requires testing and remediation, where
appropriate, to protect surface water andgroundwater. The section also coordinateswith the Water Pollution Control Program toassure that necessary permits are obtainedat sites under Hazardous Waste Enforcementaction.
STORAGE TANKS
The department regulates the operationand maintenance of underground storagetanks (USTs) containing petroleum productsand hazardous substances. The vast major-ity of releases from USTs are petroleum fu-els, which threaten water resources becauseof benzene, a known carcinogen, and otherchemical constituents, such as methyl tertiarybutyl ether (MTBE). EPA has tentatively clas-sified MTBE as a possible human carcino-gen. MTBE is an additive to fuel to help thegasoline burn more completely.
Federal and state requirements are de-signed to reduce and detect releases from
Site Clean-up Status
22
USTs. Effective December 22, 1998, USTsystems must be equipped with spill andoverfill prevention equipment. Steel tanksmust have corrosion prevention systems.Leak detection is required for all USTs andrelated piping.
Tank owners and operators are requiredto report a release from a tank. The depart-ment oversees cleanup and remediation ofreleases from both underground andaboveground tanks. Over the past twelveyears, over 5500 releases from undergroundstorage tanks have been reported and morethan 4200 (approximately 76 percent) ofthose have been remediated to departmentstandards.
The department also investigates siteswhere petroleum releases have occurred butwhere the source of contamination is notknown. Investigative techniques such as dyetracing, groundwater monitoring, soil drill-ing/probing, soil gas surveys and geophysi-cal surveys are used to trace the contamina-tion to its source and identify a responsibleparty. The department then works with theresponsible party to remediate the contami-nation.
TANK FACTS
Releases Reported (USTs and ASTs) 5,813Releases Completed (USTs and ASTs) 4,357Ongoing cleanups 1,456Total USTs 36,848Closed USTs 26,138In-Use USTs 9,727Temporarily Closed USTs 983In-Use USTs Meeting UpgradeRequirements 96.8%In-Use USTs Meeting LeakDetection Requirements 98.2%
(AST= Above ground storage tank)(UST= Under ground storage tank)
SOLID WASTES
Historically, some landfills have been asource of surface and groundwater contami-nation. As of April, 1994, stricter federal sub-title D (of RCRA) design and operational re-quirements affected all operating landfills inMissouri. Some of the new requirements arerelated to establishing, developing and main-taining surface and groundwater monitoring.These include: Detailed hydro-geologic in-vestigations; installation of groundwatermonitoring wells capable of detecting anycontaminants that could leave the site; andinstallation of a composite liner and leachatecollection system on areas that were not cov-ered by waste as of April, 1994.
Another change that should help pro-tect water quality in Missouri relates to thefinal “cover cap” requirements. Areas alreadylandfilled but not properly closed will re-quire a final cover cap of at least two feet ofcompacted clay and one foot of soil. All ar-eas with a geomembrane liner (an imper-meable material that does not allow liquidsto pass through it) require cap designs thatinclude a geomembrane, even if the areaswere previously permitted for another finalcover cap design.
There are more than 150 closed or aban-doned landfills scattered throughout Mis-souri. These older landfills were not con-structed or operated like the modern sub-title D sanitary landfills we have today. Thepresence of these older landfills poses anunknown impact to the water resources ofMissouri. No statewide assessment has beenconducted; however, it is very possible thatthey are contributing leachate contaminationto both surface and subsurface waters. Cur-rently, such an assessment is in the planningstages. If implemented, information ob-tained over the several year study could con-firm impacts or eliminate them on a site bysite basis.
23
In 2000, the Solid Waste ManagementProgram completed the design and installa-tion of an artificial wetland to address aleachate discharge from an abandoned land-fill in Warren County known to be impact-ing a nearby stream. The wetland will beused as a research tool to determine the ef-fectiveness of such a treatment process inlandfill leachate. If it is able to provide anacceptable level of treatment, it could beutilized at similar sites around the state andnation as an effective, low-cost solution.
WELLS FOR WATER, HEATPUMPS, MONITORING AND
MINERAL TESTING
If wells are not constructed or pluggedproperly, they may allow surface water, withits contaminant load, to bypass the earth’snatural filtering system and enter directly intodrinking water aquifers. The “Water WellDrillers’ Act” (section 256.600 to 256.640RSMo) was passed into law in 1985. By thefall of 1987, rules were in place governingthe construction of domestic water wells,pump installations, and the plugging of aban-doned wells. The drilling contractors andpump installation contractors were requiredto be permitted (licensed), and their drill rigswere required to be registered.
This law was passed to ensure that thequality of Missouri’s groundwater is main-tained at the highest level practical to sup-port present and future use. The importanceof this law and its enforcement plays a piv-otal role in the protection of our groundwa-ter.
An important amendment to this lawwas passed in 1991. The amendmentbrought the heat pump, monitoring well, andmineral test hole drilling industries underregulation. It also created the Well Installa-
tion Board. The department’s GeologicalSurvey and Resource Assessment Division(GSRAD), with the oversight of the Well In-stallation Board, is responsible for implemen-tation of the Water Well Drillers’ Act. TheGeological Survey Program within GSRADhas been given the day to day tasks of imple-mentation.
The chart shows the number of wellsreported since the “Water Well Drillers’ Act”was created. This chart shows the numberof completed certified wells drilled in Mis-souri during any given year. The numbersfor water wells reflect wells in the privatecategory as well as the public well category.It is extremely hard to estimate how manywells are drilled each year that are never re-ported. Geological Survey Program (GSP)personnel have been very diligent with theirlimited staff in the enforcement of the rulesbut a certain number of wells still are notreported each year. The rules state that thepermitted contractors do not have to reportthat a new well has been drilled until 60 daysafter they have completed the job.
It is important to note that after the 1991amendment to the law was passed, rules hadto be written and approved before report-ing on monitoring wells and heat pump wellswas required. These rules became effectiveDecember 13, 1993; therefore, the increasein numbers of heat pump wells and moni-toring wells in 1994 reflects this regulatorychange. Also, some contractors submittedrecords for heat pump and monitoring wellsbefore they were required and these num-bers are reflected in the chart. Typically, amineral test hole is drilled, information ob-tained and the hole is plugged within 30days; therefore, these types of wells are re-corded only after they are plugged.
As a tool to aid in proper well construc-tion and well plugging, the department pur-chased a waterproof, downhole camera in1994 that can video the conditions within a
24
Chart showing number of wells reported under the Water Well Drillers’ Act.
wellbore to help identify problems. At thetime the department purchased this camera,it was almost at the “cutting edge” of tech-nology. The downhole camera is less thantwo inches in diameter and, when lowered
into a well, can send back a video imagethat shows in detail underground featuresthat few have seen. This single piece ofequipment has revolutionized the division’sability to diagnose construction and con-
TYPE OF WELLSDate
Completed Water Monitoring Heat Pump Plugged Wells
1986 130 0 0 0
1987 4,390 0 12 4
1988 5,612 2 18 7
1989 5,451 14 9 13
1990 5,503 0 0 1
1991 5,246 0 2 4
1992 5,913 0 2 5
1993 5,732 1 4 4
1994 6,628 1,186 509 742
1995 6,653 1,125 488 1,174
1996 6,965 811 288 1,125
1997 6,788 1,058 250 1,298
1998 6,932 1,103 200 1,426
1999 8,080 1,565 143 1,555
2000 8,646 1,509 107 1,491
2001 7,028 1,513 159 1,347
TOTAL 95,573 9,937 2,192 10,196
25
tamination problems with water wells andprovides the details needed to properly plugwells. Due to the large demand placed onthe first downhole camera, a second one waspurchased in the spring of 2000 to aid staff
in their mission.
In an effort to improve the regulatorysystem associated with private well construc-tion a new management tool endorsed bythe Governor has been employed. The Man-aging for Results Initiative is a managementtool for the Governor and his cabinet to helpkeep government focused on results and todrive meaningful improvements for citizens.The Managing for Results effort encouragesfact based decision making and innovationand recognizes the need for agencies to worktogether to drive significant improvements.As part of the Governor’s Managing for Re-sults Initiative, the Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division, GeologicalSurvey Program, Wellhead Protection Sectionvolunteered to participate in an effort toimprove the efficiency of the well certifica-tion process for private wells. A task forcewas composed of industry, private citizensand division staff to examine the two most
common problems associated with the wellcertification process, incorrect well locationsand non-submittal of forms. Recommenda-tions were made to Director Mahfood andare being considered.
ABANDONED WELL PLUGGING
It has been estimated that Missouri hasfrom 150,000 to 300,000 unplugged aban-doned wells. However, this may be a con-servative estimate. More recent estimatesplace the number in excess of 500,000 un-plugged wells and cisterns scattered acrossMissouri. Each one of these unplugged wellsor cisterns is a danger either to the health,welfare or safety of Missourians or to thegroundwater that we rely on so heavily forour water resources.
Whenever surface contamination (pes-ticides, septic tank effluent, animal waste,chemicals, oil and grease, solvents, etc.) findsan unplugged well, it can quickly bypass thenatural filtering system of soil, unconsoli-dated material and rock and directly contami-nate the underground aquifers. Once anunderground aquifer is contaminated, it isvery difficult and very expensive to clean up.Prevention is always cheaper and better thanremediation.
Looking into an old hand-dug well with coverremoved. The well is approximately 4 to 5 feet in
diameter and 30 feet deep. It is lined with fieldstone.
Photo by Bruce Netzler.
Downhole video camera. Camera head is less than2 inches in diameter. Photo by Bruce Netzler.
26
Many things have changed sinceMissouri’s early settlement days more than150 years ago, but one thing that has notchanged is the need for a dependable sup-ply of water. If early settlers did not livenear a river, spring, lake or stream they hadto dig a well or cistern. The first wells werehand-dug and many of them are still in ex-istence today but are rarely used and oftenforgotten. A hand-dug well is typically 5 to10 feet in diameter and up to 50 feet deep.These wells were lined with rock or brickand were covered with a concrete or woodencap. (The biggest hand-dug well in the U.S.is located in southwestern Kansas in thetown of Greensburg and is 32 feet in diam-eter and 109 feet deep.) These types of
wells are considered a major danger to lifeand limb. People have died across Missouriby accidentally falling into one of these wells.These types of tragedies can be avoided witha little preventive action.
Unplugged abandoned drilled wells arealso a danger to personal safety and a po-tential conduit for surface derived pollutants.The size of Missouri’s drilled wells range fromthe normal 6-inch diameter of a private do-mestic well, upwards to 36 inches in diam-eter. Many people do not realize that a wellas small as 8 inches in diameter can be adeath trap to young children. Some peoplestill remember the drama that played out ontelevision years ago about a little girl namedJessica McClure who was trapped in a wellin Texas. The well was just 8 inches in di-ameter. She was very lucky to have beenrescued.
It may surprise many that the first andonly law requiring abandoned wells to beplugged was enacted in 1991 and was anamendment to the Water Well Drillers Act(section 256.600 to 256.640 RSMo). This lawstates that wells abandoned after August 28,1991 must be plugged according to approvedstandards. Therefore, wells abandoned be-fore this date are not required to be plugged.That leaves a huge number of wells that havebeen abandoned before 1991 scatteredacross the countryside.
There are some exceptions to this gen-eral rule. When a person hooks up to a waterdistrict and is using a well for water supply,that well must be plugged, unless the land-owner wishes to use it for other purposes.The law also states that if a landowner per-mits hazardous or potentially hazardous con-ditions to exist on owned property that maycause deterioration of the groundwater, thelandowner can be held liable. This does givesome enforcement ability but would requirea Notice of Violation and enforcement fol-low-up. It is important to note that if the
Abandoned and forgotten hand-dug well in farmlot. Notice rotted cover and old hand pump. Photoby Jim Vandike.
27
landowner does not comply, the only re-course is referral to the Attorney General’sOffice and litigation. This is not the bestway to achieve the goal of plugging aban-doned wells and protecting groundwater.
Generally speaking, an educational ef-fort has been in progress since 1991. It isfelt that if people understand the dangers ofleaving abandoned wells open, they willwant to plug them in an approved manner.To accomplish this, several educational aidshave been developed. These aids are de-scribed in the following paragraphs.
In the spring of 1992, a brochure en-titled, “Eliminating An Unnecessary Risk:Abandoned Wells And Cisterns,” was madeavailable. The brochure focuses on the riskto human safety, livestock, and groundwa-ter that exist when wells are left unplugged.The brochure begins with a history ofMissouri’s early settlement days and the typesof wells that were dug, and finishes with themodern drilled wells of today. It is writtenin layman’s terms and, with the use of dia-grams, sets out easy to understand approvedmethods for plugging all types of wells. Thebrochure is geared to private landownerswho have the right to plug wells located ontheir property. When the well plugging regu-lations were developed, the least expensiveand easiest methods were developed as op-tions for the private landowner. This bro-chure has been reprinted numerous timesand is distributed free of charge to anyonerequesting it. The brochure has been usedextensively as part of well plugging demon-strations that have been carried out coop-eratively between the University ExtensionSystem and the department’s Geological Sur-vey and Resource Assessment Division(GSRAD).
