Red River Basin Immediate Drought Response Process

Transcription

1 Red River Basin Immediate Drought Response Process February 2009 Prepared for: The Red River Basin Commission Prepared By: 701 Xenia Ave South Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN HDR Project Number: This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored, paid for, in whole or in part by the Red River Basin Commission and its funding partners. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 1

2 Acknowledgements The authors thank the members of the Red River Basin Commission Water Supply Working Group for constructive comments and guidance in developing this document. These members include: Member Organization 1 Bruce Grubb Hazel Sletten Cliff McLain Duane Griffin Bob Harrison Abul Kashem Bob Bezek Bob White Gorden Martell Dean Karsky Robert Nelson City of Fargo City of Grand Forks City of Moorhead City of Winnipeg Manitoba Water Stewardship Manitoba Water Stewardship Minnesota Department of Natural Resources North Dakota State Water Commission Pembina Valley Water Cooperative U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1 Contributions of the respective Working Group Member does not constitute acceptance of this document by the sponsoring organization. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 2

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary Purpose and Scope Defining Drought Types of Drought Measuring Drought Historic Drought Drought Impacts Water Use in the Basin Jurisdictional Water Law Permitted and Reported Water Use Water Availability and Sustainability Reservoirs Shortage Analysis Immediate Drought Process Options Conjunctive Uses Disaster Relief Drought Forecasting Drought Plan Coordination Emergency Supplies Water Marketing/Risk Adjustment Water Rights Enforcement Coordination Recommendations for Jurisdictional Consideration References...88 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 3

4 List of Figures Figure 1. Hydrographic Map of the Red River Basin...16 Figure 2. Effects of Drought over the Water Cycle...18 Figure 3. Water Budget Elements of the Palmer Drought Severity Index...20 Figure 4 Palmer Drought Severity Index...20 Figure 5. Standardized Precipitation Index...21 Figure 6. NOAA Climate Zones for Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota...22 Figure 7. PDSI Areas for Manitoba Red River Basin (RRB)...23 Figure 8. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Northeast North Dakota (ND Zone 3)...25 Figure 9. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for East Central North Dakota (ND Zone 6)...26 Figure 10. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Southeast North Dakota (ND Zone 9)...27 Figure 11. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Southwest Manitoba RRB...28 Figure 12. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Southeast Manitoba RRB...29 Figure 13. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for the Winnipeg, Manitoba Area...30 Figure 14. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Northwest Minnesota (MN Zone 1)...31 Figure 15. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for West Central Minnesota (MN Zone 4)...32 Figure 16. Comparison of Drought Intensity and Duration...33 Figure 17. Possible Historic City of Fargo Drought Phases...37 Figure 18. Possible Historic City of Fargo Drought Impacts for Various Droughts...38 Figure 19. Possible Agricultural Drought Impacts...39 Figure 20. Total Permitted and Reported Uses by State/Province...43 Figure 21. Permitted and Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed...44 Figure 22. Total Water Permits and Reported Actual Use by Type of Use...48 Figure 23. Average Annual Precipitation...52 Figure 24. Natural Flows...53 Figure 25. Buffalo Watershed Water Permits...58 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 4

5 Figure 26. Red Lake and Clearwater Watersheds Water Permits...59 Figure 27. Otter Tail Watershed Water Permits...60 Figure 28. Sheyenne Watershed Water Permits...61 Figure 29. Turtle Watershed Water Permits...62 Figure 30. Western Wild Rice Watershed Water Permits...63 Figure 31. Modeled City of Fargo and Grand Forks Shortages for the 1930s Drought Event...66 Figure 32. Example of the U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Report...69 Figure 33. Generalized Impacts of El Niño and La Niña over North America...69 Figure 34. Example of an NRCS Streamflow Forecast...70 Figure 35. Example of ET Toolbox Report...71 Figure 36. Fargo Drought Plan Impacts...73 Figure 37. Grand Forks Drought Plan Impacts...73 Figure 38. Lake Orwell End of Month Storage with Reactivated Conservation Pool...75 Figure 39. Fargo Estimated Shortages with Lake Orwell Reactivated Conservation Pool...75 Figure 40. Lake Ashtabula Storage with Flood Pool Converted to Conservation...77 Figure 41. Orwell Storage with Flood Pool Converted to Conservation...77 Figure 42. Fargo Estimated Shortages with Flood Pools Converted to Conservation...78 Figure 43. Select Otter Tail Lakes...79 Figure 44. Red River Aquifers...83 Figure 45. Estimated Groundwater Surface Water Interactions...84 Figure 46. Drought Options pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 5

6 List of Tables Table 1. Drought Index Examples...19 Table 2. Red River Basin Historic Drought Events...24 Table 3. Water Supplies for the Cities of Fargo and Grand Forks, ND...34 Table 4. Climatic Indices for Fargo/Grand Forks Drought Phase...35 Table 5. Streamflow Statistics for Each Fargo/Grand Forks Drought Phase...36 Table 6. Reservoir Elevations for Various Fargo/Grand Forks Drought Phases...36 Table 7. Total Permitted and Reported Actual Water Use by State/Province...43 Table 8. Permitted and Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed...45 Table 9. Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed and Type of Use...46 Table 10. Total Water Permits and Reported Actual Use by Type of Use...48 Table 11. Permitted and Reported Irrigation Water Duties...49 Table 12. Permitted and Reported DCMI Per Capita Water Use...50 Table 13. Reservoirs in the Red River Basin...55 Table 14. Lake Ashtabula Storage Accounts...55 Table 15. Estimated Monthly Water Use...64 Table 16. Potential Drought Impacted Locations and Uses...65 Table 17. Modeled Flows on the Red River Near Snake River Confluence...66 Table 18. Otter Tail Lakes Bathymetric Information...80 Table 19. Aquifer Geologic Properties and Pumping Locations...82 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 6

7 Acronyms and Short Forms AOP AWHC CDMC DCMI ET FAO MB MN MnDNR ND NDAWN NDMC NEPA NOAA NPDES NWS PDSI PVWC Q90 RRB RRBC SD SPI SWE USACE USBR USDA NASS USGS Annual Operating Plan Available Water Holding Capacity Crops Drought Management Committee Domestic, Commercial, Municipal, and Industrial water use Evapotranspiration Food and Agricultural Organization Province of Manitoba State of Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources State of North Dakota North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network National (U.S.) Drought Mitigation Center National (U.S.) Environmental Policy Act National (U.S.) Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National (U.S.) Pollution Discharge Elimination System National (U.S.) Weather Service Palmer Drought Severity Index Pembina Valley Water Cooperative 90% flow exceedance value Red River Basin of the North Red River Basin Commission State of South Dakota Standardized Precipitation Index Snow Water Equivalent United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service United States Geological Survey pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 7

8 Units To convert from Multiply by To obtain Feet (ft) Metres (m) Miles (mi) Kilometres (km) Square Miles (mi 2 ) 2.59 Square Kilometres (km 2 ) Acres (ac) Hectares (ha) Acre feet (ac ft) Megaliters (ML) Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) Cubic Metres per Second (cms) Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) Acre feet per day (acft/day) U.S. Gallons (gal) Liters (L) Acre feet per acre (acft/ac) Megaliters per hectare (ML/hectare) Inches (in) 25.4 Milimetres (mm) Square feet per day (ft 2 /day) Square meters per day (m 2 /day) pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 8

9 Executive Summary The Red River of the North ( Red River ) basin is approximately 48,000 square miles (124,000 km 2 ) and includes the U.S. states of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota and the Canadian province of Manitoba. The Red River forms the boundary between Minnesota and North Dakota; roughly 20,000 mi 2 (52,000 km 2 ) of the basin is in North Dakota and 17,000 mi 2 (44,000 km 2 ) is in Minnesota. The basin is approximately 10,000 mi 2 (30,000 km 2 ) in Manitoba. The South Dakota portion of the basin is roughly 600 mi 2 (1,500 km 2 ). Responding and preparing for drought can take many forms. These include increasing water supplies, reducing water needs by conserving water, and mitigating for drought impacts. The development of additional water supplies, as with the Red River Valley Water Supply Project, may not be possible in the short term. During this time, the risk of drought and hazards from associated impacts will remain and possibly increase as basin population and water needs change. This document discusses options and recommendations to move forward for the immediate future in improving the basin s resiliency to and mitigating the impacts of drought. Drought is caused by a lack of precipitation over a given amount of time. Drought can be described in several ways as it unfolds: Meteorological: Reduction in amount of precipitation over time. This can be accompanied by increased temperatures and evaporation. Agricultural: Reduction in soil moisture content, generated by meteorological drought conditions. Hydrological: Reduction in stream flow, surface storage, lakes, reservoirs, and aquifers. At any time during these types of droughts, a socioeconomic drought can occur: Socioeconomic: Deficits of precipitation, soil moisture, stream flow, groundwater, and reservoir conditions generate a reduction in economic goods and alterations to lifestyles and effects to individual property. The Table below shows some of the historic droughts which have impacted the basin. Indicators of drought show that the majority of the droughts in the basin last less than 12 months. These drought events tend to be mild to moderate in severity and affect the northern portions of the basin most. The next most frequent drought events last from 12 to 36 months and are severe to extreme in nature. The impacts are throughout the basin during these droughts. Droughts lasting more than 36 months are generally extreme in nature. All cities in Minnesota with populations over 3,000 have submitted drought management plans in The Cities of Fargo and Grand Forks have implemented drought management plans. The plans may limit certain water uses depending on the severity of drought. While these drought plans are relatively recent, examining past droughts indicates that there may have been six historic droughts peaking in Drought Warnings (a municipally declared condition requiring mandatory water use reduction for all water uses of 20 to 30%) and Drought Emergencies (requiring additional water rationing, bans on pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 9