In an effort to reach more people andto embrace the computer age, GSRAD per-sonnel are in the process of developing acomputer-generated well plugging demon-
stration using Power Point software. Thesewell plugging modules will have excellentcomputer graphics and sound effects. Pre-sentations will be developed for each differ-ent type of well, hand-dug well or cistern,drilled well in bedrock and drilled well inunconsolidated material. The plan is to placethis on the Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division’s web page (http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/geology.htm) so thatit can be viewed and downloaded by any-one.
This will be an extremely important andpivotal accomplishment to further the mes-sage of how and why to plug abandonedwells. When this is placed on the Internet itwill be instantly accessible to the entireworld. Teachers will be able to incorporatethis information into their teaching units onenvironmental issues.
WELLS FOR OIL, GAS ANDUNDERGROUND INJECTION
The Oil and Gas Law was passed in1965. This law requires wells used for oiland gas production, water disposal, en-hanced oil recovery, gas storage and geo-logic information to be constructed in a man-ner that does not contaminate surface andgroundwater resources. Approximately 9861wells have been permitted since 1966. In2001, 52 wells were permitted.
In addition to ensuring proper well con-struction, the oil and gas law requires a plug-ging bond to be placed on all permittedwells. This bond is required to be main-tained until the wells are properly plugged.In the event an operator improperly aban-dons a well, the plugging bond is forfeitedand the state, working through the MissouriOil and Gas Council, has the authority toplug the well.
28
The Underground Injection Control Pro-gram is an EPA-delegated program for whichMissouri has primacy. Injection wells havebeen divided into five classes by EPA, basedupon the type of fluid injected and where itis injected in relation to underground sourcesof drinking water. Missouri has wells that fitinto two of these classes - Class II and Class V.
Class II wells are oil- and gas-relatedinjection wells. These wells may be usedfor the disposal of other fluids producedduring oil extractions (mostly water) backinto the producing horizon, or for enhancedrecovery methods to increase production.These wells are subject to regulation underthe Missouri Oil and Gas Law.
Class V wells (also called shallow injec-tion wells) include a variety of well typesthat inject fluid into or above an undergroundsource of drinking water. In Missouri, thiswell category includes mine backfill wells,septic systems (tank and lateral field), sink-holes improved for drainage purposes, heatpump systems, and injection wells used ingroundwater cleanup projects. Septic sys-tems are regulated by the Department ofHealth. Most other types of Class V injec-tion wells are regulated through the CleanWater Law. The department administers theprogram and maintains an inventory of ClassII and Class V wells.
RECLAMATION OF MINED LANDS
The mission of the Missouri Land Rec-lamation Commission and the department’sLand Reclamation Program is to assure thebeneficial restoration of mined lands and toprotect public health, safety and the envi-ronment from the adverse effects of miningwithin Missouri. Active mining regulationincludes permitting, inspection and enforce-ment activities. The minerals regulated in-
clude coal, industrial minerals (clay, barite,limestone, sandstone, sand and gravel, tra-prock and tar sands) and metallic minerals(lead, iron, zinc, copper, gold and silver).While the Land Reclamation Commission isresponsible for overseeing coal and indus-trial mineral laws, the responsibility for car-rying out the duties associated with metallicminerals regulations rests solely upon theLand Reclamation Program and the directorof the Department of Natural Resources.
At active coal mines, surface water qual-ity is protected through National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) per-mitting. NPDES monitoring ensures thatacid-forming spoils are being properly man-aged and adequate soil erosion control mea-sures are being taken to prevent sedimenta-tion or acid mine drainage from enteringdownstream tributaries. As for the protec-tion of groundwater, coal-mining companiesare required, under land reclamation permits,to conduct hydrogeologic assessment priorto, during, and after mining. They evaluateany impacts to groundwater quantity or qual-ity in the vicinity of mine sites. Mine opera-tors are further required to mitigate adverseeffects stemming from mining activities.
For industrial mineral sites, thehydrogeologic evaluations are not required.Measures to control erosion and sedimentmovement off-site are required. Under theMetallic Minerals Law, the two lead miningcompanies and the one iron ore mining com-pany in Missouri are required to provideplans and financial assurance for the con-tinued maintenance of the mine waste sitesafter mining ceases. The objective is to en-sure that the sites are stable and not subjectto wind or water erosion of the waste mate-rials (tailings). This primarily involves a co-ordination role to ensure that dam safety,water pollution control, air pollution con-trol, and hazardous waste management regu-latory requirements are met.
29
An estimated 22,200 acres at approxi-mately 900 industrial mineral mine sites inMissouri are permitted for mining. Nearly17,000 acres at 14 coal mine sites are per-mitted and are either actively being minedor are in various stages of reclamation. Inaddition, there are 16 coal mine bond forfei-ture sites with approximately 5,100 acres thatthe department now has or had the respon-sibility to reclaim. Seven of these projectshave been completed and eight are in vari-ous stages of reclamation design or construc-tion. The 10 lead mine sites and one ironore mine site permitted under the MetallicMinerals Law comprises approximately 4,600acres.
Significant health, safety, and environ-mental problems are often associated withcoal mine lands that were abandoned or in-adequately reclaimed prior to passage ofstate and federal coal mining statutes in 1972and 1977, respectively. There are more than67,000 acres of abandoned coal mine landsin Missouri. Although nature has adequatelyreclaimed much of this land over the years,more than 10,000 acres have been identifiedthat require reclamation work to correct awide range of public health, safety and en-vironmental problems. The worst of theseproblems are being eliminated by thedepartment’s Land Reclamation Programthrough reclamation of abandoned minelands. Federal funds for these projects arecollected by fees charged for each ton of coalmined in the U.S. These funds are distrib-uted to Missouri and other states by the fed-eral Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement.
Since 1982, 93 abandoned mine landprojects have been completed, reclaiming3,879 acres. Acid mine drainage from aban-doned coal mine lands severely degradedseveral streams, most notably Cedar Creekin Boone and Callaway counties, ManacleCreek in Callaway County and Middle Fork
of Tebo Creek in Henry County, resulting inmassive fish kills in the past. Reclamationprojects completed from 1988-1994 in thesewatersheds successfully alleviated most ofthe acid mine drainage problems of thesestreams. Negative impacts on aquatic re-sources have been greatly reduced.
During 2001 and 2002, additional recla-mation work was conducted in the CedarCreek watershed to further lessen the effectsof mine drainage on the creek. Four wet-lands were constructed to passively treatmine drainage, and streambank work wascompleted to stabilize erosion. The LandReclamation Program received federal fundsfrom the Office of Surface Mining’s CleanStream Initiative and from the EPA, underSection 319 of the Clean Water Act. These ad-ditional funds were used to complete this work.
ENVIRONMENTALEMERGENCY RESPONSE
The department has EnvironmentalEmergency Response (EER) personnel thatare specially trained and equipped to pro-vide technical assistance in the event of ahazardous chemical or petroleum spill.Based in Jefferson City within the Environ-mental Services Program, the EER staff op-erates a 24-hour emergency telephone lineestablished for taking reports of hazardoussubstance spills and provides on-scene re-sponse to environmental emergencies. Inaddition to the central office, regional EERstaff are located in Poplar Bluff, Macon,Springfield, St. Louis, and Kansas City to pro-vide timely on-scene response throughoutthe state. Rapid and effective emergencyresponse to hazardous substance spills iscritical in protecting the public and prevent-ing or minimizing adverse impacts to theenvironment. Water resources in particularare often threatened or impacted by spills
30
from petroleum pipelines, barges or othervessels, chemical and petroleum bulk stor-age tanks, train derailments, and highwayaccidents.
In FY 2001, EER staff documented 3,283incident reports received on the 24-houremergency telephone line. When a call isanswered on the hotline relating to a chemi-
The department’s environmental emergency response boat equipped for responding to petroleum and otherchemical spills on major waterways. Photo from Environmental Service Program.
One of seven specially equipped EER (Environmental Emergency Response) trucks used by the department foron scene responses to environmental emergencies. Photo from Environmental Response Program.
31
cal or petroleum spill, a duty officer docu-ments the incident in a written report andtakes appropriate action. Such action mayinclude providing technical advice on spillcleanup over the telephone and may involvesubsequent notification to other agenciesthat would have an interest. When war-ranted, EER staff will respond on-scene toprovide technical advice and oversight, workto ensure the protection and safety of the
public and the environment, and assess anddocument any environmental damages. TheEER staff maintains a fleet of specially-equipped response trucks and a 24-foot re-sponse boat that are used for on-scene re-sponse as needed. In FY 2001, EER staffresponded on-scene to 759 incidentsthroughout the state. The 24-hour telephonenumber for reporting environmental emer-gencies to the department is (573) 634-2436.
32
33
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVERBASIN ASSOCIATION
The Upper Mississippi River Basin As-sociation (UMRBA) is made up of represen-tatives of Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota,Iowa and Illinois. Steve Mahfood, directorof the Department of Natural Resources, isMissouri’s UMRBA representative.
The UMRBA developed a master plan tobalance economic development with environ-mental improvement on the upper MississippiRiver. The UMRBA works through Congressand the states to carry out provisions in themaster plan, and pursues a legislative agendaas agreed upon by the state members.
The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, hasrecently restructured its Upper MississippiRiver–Illinois Waterway System NavigationStudy to include equal environmental andeconomic benefits. The UMRBA monitorsthe study’s progress and have been an ad-vocate for its timely completion. An interimreport is being completed in the summer of2002, and a feasibility report is due forcompletion in 2004. Mr. Mike Wells, deputydirector GSRAD and Chief of Water Re-sources Program, is Missouri’s representativeto the navigation study. The UMRBA hasbeen very successful in attracting private andfederal funding to enhance the MississippiRiver.
MISSOURI RIVER BASINASSOCIATION
Membership of the Missouri River Ba-sin Association (MRBA) includes Missouri,Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota,South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, plusone member representing the basin’s Indiantribes. Steve Mahfood, director of the De-partment, is Missouri’s MRBA representative.
The MRBA is collaborating with the U.S.Army, Corps of Engineers, on revising the
Master Water Control Manual for the MissouriRiver. The MRBA also pursues a legislativeagenda as agreed upon by its Board of Di-rectors, and provides a forum for the discus-sion of contemporary water resource issuesin the basin, such as tribal water rights, flowmanagement, diversions, agricultural issues,and endangered species.
For the past 14 years, the states of theMissouri River basin have been embroiledin controversy over how the river should bemanaged. The disagreement, brought on bysevere and persistent drought that beganabout 1988 and ended with the Great Floodof ’93, focuses on the requirements embod-ied in the Missouri River Master Water Con-trol Manual. This document, familiarly calledthe “Master Manual,” guides the Corps’ Res-ervoir Control Center in Omaha. The Con-trol Center operates the system of dams andreservoirs that enable management of theriver’s flow.
As long as rainfall in the basin was nor-mal or above, there was little disagreementbetween the states of the upper basin andthose of the lower river. However, the sys-tem was not severely tested by drought un-til reservoirs began to be drawn down inresponse to the six-year drought.
The crux of the disagreement is funda-mental. Upper basin states contend that res-ervoir levels ought to be held at high levels- even in drought - to protect the recreationalindustry that has developed around the sixlarge lakes on the upper river. Missouri viewsthis position with considerable alarm, be-cause it would deny our state the use of asignificant share of the water stored in thereservoirs.
In effect, if the upstream states weresuccessful in changing the management strat-egy to meet their demands, it would com-pletely compromise the purposes for whichthe system was designed and built. Thedesign objectives for the system were to storewater in wet seasons, releasing it in dry sea-
34
sons to provide flood control, navigation,water supply, power generation, irrigationwater, and fish and wildlife benefits through-out even the most severe droughts.
Since 1998, the MRBA has been work-ing on a consensus management plan for theMissouri River to recommend to the Corpsof Engineers. The plan MRBA eventuallyadopted was not supported by Missouri be-cause it placed too much emphasis on re-taining water in upstream reservoirs for rec-reational purposes, and placed Missouriansat greater risk of flooding.
During the period of August, 2001, toFebruary, 2002, the U.S. Army, Corps of En-gineers (Corps), conducted public hearingsand accepted comments on a Revised DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (RDEIS) onproposed revisions to the Master Manual.The State of Missouri formally opposed allfive of the proposed alternatives to the Cur-rent Water Control Plan (CWCP) presentedin the RDEIS. The five new plans all includeprovisions that would dramatically increasereservoir storage while negatively impactingdownstream uses, especially Mississippi andMissouri River commerce.
Four of the plans include features thatwould increase flows during the spring(“spring rise”) while decreasing flows dur-ing the summer months. The spring risewould increase the risk of downstream flood-ing and the summer low flows would crippleor eliminate navigation on the Missouri River.
ARKANSAS-WHITE-REDBASINS INTER-AGENCY
COMMITTEE
The Arkansas-White-Red Basins Inter-Agency Committee (AWRBIAC) includes rep-resentatives from the states of Missouri, Ar-kansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kan-sas and New Mexico. Steve Mahfood, direc-tor of the Department, is Missouri’s AWRBIAC
representative. Federal agencies inAWRBIAC include the Department of theInterior, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau ofReclamation, National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Southwestern Power Administra-tion and the Natural Resources ConservationService, USDA.
The AWRBIAC exists primarily for co-ordination and communication purposes.Administration and hosting of meetings arerotated among both state and federal mem-bers. The primary activity of interest to Mis-souri is the development of operating plansfor the White River, which includes TableRock Dam, Clearwater Dam, and part of LakeNorfork in Missouri. Also of interest is thedevelopment of abatement measures andmethodology to improve dissolved oxygencontent of the tailwaters of White River dams.An annual operating plan for the White River,during the low dissolved oxygen season, hasbeen developed that improves economicreturn while addressing issues related to lowdissolved oxygen in the tailwaters that flowfrom hydropower dams.
In 2001, the Corps of Engineers begana White River comprehensive study. TheLittle Rock office of the Corps began thisreallocation study of flood control and hy-dropower pools for downstream trout re-leases.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVERCONSERVATION COMMITTEE
The Lower Mississippi River Conserva-tion Committee (LMRCC) has membershipthat includes the states of Missouri, Tennes-see, Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi, andLouisiana. Federal agencies represented (asnon-voting associates) include the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Environmental Protec-tion Agency, U. S. Geological Survey, Natu-
35
ral Resources Conservation Service and U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service.
The LMRCC differs from other basin as-sociations by including fish and wildlifeagencies as well as environmental regula-tory agencies. The LMRCC has several stand-ing subcommittees that deal with specificsubsets of lower Mississippi interests, suchas fish and wildlife and water quality.
The LMRCC is addressing several waterquality issues, including Gulf hypoxia (lowdissolved oxygen). Hypoxia is caused byexcessive nitrogen in the Mississippi Riverwater flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. Highnitrogen levels ultimately result in oxygendepletion in the water and the developmentof a widespread “dead zone” in the Gulf thathas been characterized as the marine equiva-lent of the “ozone hole” over Antarctica. Thisis an issue for Missouri because some of thenitrogen sources have been identified ascoming from grain-producing states in theMidwest.
INTERSTATE COUNCIL ONWATER POLICY
The Interstate Council on Water Policy(ICWP) is a national organization, with mem-bers representing state water resource agen-cies, that strives to promote the interests ofstates in dealing with the federal governmenton issues related to water. Missouri is a mem-ber of ICWP. The ICWP has a Washington of-fice and a board of directors elected fromamong state members. The organization spon-sors annual forums addressing water resourceissues of interest to states, and an annual con-ference in Washington to bring together fed-eral agency officials and Congressional staffwith state representatives to discuss water re-source concerns of states. Missouri is an ac-tive participant in ICWP activities.
The ICWP has a standing committee tocoordinate the activities of interstate riverbasin organizations toward a more effectivenational input.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARKWAYCOMMISSION
The membership of the Mississippi RiverParkway Commission (MRPC) includes allten states bordering on the Mississippi River.The MRPC’s major thrust is toward improv-ing opportunities for tourism growth alongthe Mississippi River from New Orleans toSt. Paul.
Missouri’s Mississippi River ParkwayCommission has five members appointed bythe governor, plus two senators and two rep-resentatives appointed by the State Legisla-ture. The department participates in a tech-nical advisory capacity, with the Missouridepartments of Transportation and Conser-vation, and the Division of Tourism.
Missouri’s participation in the MRPC hasfocused on improving the environmentalquality of the river corridor as a way to in-crease the region’s attractiveness to tourismand economic development.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASINALLIANCE
The Mississippi River Basin Alliance(MRBA) includes both individual andagency/corporate memberships. The Alli-ance focuses on environmental issuesthroughout the Mississippi River basin. Vari-ous committees address issues of currentimportance, such as environmental justice,nonpoint source pollution, legislativeagenda, and monitoring federal initiatives.
The MRBA meets annually for techni-cal sessions and training activities.
36
RSMo 640.409 calls for the departmentto establish, develop and maintain an on-going statewide surface and groundwatermonitoring program, the purposes of whichare the following: 1) determination of am-bient surface and groundwater quality foruse as background or baseline water qual-ity data; 2) detection of trends in the char-acter and concentration of contaminantsin surface and groundwater resources; and3) identification of areas highly vulnerableto contamination.
The Department of Natural Resources(the department) conducts an extensivemonitoring program for chemicals and mi-crobial contaminants in public drinking wa-ter systems. In FY 01, more than 2,700 pub-lic water supplies were tested, with over147,000 samples analyzed. This effort cov-ers both surface and groundwater sources.
Most of the tests are performed on tapwater, the “finished” water that people drinkor use for cooking; this is water after treat-ment. Some “raw” water monitoring also isdone to provide operational data to watersystem operators, and to help them in theirtreatment processes. For example, well wa-ter is tested to help the water companiesknow what is entering their water works.This helps them know what treatment toprovide and to prepare in advance.
The vast majority of water quality con-cerns are for failure to meet the requirements
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RTMONITORING WATER QUALITY
of the Total Coliform Rule. Total coliformbacteria serve as an indicator that harmfulorganisms may be present, and all publicwater systems in the state must test for thistype of bacteria every month they dispensewater to the public. The department’s Pub-lic Drinking Water Program (PDWP) providesan annual compliance report that lists all ofMissouri’s public water systems with maxi-mum contaminant level (MCL) exceedences.
The PDWP’s fifth Annual ComplianceReport became available to the public on July1, 2001. The report covers all of Missouri’s2,762 public water systems for calendar year2000. The report lists all public water sys-tems with maximum contaminant level(MCL) exceedences and those systems withmonitoring problems that have becomechronic. New to the report this year was alisting of systems considered significant non-compliers (SNCs) by the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The most significant find-ing in the 2001 report was that the percent-age of the population served by communitywater systems that met all of the health-basedstandards increased to 98.5 percent. This isalready above the national target of 95 per-cent set by the EPA for 2005. The 2001 An-nual Compliance Report is posted on thePDWP’s home page at www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/pdwp/homepdwp.htm, along with theprior year reports.
37
Public water systems with serious wa-ter quality exceedences potentially affectingpublic health or multiple monitoring viola-tions are placed on a Significant Non-Com-piler (SNC) list. The department worksclosely with violators to return them to com-pliance in a timely manner. During 2000,only 130 of the more than 2,700 public wa-ter systems were on the SNC list.
For all exceedences, public water sys-tems are required to notify the customersthey serve. The method of notification var-ies by the exceedence and system type.Some water quality violations, such as theconfirmed detection of fecal coliform bacte-ria or E. coli, warrant more immediate ac-tion due to the threat to public health. Acuteviolations, the department requires systemsto immediately notify their customers to boiltheir water before consumption. Boil waterorders remain in effect until the problem hasbeen corrected and the water is safe to con-sume.
In addition to compliance monitoring,the department also provides monitoring thatassists public water systems to anticipate theimpact of future regulations. For example,since 1994, the PDWP has been monitoringfor disinfection by-products (DBPs) in pub-lic water systems not currently required byregulation to monitor for DBPs, includingsmall surface water systems, groundwatersystems with wells in unconsolidated forma-tions, and secondary systems. Secondarysystems do not have their own water source,but instead purchase their water from an-other water system.
Disinfection by-products are formed indrinking water when a disinfectant (usuallychlorine) is added to the water to inactivatebacteria and other potentially harmful mi-crobes. The disinfectant reacts with naturalorganic matter in the water to form disinfec-tion by-products, some of which may haveserious health effects.
The purpose of the special monitoringwas to see if any of the systems would haveproblems with the lower maximum contami-nant level (MCL) limits required by federalregulations in 2002 for large systems and2004 for small systems. The monitoring re-vealed a number of systems that will needto work together with their water suppliersto try to reduce disinfection by-product lev-els before the rules apply. Because of thePDWP’s special monitoring effort, these sys-tems now have more time to prepare for theregulations that are coming.
VULNERABILITY
In 2001, the PDWP initiated specialmonitoring for Radium 228 (Ra228). RA228is a naturally occurring radioactive elementand potential drinking waster contaminantthat had not been monitored routinely in thepast. New routine monitoring will be re-quired by federal regulations in 2004 forMissouri systems. The special monitoringbegun by the PDWP will allow“grandfathering” of sample results and re-duce the frequency of future monitoring.
Very few of the state’s water systems areexpected to have any Ra228, based on pre-vious radionuclide monitoring, but they allwould have to collect quarterly samples ifthe grandfathering of data cannot be done.The special monitoring should eliminate thistime consuming quarterly monitoring formost systems and reduce analysis costs forthe department. The early monitoring willalso detect those few systems will Ra228problems and allow them more time to pre-pare for the regulations that are coming.
The department first became aware ofmethyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a po-tential threat to Missouri’s drinking water in1994 and added it to the list of volatile or-
38
ganic chemicals (VOCs) routinely tested for.Public water systems served by surface wa-ter are routinely tested once a year, andgroundwater systems, once every three years.The end of 2000 marked a milestone as thePDWP completed two rounds of MTBE test-ing for all public water systems. In additionto this routine testing, MTBE results are alsoprovided when other volatile chemical testsare run. The larger public water systems(serving 10,000 or more people), all surfacewater systems and some groundwater sys-tems are tested every three months. Mis-souri has been fortunate in that over the yearsonly five public water systems (with a totalof six wells) have been impacted by MTBEcontamination. In all cases, the source ofcontamination was leaking undergroundpetroleum storage tanks or associated piping.
The PDWP discovered gasoline con-tamination in New Madrid County PublicWater District No. 2’s only well during rou-tine testing in October, 2000. This water dis-trict is located in Kewanee, Missouri, andserves about 500 people. Water district offi-cials quickly evaluated their options andworked out an agreement with the City ofNew Madrid to hook onto their system. ThePDWP continued to monitor the contami-nated well throughout the project. TheMTBE was slowly creeping up and benzenehad started showing up in the summer of2001.
The PDWP provided the water districtwith technical assistance and financial assis-tance in the form of a $150,000 grant in 2001.The Department of Economic Developmentalso contributed to the project with a$150,000 grant and low interest loan of$100,000. The water district put in $50,000of their own money. The project consistedof installing a booster pump station and lay-ing six miles of water line to the City of NewMadrid. The water district has been buyingwater since December 27, 2001.
A combination of technical and finan-cial assistance from the PDWP, and quickaction by the water district averted a poten-tially catastrophic loss of a public water sup-ply, and assured that the drinking water forthe people of the Kewanee area is once againsafe.
A part of the PDWP’s monitoring planis a vulnerability assessment performed tosupport the waiver of monitoring require-ments. This indicates various threats to spe-cific public water supplies and allows thatinformation to be considered in establish-ing monitoring requirements.
The Public Drinking Water Program usesa vulnerability assessment to determinewhich sources of drinking water need to betested for certain chemicals. If certain chemi-cals are located in a geographic area and maypotentially affect a drinking water source,that source is monitored for the presence ofthose chemicals in the water. This allowsthe cost of analysis to be focused on thevulnerable sources. Without these assess-ments, the department would have to testevery drinking water source for every chemi-cal listed by the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) as a drinking water con-taminant.
The department is implementing asource water assessment plan to identify ar-eas highly vulnerable to contaminants. Thesource water assessment plan describes howMissouri will delineate geographic areas thatmay influence the quality of drinking waterand identify potential contaminant sourceswithin the areas. The goal is to protect pub-lic drinking water sources from contamina-tion and provide safe drinking water. ThePDWP is conducting these assessments withassistance from the department’s GeologicalSurvey and Resource Assessment Divisionand with the University of Missouri’s Centerfor Agricultural, Resource, and Environmen-tal Systems (CARES). The department’s plan
39
was approved by the U.S. EPA in June, 2000.The source water assessments will be com-pleted in 2003.
The PDWP contracted with the Univer-sity of Missouri to acquire accurate locationsof potential drinking water contaminants inthe vicinity of public drinking water sources.During 2001, the PDWP and the universitylocated 5,621 potential drinking water con-taminant sources, bringing the total numberof inventoried sites to 15,391. All informa-tion is being collected, stored, and used in ageographic information system (GIS).