10 outdoor water use, and other mandatory reduction measures) for these cities. This would have resulted in mandatory demand reductions. These events include the 1930s drought and the more recent 1987 to 1992 drought. While some of these are more intense events lasting less than 2 years, any drought event over 3 years eventually would result in a Drought Warning. Extended drought can also impact agricultural production. For example, wheat yields in east central North Dakota generally begins to fall when drought events exceed six months in length. Yield declines by roughly 10% for each year the drought lasts. Table i. Red River Basin Historic Drought Events Drought Event Duration Maximum Severity (PDSI) Areas of greatest drought intensity to 20 months Mild to moderate Southern ND; Southern MB to 26 months Severe to extreme Central ND and MN, Winnipeg Area to 20 months Moderate to severe Southern MB (the 1930s drought) 102 to 151 months Extreme Southern ND, MN, and Southeast MB to 77 months Moderate to severe Central ND and South east MB to 37 months Moderate to severe Northern ND, Southeast MB, Winnipeg Area to 15 months Mild to severe Northern ND and MN, Southwest MB to 56 months Extreme Northern ND, South MN, Southeast MB to 37 months Extreme Central and Southern ND, Northern MN to 59 months Extreme Southern ND and MN to 19 months Moderate to severe Northern MN and ND; Winnipeg Area Note: See section "2.3 Historic Drought" for additional information. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 10

11 The waters of a state or province are considered a public resource. Each jurisdiction operates under respective and separate water laws and regulations. Water law in Minnesota follows the riparian doctrine, which is generally used in eastern jurisdictions. North Dakota and Manitoba water law is based on prior appropriation, which is generally used in western jurisdictions. Allocation and use of water requires permits or licenses which regulate amounts, types of uses, and places of use. Minnesota has the largest number of permitted uses, accounting for 46% of all basin permits, followed by North Dakota with 32%, Manitoba with 20%, and South Dakota with less than 2% of basin permits. Based on reported actual use, Manitoba has 52% of basin reported actual use (assuming permits reflect actual water use), followed by Minnesota with 34%, and North Dakota with 14%. The actual water use in South Dakota may be negligible. The primary uses of water in the basin include power generation, public water supply, and irrigation. Power generation is the highest permitted and reported actual use, accounting for 40% of basin permits and 60% of reported actual use. Power generation water use generally uses once through cooling, where water is diverted for cooling purposes and then returned to the receiving stream. Irrigation makes up 27% of basin permits and 25% of reported actual use. Public water supply constitutes 31% of basin permits and 14% of reported actual use. Other uses constitute the remaining percentages. Determining which areas and types of water use in the basin are susceptible to drought involves comparing the water needs against the available water resources. The 1930s drought event is the most severe, with widespread public water supply, irrigation, and industrial shortage impacts on both the mainstem of the Red River and its tributaries. Modeled flows on the Red River near the Snake River (a location close to the international border) would have approximately 530 cfs of average flow, and at least 10% of the time there would be no flow. Shortages to Fargo s water needs might have totaled 22,000 acre feet over 5 years and for Grand Forks it totaled 4,500 acre feet over 7 years. In other drought events, potential impacts occur on the tributaries. Several options were reviewed as possible responses to an immediate drought. These options are: Conjunctive Uses Conjunctive uses refer to the ability to use both surface water and groundwater resources as a water supply. Several municipalities have incorporated conjunctive uses into their water supplies or have expressed interest in doing so. Promoting conjunctive water uses is one approach to prepare for drought conditions. This activity may involve: Identifying and prioritizing conjunctive use projects. Develop groundwater models and studies where information is lacking to estimate sustainable safe yields of aquifers and facilitate project approval from regulators. Identifying funding for infrastructure improvements to facilitate conjunctive uses. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 11

12 Disaster Relief In a severe and extended drought, there may be critical water uses that cannot be satisfied with other approaches. The complete failure of a water supply could be responded to by shipping in potable water for drinking and cooking needs. The North Dakota Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan discusses the need for preparation of disaster relief in response to drought. Minnesota and Manitoba are in various stages of revising or producing jurisdictional drought response plans. A drought event is regional and would require coordination from the federal, state, and local emergency response agencies, both in planning and response. Drought Forecasting Several agencies produce reports that forecast various aspects of drought. Outlooks of 90 days are available while extended outlooks, perhaps of a year or more, may be possible by examining the relationship of temperature and precipitation to global climatic indices. Forecasting supply, demand, or anticipated shortages can have benefits in proactive water management. Drought forecasting activities could include: Promote basin specific forecasts, both for short term and long term outlooks Select drought indicators to apply in basin wide forecasts and monitoring applications Promote the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) and National Weather Service (NWS) study of drought impacts and modification of the NWS flood forecasting system to include drought events Develop a comparison model or tool to evaluate forecasted water supply and demand to provide jurisdictions with information for proactive cooperation or water use restrictions provided under respective water law. Drought Plan Coordination Drought plans exist for municipalities and reservoirs in the basin. Many of these plans were developed in response to drought. These drought plans have not been utilized during an extended or severe drought nor has coordination between various plans been established. The drought plan coordination option could include: Determine the actual potential for demand reductions for each plan. Determine the effectiveness of long term water conservation versus emergency demand reductions. Develop a common drought monitoring system within the basin Provide coordination between existing drought plans to improve their combined effectiveness. Suggest adjustments if needed to trigger levels to improve plan effectiveness and anticipate worsening drought conditions. Promote cooperation among basin entities for water crisis management during drought emergencies pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 12

13 Emergency Supplies During a severe and extended drought, emergency supplies should be examined to supplement shortages. Reservoirs in the basin serve multiple purposes, including habitat, water supply, flood control, water quality enhancement, recreation, and tribal water rights. Operational changes may provide additional water supply during drought, although such changes would require permit and regulatory adjustments. The operational changes include: Reactivation of the Lake Orwell conservation pool. Conversion of Ashtabula and Orwell flood pool into conservation uses. Partial conversion of habitat, recreation, and flood control uses of lakes into water supply. Water Marketing/Risk Adjustment In the event of drought, all water users have an increased risk of shortage. This risk and the consequences of water shortage are not evenly distributed. Marketing irrigation water uses to municipal uses might have a significant benefit in a long drought. However, the timing of the groundwater pumping impacts on surface water means that initiation of a water market would need to be done early in the drought and continued for the duration of the drought. Water Rights Enforcement Coordination Each jurisdiction has provisions to curtail certain water uses during a drought. While currently no agreement exists on how water is shared between jurisdictions during a drought, coordinating water rights enforcement actions may be beneficial. There would not necessarily be formal water sharing agreements or changes made to respective water law under this arrangement. Each jurisdiction would be operating under its current water law, with benefits of coordination of actions that would be normally taken. Recommendations for Jurisdictional Consideration The establishment of a basin wide Drought Action Committee ( Committee ) is recommended. The Committee could be comprised of emergency management and water resources agencies from each jurisdiction. Initial tasks for this Committee will be to develop and refine the definition of drought for the basin as a natural hazard. This includes evaluation of indicators to describe the severity of the drought. The previously described drought response options would be reviewed by the Committee for refinement. These activities could include: Evaluate the feasibility of drought preparedness, reporting, monitoring, and response. Evaluate various drought indicators to describe drought severity and recommend a set of indicators for basin wide drought forecasting and monitoring Evaluate the feasibility of drought response options. Develop a detailed plan on how the jurisdictions will cooperate and act, and what will trigger such action. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 13

14 Work with the national, state and provincial climate offices to develop a basin specific water supply, demand, and shortage forecasting system that is accessible through a public website. Start a dialogue on drought reoperation of the three major supply reservoirs of Orwell, Traverse, and Ashtabula. Some operational changes will require state permit changes, Congressional reauthorization of project uses, and/or action under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act. Develop a common drought forecasting, reporting, and monitoring system in the basin. Initiate dialogues with emergency management agencies of the basin on coordinating drought related basin wide disaster relief efforts. Initiate consultations with the public and stakeholders for drought response and monitoring. Initiate a study program for climate change adaptation to drought. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 14

15 1. Purpose and Scope The Red River of the North ( Red River ) Basin is approximately 48,000 square miles 2 (124,000 km 2 ) and includes the U.S. states of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota and the Canadian province of Manitoba. The Red River forms the boundary between Minnesota and North Dakota; roughly 20,000 mi 2 (52,000 km 2 ) of the basin is in North Dakota and 17,000 mi 2 (44,000 km 2 ) is in Minnesota. The basin is approximately 10,000 mi 2 (30,000 km 2 ) in Manitoba. The South Dakota portion of the basin is roughly 600 mi 2 (1,500 km 2 ). Figure 1 shows a map of the basin. Responding and preparing for drought can take many forms, including increasing water supplies, reducing water needs by conserving water, and mitigating drought impacts. The Red River Valley Water Supply Project examined the potential of increasing water supply along with select municipal water conservation. The preferred alternative, a water pipeline importing Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River of the Red River Basin, is still pending a Record of Decision as of this writing. The development of additional water supplies, as with the Red River Valley Water Supply Project, may not be possible in the short term. During this time, the risk of drought and hazards from associated impacts will remain and possibly increase as basin population and water needs change. This document discusses options and recommendations to move forward for the immediate future in improving the basin s resiliency and mitigating the impacts of drought. The historic droughts impacting the basin are described along with the current water needs of the basin. A comparison of water availability and water needs was made to determine the areas of the basin and types of water use most impacted by various types of droughts. A set of options was reviewed and a recommendation to the jurisdictions for an immediate drought process is presented. These options are: anticipatory strategies, including forecasting and drought coordination activities; loss adsorption, including risk adjustment and disaster relief; and loss reduction, such as modifying existing drought contingency plans 3. This report does not consider new water supplies or water conservation. The future water needs of the basin are not considered, in order to address an immediate drought response process. 2 GIS basin data from MN DNR, Natural Resources Canada, and the North Dakota GIS Clearinghouse. 3 After works of Grigg and Vlachos (1996). pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 15