These assessments increase awarenessof the threats to drinking water, but do notmean the public water systems have beencontaminated. The assessments are beingprovided to water systems and the public toinform them of the potential threats to their
drinking water source and to encourage lo-cal source water protection initiatives.
The PDWP and the University ofMissouri’s Center for Agricultural, Resource,and Environmental Systems (CARES) havemade maps and other information on allpublic water system wells available to thepublic on the Internet at http://www.cares.missouri.edu.
Outreach activities have been con-ducted to educate the public about the im-portance of protecting their drinking watersources from contamination. The depart-ment strongly encourages voluntary sourcewater protection efforts to protect water qual-ity, and hopes that communities will takeadvantage of the source water assessmentresults as a starting point for local sourcewater protection efforts.
Example of a water trace. The green dots represent points that dye was introduced into the ground throughsinkholes or losing streams. The blue dot represents where the dye was recovered. This indicates direction ofgroundwater flow and helps define the recharge area of Big Spring.
40
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
The department studies the recharge ar-eas of springs, and delineates losing streamsand sinkholes to determine areas wheregroundwater is particularly prone to contami-nation. Harmless fluorescent dyes are usedto trace the movement of groundwater fromits recharge area to its discharge point.
Since 1989, the department has per-formed numerous water traces in karst ar-eas where groundwater resources can easilybecome contaminated by surface activities.In karst areas, much surface water is chan-neled underground in losing streams andsinkholes. The water lost to the subsurfacetypically resurfaces, sometimes as far as 40miles away, at a spring or springs. Waterwells between the recharge point and thereceiving spring can be affected by contami-nants entering losing streams and sinkholes.
The results of individual dye traces arestored in the department’s Dye Trace DataBase. Since 1989, several reports have beenpublished that describe in-depth studies ofseveral major spring systems (Hydrogeologyof the Bennett Spring Area, Laclede, Dallas,Webster, and Wright Counties, Missouri,Water Resources Report No. 38;Hydrogeology of the Maramec Spring Area,Water Resources Report No. 55; and TheSprings of Greene County, Missouri, WaterResources Report No. 68 which was pub-lished in 2001) are examples.
The Water Well Drillers law requires thatall persons engaged in water tracing registerwith the department and renew the registra-tion annually. All proposed injections mustbe reported to the department’s GeologicalSurvey and Resource Assessment Divisionprior to injection of dye, and written andgraphical documentation of traces is pro-vided to the department within 30 days aftercompletion of each trace. The informationwill be provided to interested parties upon
request, at cost of reproduction. For the traceto be included in the department’s dye tracedatabase, the data must be examined by thethree-member Dye Trace Committee. If thedata quality and documentation are satisfac-tory, then the results are entered into thedepartment dye trace database.
The department performs a variety ofwater- and sediment-quality investigationseach year in the form of complaint investi-gations, wasteload allocations, ecologicalrisk assessments, and fish tissue contaminantmonitoring. Department biologists are cur-rently developing aquatic macroinvertebrate-based “biocriteria” for assessing stream qual-ity in each eco-region of the state. Thesecriteria will eventually be incorporated intothe state water quality standards.
Due to the Flood of 1993, a federallyfunded sanitary landfill monitoring projectfor flood-damaged sanitary landfills wasimplemented. Effects of the flood includedperiods of surface ponding, soil saturation,and elevated groundwater table and in-creased velocity in the subsurface movementof water. The department received equip-ment and training from the federal programto monitor landfills that operated before andafter the flood to determine if any surface orgroundwater contamination occurred.
The results of the study indicated thatlandfills contributed no measurable contami-nation of surface water off-site. Also, noimpact to groundwater could be determinedto have taken place. However, many of thelandfills studied did experience a significantincrease in the migration of landfill gas(methane) through the soil away from theirfacilities.
Some of these migrations present a po-tential public safety problem due to the dan-gers associated with explosion or asphyxia-tion should the gas accumulate in nearbystructures. For example, in the spring of1998, a fire started in the basement of a pri-
41
vate home situated next to a closed landfill.A field investigation conducted by the de-partment confirmed that the fire was causedby methane gas migrating from the landfillinto cracks in the floor, and igniting fromthe water heater. No one was injured; how-ever, within weeks of the investigation, thelandfill owner purchased the home andproperty from the citizen, and bought an-other home that was threatened. Both homeswere vacated due to the ongoing threat ofexplosion. Through an extension of theoriginal project, further study is underwayto gain a better understanding of what canbe done to evaluate and address these meth-ane gas migrations that may occur at land-fills throughout the state.
SURFACE WATER QUALITYMONITORING
The major purposes of the water qual-ity monitoring program are to:1) characterize “background” or “reference”
water quality conditions;2) better understand flow events, and diur-
nal and seasonal water quality variationand its underlying processes;
3) characterize aquatic biological commu-nities and habitats, and distinguish be-tween the impacts of water and habitatquality;
4) assess time trends in water quality;5) characterize specific and regional impacts
of point and nonpoint source dischargeson water quality and;
6) check for compliance with water qualitystandards or wastewater permit limits.All of these objectives are statewide in
scope. Reference conditions of water chem-istry and of aquatic macroinvertebrates havebeen or are being used to develop waterquality standards. Due to the cost of envi-
ronmental monitoring, the department rou-tinely coordinates its monitoring activitieswith other state and federal agencies.
The strategy for monitoring varies by thewaters being sampled. Many water qualitymonitoring strategies exist including moni-toring effluent discharges, monitoring theimpacts of discharges upon localized surfacewaters, monitoring extended impacts fromeffluent sources, and conducting surveys of“background” conditions. The monitoringactivities through which these strategies areimplemented take several forms:1) Fixed station chemical monitoring net-
works. The department maintains 63fixed stations through cooperative agree-ments with the U.S. Geological Surveyand 56 sites maintained by thedepartment’s lab, and routinely track datafrom about 60 other sites monitored byother agencies.
2) Intensive surveys3) Special topic monitoring (fish kill inves-
tigations, bacterial monitoring, contami-nant transport studies, etc.)
4) Toxics monitoring5) Biological monitoring (of aquatic
macroinvertebrates). The departmentpresently is monitoring 60 streams annu-ally.
6) Fish tissue, sediment, and shellfish moni-toring. The Missouri Department of Con-servation monitors about 30 sites and thedepartment/USEPA monitors about 20sites annually for toxicants, primarily pes-ticides and metals, in fish tissue.
7) Monitoring by volunteers - A coopera-tive program sponsored by the Depart-ment of Natural Resources, the Depart-ment of Conservation, and the Conser-vation Federation of Missouri, known asStream Teams, has trained and equippedvolunteers around the state to conductboth chemical and biological monitoringof streams. At present, there are approxi-
42
mately 1,200 active volunteers monitor-ing 1,015 different sites. Most of the datacollected by these volunteers are re-ported back to the department’s WaterPollution Control Program.
MONITORING PROGRAMEVALUATION
The water quality monitoring programwithin the department evolved as a programto characterize and cope with point sourcewastewater discharges. This program, whichhas stressed chemical monitoring, appearsto have been successful.
In 1998, the department shifted empha-sis of monitoring programs in the followingways:1) maintain the size of the fixed station flow
and chemistry network, and includechemical analysis of sediments in somestreams;
2) increase the amount of intensive chemi-cal and biological water quality studies;and
3) increase the amount of aquatic inverte-brate sampling statewide toward the de-velopment of biological criteria withinthe water quality standards.
The major reasons for these changes arethe perception that:1) more large municipal or industrial waste-
water discharges need substantial waterquality study to fully understand theirimpacts on receiving waters than the de-partment is presently able to conduct;
2) biological criteria may be better thanconventional chemical monitoring forcharacterizing many nonpoint pollutionsources;
3) many problems in streams are not dueto water chemistry problems, but tophysical problems in the stream channel,in the riparian zone, or farther up in thewatershed.The biggest challenge will be to find a
way to assess the water quality impact ofthousands of confined animal feeding op-erations across the state. To date, the De-partment of Natural Resources and the De-partment of Conservation have been able toinvestigate and document at least a portionof all discharges that have caused fish kills,but no monitoring program has ever tried toassess the day-to-day sub-acute impacts ofthese pollution sources, which may be sig-nificant.
43
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RT
INVENTORY OF WATER USE ANDAVAILABILITY
RSMo 640.412 - The department shallmaintain an inventory of ground and sur-face water uses, quantity and users. - Thedepartment shall inventory the following: 1)existing surface and groundwater uses; 2)quantity of surface and groundwater avail-able for uses in the future; and 3) waterextraction and use patterns.
WATER USE
As part of the Major Water Users Law(RSMo 256.400), the department compileswater use information. Major water usersare defined as those users that are capableof pumping greater than 100,000 gallons perday from either groundwater or surface wa-ter. There were 1,971 users registered in2000. There is no financial penalty for fail-ing to report but users that do not reportcan be requested to cease diversion by theattorney generals office through an injunc-tion (RSMo 256.415). The Major Water Us-ers Database includes information about lo-cation, amount of water used and type ofuse (domestic, municipal, irrigation, recre-ation, industrial, electrical generation, fishand wildlife, and drainage.)
The department is updating the wateruser registration forms for Internet compat-ibility. Currently, the water user registrationforms are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service
to the major water users in the state. Userstype in or print in the information and thenmail the completed form back to the depart-
According to reported Major Water Users data, 791.5billion gallons of Missouri River water was used in2000. This accounts for 14% of all water use reportedfor the state in 2000. The majority of Missouri Riverwater is used for production of electrical power (83%,660 billions gallons), followed by municipal watersupply (16%, 128 billion gallons), with 3 billiongallons used for fish and wildlife, and 55 milliongallons used for irrigation. These figures includewithdrawal reported from the river and its alluvium.
MISSOURI RIVER
14%
2000 MISSOURI RIVER USE AS APERCENTAGE OF TOTAL REGISTERED
MAJOR WATER USE
OTHER WATER SOURCES
86%
44
ment. The first stage of the programming isfinished and allows Internet access to theregistration forms. Adobe Public DocumentFormat (PDF) computer files of the registra-tion forms are now available. These PDFfiles are linked to the Water Resources Pro-gram-Major Water Users Unit Internet webpage (http://www. dnr.state.mo.us/dgls/wrp/waterusestatutes.html).
In the future, the second stage will al-low users to complete their annual report-ing obligation by filling out the forms on theirhome computers, and then submitting themvia e-mail ([email protected])to the department, or ([email protected]).
The final stage, some time away, willallow interactive communication betweenthe users’ computers and the department’scomputers, so that the public can view theirown water usage and anyone can view andstudy water use trends by area and source.The department’s Internet firewall and othersafeguards must be in place before publicsharing of the Major Water Users databasewill be allowed. The data may be copied or“downloaded” to individual computers sothat people can study them. The original,master database will be write-protected andin read-only mode so that the data are notaltered. During the last several years, thedata have been geographically referenced sodata users can develop data layers on geo-graphic-based data platforms. Water with-drawal information is now in both the lati-tude-longitude format and the township-range format.
The Census of Missouri Public WaterSystems, published by the department, pro-vides many details about water use by pub-lic water systems. It includes the watersource, the production capacity and averagedaily consumption, the location of surfacewater intakes, and the number of customersserved. Currently, there are 2,762 public
water systems serving cities, water districts,subdivisions, trailer parks, and institutions.Almost five million citizens of Missouri usepublic water systems as their source of wa-ter. The total production capacity ofMissouri’s community water systems is 1,840million gallons daily (MGD), with an aver-age daily consumption of 807 MGD. (Citiesand water districts are examples of commu-nity water systems.)
GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY
The importance of groundwater to Mis-souri cannot be overstressed. Based on sta-tistics in the 2000 Census of Missouri PublicWater Supplies, of the 1,444 community pub-lic water supplies in Missouri, 1,205, or about83.4 percent, use groundwater as their wa-ter source. If only primary supplies are con-sidered, 92.6 percent of the 1,191 primarywater supplies use groundwater. Only 88primary water supply systems use surfacewater. Secondary water supply systems arepublic water systems that purchase waterfrom a primary system. Nearly all of the 1,296noncommunity public water supplies usegroundwater. There are about 3,800 activepublic water supply wells in use in Missouri,and another 600 public water supply wellsthat are inactive.
In terms of population served by pub-lic water supplies, surface water systemssupply a greater percentage of Missouri resi-dents than groundwater systems. Approxi-mately 84.5 percent of Missouri’s 5,595,200residents, or about 4,730,000 people, areserved by community public water supplies.About 34 percent of these, 1,610,000 people,use groundwater. Surface water suppliesabout 3,125,000 people or 66 percent of thestate’s population.
An estimated 864,000 Missouri residents,or about 15 percent of the state’s popula-
45
tion, use private water supplies. Since small-scale private surface-water supplies suitablefor providing safe drinking water to singlefamilies or farms are both complicated andexpensive to construct and maintain, it is safeto say that most of these residents usegroundwater but cisterns are still used insome rural areas. Approximately 7,000 pri-vate water supply wells are drilled yearly inMissouri, mostly in the southern part of thestate.
Missouri’s groundwater resources arenot evenly distributed across the state. Po-table groundwater, water that is essentiallyusable as it is produced and requires noelaborate treatment to remove undesirableconstituents, is much more common insouthern Missouri than in the northern partof the state. This is mostly due to the geo-logic variations across Missouri. Estimatesmade as parts of the Missouri State WaterPlan Series indicate that potable groundwa-ter in storage in Missouri may be as great as500 trillion gallons. Only about 13.3 per-cent of this is in northern Missouri north ofthe Missouri River. The remainder is southof the Missouri River, principally in the Ozarkregion and in the Southeastern Lowlands.
The state can be divided into sevengroundwater provinces, each having distinctgroundwater and aquifer characteristics. TheSt. Francois Mountains groundwater prov-ince of southeastern Missouri contains theoldest rocks in the state that are exposed atland surface. Precambrian igneous rocks arefound at or near the surface throughout muchof this region. Upper Cambrian-age sedi-mentary rocks consisting of thin shales andsiltstones and much thicker dolomite andsandstone units overlie them. The igneousrocks are nearly impermeable except wherefractured. Thus, yields of wells drilled intothe Precambrian igneous rock are generallyonly a few gallons per minute or less. Theyounger sedimentary rocks overlying the
igneous rocks comprise the St. Francois aqui-fer. Where it is very thin, the St. Francoisaquifer may only supply a few gallons ofwater per minute. Where it is the thickestand contains the greatest amount of sand-stone it can produce more than 300 gallonsof water per minute. The St. Francois Moun-tains area is one of the most difficult areasin Missouri in which to obtain a reliablegroundwater supply for private domestic use.In most places, it is not possible to developa groundwater supply capable of meetingeven modest municipal or irrigation de-mands. Groundwater storage estimates in-dicate this region contains only about 0.92trillion gallons of potable groundwater,which represents only about 0.2 percent ofMissouri’s groundwater resources.
The Salem Plateau groundwater prov-ince surrounds the St. Francois Mountains.The Salem Plateau is most extensive to thenorth, west, and south of the St. FrancoisMountains, and relatively small on the eastside. Thick Ordovician- and Cambrian-agedolomite and sandstone units comprising theOzark aquifer overlie the St. Francis aquiferin this region. Groundwater resources in theSalem Plateau groundwater province are themost extensive in the state. About 46.6 per-cent of Missouri’s potable groundwater is inthis region, a volume of about 233 trilliongallons. All but a very few communities andessentially all of the rural residents in thisprovince rely on groundwater. Dependingon well depth and location, private domes-tic wells a few hundred feet deep can easilyproduce water ample for domestic purposes,while larger-diameter wells 1,200 to 1,500feet deep typically can produce from 300 tomore than 1,000 gallons of water per minute.
Although this region contains abundantgroundwater resources, the geology heremakes groundwater particularly prone tocontamination. Permeable residual soils andkarst features such as sinkholes and losing
46
47
and sinkholes. These features are particu-larly well developed in parts of Greene andChristian counties, so much so that wellsconstructed in Greene and northern Chris-tian counties since 1987 must be constructedto exclude production from the SpringfieldPlateau aquifer. A low-permeability shaleunit between the shallow Springfield Plateauaquifer and the deeper Ozark aquifer greatlylimits the vertical interchange of water be-tween the two units and helps to protect theOzark aquifer from contamination.
The West-Central Missouri groundwa-ter province lies northwest of the Salem Pla-teau. The boundary between the two is thefresh water-saline water transition zone.South and west of the transition zone,groundwater in the Springfield Plateau,Ozark, and St. Francois aquifers is of goodchemical quality. North and west of the tran-sition zone these same aquifers yield waterthat is too mineralized for domestic use. Thetransition zone coincides with where theaquifers yield water containing 1,000 mg/Ltotal dissolved solids. Water with less than1,000 mg/L total dissolved solids is gener-ally considered fresh water while that con-taining between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/L to-tal dissolved solids is termed brackish. Wa-ter quality in deep aquifers further deterio-rates to the north and west.
Potable groundwater in the West-Cen-tral Missouri groundwater province is typi-cally difficult to obtain. Relatively shallowPennsylvanian-age limestones and sand-stones can produce marginal quality waterbut yields are generally low. In some areasit is impractical to develop a suitable ground-water source that will even supply a privateresidence. This province contains an esti-mated 1.2 trillion gallons of potable ground-water, or about 0.24 percent of the state’sresource.
Many of the bedrock formations foundthroughout southern Missouri are also found
north of the Missouri River. The southernpart of the Northeast Missouri groundwaterprovince lies to the south of the fresh water-saline water transition zone. Mississippian-, Ordovician-, and Cambrian-age strata in thisarea can supply from 10 to more than 1,000gallons per minute of potable water, depend-ing on depth. North of the transition zonewater from deeper bedrock aquifers is gen-erally too highly mineralized for most uses.Modest quantities of marginally potablegroundwater are locally available in someof the shallow Mississippian strata where itis not overlain by Pennsylvanian strata. ThePennsylvanian strata have an overall lowpermeability and generally yield small quan-tities of marginal to poor quality water.
Glacial drift overlies the bedrockthroughout much of this region. It is gener-ally thickest in the northwestern counties ofthe province and thins toward the Missouriand Mississippi rivers. Thousands of shal-low, large-diameter, hand-dug glacial driftwells once supplied many of the rural resi-dents, but the development of rural publicwater supply districts has rendered most ofthese wells obsolete. The shallow glacialdrift wells generally yielded less than 3 gal-lons per minute and relied on their large di-ameters for storage. Their shallow depthsand poor construction made them very vul-nerable to contamination from bacteria, ani-mal wastes, and agricultural chemicals.
In most places, the glacial drift in thispart of the state is not capable of supplyinga volume of water suitable for public watersupply. Alluvial deposits consisting of sandand gravel underlying the floodplains ofmajor rivers in this area can yield large quan-tities of good-quality water. Yields as highas 2,000 gallons per minute are possible fromproperly constructed wells in favorable ar-eas of the major alluvial aquifers.
The Northwest Missouri groundwaterprovince has geologic characteristics similar
48
to those in the northeastern part of the state.However, in northwest Missouri there are nohigh-yield, potable bedrock aquifers avail-able, and the glacial drift is typically morewater productive than to the east. A test drill-ing program conducted in northwestern Mis-souri in the 1950s delineated the axes of nu-merous drift-filled preglacial channels, mostof which are covered with younger glacialdrift. The channels were the preglacialstream valleys, and were filled with water-borne coarse sediments during glacial peri-ods. Properly constructed wells producingfrom favorable locations in the drift-filledchannels can produce several hundred gal-lons of water per minute, and are locally usedfor irrigation as well as public water supply.
Like in northeastern Missouri, thick al-luvial deposits underlying the floodplains ofthe major rivers are a significant source ofwater for agriculture as well as public watersupply. Yields of 2,000 gallons of water perminute or more are possible from properlyconstructed wells in favorable areas of theMissouri River alluvium. Alluvial depositsalong lesser streams generally yield substan-tially less water.
Groundwater, like all natural resources,is finite. Groundwater use in parts of thestate has caused significant water-level de-clines in some aquifers. This is particularlytrue where groundwater is or was heavilydepended upon to supply larger towns andcities. Water-level decline in the Ozark aqui-fer in the Springfield area, for example, hasbeen well documented, and is partly respon-sible for the city seeking alternative suppliesfrom surface-water sources.
Water-use conflicts occur on almost ayearly basis in numerous areas of the state.Often the conflicts stem from competing usesof the water. For example, an aquifer that
has historically been used to supply privatedomestic wells for households and farms issuddenly tapped to supply water for irriga-tion, a rural water district, or a large indus-try. The result of the increase in groundwa-ter demand commonly is a decline in ground-water level in the area in and adjacent to themajor withdrawal. Many of these declinesoccur in aquifers that are more than 1,200feet thick. A decline of, say, 100 to 200 feet,may seem reasonably minor compared to thetotal saturated thickness of such an aquifer,but it may completely de-water, shallowerprivate wells, or at least substantially de-crease their yields. Such conflicts are fur-ther amplified during drought periods whengroundwater use is above normal and lackof rainfall precludes any groundwater re-charge, even to relatively shallow unconfinedaquifers.
Unlike surface water, groundwater typi-cally requires little or no treatment to makeit suitable for most purposes. Assuming theresource is available, the cost of developinga groundwater supply is a small fraction ofthat of developing a similar volume surface-water supply. Thus, where groundwater isavailable, it is most commonly used. His-torically, most industries using large quanti-ties of water typically developed near urbanareas where there were established watersupplies. However, in recent years thereseems to be an increasing trend of develop-ing water-intensive industries, especiallythose related to agri-business, in rural areas,and supplying them with groundwater. Newdevelopments such as these, coupled withexisting demands placed on groundwaterfrom irrigation, municipal and domestic wa-ter supply, and other uses will likely con-tinue to fuel water controversies for the fore-seeable future.
49
50
and man-induced. Tidal effects caused bythe position of the Sun and Moon relative tothe Earth can cause small fluctuations ingroundwater levels in some aquifers. Baro-metric pressure changes can likewise causesignificant temporary changes in water lev-els of confined aquifers when high and lowpressure systems pass through Missouri.Earthquakes in different parts of the worldcan cause rapid fluctuations of groundwaterlevels in some wells up to several feet in mag-nitude. Water levels in some aquifers canbe affected briefly by the passing of nearbytrains or heavy trucks. However, most ma-jor changes in water levels stem from theremoval of large quantities of groundwaterthrough wells.
Prior to man’s construction of waterwells, groundwater flow systems were, forthe most part, under steady-state conditions.The volume of water exiting the aquifersthrough seeps, springs, diffuse groundwa-ter movement into streams, and other natu-ral means was essentially equal to the vol-ume of recharge the aquifer received. Dur-ing dry years, when recharge was low, springflows and inflow of groundwater intostreams would likewise decrease. Duringwet years, the reverse took place; there wasadditional recharge and a greater volume ofgroundwater exiting the system. Water-levelchanges that occurred in the aquifers wererelatively minor. This began to change withthe development of water wells.
There were very few water wells in Mis-souri prior to 1900, other than shallow, hand-dug wells in the glacial drift area of north-ern Missouri. Streams and springs weremostly relied upon in the southern part ofthe state where shallow bedrock greatly ham-pers the construction of hand-dug wells.Early wells were mostly drilled for towns andcities. As drilling machines improved anddrilling companies became more common,there was an increase in the development of
private wells. Today, there are probablyseveral hundred thousand wells in use in thestate. Each year, some 7,000 new wells aredrilled in Missouri, which are probably morethan were drilled in a decade or more in theearly part of the 1900s.
The total volume of groundwater re-moved each year from Missouri aquifers isnot precisely known. Major water users,those entities capable of producing 100,000gallons of water per day or more, reportedusing a total of about 271 billion gallons ofgroundwater during 2000, the latest year forwhich statistics have been compiled. Thisdoes not include the groundwater that isused by smaller suppliers, so it is safe to as-sume that actual groundwater use is substan-tially greater than 271 billion gallons. In1995, the U.S. Geological Survey estimatedthat groundwater use in Missouri was about890 million gallons per day, or about 325billion gallons per year. If it were assumedthat current groundwater use in Missouri is350 billion gallons of water per year, thiswould be equal to an average yearly use of62,554 gallons per resident, or a daily percapita use of 171 gallons, which is not anunreasonable value. If groundwater use perunit area is considered, then Missouri usesan estimated 5,020,872 gallons of ground-water per square mile each year. This isequal to 9.55 gallons of water per minute,per square mile, throughout the state.
A groundwater usage of less than 10gallons of water per minute for each squaremile of the state hardly seems excessive, andcertainly would not be if the usage wereevenly distributed. However, it is not. Large-scale groundwater use is generally localized.A town of 12,000 residents in the Ozarks willlikely use more groundwater within an areaof a few square miles than is used through-out the remainder of the county. A singleindustry in a rural area can use as muchgroundwater as a town of 15,000. Agricul-
51
tural irrigation is widely practiced in only afew areas of the state, including the south-east lowlands, west-central Missouri in Jas-per, Barton, Vernon, and Dade counties,northeast Missouri inAudrain, Montgomery,and Callaway counties,and along the Missouriand Mississippi Rivers.In these areas, irrigationcan have a pronouncedimpact on groundwaterconditions.