16 Figure 1. Hydrographic Map of the Red River Basin pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 16

17 2. Defining Drought 2.1 Types of Drought Drought is caused by a reduction in precipitation over an extended amount of time. Determining when a drought starts, ends, and the severity of drought is complex. Drought can be described as a range over which the duration and extent of lack of precipitation expands. A reduction in the amount of precipitation received over time is referred to as a meteorological drought. A meteorological drought can occur without immediately impacting streamflow, groundwater amounts, or people s lifestyles. If a meteorological drought continues, it will eventually begin to affect other water resources. Evaporation is continually taking place from soil. Some of this evaporation is generated as plants take in moisture through roots and transpire through leaves. This process, called evapotranspiration, is critical to keep plants alive and growing. Soil moisture will relatively quickly become depleted due to reduction in precipitation and continued or increased consumptive use from plant evapotranspiration. This type of drought condition is an agricultural drought. If agricultural drought continues, plants will begin to protect themselves by reducing their water use, which can potentially reduce crop yields. Rainfall also recharges groundwater aquifers through infiltration of the soil and run off into streams and rivers. Once groundwater and surface waters are significantly impacted by lack of precipitation, a hydrologic drought occurs. A minor drought may affect small streams, causing low flows or drying. A major drought could impact surface storage, lakes and reservoirs, affecting water quality and causing municipal and agricultural water supply problems. Aquifer declines can range from a quick response (shallow sand) to impacts extending over multiple years. Impacts can include depletion of shallow depth wells, drying of farm dugouts, and changes to ground water quality. The surface water and groundwater processes are generally not influenced as easily as with an agricultural drought, but will appear over time. At any time during these types of droughts, a socioeconomic drought can occur. Deficits of precipitation impacting agricultural, industrial, commercial, municipal, and other sectors generate a reduction in an economic good. Mandatory water conservation measures may come into effect, which can alter lifestyles. Figure 2 shows drought in the hydrologic cycle. The various horizontal curves hypothetically show some measure of drought throughout the hydrologic cycle, over time. The dashed line traces the impacts that a reduction in precipitation causes over the hydrologic cycle. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 17

18 Figure 2. Effects of Drought over the Water Cycle 2.2 Measuring Drought (after Changnon, 1987) Many researchers have developed approaches for measuring drought. These measurements, known as drought indices, are useful both in determining when a drought begins and ends and also in knowing how severe a drought is. One or a combination of drought indices are used in drought management plans to determine when to implement contingency measures. Table 1 lists examples of common drought indices. One drought index is the Palmer Drought Severity Index or PDSI (Palmer, 1965). To understand how the PDSI index works, Figure 3 shows a block of soil. The soil has a capacity to store moisture, called the Available Water Holding Capacity (AWHC). Rainfall infiltrates into the soil and is held in the soil pores. Plants remove moisture through evapotranspiration. Under normal conditions, the rainfall is sufficient to keep an adequate amount of moisture in the soil for plant needs. As drought develops, the soil moisture is reduced as rainfall can not keep the soil recharged. The PDSI provides a number which classifies the drought severity as a measure of soil moisture deficit, with extreme drought having a greater potential impact on plants. Figure 4 shows the classifications of the PDSI index. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 18

19 Table 1. Drought Index Examples Source: Michael Hayes, pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 19

20 Figure 3. Water Budget Elements of the Palmer Drought Severity Index Notes: Figure after Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Paper No 56. 1) Rainfall falls onto the earth s surface. 2) A portion runsoff into streams while a portion infiltrates into soil. Moisture is retained in the root zone depending on the available pore spaces of the soil. 3) Moisture is extracted from soil by evaporation and transpiration by plants (evapotranspiration). If the rate of evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall, the root zone soil moisture becomes depleted. This in turn begins to impact groundwater and surface runoff. The greater the soil moisture depletion the greater the potential impact. Figure 4 Palmer Drought Severity Index The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) is another measure of drought (McKee, 1993). While the PDSI index uses a physical characteristic of the basin (soil moisture retention) in addition to rainfall, the SPI index only uses rainfall. The cumulative rainfall received in a given timeframe is compared to the amount of rainfall received in past years. The statistical deficit is then converted into a numerical score which determines the severity of drought. SPI can be computed for various timeframes, such as a 3 month SPI which uses cumulative rainfall over 3 months or a 12 month SPI which looks at the last year. A short term length SPI might be an index for meteorological or agricultural drought while a longer time length SPI might measure hydrologic drought. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 20

21 Figure 5 lists the classifications of the SPI index. Figure 5. Standardized Precipitation Index Hayes (NDMC, 2002) describes other types of drought indicators, which include modified versions of the PDSI index and indices measuring surface water supply. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Drought Mitigation Center can provide historic and current drought index values. The Greenleaf project also provides computer programs to compute the PDSI and SPI indices from climate and soil data (Wells, 2003). 2.3 Historic Drought The NOAA has compiled historic drought indices for a period from 1895 to present (NESDIS, 2007) 4. For reporting purposes, the NOAA divides the states of North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota into several climatic zones shown in Figure 6. For the Manitoba area, climate and soil information was obtained from Environment Canada (Environment Canada, 2002) and the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (A. Nadler personal Communication, December 2008). Manitoba area PDSI was calculated using the USDA s Greenleaf PDSI computer program (Wells, 2003). Figure 7 shows the Red River Basin in Manitoba divided into three climatic areas. The PDSI drought index is provided for each area in Figure 8 to Figure 15. In general, the last twenty years have had adequate to excessive amounts of rainfall. Prior to this, drought has been the predominant condition. Table 2 lists historic drought events. 4 Available on line at pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 21

22 Figure 6. NOAA Climate Zones for Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota Source: NESDIS, 2007 Notes: Highlighted areas are included in the Red River Basin. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 22

23 Figure 7. PDSI Areas for Manitoba Red River Basin (RRB) pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 23

24 Table 2. Red River Basin Historic Drought Events Drought Event Duration Maximum Severity (PDSI) Areas of greatest drought intensity to 20 months Mild to moderate Southern ND; Southern MB to 26 months Severe to extreme Central ND and MN, Winnipeg Area to 20 months Moderate to severe Southern MB (the 1930s drought) 102 to 151 months Extreme Southern ND, MN, and Southeast MB to 77 months Moderate to severe Central ND and Southeast MB to 37 months Moderate to severe Northern ND, Southeast MB, Winnipeg Area to 15 months Mild to severe Northern ND and MN, Southwest MB to 56 months Extreme Northern ND, South MN, Southeast MB to 37 months Extreme Central and Southern ND, Northern MN to 59 months Extreme Southern ND and MN to 19 months Moderate to severe Northern MN and ND; Winnipeg Area Notes: Drought events based on the PDSI value (NESDIS, Environment Canada, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives). The start of the drought was determined to occur when the PDSI value was consistently below 0.5 (incipient dry spell) and end when it was consistently above this value. The PDSI by itself may lag the start and end of drought event when compared to other measures. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 24

25 Figure 8. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Northeast North Dakota (ND Zone 3) Source: NESDIS, 2007 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 25

26 Figure 9. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for East Central North Dakota (ND Zone 6) Source: NESDIS, 2007 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 26

27 Figure 10. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Southeast North Dakota (ND Zone 9) Source: NESDIS, 2007 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 27

28 Figure 11. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Southwest Manitoba RRB Source: Climate data from Environment Canada, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives; USDA Greenleaf PDSI computer program (Wells, 2003) pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 28

29 Figure 12. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Southeast Manitoba RRB Source: Climate data from Environment Canada, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives; USDA Greenleaf PDSI computer program (Wells, 2003) pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 29

30 Figure 13. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for the Winnipeg, Manitoba Area Source: Climate data from Environment Canada, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives; USDA Greenleaf PDSI computer program (Wells, 2003) pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 30

31 Figure 14. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for Northwest Minnesota (MN Zone 1) Source: NESDIS, 2007 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 31

32 Figure 15. Historic Palmer Drought Severity Index for West Central Minnesota (MN Zone 4) Source: NESDIS, 2007 pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 32

33 The length and severity of the drought can vary within the basin. The areas most impacted for a given drought is based on a combination of the severity and duration of drought. However, other areas of the basin may have drought impacts as well. Drought severity has a tendency to increase as the duration of the drought increases. For example, the 1930s drought in the basin which lasted from 102 to 151 months (depending on location within the basin) peaked as an extreme severity drought in the basin. The 2006 to 2007 drought lasted from 2 to 19 months and was moderate to severe. When the maximum severity and drought duration are plotted, a trend is shown in Figure 16. The majority of the droughts in the basin last less than 12 months. These drought events tend to be mild to moderate in severity and affect the northern portions of the basin most. The next most frequent drought events last from 12 to 36 months and are severe to extreme in nature. The impacts are throughout the basin during these droughts. Droughts lasting more than 36 months are generally extreme in nature. Figure 16. Comparison of Drought Intensity and Duration Source: Central tendancy of data from Table 2. Red River Basin Historic Drought Events. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 33

34 2.4 Drought Impacts The City of Grand Forks Drought Management and Demand Reduction Plan was published on July The City of Fargo Drought Management Plan was published in August The Grand Forks plan is based on the City of Fargo s Drought Plan, with additional proposals to reduce consumptive use and contingency plans for interruption of water treatment facility service. Due to these similarities, both plans are discussed together. Table 3 lists the permitted water sources for each city. Both cities can use a combination of surface and reservoir storage supplies. The City of Fargo has a total permitted use of 145,380 acre feet (179,326 ML), not counting a water quality exchange on the Sheyenne River. The City of Grand Forks has a total of 64,123 acre feet (79,096 ML) of permitted use, not counting a reservoir storage right contained in the mainstem Red River permit. Table 3. Water Supplies for the Cities of Fargo and Grand Forks, ND Source Permit State and Number Amount [ac ft] City of Fargo Red River ND # ,500 Sheyenne River ND #4718 7,000 Lake Ashtabula ND # ,880 Total (not counting Sheyenne River Permit) 145,380 City of Grand Forks Red River ND #835 33,600 Red Lake River MN # ,500 Lake Ashtabula ND #835A 20,023 Riverside Dam (Red River) ND #4354 5,280 Total (not counting Riverside Dam storage) 64,123 Notes: Fargo permit ND #4718 (Sheyenne River) is an exchange right with permit ND #749, implemented when water quality issues occur on the mainstem Red River. Grand Forks permit ND #4354 is a storage right on the Red River. Flow accrual for storage is from permit ND #835. There are treaty obligations on Red Lake, and use of permit MN # is under Minnesota water law. Source: City of Fargo, August City of Grand Forks, July The plans define five phases of drought levels. Each level has triggers based on published Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), stream flow, and storage reservoir conditions. For each condition, a set of voluntary and in some cases mandatory demand reductions are issued. The drought level phases are: Phase 1 Normal Conditions: SPI and PDSI indices represent near normal or above precipitation and a mild drought or better conditions, respectively. Stream flow is at or slightly below median amounts. Storage reservoirs are operating at normal conditions. In this phase, voluntary conservation practices are encouraged. Phase 2 Drought Advisory: The SPI and PDSI indices represent moderately dry and moderate drought conditions, respectively. Stream flow is below normal. Projected runoff into the storage reservoirs is less than the reservoir releases, which will result in declining storage. If a drought advisory is enacted by the City, voluntary measures will be encouraged to reduce annual demand by up to 10%. City departments will implement mandatory municipal water reductions of up to 10%. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 34

35 Phase 3 Drought Watch: The SPI and PDSI indices provide for severely dry and drought conditions. Stream flow is nearing specific low flow amounts, and near term projections show that one or more storage reservoirs may draw down to a minimum pool elevation. Under this phase, regular monitoring and communication with state and federal agencies may be established. Mandatory municipal, domestic, and commercial reductions of up to 20% may be implemented. Similar voluntary reductions from industrial uses are encouraged. Phase 4 Drought Warning: SPI and PDSI indices show extreme dryness and drought conditions. Stream flow is below specific low flow amounts. Storage reservoirs have drawn down to minimum pool elevations and there are low projections of runoff. Mandatory measures for all water uses may be adopted to target a demand reduction of 20 to 30%. Phase 5 Drought Emergency: In Phase 5, failure of the water supply may be imminent. Phase 5 is identical in many ways to Phase 4. Water rationing, bans on outdoor water use, and other mandatory reduction measures may be in effect. In declaring a drought phase, three types of drought indices are considered. The types of indices are climatic, streamflow, and reservoir. Specifically, the indices include the PDSI, the 6 and 12 month SPI, and the amount of streamflow and reservoir storage in the basin. The PDSI and SPI indices are obtained from the NOAA. The drought plan performs averages for Minnesota (NOAA zones 1 and 4) along with North Dakota (NOAA zones 6, and 9) and South Dakota (NOAA zone 3). Three separate drought phase levels are found for the PDSI, SPI 6 month, and SPI 12 month. Table 4 lists the drought phase level based on SPI and PDSI values. Table 4. Climatic Indices for Fargo/Grand Forks Drought Phase Drought Phase SPI (6 and 12 month) value PDSI value 1 Normal Conditions 0.99 and higher (near normal to extremely wet) 2 Drought Advisory 1.0 to 1.49 (moderately dry) 3 Drought Watch 1.5 to 1.99 (severely dry) 4 Drought Warning 2.0 to 2.49 (extremely dry) 5 Drought Emergency 2.5 and below (extremely dry) Source: City of Fargo, August and higher (mild drought to extremely wet) 2.0 to 2.9 (moderate drought) 3.0 to 3.9 (severe drought) 4.0 to 4.9 (extreme drought) 5.0 and below (extreme drought) Next, the streamflow is obtained from several river gages operated by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). For Fargo, the following gages are examined: Sheyenne River Near Cooperstown, ND (USGS Gage Number ) Sheyenne River Below Baldhill Dam, ND ( ) Sheyenne River Near Kindred, ND ( ) Otter Tail River Below Orwell Dam near Fergus Falls, MN ( ) Bois De Sioux River Near White Rock, SD ( ) Red River Of The North At Fargo, ND ( ) pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 35

36 Grand Forks will also include gages on the Red Lake River. For each gage, the streamflow is compared against a table of past flows called exceedance flows. For example a 50% exceedance flow is the flow in the stream that is exceeded 50% of the time. Table 5 lists the minimum exceedance flow that occurs for a given drought phase. Table 5. Streamflow Statistics for Each Fargo/Grand Forks Drought Phase Drought Phase Streamflow Exceedance Amount 1 Normal Conditions Up to 65% 2 Drought Advisory 65% to 75% 3 Drought Watch 75% to 90% 4 Drought Warning 90% to 95% 5 Drought Emergency 95% or more Source: City of Fargo, August Reservoirs and lakes in the basin are used both for water supply and flood control. For the drought plan, the water surface elevation for each reservoir translates into an available water supply amount. As water surfaces decline the available water supply is lower. The Fargo drought plan looks at the available water supply at Ashtabula, Orwell, and Lake Traverse. The Grand Forks drought plan also includes the Upper and Lower Red Lakes. A drought phase is determined for each reservoir as shown in Table 6. Because Ashtabula is relied on more for water supply than Orwell or Traverse, the Ashtabula drought phase is weighted six times more than the Traverse drought phase. Likewise, Orwell s drought phase is weighted three times more than the Traverse drought phase. Table 6. Reservoir Elevations for Various Fargo/Grand Forks Drought Phases Minimum water surface elevation in: Drought Phase Ashtabula Orwell Traverse 1 Normal Conditions to 1266 feet feet to feet feet and above 2 Drought Advisory to feet to feet to feet 3 Drought Watch to feet to feet to feet 4 Drought Warning to feet to feet to feet 5 Drought Emergency Below feet Below feet Below feet Source: City of Fargo, August pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 36

37 From climate, streamflow, and reservoir indices, four separate averages of drought phase condition will be found. These drought phases may not agree. For example, it is possible that the climatic drought phase could indicate a phase 4 (drought warning) when the reservoir drought phase could still be phase 1 (normal conditions). The drought phase that the majority of the indicators point to will be the declared drought phase. For example, if the climatic and stream flow drought phase indicate phase 4 (drought warning) while the reservoir is indicating a phase 1 (normal conditions) then a drought warning will be declared. Figure 17 provides an example of the possible Fargo drought phase condition using historical climate, streamflow, and reservoir data for 1895 to Not all of the climatic, streamflow, or reservoir data was recorded or available at all times. In cases where information is not available or missing, the drought plan uses the available indicators. Additionally, current water use is different than past use, which can cause different impacts to stream flow or reservoir releases than historically observed. Figure 17. Possible Historic City of Fargo Drought Phases Notes: Worse case drought phase calculated using historical drought indices, USGS streamflow, and Army Corps historic reservoir storage. In Figure 18, the possible Fargo drought phase which might have occurred for each historic event is shown. At the beginning of a drought, the City will start in Normal Conditions (Phase 1). The drought phase will worsen until drought conditions improve. It is this worse condition during a drought that is shown in the Figure. For five drought events, there is adequate water such that Normal Conditions persist throughout the event. The duration of these droughts are less than one year. For 16 drought events a Drought Advisory pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 37

38 might have been declared. Most of these drought events last between 6 and 12 months, although some last for 2 years. A Drought Watch (Phase 3) would have been declared for four drought events, ranging in length from 1 year to 3 years. The droughts of the 1950s and 1960s would have peaked at Phase 3 along with the 1979 to 1982 drought. There are six historic droughts peaking in Drought Warnings (Phase 4) and Drought Emergencies (Phase 5). These events include the 1930s drought and the more recent 1987 to 1992 drought. While some of the more intense events lasting less than 2 years, any drought event over 3 years are of Phase 4 or greater. Possible agricultural impacts of past droughts are illustrated in Figure 19, showing the adjusted yield of irrigated and dryland wheat for east central North Dakota 5. Historically increasing wheat production, for example due to on farm mechanization, is taken into account in this Figure. Production generally begins to fall when drought events exceed six months in length. Yield declines by roughly 10% for each year the drought lasts. Figure 18. Possible Historic City of Fargo Drought Impacts for Various Droughts Notes: Worse case drought phase calculated using historical drought indices, USGS streamflow, and Army Corps historic reservoir storage. 5 National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture (multiple years). Available on line at: pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 38

39 Figure 19. Possible Agricultural Drought Impacts Source: Adjusted wheat yield statistics from National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture (multiple years). pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 39

40 3. Water Use in the Basin 3.1 Jurisdictional Water Law State of Minnesota Water law in Minnesota follows the riparian doctrine. This doctrine is generally used in eastern jurisdictions. Historically, the risk of water shortages was low and water disputes tended to be on a local level. Under this doctrine, those using the public waters can generally do so provided that impacts to other users are avoided. Minnesota has developed a priority system which includes prioritization of the water use during shortages. In Minnesota, six water use priority classes have been legislatively defined as: First Priority: Domestic, residential, and essential power production defined in a contingency plan; Second Priority: Any consumptive use less than 10,000 U.S. gallons per day (gpd) (38,000 liters per day); Third Priority: Agricultural irrigation and the processing of agricultural products exceeding 10,000 gpd; Fourth Priority: Power production in excess of the contingency plan; Fifth Priority: Other uses in excess of 10,000 gpd; Sixth Priority: Non essential uses. Lower priority water uses must avoid impacts to higher priority uses. Groundwater and surface water are managed in the same permit system. Groundwater pumping is also regulated to prevent mining of aquifers and to regulate well interactions. State of North Dakota North Dakota water law is based on prior appropriation, which is generally used in western jurisdictions. Historically, the risk of water shortages is high and water disputes tend to be at a regional or basin level. In general, early settlement occurred on more desired lands, which tended to be on plains with better soils, longer growing seasons, and closer access to established transportation and markets. Later settlement occurred on less desirable lands which also tended to be upstream and closer to river headwaters. The later settlement water uses might jeopardize the earlier uses. To encourage private economic investment, the prior appropriation system issues rights to water users in a priority system based on the date an application to beneficially use water was received. Under this system, later permitted water users are sequentially denied water in favor of earlier appropriators in times of water shortage. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 40

41 Province of Manitoba Manitoba water law is based on prior appropriation doctrine. There appears to be several differences relevant to other prior appropriation jurisdictions in the basin. Priority, or precedent, dates are set based on when the application to utilize water is submitted rather than the date of historic use. Water licenses are generally not inheritable or transferable; for example, the sale of irrigated land may invalidate the associated license. Manitoba also recognizes water use classes as a form of priority. The order (from highest to lowest priority) of water use class priority is: 1. Domestic; 2. Municipal; 3. Agricultural; 4. Industrial; 5. Irrigation. The class priority system is a secondary allocation mechanism used when multiple licenses are issued with the same precedent date. The term of licenses is not perpetual and requires renewal every 20 years. Uses with higher priority classes can cause the rescinding of licenses of lower class priorities. 3.2 Permitted and Reported Water Use Water use in the basin is permitted or licensed through each respective jurisdiction. In Manitoba, this is the Department of Water Stewardship, in Minnesota the Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters, in North Dakota it is the State Water Commission, and in South Dakota the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Data of permitted water use was obtained for the jurisdictions 6. This information contains the annual amount of water permitted for use, the source of water (groundwater or surface water), and the location of the point of diversion, which may be a well or surface water intake. While each jurisdiction has different categories of recognized uses, a common set of uses is used for this report. These categories are: Domestic, Commercial, Municipal, and Industrial (DCMI) Uses: DCMI uses are those typically found in cities and rural water supplies. The Domestic component is those associated with residential use, including both indoor and outdoor uses. Commercial use examples include 6 Manitoba Water Stewardship. Water Use Licensing. Personal Communication with Rob Matthews, July Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters. "Water Appropriations Permit Program Database". Available on line at North Dakota State Water Commission. Water Permit GIS Database. Personal Communication with Bob White, September pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 41