Groundwater-levelobservation wells mea-sure the effects ofgroundwater usage onaquifers. Observationwell installations in rela-tively isolated rural set-tings have measuredvery modest groundwa-ter-level changes duringthe last 45 years. Mostof the fluctuations ingroundwater levels havebeen due to natural phe-nomena. However, inother areas of the state,observation wells havedocumented groundwa-ter-level declines in ex-cess of 400 feet since the1950s.
Prior to 2000, theobservation well net-work consisted of about45 to 50 observationwells that were mostly inthe area south of the Mis-souri River. All wereequipped with instru-ments to measure andrecord water-levelchanges. Data were col-
lected from the wells every few weeks ormonths, depending on their location. Thedata collected by newer digital recorderswere stored on paper punch tape that could
Wave of the future – new observation well recorders. These new data collectionplatforms consist of electronic data recorders and digital encoders. Water levelinformation from each observation well is transmitted via satellite every fourhours, allowing almost instantaneous access to important data. Photo by SusanDunn.
52
be read by a tape reader and directly fedinto a computer for processing. Older me-chanical recorders recorded data using a penand chart paper. The charts had to be pro-cessed by hand to obtain the data, a time-consuming task. In both cases there wastypically a several week to several monthdelay between when data were collected andwhen they were available for use.
All of this changed in 1999, when theMissouri Legislature approved of an expan-sion to increase the number of observationwells and replace the recording instrumentswith state-of-the-art equipment. During2000, equipment was purchased to equip 70groundwater-level observation wells withdata collection platforms that not only mea-sure and record groundwater levels, but alsotransmit the data from the field to the officeusing the Geostationary Operational Envi-ronmental Satellite (GOES) weather satellitesystem. Data are collected at each installa-tion at 30-minute intervals. Every 4 hours,the GOES satellite listens for data from onlyone station, and that station has a 1 minutetime window in which to send the data.Within a few moments, the data are routedfrom the well, to the GOES satellite 22,000miles in space, and back to a receiving sta-tion in Little Rock, Arkansas, operated by theU.S. Geological Survey. From there, it istransmitted by phone line to the U. S. Geo-logical Survey office in Rolla, and posted onan Internet web site that is being developedas part of this project.
As part of this work, the departmentcontracted for the construction of eight newobservation wells in areas where informa-tion is needed and no existing unused wellscould be located. Another 16 unused wellswere donated or loaned to the department
for use as observation wells by cities or otherinterested parties. New observation wellsare now on line at or near Columbia, Drake,McDaniel Lake (near Springfield), Mexico,Shelbina, West Plains, Ozark, Springfield,Eureka, Camdenton, Qulin, Farmington,Lebanon, Richland, Cassville, Lewis andClark State Park, Fountain Grove WildlifeArea, Theodosia, Urich, Dresden, Coffey,Warrensburg, Festus, southern JeffersonCounty, and Troy. Additional wells havebeen obtained at Mountain Grove, theCallaway Nuclear Power Plant, and Monett.
Currently, 70 groundwater-level obser-vation wells equipped with satellite-linkeddata recorders are on line. The additionalthree wells will be placed on line during2002.
This expansion is allowing groundwa-ter data to be used in ways that were previ-ously not possible. Towns with observationwells can directly view the effects that theirproducing wells are having on groundwaterlevels. This information has been especiallywelcome during the past year because ofwidespread drought conditions. A goodexample is the recently constructed moni-toring well near the Pettis County R-12 schoolin Dresden. This well and other existingwells have helped delineate the groundwa-ter level changes in the Dresden area. Resi-dents with private wells in areas of highgroundwater use can monitor changes inwater levels. The network will likely growone to four wells per year in response towater-use conflicts, or where information isneeded for other purposes. Real-timegroundwater data can be obtained from thedepartment’s web site, www.dnr.state.mo.us/water.htm.
53
SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY
The department is a cooperator in theU.S. Geological Survey program that collectsand publishes water data for Missouri’s sur-face and groundwater resources. Substan-tial amounts of surface and groundwater in-formation have been collected through thiseffort, and published annually in a report
series titled Water Resources Data-Missouri.Records have been collected in this mannerfor nearly 75 years. The scope of data col-lection efforts has widened to include sur-face and groundwater quality information.Presently, the stream-gaging network moni-tors flow and stage at 138 stations, the stageat 12 lakes and reservoirs, and surface waterquality at 53 sites statewide (including 2 lakes
SURFACE WATER-QUALITY STATIONS IN MISSOURI
Surface Water Gaging Stations in Missouri. Source: USGS, “Water Resourcese Data – Missouri, Water Year2001”
54
and reservoirs). Water quality stations in-clude physical, chemical, and biological pa-rameters such as water temperatures, spe-cific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH,carbonate, bicarbonate, alkalinity, inorganicconstituents, nutrients, trace elements, indi-cator bacteria, sediment, and pesticides.
SURFACE WATER-QUALITY STATIONS IN MISSOURI
Surface Water Quality Stations in Missouri. Source: USGS, “Water Resources Data – Missouri, Water Year2001”
DAM SAFETY
The mission of the Dam and ReservoirSafety Program is to ensure that dams in thestate are constructed, maintained and oper-ated in a safe manner. This is accomplishedby regulation of all non-agricultural, non-
55
federal dams more than 35 feet in height andby providing technical assistance and infor-mational resources to all dam owners. Thedepartment maintains two databases ondams in the state. The STATUS databasecontains only those dams that are regulatedin accordance with Chapter 236 of the Re-vised Statutes of Missouri. This includesdams that are 35 feet or more in height asmeasured from the crest to the downstreamtoe of the dam. The number of dams cur-rently included in this database is 629. Thedatabase includes spatial and physical data,downstream hazard classifications, owner-ship information, water use, and the currentregulatory status of each dam.
The NATDAM database is maintainedthrough a continuing contract with the Fed-eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)and the Association of State Dam Safety Of-ficials. This database includes dams thatmeet the height and storage criteria estab-lished by FEMA and are identical to the cri-teria established by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers for the original national inventorycompiled in the 1970s. Dams which are 25feet or more in height with a storage vol-ume of at least 15 acre-feet, or which are 6feet or more in height with a storage vol-ume of at least 50 acre-feet, are included inthis inventory. The number of dams cur-rently inventoried in this database is 4,088.The database includes spatial and physicaldata, downstream hazard rating, water use,ownership information and purpose of thedam.
The Dam and Reservoir Safety Programof the Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division, has recently acquireda tractor-mounted pipe inspection camera.This camera can be used to inspect spillwaypipes through dams that are too small for aperson to enter and inspect.
The camera is operated remotely froma control unit that is connected to the cam-era by 500 feet of cable, and is powered bya generator. The camera head has full tiltand pan capabilities, allowing for a full 360degree observation of pipe joints. A videocassette recorder (VCR) attaches to the con-trol unit to allow recording of the pipe in-spection on a standard VHS tape.
A John Deere Gator ™ all-terrain vehiclewas purchased to transport the camera, con-trol unit, cable reel and generator to eitherthe pipe inlet or outlet. A goose-neck trailerwas also acquired to transport the equipmentfrom the office to the site.
Missouri is one of only a few state damsafety programs that have this capability. Theprogram has performed several pipe inspec-tions with the camera, many of which haveindicated defects in the pipe. This informa-tion has been used in determining the bestmethod of remediation for the defectivepipes.
The funding for the pipe inspectioncamera came through a grant from the Na-tional Dam Safety Program Act, sponsoredby Missouri Senator Christopher Bondthrough the Senate Appropriations Commit-tee. Funding for the grant program was es-tablished through the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency and was administeredby the Association of State Dam Safety Offi-cials.
A CASE HISTORY
The following case history, illustratingthe benefits of using the remotely controlledpipe inspection camera, occurred during theconstruction of a 118-feet-tall earthen damthat, when full, will create a 300+ acre recre-ational lake near St. Louis, Missouri. To di-vert water during the construction of thedam, a 16-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride
56
(PVC) pipe was installed and passed throughthe foundation of the dam.
Upon completion of the dam, the con-struction plans called for this pipe to be filledwith grout so that the lake could begin fill-ing. However, when it came time to fill thepipe with grout, the owner suddenly decidedhe would prefer to put a valve on the down-stream end of the pipe and use it to controlthe lake level. For reasons explained be-low, The program engineers were opposedto this, but it eventually came down to hav-ing to either approve the valve, or show areason why we were denying the request.
On April 5, 2000, a site visit was madeto the dam for the purpose of inspecting thepipe. The engineer, the contractor buildingthe dam, and representatives of the ownermet us at the site. The owner’s request toplace a valve on the downstream end of thelake drainpipe was a concern for two rea-sons.
First, the construction permit was origi-nally approved with the understanding thatthis pipe would remain open until the damwas completed and the spillways were inplace and functional. Once the dam wascompleted, the pipe would be grouted fullof concrete. Putting a valve on the end ofthe pipe would have created a situationwhere the pipe, which passes through thefoundation of the dam, would be full ofwater under pressure conditions. The finaldepth of the reservoir is approximately 100feet.
Secondly, concerns had been raisedabout the structural integrity of the pipe byStrata Services. In their March 12, 2000, re-port on the recently completed grouting ofthe foundation of the dam, Strata Servicesstated that the grouting of hole 4+35 wasstopped due to a pressure drop in the holeand possible grout infiltration into the lakedrainpipe. At the time of this incident, the
Tractor mounted pipe inspection camera system. Source: Dam and Reservoir Safety Program.
57
pipe was under full flow conditions. Groutwas visually detected in the water discharg-ing from the pipe at the time the pressuredrop was detected.
Based primarily on our concern that thepipe had been physically damaged, theowner had been advised that the valve couldnot be installed until a pipe inspection wasconducted.
To inspect the pipe, two obstacles hadto be overcome. First, the lake drainpipepassed through the foundation of the damin a trench. This put the inlet of the pipe atthe bottom of the reservoir in a narrow, steepsided cut section. A few weeks prior to theinspection, heavy rainfalls in the area cre-ated enough runoff to bury the inlet of thepipe with sediment and several feet of wa-
ter. Although the pipe inlet was uncloggedand the water drained from the reservoir,piles of rock (some baseball sized) remainedin the pipe. The tractor for the camera hadto climb over these rocks to inspect the pipe.
Secondly, the pipe was roughly 800 feetlong and we only had 500 feet of cable forthe camera. To do an inspection of the fulllength of the pipe we would have to run thecamera up the pipe from the downstreamend and then move to the pipe inlet and rundownstream.
We started at the downstream end ofthe pipe. Our first attempt to inspect thepipe was unsuccessful due to the tractorbeing unable to get past the rocks in thebottom of the pipe. The tractor wasreconfigured and the second attempt was
successful.At approximately 450
feet upstream of the pipeoutlet, a joint was discov-ered with roughly 2 – 3inches of vertical deflectionat the pipe crown. The de-flection caused the joint toseparate. Approximately 4feet farther upstream fromthe pipe joint separation, amajor bow in the pipe wasdiscovered. The top of thepipe had been pushed in,reducing the pipe diameterto about half its original size.While the bow in the pipewas most pronounced atthis location, the bow ex-tended to a lesser degreedownstream to the joint thathad separated at the pipecrown. As the tractor for thecamera was unable to getunder the bow in the pipe,the inspection of the pipewas terminated at this point.
Pipe inspection camera being placed into spillway pipe. Source: Dam andReservoir Safety Program.
58
What caused the damage to the pipe isunclear at this point. The pipe may havebeen damaged during the installation pro-cess and the grouting operation just helpedto point out the problem. The possibilityalso exists that the grouting being done inthe vicinity of the pipe caused the pipe tofail. Regardless of the cause, it was obviousthat the pipe had to be taken out of serviceand filled with grout immediately.
The detection of this problem would nothave been possible without the pipe cam-era. If the owner had been allowed to putthe valve on the downstream end of the pipeand the lake had filled, major problemswould have developed and the dam maywell have failed as a result.
The owner later admitted that he wasprepared to force the issue of the valve ifnecessary until he was shown the problemwith the pipe. The pipe has been groutedshut and the dam is now within 15 feet ofthe design normal pool.
APPLIED STUDY PROJECTSUNDERWAY
During 2001, eight investigative projectswere being undertaken by the Water Re-sources Program (WRP) of the GeologicalSurvey and Resource Assessment Division(GSRAD) in order to accumulate data forfuture water resources decision-making.
Pipe damage as seen by the inspection camera. Source: Dam and Reservoir Safety Program.
59
Both water quality and water quantity issuesare involved in these investigations.
CLIMATIC ATLAS PROJECT
Together with the Water Pollution Con-trol Program (WPCP), Water Protection andSoil Conservation Division (WPSCD), theWRP jointly funded the first year investiga-tion of the Climatic Atlas Project. The pur-pose of the project is to gain the data neededto help with other projects, such as droughtmodeling and stormwater runoff modeling.
Using the most recent data (1971-2000),precipitation norms, evaporation norms, andtemperature norms for the State of Missouri,were prepared in order to produce a data-base and maps. This information will helpengineers to recommend proper size reser-voirs or wastewater stabilization lagoons, toname a few examples.
The data also will be useful for deter-mining land application rates for liquid ma-nure, and models for determining Total Maxi-mum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to reduce waterpollution. The second year of the project
Missouri Average Annual Precipitation, over the last 30 years. Source: Missouri State Climatologist
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
60
will prepare runoff data, based on the datacollected during the first year of the project.
Base data were obtained from the Na-tional Weather Service (NWS), National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). An example of one of the mapsproduced from the data appears below.
SAC RIVER, SPRING RIVER, AND LAMINE RIVER
BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS PROJECT
Impaired waters may have total maxi-mum daily loads (TMDLs) established in anattempt to lessen their water quality impair-ment. When a water body is listed as im-paired by the state it becomes part of theSection 303(d) list of the Clean Water Act.Since non-point source contributions involveentire watersheds, complex simulation mod-els are used to lessen data collection require-ments.
The purpose of this project is to sup-port the state’s effort, to develop and estab-lish TMDLs for the public drinking water res-ervoirs in the Sac River, Spring Fork River,and Lamine River basins.
The project focuses on performing hy-drological and water quality simulations forFellows Lake and McDaniel Lake in order todevelop TMDLs that address nutrient load-ing to those water bodies.
The Water Resource Program has con-tracted to use a hydrologic simulation pro-gram to simulate the levels of nutrients, to-tal nitrogen and total phosphorus, relativeto lake algae growth to determine load re-ductions required to mitigate taste and odorproblems. The Water Pollution Control Pro-gram establishes the limits and implementsa plan to control nutrient contributions.
The lake bathymetry, volume, depthand surface areas are required to simulatethe watershed and lake water budgets. Byknowing the size and shape of the lakes we
can determine how much water a lake willhold which is necessary to determine theTMDL. Maximum loads are calculated basedupon concentration and flow. The size andshape of the reservoir determines how muchwater is lost to evaporation, seepage andspillage, and is a required component to anaccurate modeling effort.
This study will help local suppliers meetwater supply needs and water quality stan-dards. Work on Lamar Lake and Spring ForkLake are planned to begin in 2002.
MONITORING PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
PROJECT, WITH QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT
PLAN (QAPP)
The Groundwater Pesticide MonitoringProject is an effort of the Water ResourcesProgram. This project has been supportedby a continuing grant from the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) throughthe Missouri Department of Agriculture tothe Department of Natural Resources. It isbased on an approved Quality AssuranceProject Plan. Work on the project is expectedto continue through the year 2002 and be-yond.
To allow the state to continue to usecertain restricted use pesticides such asatrizine and metalachlor, the Missouri De-partment of Agriculture must evaluate theirimpacts upon groundwater. The state pesti-cide monitoring plan written by the Depart-ment of Natural Resources’, Geological Sur-vey and Resource Assessment Division, iden-tified high use areas and high vulnerabilityareas. Sampling in 2002 focused on highuse and high vulnerable regions. The sam-pling and analysis of 45 shallow wellsshowed only a few samples that detectedpesticides. These detects were below theEPA limits for the pesticides. The reportshould be finalized in August, 2002.
61
Map showing watershed of McDaniel Lake and Fellows Lake. Source: Sherry Chen
Maps showing bathymetry of McDaniel Lake and Fellows Lake. Source: USGS
LocationMap
62
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY
This is a Corps of Engineers study ofthe hydrology and hydraulics of the UpperMississippi River “system,” which includesthe Lower Missouri River, Illinois River, andUpper Mississippi River. The study is neededbecause the flow/frequency relationships forthe Missouri River were last derived in 1962,and those of the Upper and Middle Missis-sippi River were last derived in 1979. Addi-tional data, combined with changes in riverflow and hydraulics of the three rivers, havemade the new study necessary.
The Water Resources Program is coop-erating in this study with participation in theStudy Task Force, contributing informationand reviewing the data that the study projectis producing.
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY STUDY
This is a study to determine reservoiryield at various demand levels, and to showthe demand level that must not be exceededin order to have water in a reservoir throughthe end of a historic drought. In the chart,below, the demand is plotted against thehistoric drought of the 1950s.
The Reservoir Operation Study Com-puter Program (RESOP) is used to determinehow much water can be taken from a givenreservoir over a given period of time, andnot exceed the amount of water in the res-ervoir on any date within that time period,based on expected inflow, outflow, precipi-tation, use, and evaporation.
The most vulnerable surface water lakesare located in areas where fresh groundwa-ter is not available. Water supply systemscompleted include: Milan, Green City,Shelbina, Brookfield, Jamesport, King City,Hamilton, Dearborn, Memphis, and Butler.
Work is underway for Monroe City, Vandalia,Lamar, Sedalia, Concordia, Higginsville andRidgeway. Six more vulnerable lakes willbe completed in state fiscal year 2003.
To determine if a lake is capable of sus-taining itself beyond a major dry spell, theWater Resources Program hydrologists modelthat the reservoir is full then place the actualdrought climate record of the 1950’s againstthe lake utilizing volume, evaporation, use,seepage, runoff, rainfall, and spillage to de-termine if it can survive. The following chartsshow the lakes full draw down – optimizedto highest sustainable yield and then re-filled.
WETLAND IMAGE ANALYSIS PROJECT (WIAP)
This project applied remote sensingtechnologies to wetland identification in asix-county area of central Missouri. Severaldifferent satellite images were processedusing selected parameters and band combi-nations to identify and evaluate wetlands inthe project area. Relative comparison of the
Fountain Grove Conservation Area /Pershing State Park Area as shown inIKONOS Multi-spectral Imagery, August,2000.
63
64
results determined which image platform ismost effective for different types of wetlandanalysis. Products include an evaluationmatrix and methodology that will aid wet-land scientists who wish to use remote sens-ing as an analysis tool.
The Wetland Image Analysis Project wasundertaken with the support of a grant fromthe EPA, and in conjunction with the Mis-souri Resource Assessment Partnership(MoRAP), Columbia, Mo.
Seven different satellite-based imagedata products were evaluated for this project.These were panchromatic, multi-spectral,and merged Landsat 7 Enhanced ThematicMapper (ETM+) imagery, multi-spectralSPOT imagery, panchromatic Indian RemoteSensing Satellite (IRS) imagery, and panchro-matic and multi-spectral IKONOS imagery.
Panchromatic imagery, similar to black-and-white photography, is generally suitedfor visual interpretation, but not digital in-terpretation. Multi-spectral imagery is suitedfor both visual and digital interpretation.Also, as the spatial resolution of the productincreases, the relative cost of the product andof computer storage also increase.
The spatial resolution of the Landsat 7and the SPOT data products (15 meters to30 meters) are not detailed enough to dis-criminate between wetland plant assem-blages, but are able to distinguish betweenlarger wetland complexes. The IKONOS andIRS products are better suited for local scaleanalyses.
Currently, Landsat 7 ETM+ multi-spec-tral is the most cost-effective platform thatcan identify wetland types. This projectshould aid wetland scientists in choosingsatellite imagery that is most beneficial totheir projects. This project has been com-pleted and sent to the EPA for review.
ASSESSING URBAN WETLAND LOSS PROJECT,WITH QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
(QAPP).
This project is attempting to quantifyand qualify the wetland resources that havebeen impacted in urbanizing watershedswithin the State of Missouri. The results willinclude determination of net wetland losswithin urbanizing watersheds, assessment ofwetland function and value, and collectionof water quality data on remaining wetlands.
Aerial photographs are being used todetermine the extent of land use changeswithin the watersheds being studied. Pho-tography available for the study areas in thisproject date back to the 1950s. Fieldwork isbeing conducted in both Jackson County andJefferson County, using water sampling andwater quality meters. Aerial flights have beenmade by to establish Spring, 2002, wetlandextent. This project began in 2000 with thecompletion date expected to be in 2004.
RIPARIAN WETLAND HYDROLOGY PROJECT
Three riparian (area adjacent to a streamor river) wetland sites in relative proximityto river flow gages were monitored for theirsurface water levels. Riparian wetland sur-face water levels were compared temporallyto river gage surface water levels on the rivercontributing water to each monitored wet-land. Statistical flow frequencies for each ofthe rivers were applied to the respective ri-parian wetlands for the purpose of charac-terizing and predicting inundation of ripar-ian areas by surface water from their adja-cent rivers. Regression equations were de-veloped, using daily streamflow data from
65
long term stream gages throughout the stateand correlation of streamflow duration fre-quency statistics with watershed size.
The results of this study will assist any-one interested in determining hydrology ofriparian wetlands, as well as restoring or cre-ating riparian wetlands along Missouri’s riv-ers. It provides insight to probable sourcesof water to a riparian wetland. Results alsodemonstrate applicability for technique in
determining wetland hydrology as recom-mended by the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture.
Major funding for this project was pro-vided by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources. The U.S. Geological Sur-vey contributed funding to installation andmaintenance of water level recorders at thethree monitored sites.
66
Location of three Monitored Riparian Wetland Sites.
67
640.415 —1. The department shall de-velop, maintain and periodically update astate water plan for a long-range, compre-hensive statewide program for the use ofsurface water and groundwater resources ofthe state, including existing and future needfor drinking water supplies, agriculture, in-dustry, recreation, environmental protectionand related needs. This plan shall be knownas the “State Water Resources Plan.”
2. The department shall establish pro-cedures to ensure public participation in thedevelopment and revision of the state waterplan.
3. The department shall submit a re-port to the general assembly at least one yearprior to the submission of the state waterresources plan, and may recommend anystatutory revision, which may be necessaryto implement the requirements of this sec-tion. The plan shall be submitted to the gen-eral assembly for approval or disapprovalby concurrent resolution.
BACKGROUND
Since 1989, when the Water ResourcesLaw was passed by the Legislature, the De-partment of Natural Resources (the depart-ment) has undertaken activities to addressand fulfill the requirements set forth in RSMo640.415. Specifically, these activities includepublic participation, issue identification,
needs assessment, resource inventory, andmulti-level planning and coordination.
The department has sought public in-put through the use of various forums thathave included statewide public meetings andconferences, regional meetings and stake-holder meetings. This effort has includedthe Missouri Rural Opportunities Council(which is composed of various privategroups as well as state and federal agencies),Regional Planning commissions, the WaterQuality Coordinating Committee, the Mis-souri Irrigators Association, Missouri Asso-ciation of Counties, the Clean Water Com-mission, Distributive Educational Clubs ofAmerica, the department sponsored “OpenHouses,” the Small Watershed Program Con-ference, Ozark Scenic Riverways Association,and the Missouri Municipal League. Thesepublic input forums serve to support, enrich,and further define the water resource issuesfirst defined in 1990, identify new issues, andinform and educate the public on thebroader, and often interrelated, water re-source planning issues.
A three-phase approach is well under-way to create a thorough, well thought-outwater plan. Phase 1 is the completion of aseries of technical documents referred to asthe State Water Plan Volumes described inthe next section. Phase 2 of the plan is theidentification and description of water useproblems and opportunities by region. See
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RTSTATE WATER PLAN
68
Phase 2-Regional Reports’ section for de-scription of regions. Six regional reports willbe completed in this Phase. Phase 3 of theplan will focus on solutions to solvingMissouri’s main water use challenges.
PHASE 1 - STATE WATER PLANVOLUMES
The department has completed a seriesof seven technical documents to providebasic information about Missouri’s surfacewater, groundwater, water use, water qual-ity, interstate issues, hydrologic extremes andwater law. These volumes will assist in fo-cusing the development of the Missouri StateWater Plan. They will serve to support andcomplement public participation, issue iden-tification, needs assessment, and multi-levelplanning coordination. The InteragencyTask Force (created by section 640.430 RSMo) will also have input into the State WaterPlan before it is finalized and submitted tothe governor and General Assembly.
The seven basic information volumeshave been published serially. Completedvolumes include Volume I - Surface WaterResources of Missouri, Water Resources Re-port No. 45, by James E. Vandike; Volume II- Groundwater Resources of Missouri, Wa-ter Resources Report No. 46, by Don E. Millerand James E. Vandike; Volume III - MissouriWater Quality Assessment, Water ResourcesReport No 47, by Cynthia N. Brookshire;Volume IV - Water Use of Missouri, WaterResources Report No. 48, by Charles B.DuCharme and Todd M. Miller; Volume V -Hydrologic Extremes in Missouri: Flood andDrought, Water Resources Report No. 49, byJohn D. Drew and Sherry Chen; Volume VI -Water Resource Sharing: The Realities ofInterstate Rivers, Water Resources Report No.50, by Jerry D. Vineyard, and the last in the
series, Volume VII- A Summary of MissouriWater Laws, Water Resources Report No. 51,by Richard M. Gaffney and Charles R. Hays,with help from William J. Bryan, IV, and AmyE. Randles, of the Missouri Attorney General’sOffice, was [recently] published late in 2000.This volume now is available from the Pub-lications Desk in Rolla. A review of thatimportant volume follows.