42 hotels and restaurants. Municipal uses are those associated with city departments. Industrial uses are those supplied from the public water supply. Irrigation: Irrigation for agricultural crops is the primary part of this category. Thermoelectric: Water used for cooling power plants fueled by coal, natural gas, or another fuel source. Industrial: Industrial water uses having an independent water supply not from a public source. In Stream: Water dedicated for habitat or recreation purposes. Livestock: Water used for raising livestock. Other: Water uses not included in the above categories. Water permit holders are required to submit actual use information each year. Minnesota has reported actual use information for each permit since North Dakota reported actual use information is available from 1970, although there appears to be some missing information prior to Manitoba also requires reported water use. However, funding for this activity has historically been limited resulting in sparse actual use information. The Manitoba Department of Water Stewardship has suggested the use of permitted amounts as a guide to actual use. This document does not attempt to validate or verify the reported jurisdictional water use data. Permitted and reported actual water use by state or province is provided in Figure 20 and Table 7. Minnesota has the most permitted uses, accounting for 46% of all basin permits, followed by North Dakota with 32%, Manitoba with 20%, and South Dakota with less than 2% of basin permits. Based on reported actual use, Manitoba has 52% of basin reported actual use (assuming permits reflect actual water use), followed by Minnesota with 34%, and North Dakota with 14%. South Dakota actual water use may be negligible. When separated by watershed in the basin, 11 watersheds make up nearly 90% of the permitted and reported actual water use (Figure 21 and Table 8). Watersheds with the most use, Otter Tail River and Cook s Creek, involve power generation. The later power plant, operated by Manitoba Hydro for auxiliary power generation, is located in the Cook s Creek drainage area although it diverts water from the Red River. Power generation water use generally uses once through cooling, where water is diverted for cooling purposes and then returned to the receiving stream. Diversions from the Red River itself or groundwater pumping within 1 kilometre of the river accounts for the third highest use watershed. DCMI along with irrigation and industrial uses are primary uses from the Red River. Uses in other watersheds include irrigation uses, industrial, and rural water supply. Table 9 provides details in the eleven watersheds with the highest overall permits and reported use. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 42

43 Figure 20. Total Permitted and Reported Uses by State/Province Table 7. Total Permitted and Reported Actual Water Use by State/Province State/Province Permitted Amounts [acft/yr] Reported Actual Use (Maximum Surface water Groundwater Total Year) [acft/yr] Manitoba 255,348 27, , ,844 1 Minnesota 465, , , ,226 North Dakota 296, , ,935 79,063 South Dakota 6,945 14,229 21,174 Total 1,024, ,845 1,394, ,133 Notes: 1. No reported actual use information is available for Manitoba. Permitted amounts assumed to be equal to actual use. Year of maximum year use varies by watershed. See Table 9. Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed and Type of Use pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 43

44 Figure 21. Permitted and Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 44

45 Table 8. Permitted and Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed Watershed Permitted Amounts, [acft/yr] Otter Tail River (MN) Surface water Groundwater Total Reported Actual Use (Maximum Year) [acft/yr] 207,570 94, , ,522 Red River (MB/MN/ND) 265,670 8, ,325 31,967 1 Cooks Creek (MB) 232,159 9, , ,831 1 Clearwater River (MN) Lower Sheyenne River (ND) Western Wild Rice River (ND/SD) Red Lake River (MN) 96,653 8, ,359 23,377 72,387 25,937 98,324 19,133 8,065 55,237 63,302 19,300 43,816 6,388 50,204 12,354 Buffalo River (MN) 9,031 31,777 40,808 6,139 Upper/Lower Red Lake (MN) 26, ,913 5,653 Turtle River (ND) 2,373 20,112 22,485 11,294 Middle Sheyenne River (ND) All other watersheds ,529 20,194 6,134 55,240 93, ,340 46,430 1 Totals 1,019, ,626 1,394, ,134 Notes: 1. No reported actual use information is available for Manitoba. Permitted amounts assumed to be equal to actual use. Year of maximum year use varies by watershed. See Table 9. Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed and Type of Use pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 45

46 Table 9. Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed and Type of Use Watershed Type Minimum Average Maximum Amount Year Amount Amount Year [acft/yr] [acft/yr] [acft/yr] Buffalo River (MN) DCMI 1, ,758 2, Industrial Irrigation ,584 3, Livestock Clearwater River DCMI (MN) Industrial Irrigation 1, ,615 22, Livestock Lower Sheyenne DCMI 1, ,548 8, River (ND) Industrial In Stream , Irrigation 1, ,220 11, Middle Sheyenne DCMI , River (ND) Industrial In Stream Irrigation ,192 5, Otter Tail River DCMI 5, ,918 6, (MN) Industrial ,178 2, Irrigation 5, ,568 37, Livestock Thermoelectric 12, ,169 90, Red Lake River DCMI 5, ,584 11, (MN) Industrial , Irrigation Red River (MN) DCMI 2, ,643 4, Red River (ND) DCMI 6, ,295 19, Red River (MB) DCMI 5,219 (from permit records) Red River (MN) Industrial Red River (ND) Industrial ,357 3, Red River (MB) Industrial 3 (from permit records) Red River (MN) Irrigation Red River (ND) Irrigation , Red River (MB) Irrigation 1,364 (from permit records) Turtle River (ND) DCMI ,394 1, In Stream Irrigation ,438 10, n/a Upper/Lower Red DCMI Lake (MN) Irrigation 1, ,148 5, Western Wild Rice River (ND) DCMI ,391 1, In Stream 5, ,537 7, Irrigation 4, ,257 17, n/a Note: No reported actual use information is available for Manitoba. Permitted amounts assumed to be equal to actual use. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 46

47 The primary uses of water in the basin include power generation, DCMI, and irrigation (Figure 22). Power generation is the highest permitted and reported actual use, accounting for 40% of basin permits and 60% of reported actual use. Power generation water use generally uses once through cooling, where water is diverted for cooling purposes and then returned to the receiving stream. Irrigation makes up 27% of basin permits and 25% of reported actual use. DCMI, or public water supply, constitutes 31% of basin permits and 14% of reported actual use. Other uses constitute the remaining percentages. Irrigation use can be described as a duty of water applied to a given parcel of land. This amount may be based on the types of crops grown and the type of irrigation system in use. Both Minnesota and North Dakota require permit holders to specify the number of acres being irrigated in addition to the irrigation water amount. The highest permitted water duty is in the Clearwater watershed of Minnesota with 2.5 acft/ac. Reported actual water use ranges from 0.1 to 1.4 acft/ac, with an average rate of 0.5 acft/ac. Manitoba irrigation permit rates range from 4 to 8 inches of applied water (0.3 to 0.7 acft/ac), depending on crop type, local precipitation, and soil water holding capacity (R. Matthews, personal communication). Table 11 provides permitted and reported water duties in Minnesota and North Dakota. DCMI water use can be described as a water volume per person. Population estimates for the year 2006 is available from the U.S. Census Bureau, while year 2001 census data is available from Statistics Canada. Based on the population density of the basin, the total population of the basin is estimated at 725,841 people. This number does not include the city of Winnipeg or its suburbs, as supply for these municipalities is from an aqueduct. Reported per capita water use for Minnesota and North Dakota ranges from 66 to 110 U.S. gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The permitted per capita use for Manitoba is 66 gpcd. Table 12 shows per capita water use information. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 47

48 Figure 22. Total Water Permits and Reported Actual Use by Type of Use Table 10. Total Water Permits and Reported Actual Use by Type of Use Use Permitted Amount [acft/yr] Reported Actual Use (Maximum Year) [acft/yr] Irrigation 371, ,504 DCMI 429,250 76,963 Thermoelectric Industrial 552, ,140 Livestock In Stream 23,681 Other 16,542 7,916 Notes: No reported actual use information is available for Manitoba. Permitted amounts assumed to be equal to actual use. Year of maximum year use varies by watershed. See Table 9. Reported Actual Water Use by Watershed and Type of Use pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 48

49 Table 11. Permitted and Reported Irrigation Water Duties Irrigation Duty [acft/ac] Reported Actual Use Watershed Permitted Minimum Average Maximum Minnesota Buffalo River Clearwater River Otter Tail River Red Lake River Red River Upper/Lower Red Lake North Dakota Lower Sheyenne River Middle Sheyenne River Red River Turtle River Western Wild Rice River pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 49

50 Table 12. Permitted and Reported DCMI Per Capita Water Use State/Province Basin Population 1 Per Capita Water Use [gpcd] Permitted Reported Actual Use Minimum Average Maximum Minnesota 254, North Dakota 284, Manitoba 186, Notes: 1. U.S. population from 2006 Census estimate; Manitoba from 2001 census. Basin population estimate for Manitoba does not include Winnipeg or its suburbs which obtain water via aqueduct from Lake of the Woods. The 2001 population of Winnipeg and its suburbs is 621, MN minimum use year is 1992 with state basin population estimate of 249,440 and total reported DCMI use of 20,407 ac ft. 3. MN maximum use year is 2006 with state basin population estimate of 254,179 and total reported DCMI use of 28,748 ac ft. 4. ND minimum use year is 2006 with state basin population estimate of 284,995 and total reported DCMI use of 21,169 ac ft. 5. ND maximum use year is 1991 with state basin population estimate of 271,210 and total reported DCMI use of 33,327 ac ft. 3.3 Water Availability and Sustainability Precipitation variability ranges from the wettest portion of the basin in eastern Minnesota to the driest in northwest Manitoba. Figure 23 shows the average annual precipitation based on climate data (NESDIS, 2007; Environment Canada, 2002). The precipitation in the basin is mirrored in the available supply of streams, lakes, and reservoirs in the basin. The water availability in these measurements is also mixed with locations of water use. For example, stream flow measured on the Red River near the international boundary will be less than what would have occurred naturally due to consumptive uses by upstream cities, agriculture, and industry. Reservoirs which store water also lose a portion to evaporation, which otherwise would have been left flowing in the river. Flows in winter and early spring may be lower than what would naturally occur as reservoirs are filling. Conversely, flows in summer and dry years may be higher than what would naturally occur as reservoirs are releasing water. Determining which areas and types of water use in the basin are susceptible to drought involves comparing the water needs against the available water resources. In order for the comparison to be accurate, the past historical water use must be removed from the recorded water supply information. This adjusted stream flow information is called natural flow. Comparing present or future water use needs against the natural flow provides an indicator of drought impacts. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 50