VOLUME VII -A SUMMARY OF MISSOURI WATER
LAWS
The seventh volume in the first phaseof the State Water Plan publications ad-dresses statutory law, case law, and commonlaw dealing with many aspects of water use,supply, and resources. Like the other vol-umes in Phase 1, this document is an inven-tory and technical assessment book. It iswritten to be as useful as possible to thewidest audience. It can be used as a basesource of information, as a reference work,or in conjunction with other State Water Planvolumes to provide comprehensive, factualinformation on the status of water law andwater issues in the late 1990s.
The major emphasis of this volume ison contemporary water law (water use, wa-ter supply, and water quality) from both ju-dicial (case law) and legislative (statutorylaw) perspectives. The document is a re-view of Missouri water law from an histori-cal inventory approach. For the most part,statutory water law addresses forward look-ing, generalized, broad scope issues thathave gained widespread attention of thepublic, or represent high priorities of ourelected officials.
The focal points of statutory laws tendto be on the needs and well being of societyas a whole. This differs from case law inthat much of its emphasis centers on disputeresolution between individuals, and is of a
69
highly detailed and limited nature. Gener-ally, case law’s focal points are on owner-ship and property, natural water, protectionfrom water, water quality, water supply, andwater use.
Water law is aimed at defining our useof water resources in a fair and equitablemanner so as to serve the best interests ofall citizens and their rights. With the pas-sage of time, rights and priorities change,new questions arise, and historical facts arere-evaluated. These factors drive the evolu-tion of water law. Legal restrictions and re-quirements on how we use and protect ourwater resources serve to balance individualrights with the rights of society. Publichealth, public safety, and the economic wellbeing of the state and its citizens depend onthe adequate availability of usable water.The value of our water resources continuesto increase in proportion to demand and therecognition of its significance to our qualityof life.
For these reasons, A Summary of Mis-
souri Water Laws will be of immeasurablevalue to its readers, and to the continuingState Water Planning process. The largest ofthe seven volumes of Phase 1, this book willbe of importance to students, various gov-ernment agency personnel, property own-ers, concerned citizens, and anyone whouses water in daily life.
PHASE 2 - REGIONAL REPORTS
The seven technical volumes have beenprepared in Phase 1 of the State Water Plan-ning effort. Publication of the final volumeconcluded the first phase. Meanwhile, Phase2 of the effort has commenced, and the firstof several regional reports, Topics in WaterUse - Northeastern Missouri, Water ResourcesReport No. 59, is available from the Publica-tions Desk of the Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division, Rolla.
Beginning with Northeast Missouri, thedepartment is preparing a series of six re-gional reports, identifying water use prob-lems and opportunities. The six regions arecongruent with the six regional office terri-tories of the department. See Appendix 2for a map showing regional outlines. Thestaff of the Water Resources Program is pre-paring the reports, with the help of regionaloffice personnel and other agency staffs. Asummary of the contents of this report andinformation on the rest of the Phase 2 re-ports follows.
TOPICS IN WATER USE -NORTHEASTERN MISSOURI,
WATER RESOURCES REPORT NO. 59
According to the Missouri Water Re-sources Law, the state water resources planis to address water needs for the followinguses: drinking, agriculture, industry, recre-ation and environmental protection. Ad-
70
dressing water “needs” requires us to estab-lish why these needs exist in the first place.In some cases, an existing water need is tiedto one or more unresolved water problems.For example, communities “need” cleanwater. To meet this need, communities mayhave to address problems with water sup-ply infrastructure and source water quality.This report explores the current issues fac-ing the water resources of the northeasternMissouri region. Also included is a sectionaddressing recent successes various water-related programs have enjoyed, and howthey have affected the water resources of theregion.
Although considered individually in thisreport, water use problems are not truly in-dependent of each other. When readingthrough the water use problems identifiedin northeastern Missouri, it will quickly be-come apparent that many of them are, in fact,very closely related. For example, the aginginfrastructure of some public water supplysystems is considered in this report andclosely related is the cost of replacing, main-taining and expanding existing systems.
Water resource professionals commonlysubdivide the state into physiographic units,such as watersheds or aquifers. While thisapproach is important for resource-baseddiscussions, it may not adequately addresswater use problems or solutions. This se-ries of reports addresses the subject usingthe broad geographic similarities of the de-partments six field service areas (Appendix2). Each of these regions has distinctivephysiographic features and socio-economiccharacteristics, and therefore was chosen forthe ease of referencing water use problems.This approach allows us to recognizeMissouri’s diversity, and lends itself well tothe second phase of the State Water Plan.
The area served by the department’sNortheast Regional Office is the focus of thisreport. To this point, staff from this office
and other state agencies dealing with waterresources have served as the primary sourcesof input. This has enabled us to draw uponthe insight and experience of field staff who,by virtue of their work, deal with many wa-ter use issues facing northeastern Missourion a daily basis. Input was also requestedfrom the general public via the internet.
TOPICS IN WATER USE - CENTRAL MISSOURI
This, the second volume, has just beencompleted (June, 2002). This regional re-port discusses water use problems in theregion that includes the Lake of the Ozarksand the rapidly growing nearby counties, aswell as part of the Missouri River Valley inthe Capitol district of the state. The centralregion area includes Benton, Boone,Callaway, Camden, Cole, Cooper, Crawford,
71
Gasconade, Maries, Miller, Moniteau, Mont-gomery, Morgan, Osage, Pettis, Phelps, andPulaski counties. In this 15-county region,the Gasconade River, the Maries River, theOsage River, the Moreau River, Cedar Creek,and the Lamine River all flow into the Mis-souri River. The Inter-Agency Task Forcereviewed and discussed this report at a meet-ing held in June, 2001.
TOPICS IN WATER USE -NORTHWESTERN MISSOURI
The third of the regional reports, thisvolume has been written and has under-gone initial reviews. The Inter-AgencyTask Force will meet to review this reportin September, 2002, and publication is ex-pected by the end of the year. The north-
west region includes Atchison, Nodaway,Worth, Harrison, Daviess, Gentry, Andrew,Holt, Buchanan, DeKalb, Clinton,Caldwell, Clay, Ray, Platte, Jackson,Lafayette, Cass, Johnson, Henry, and Batescounties. This report will describe thewater use problems in the 21-county areaof the Kansas City Regional Office, whichincludes Smithville Reservoir and a longreach of the Missouri River.
TOPICS IN WATER USE –SOUTHWESTERN MISSOURI
The reconnaissance meeting with theregional office staff in Springfield was heldin December, 2001, and topic preparation hasbegun on this volume. The southwest re-gion includes McDonald, Newton, Jasper,Barton, Vernon, St. Clair, Hickory, Dallas,Laclede, Wright, Douglas, Ozark, Taney,Stone, Barry, Lawrence, Dade, Cedar, Polk,Greene, Webster, and Christian counties.This 22 county region includes the Joplin –Neosho area, and the rapidly growing dis-trict south of Springfield where Branson andTable Rock Lake are situated. The regionalso includes Stockton and Pomme de TerreLakes in the western Ozark Plateau.
OTHER REGIONAL REPORTS
The reconnaissance meeting with theSoutheast Regional Office staff in Poplar Bluffalso was conducted in December, 2001, witha list of topics derived for future develop-ment. The east central Missouri region willbe addressed last among the six regionalreports planned.
72
640.418-Special water protection area,procedure to establish.
1. The department may establish spe-cial water quality protection areas where itfinds a contaminant in a public water sys-tem in concentration which exceeds a maxi-mum contaminant level established by theenvironmental protection agency pursuantto the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended,or a maximum contaminant level estab-lished by the department pursuant to thischapter or sections 640.400 to 640.435 or acontaminant in surface or groundwaterwhich exceeds water quality standards es-tablished pursuant to chapter 644, RSMo,which presents a threat to public health orthe environment. In making such a deter-mination, the department shall consider theprobable effect of the contaminant or con-taminants on human health and the envi-ronment, the probable duration of the el-evated levels of the contaminant, the qual-ity, quantity and probable uses of surfaceor groundwater within the area, andwhether protective measures are likely toprevent, mitigate or minimize the level ofthe contaminant in the surface of ground-water.
2. If the department determines that aspecial water quality protection area shouldbe established, it shall consult with the in-teragency task force and with the public
water system or systems affected and deter-mine the boundaries of such area. Whenthe boundaries of any such areas have beendetermined, the department shall, after apublic hearing, issue an order designatingthe area as a special water quality protec-tion area. Such an order shall include ageographic, hydrologic and stratigraphicdefinition of the area.
3. The department shall hold a publichearing or a public meeting within the areaunder consideration for designation as a spe-cial water quality protection area. The de-partment shall notify every city and countywithin the proposed area and shall notifythe public by press release and by publica-tion of a notice in a newspaper of generalcirculation in the region.
640.420-Special water protection area,information program to be established, pur-pose, duties. -When a special water qualityprotection area has been established, thedepartment shall implement an area infor-mational program to help prevent, eliminate,mitigate or minimize the continued intro-duction of the contaminant or contaminantsinto the surface or groundwater.
640.423-Designation as protection arearemoved, when. -The department shall de-termine when the level of a contaminant orcontaminants in a special water quality pro-tection area does not exceed, and are notlikely to exceed, the water quality standards
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RT SPECIAL WATER QUALITYPROTECTION AREAS
73
established pursuant to sections 640.400 to640.435 and this chapter, and chapter 644,RSMo. Upon such determination, the desig-nation of an area as a special water quality
protection area pursuant to section 192.300,RSMo, sections 640.100, 640.120, and640.400 to 640.435 shall be removed.
No special water quality protection ar-eas have been formed under this statute.
74
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RT
640.430-Interagency task force estab-lished, members, meetings.1. The depart-ment shall establish an interagency taskforce consisting of the departments of health,conservation, agriculture, the University ofMissouri College of Agriculture, and othersuch departments and agencies as may benecessary to effectuate the purposes and pro-visions of sections 640.400 to 640.435.
2. The interagency task force shall meetat least semi-annually. The department shallbe the lead agency in matters related to sur-face and groundwater protection.
The Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) metin June, 2001, and thoroughly discussed thedeveloped topic papers for the Central Mis-souri Regional Report. The result of themeeting has been that several topics neededre-working, and additional review and dis-cussion. State Water Planning staff has com-pleted that effort, and the Central MissouriRegional Report was published in June, 2002.
NORTHWESTERN MISSOURI
The department and the InteragencyTask Force (IATF) are currently developingthe regional water resource problems andopportunities of northwestern Missouri. Thegeographic area being considered is the ter-ritory served by the departments Northwest-ern Regional Office in Kansas City (KCRO).Initial work has been completed on KCROproblems and opportunities, in preparationfor an IATF meeting in September, 2002.
Water Resources Program staff membersare now developing topics contributed byfield staff and others in the department forthe Southwestern Missouri Regional Officeterritory. The IATF members will also bedeveloping problem and opportunity state-ments for program staff to develop.
INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE
75
RECOMMENDATIONS
640.426-The department shall prepareand submit to the general assembly and thegovernor an annual report which details theprogress it has made in meeting the objec-tives of sections 640.400 to 640.435 andwhich contains recommendations in fur-therance of the purpose and provisions ofsections 640.000 to 640.435.
This 2002 Annual Report explains howthe staff of the Missouri Department of Natu-ral Resources carries out the legislative man-dates of the Missouri Water Resources Law.It demonstrates the breadth of activities thatthe department conducts and the progressthat has been made in meeting the objec-tives of the Water Resources law. This re-port is not a comprehensive listing of thedepartment’s water related activities.
As the State Water Plan volumes and
reports continue to be created, the state’swater quantity and quality needs will be-come more apparent. The goal of the StateWater Plan is to produce a set of recommen-dations for local, regional, and statewideimplementation, both short-range and long-range.
Phase 2 of the State Water Plan hasshown a number of critical areas that needto be addressed across the state. Of specialimportance is a lack of sustainable surfacewater supplies in north and west Missouriduring drought conditions and reductions ingroundwater tables in southwest Missouridue to use activity.
Phase 3 will build upon Phase 2 ques-tions and concerns and begin by exploringthe critical drinking water – water usageproblems and look towards infrastructureand supply development solutions.
2002
MIS
SOURI
WATE
R LAW
ANNUAL
REPO
RT