51 The USGS computed natural flows from Lake Traverse to near the international border on the Red River and for locations in several watersheds (USGS, 2002). Figure 24 shows the average and median natural flows. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 51

52 Figure 23. Average Annual Precipitation pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 52

53 Figure 24. Natural Flows pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 53

54 3.3.1 Reservoirs Controlled reservoirs or lakes in the basin include Lake Traverse in the Bois de Sioux watershed, Lake Ashtabula in the Sheyenne River watershed, Lake Orwell in the Otter Tail River watershed, and the Upper and Lower Red Lakes in the Red Lake River watershed. These reservoirs serve multiple purposes, including habitat, water supply, flood control, water quality enhancement, recreation, and tribal water rights. A proposed reservoir near Morris, Manitoba is under consideration for water supply to the Pembina Valley Water Cooperative (PVWC). A portion of reservoirs storage is reserved for water supply. This portion is called the conservation pool and may be contracted to specific parties. To fill the conservation pool, a water right or permit is needed from the respective jurisdiction the reservoir is located in. This permit will be similar to a typical water use permit and include information such as priority of water use, the rate of water withdrawal, and the total annual amount of water that may be stored. A storage permit might also specify the months of the year water is stored. As reservoirs fill, each party having a storage account will accrue water. During the year, natural losses such as evaporation will be deducted from the accounts. When supplemental water is needed, an account holder will make a call for water to the respective dam operator. Storage flows resulting from storage releases are considered separately from stream flows generated from natural runoff. Stream flows attributed to natural runoff are distributed to all permit holders on the basis of their priority to the water. Stream flows attributed to a storage account release are legally protected up to the respective account holder s point of diversion. Once storage water is used, the return flows are considered part of the natural runoff and distributed downstream to all permit holders. Flood control is also a permitted function of some reservoirs. The permit will specify the amount of flood water that can be stored. The length of time that flood water can be stored is also important. Retaining flood water for too long may make this water de facto conservation water. This condition will be avoided by releasing water soon after a flood, when doing so will not harm those downstream. To prepare for spring flood events, reservoir operators will often draw down a reservoir to a specific level in winter. Ideally, the reservoir is empty enough so that floods will fill it without causing an unregulated spill to occur. The extent to which the reservoir is emptied in winter may depend on the amount of snow fall or be a specific amount each year. Table 13 lists the conservation, flood control, and total storage for reservoirs in the basin. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 54

55 Table 13. Reservoirs in the Red River Basin Reservoir Conservation Storage [acft] Flood Control Storage [acft] Total Storage [acft] Lake Traverse Primarily used for flood control 179,967 Lake Ashtabula 70,600 30, ,500 Lake Orwell 8,300 5,700 14,000 Upper and Lower Red Lakes Limited release to no more than 50,000 acft/yr 2,443,157 Homme n/a n/a 3,905 Maple River 60,000 60,000 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Available on line at: Moore Engineering, "Taming the Lower Sheyenne River", Minnesota Water Resources Conference, Lake Ashtabula is impounded by Baldhill Dam and is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The reservoir was constructed from 1947 to 1951 and storage expanded in The maximum conservation pool is 70,600 ac ft and is contracted to several North Dakota cities, shown in Table 14 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007). Fargo and Grand Forks make up the majority of conservation pool accounts. Preparation for spring floods involves drawing down the reservoir storage based on the upper basin snow pack. For low amounts of snow pack (less than 1 inch of SWE 7 ) the reservoir is drawn down to 52,250 ac ft. For higher snow pack amounts (3 inches SWE or more) the draw down could be to a storage of 31,000 ac ft. During summer a minimum release of 13 cfs is made for habitat and water quality needs. Table 14. Lake Ashtabula Storage Accounts Ashtabula Account Holder Maximum Account Size [acre feet] Fargo 35,880 Grand Forks 20,023 Valley City 6,686 West Fargo 954 Lisbon 373 Total 63,916 7 Snow water equivalent, the equivalent amount of rainfall contained in a snowpack. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 55

56 A Drought Contingency Plan is in place for operating Ashtabula during drought conditions (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007). The plan was developed in 1992 and revised in The plan consists of two phases. Phase I, Alert Phase, is triggered after two to three months of abnormally dry weather signifying the onset of drought. Agencies, such as the North Dakota State Water Commission and account holders, are made aware of the potential for drought during this phase. There are no reservoir operation changes for this phase. Phase II, the trigger phase, occurs when the reservoir is consistently declining in storage and storage is less than 69,480 acre feet (elevation of feet). Operational changes to the reservoir are considered during this phase, although no predefined changes are in the drought plan. A Corps Drought Management Committee (CDMC) is formed which consults with agencies and account holders for input into reservoir operational changes. It is anticipated that coordination with Lake Orwell releases will occur to meet Red River municipal water supply needs (USACE, 2007, p to 7 18) Lake Orwell is an on stream reservoir on the Otter Tail River in Minnesota (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). With reservoir construction beginning in 1952, its authorized purposes include water conservation, flood control, habitat, and water quality uses. Water supply and water quality aspects have been reduced in recent years. Cities, such as Breckenridge and Moorhead, have incorporated conjunctive water supplies that include groundwater and surface water diversions. Breckenridge, for example, maintains a surface water diversion on Otter Tail river for drought uses but normally relies on groundwater. Due to these basin changes, the water supply aspect of Orwell has, at least in practice, been eliminated in favor of habitat needs. Water quality augmentation is associated with the need to improve releases from Lake Traverse. Snow pack in the upper basin is used to determine the draw down of Orwell in preparing for spring flood events. For snow pack less than 3 inches SWE, the reservoir is reduced to the conservation pool of 8,300 acre feet. If there is more than 3 inches, the reservoir is reduced to between 1,200 to 5,500 acre feet of storage (elevation of 1,050 to 1,060 ft). A drought contingency plan in place for Orwell affects the minimum release made from the reservoir. During normal conditions, a minimum of 80 cfs is made from Orwell. Drought conditions are triggered when inflows to Orwell drop below 80 cfs. Initially the minimum release is reduced to 70 cfs. If the drought condition persists, the minimum release is adjusted in an effort to maintain the current storage in the reservoir. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 56

57 3.3.2 Shortage Analysis The natural flows developed by the USGS along with the presumed groundwater surface water impacts, Army Corps reservoir operations, and municipal drought plans were compared to current water needs using the RiverWare modeling software 8 ( model ). The model is intended to be illustrative of possible impacts from proposed drought impact options. The following section describes the datasets used in the model. Figure 25 to Figure 30 provide the locations of water use and natural flow locations for each watershed. The watersheds included, based on the amount of basin water use and available data, are: Buffalo River (MN) Clearwater River (MN) Lower Sheyenne River (ND) Middle Sheyenne River (ND) Otter Tail River (MN) Red Lake River (MN) Red River (MN/ND) Turtle River (ND) Upper/Lower Red Lake (MN) Western Wild Rice River (ND) 8 Additional information available at: pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 57

58 Figure 25. Buffalo Watershed Water Permits pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 58

59 Figure 26. Red Lake and Clearwater Watersheds Water Permits pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 59

60 Figure 27. Otter Tail Watershed Water Permits pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 60

61 Figure 28. Sheyenne Watershed Water Permits pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 61

62 Figure 29. Turtle Watershed Water Permits pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 62

63 Figure 30. Western Wild Rice Watershed Water Permits pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 63

64 The current water uses for the selected watersheds are provided in Table 9, above. The annual water uses are broken into monthly amounts based on the type of water use. Table 15 shows the estimated monthly water uses. These monthly uses were obtained from the USGS natural flow report or National (U.S.) Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004). Table 15. Estimated Monthly Water Use Use Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total DCMI 8% 7% 7% 7% 9% 10% 14% 11% 8% 5% 7% 7% 100% Industrial 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 100% Irrigation (Sprinkler) Irrigation (Flood) 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 3% 42% 30% 17% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 35% 35% 15% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Irrigation water use for each month is based in part on air temperatures and crop biology. The water needs range from no water use in winter months ramping up to a peak water use in summer as the crop matures, and then declining as the crop is harvested. Rice requires additional water use in early spring as fields are flooded. Water use for DCMI also has a summer peak component. This is related to outdoor water use, such as recreation and lawn and golf course irrigation. Winter months have lower water use rates, based in part on reduction in outdoor water use. Industrial water use over a year varies based on the type of industry. For example, power generation water use is linked to power demands, which typically have a summer peak due to air conditioning needs. Non power industrial demands are assumed to have a constant water demand over the year. When water is diverted, a portion is consumptively used. Consumptive use converts water into a form that can not be economically or feasibility recovered for reuse elsewhere in the basin. For example, some water diverted by power plants for cooling will evaporate. The remaining portion is returned to a river for reuse. The ratio of consumptive use to the total water diverted is the efficiency of water use. A high efficiency water use has a large portion of diverted water as consumptive use. Efficiencies were averaged based on NPDES permit data compiled by the USGS. Efficiencies range from 90% for groundwater fed irrigation to 40% for DCMI use. When the model is used to simulate historic drought events for current water uses, shortage impacts during droughts are found, as provided in Table 16. The 1930s drought event is the most severe, with widespread DCMI, irrigation, and industrial shortage impacts on both the mainstem of the Red River and its tributaries. Modeled flows on the Red River near the Snake River (the closest location to the international border provided in the USGS natural flow work) are provided in Table 17. The 1930s drought would have approximately 530 cfs of average flow at this location. At least 10% of the time (the Q 90 flow), there would be no flow. Figure 31 shows the modeled DCMI shortages to the Cities of Fargo pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 64

65 and Grand Forks. Shortages to Fargo s water needs totaled 22,000 acft over 5 years and for Grand Forks it totaled 4,500 acft over 7 years. In other drought events, potential impacts occur on the tributaries. Table 16. Potential Drought Impacted Locations and Uses Drought Event Potential Impacted Locations and Uses Lower Buffalo River DCMI Lower Red Lake River: DCMI, Industrial Red River at Fargo: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation Red River at Grand Forks DCMI Red River below Forest River DCMI Red River below Red Lake River: Industrial, Irrigation Red River near Sandhill River Irrigation Red River below Sandhill River DCMI Red River below Turtle River Irrigation Red River near Snake River: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation Red River near Wahpeton: Industrial, Irrigation Sheyenne River: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation South Branch Buffalo River Irrigation Turtle River Irrigation Upper Buffalo River: Industrial, Irrigation Upper Clearwater River Irrigation 1950s Lower Buffalo River DCMI Sheyenne River: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation South Branch Buffalo River Irrigation Turtle River Irrigation Upper Clearwater River Irrigation 1960s Lower Buffalo River DCMI Sheyenne River: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation South Branch Buffalo River Irrigation Turtle River Irrigation Upper Buffalo River Irrigation Upper Clearwater River Irrigation Lower Buffalo River DCMI Red River below Sandhill River: DCMI, Irrigation Sheyenne River: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation South Branch Buffalo River Irrigation Turtle River Irrigation Upper Buffalo River: Industrial, Irrigation Upper Clearwater River Irrigation Lower Buffalo River DCMI Sheyenne River: DCMI, Industrial, Irrigation South Branch Buffalo River Irrigation Turtle River Irrigation Upper Clearwater River Irrigation pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 65

66 Table 17. Modeled Flows on the Red River Near Snake River Confluence Drought Event Average Flow [cfs] Q 90 Flow [cfs] s 3, s 3, , , Figure 31. Modeled City of Fargo and Grand Forks Shortages for the 1930s Drought Event pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 66

67 4. Immediate Drought Process Options Several options were reviewed as possible responses to an immediate drought. The potential effectiveness of some of these options were evaluated using the RiverWare model. These options are: Conjunctive uses Disaster relief Drought forecasting Drought plan coordination Emergency supplies Water marketing/risk adjustment Water rights enforcement coordination 4.1 Conjunctive Uses Conjunctive uses refer to the ability to use both surface water and groundwater resources as a water supply. Irrigation water uses in the basin are generally groundwater fed, with some surface water uses in the Clearwater River watershed and in various locations throughout the basin. In addition to cost issues in constructing surface water diversions and canals, water law in Minnesota encourages groundwater use for irrigation. Industrial water uses likewise tend to be groundwater supplied, with the notable exception of cooling for power plants, which use surface water for once through cooling. Several municipalities have incorporated conjunctive uses into their water supplies or have expressed interest in doing so. Moorhead Public Service provides water to the City of Moorhead, the town of Dilworth, and Oakport Township. On average, 1.5 billion gallons (4,603 ac ft or 5,678 ML) per year are used. The majority (approximately 87%) of this is from Red River flows. The remaining amounts are from well fields in the Buffalo aquifer (RiverWatch, 2004; MnDNR, 2005). Capacity of the aquifer is estimated at 200 billion gallons (613,800 ac ft or 757,100 ML), recharged from direct surface precipitation and seepage from the Buffalo River (personal communication with Cliff McLain, December 10, 2008). The aquifer may be used for increased supply during an extended drought. Moorhead and Fargo examined a possible system interconnection, where both cities would share surface water and groundwater resources. Technical limitations would mean that only an amount equivalent to firefighting needs could be transferred. The interconnection was not established due to this and economic limitations. The Pembina Valley Water Cooperative (PVWC) has proposed a conjunctive use project which would supplement surface water supplies with groundwater (Pembina Valley Water Cooperative, 2005). A wellfield in the Sandilands Provincial Forest would supply 50 liters per second (13 U.S. gallons per second) via a 95 kilometre (59 mile) pipeline. The Sandilands project area is located in the eastern portion of the Red River Basin. The aquifer includes portions of the Roseau, Rat, Seine, Brokenhead, and Whitemouth river watersheds. A hearing conducted by the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission noted the need for the project, however the project was not approved due to sustainability issues. A proposed reservoir at Morris is being examined to extend water supplies during low flows on the Red River. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 67

68 Promoting conjunctive water uses is one approach to prepare for drought conditions. This activity may involve: Identifying and prioritizing conjunctive use projects. Developing groundwater models and studies where information is lacking to estimate sustainable safe yields of aquifers and facilitate project approval from regulators. Identifying funding for infrastructure improvements to facilitate conjunctive uses. 4.2 Disaster Relief In a severe and extended drought, there may be critical water uses that can not be satisfied with other approaches. As a natural hazard, planned emergency management and response are necessary to alleviate severe and extended drought impacts. The North Dakota Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan discusses the need for preparation of disaster relief in response to drought. Minnesota and Manitoba are in various stages of revising or producing jurisdictional drought response plans. The complete failure of a water supply could be responded to by shipping in potable water for drinking and cooking needs. An illustrative example of this is the flooding of the Des Moines, Iowa water treatment plant in The loss of the plant placed the water supply of 350,000 people at risk for nearly three weeks. Private industry, including dairies and beverage bottlers, began producing bottled water that was shipped into the area. The primary response was from government emergency management which distributed water from tankers at approximately 100 sites in the area. There are of course differences between this example and water supply failure from drought. The duration of the water supply loss will be greater in a drought, extending months or years instead of weeks. During the flood, non potable water was still available from the distribution system which still served some limited uses. A drought event is regional and would require coordination from the federal, state, and local emergency response agencies, both in planning and response. 4.3 Drought Forecasting Several agencies produce reports that forecast various aspects of drought. These reports range from short term (up to 90 days) or long term in outlook. The reports include forecasts of the overall drought condition, the anticipated water supply, and water demands. Figure 32 shows an example from the U.S. NOAA Climate Prediction Center on a 90 day drought outlook 9. Extended outlooks, perhaps of a year or more, may be possible by examining the relationship of temperature and precipitation to global climatic indices. Statistical analysis of temperature and precipitation information can determine if a significant trend exists that indicates a warmer/cooler and wetting/dryer conditions. Relationships to global climatic indices can be developed, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and the 9 Available on line at: pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 68

69 Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). For example, Figure 33 shows generalized impacts of the El Niño and La Niña events over North America. Figure 32. Example of the U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Report Figure 33. Generalized Impacts of El Niño and La Niña over North America pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 69

70 Water supply forecasts include snow pack surveys and precipitation outlooks. Snow pack estimates are obtained over the winter and an estimate of the water supply contained in the snow pack is determined. Figure 34 shows an example of an NRCS forecast for part of the Rio Grande in New Mexico 10. The median forecast provides an estimate of the total volume of water flowing past a location on a river from May to July. There is a 50% probability that the actual flow will be above or below this amount. Additional probability levels are provided to allow for more conservative water conservation planning or conversely more conservative flood control planning. Figure 34. Example of an NRCS Streamflow Forecast The availability of snow as a useful water supply depends on the rate at which melting occurs in spring. A gradual rise in temperatures will allow the snow pack to persist longer and lengthen the amount of time snowmelt enters streams as runoff. A period of hotter temperatures can cause snowmelt to occur faster, possibly leading to floods. Intense spring rainfalls can also accelerate snowmelt. As rain falls, it saturates the snowpack and freezes. This freezing releases heat energy (termed the heat of fusion) and increases the snowpack s temperature. With enough heat energy, the snowpack melts rapidly, also releasing the stored rainwater. Forecasts of water demand are also possible, particularly for irrigation water needs. The Bureau of Reclamation has developed a product called ET Toolbox for application in several western states (Figure 35) 11. The ET Toolbox is an internet based application which spatially shows the need for irrigation water. Precipitation information from local climate stations and NEXRAD radar are used to estimate the effective amount of water available to crops. Next, temperature and wind data from local climate stations are combined with information on the type of crops grown to compute agricultural water demand. Subtraction of the demand and natural precipitation supply shows the magnitude of irrigation needs. 10 Available on line at: 11 Available on line at: pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 70

71 By using ET Toolbox, irrigation managers can determine how best to divert water to needed areas of the irrigation system. Over the long term, the computed data is archived and can be analyzed. Drought, normal, and wet year scenarios can be developed which may aid in long term planning and determine effective locations for capital improvements of the irrigation system and monitoring to improve system efficiency. The North Dakota State Climate Office provides a similar approach with the North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network (NDAWN) website 12. For Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin provides a website of location specific plant water needs based on climate data 13. Figure 35. Example of ET Toolbox Report By combining forecasts of water supply and water demand in a computer model, a forecast of possible future shortages is possible. These forecasts can then be used to allow for proactive responses to drought. The Bureau of Reclamation produces Annual Operating Plans (AOP) for some of its projects which estimates potential shortages over the coming year and projected conditions at the end of the plan 14. Southern Florida makes use of forecasting models in a supply side management strategy. 12 Available on line at: 13 Available on line at: 14 For example, see "Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs", available on line at: pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 71

72 Forecasted shortages are proactively responded to with water use restrictions. The shortage estimate is revised each month and restrictions adjusted as conditions improve or worsen from those forecasted. Drought forecasting activities could include: Select drought indicators to apply in basin wide forecasts and monitoring applications. Promote basin specific forecasts, both for short term and long term outlooks. Promote the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) and National Weather Service (NWS) study of drought impacts and modification of the NWS flood forecasting system to include drought events. Develop a comparison model or tool to evaluate forecasted water supply and demand to provide jurisdictions with information for proactive cooperation or water use restrictions provided under respective water law. 4.4 Drought Plan Coordination Drought plans exist for municipalities and reservoirs in the basin. Many of these plans were developed in response to drought. For example, the Fargo and Grand Forks drought plans were developed after the drought. However, these drought plans have not been utilized during an extended or severe drought nor has coordination between various plans been established. The Fargo and Grand Forks drought plans were simulated using the RiverWare model (Figure 36 and Figure 37). Both drought plans have targets for reducing water use based on the declared drought phase. It is uncertain to what extent reductions can be achieved. The drought plans contain a minimum target reduction and a maximum target. For example, a phase 4 target reductions range from a minimum of 20% to a maximum of 30%. Without any reductions to current water use, shortages to Fargo total 22,000 acre feet over a period of 5 years for the 1930s drought. With the minimum target reductions, this shortage is reduced to 16,500 acre feet. The length of the shortages is also reduced to 4 years. With the maximum target reductions, the shortages total 14,000 acre feet. For Grand Forks, no reductions to current water use result in a 4,500 acre feet shortage over a period of 7 years. With minimum target reductions, the total shortage is reduced to 3,700 acre feet. With maximum target reductions the total shortage is 3,100 acre feet. The drought plan coordination option could include: Determine the actual potential for demand reductions for each plan. Determine the effectiveness of long term water conservation versus emergency demand reductions. Develop a common drought monitoring system within the basin. Promote cooperation among basin entities for water crisis management during drought emergencies. Provide coordination between existing drought plans to improve their combined effectiveness. Suggest adjustments if needed to trigger levels to improve plan effectiveness and anticipate worsening drought conditions. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 72

73 Figure 36. Fargo Drought Plan Impacts Figure 37. Grand Forks Drought Plan Impacts pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 73

74 4.5 Emergency Supplies During a severe and extended drought, emergency supplies should be examined to supplement shortages. The scope of this report does not include the creation of new supply reservoirs. What is considered is potentially changing operations of existing reservoirs and lakes. Operational changes include: Reactivation of the Lake Orwell conservation pool Conversion of Ashtabula and Orwell flood pool into conservation uses Partial conversion of habitat and recreation uses of lakes into water supply One of Lake Orwell s authorized uses is water supply. Many municipalities formally utilizing Orwell storage have reduced this need. As provided in the Army Corps Orwell Water Control Plan: "Orwell Dam and Reservoir was originally a dual purpose project designed to impound water during flood periods and to release stored water for water supply and pollution abatement during low flow periods. For years after the completion of the Orwell Project, the cities of Wahpeton, North Dakota, Breckenridge, Minnesota, Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota relied [on] the Red River for water supply...with the exception of minimum release requirements, improvements in the basin [due to the above cities adopting conjunctive water users and other sources] have essentially eliminated water supply as one of the purposes for operating Orwell Reservoir." (USACE 2007, page 7 9) Minimum releases from Orwell are made for habitat needs. These releases may also provide for low flow supply during drought. However, releases are made independently of downstream water needs. Reactivation of the Lake Orwell conservation function during drought would eliminate constant minimum releases in favor of calls on storage from downstream water users when shortages occur. In Figure 38, the model is used to simulate the monthly storage in Orwell. With current operations, the storage during the 1930s drought quickly declines. The reservoir drought contingency plan attempts to maintain storage in the reservoir. The storage still declines due to natural evaporation. Storage increases as inflows increase after When the conservation pool option is used, storage is initially maintained at the full conservation pool; no minimum releases occur. This pool rapidly declines to a minimum storage as calls are made on the storage. Storage is restored after 1937, although cycles to minimum storage as the drought continues to persist. As an illustration of the benefits of Orwell conservation pool, modeled shortages to Fargo are shown in Figure 39. Under the control scenario, Orwell is operated according to minimum releases and the drought contingency plan. The control scenario has a total shortage of 16,500 acre feet in the 1930s drought (using the minimum target reductions specified in Fargo s drought management plan). By utilizing the Orwell conservation pool, the total shortage is reduced to 10,000 acre feet. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 74

75 Figure 38. Lake Orwell End of Month Storage with Reactivated Conservation Pool Figure 39. Fargo Estimated Shortages with Lake Orwell Reactivated Conservation Pool pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 75

76 Authorization of flood control for both Ashtabula and Orwell allocates a portion of the available storage to this need. Additionally, drawdown during winter to prepare for spring floods may induce a reduction in the conservation pool as well. Conversion of the flood control pool into conservation storage has the potential to provide an additional resource during drought. However, this conversion will require Congressional reauthorization to permit a redefinition of the flood control role as well as state storage permit changes. Floods can still occur during an extended drought event, which means maintaining some flood reduction capacity will be required. The model was adjusted to determine the potential benefits in converting both Ashtabula and Orwell flood pools to conservation uses. Figure 40 and Figure 41 show the simulated monthly storages in each reservoir. With the converted flood pool, Ashtabula maintains storage for two additional years of the 1930s drought. Orwell, as a smaller reservoir, also has some additional storage improvements. As an illustration of the potential benefit of this conservation, the modeled shortages to Fargo are shown in Figure 42. The control scenario, utilizing minimum demand reductions with the drought plan, has a shortage of 16,500 acre feet over 5 years. With both Ashtabula and Orwell flood pools utilized for conservation, this shortage is reduced to 5,000 acre feet over the last two years of the drought. Increasing storage will reduce flows at the international boundary on the mainstem Red River. While these flow reductions are likely to occur during the spring, coordination with any increased storage will be needed to address conflicts during reservoir filling. Again, it should be emphasized that conversion of flood pool to conservation uses will require a change in authorization from Congress, changes in state storage permits, and action under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 76

77 Figure 40. Lake Ashtabula Storage with Flood Pool Converted to Conservation Figure 41. Orwell Storage with Flood Pool Converted to Conservation pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 77

78 Figure 42. Fargo Estimated Shortages with Flood Pools Converted to Conservation Otter Tail county, Minnesota, has one of the highest numbers of lakes for any U.S. county 15. It is also located in one of the wettest locations of the basin. Two sets of connected lake chains are on the Pelican River and on the Otter Tail River. Figure 43 shows these selected lakes along with the lakes impounded with dams. Existing outlets are typically a fixed weir, with no ability to regulate the release of water (personal communication with Bob Bezek, February 9, 2009). These lakes are not conservation or flood control reservoirs. The Otter Tail watershed lakes provide for fisheries, habitat, and recreation. One additional aspect that could be considered is supplementary water supply in the event of an extended and severe drought. To estimate the potential storage of these lakes, bathymetric information was obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Total lake storages are provided in Table 18. The combined total capacity of the lakes was estimated at 1.7 million acre feet, with Otter Tail Lake having the largest volume of about 350,000 acre feet. These volumes occur when the lakes are full; storage will also be impacted by drought. 15 Otter Tail County, Minnesota website. Available on line at: tail.mn.us/lakes/default.php. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 78

79 Figure 43. Select Otter Tail Lakes pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 79

80 Table 18. Otter Tail Lakes Bathymetric Information MNDNR ID Name Volume [acft] Surface Area [ac] Max. Depth [ft] Average Depth [ft] Otter Tail 349,731 14, West Battle 128,557 5, North Lida 97,372 5, Pelican 92,449 3, Star 89,554 4, Big Pine 77,056 4, Dead 71,527 7, Clitherall 65,681 2, Rush 61,086 5, Little Pine 50,802 2, Many Point 47,373 1, East Battle 46,339 1, Rose 46,272 1, Detroit 46,092 3, Long 39,373 1, Lizzie 36,393 1, Melissa 31,774 1, Toad 30,828 1, Cotton 29,091 1, Height of Land 28,277 3, Elbow 26, Round 23,936 1, additional lakes 195,985 Total 1,712,518 Source: Total volume of lakes from MnDNR Bathemetric GIS databases. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources views use of the Otter Tail lakes for supplemental water supply during drought as unlikely. The MnDNR states: An area of the basin with a significant supply of water is the Ottertail Watershed in Minnesota. Lakes in the Watershed interconnected to the Ottertail River hold approximately 1,712,518 acreft. of water (MN DNR). However, these lakes are not reservoirs that can be easily manipulated to supply water to downstream sources. Existing outlets are typically just a fixed runout with no ability to release more water. In addition, the transfer of water to meet the needs of users outside of the immediate area would be unpopular politically and would require approval by regulating agencies. As a result, significant engineering, political and environmental hurdles make it unlikely that much, if any, of this water could be made available in the foreseeable future for other than local needs through trucking and pumping. (personal communication with Bob Bezek, February 9, 2009). pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 80

81 It is not certain to what extent the Otter Tail lakes could be used as a supplemental supply. Among the issues that would need to be addressed: Condition of the lakes during drought. While located in one of the wettest areas of the basin, historically long droughts have impacted this area more severely than other portions of the basin (see Figure 16). Additionally, the recovery period from an extended drought is longer than other areas of the basin. Understanding how the lakes are impacted by drought and the associated environmental affects is needed. Historically these lakes have not had a role in water supply. It may not be possible to obtain this role from the MnDNR per DNR policies. MN statutes and rules require that riparian uses and instream and lake ecosystems be given consideration when balancing water needs. Non Minnesota communities would potentially be supplied by the lakes. As noted by the MnDNR, the change in the role of the lakes may be unpopular politically and would require approval by regulating agencies. The lakes could serve a role in disaster relief efforts through trucking and pumping. Natural forming lakes are different than constructed reservoirs. The outlets of reservoirs are positioned to allow withdrawals from all but a portion of the reservoir volume. Lakes tend to be deeper in the center, while limits the amount of volume withdrawn without the use of pumping. Data is limited on the configuration of the outlet weirs and historic lake storage information. This information is useful in ascertaining the potential of these lakes in a supplemental water supply role. 4.6 Water Marketing/Risk Adjustment In the event of drought, all water users have an increased risk of shortage. This risk is not evenly distributed. In Minnesota, certain water uses such as irrigation have a higher risk than municipal uses based on the legislatively set priority classes. In North Dakota and Manitoba, risk is based in part on the priority date of the water right application. The consequences of water shortage are also different between different water uses. Agricultural irrigators may experience decreased yields; Figure 19, previously, provided one example of wheat yields for various drought events. In certain cases, farmers may enter into option contracts, which give a buyer the right to purchase a future crop at a given price. Falling yields not only represent lost income, but farmers may have to purchase commodities on the open market to fulfill these contracts. This was one aspect that occurred during the drought. A willing buyer willing seller water market model has the potential to redistribute risk amongst various water users. A water user may anticipate that the risk of a water shortage is too high to either produce an economic good or the potential future cost may be too high to mitigate for the lack of water. This user may choose to lease their future right to use water to a different user. Ideally, exchanges occur that minimize the risks and consequences of water shortages for the basin. In effect, a version of this has been suggested in the Manitoba Water Protection Act of 2006 in which curtailment of water rights outside of prior appropriation occurs in exchange for compensation. North Dakota has also indicated that in a severe drought municipalities can condemn water rights in a similar manner to land condemnations. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 81

82 An example of a water market might be between agricultural water users and municipal water users. The average current combined irrigation use in the Otter Tail watershed is approximately 50 cfs with an additional 10 cfs on the Pelican River. For the Lower Sheyenne watershed it totals roughly 15 cfs. Irrigation in the upper basin is predominately groundwater fed. Key aquifers in the Red River Basin include the Otter Tail Surficial, Pelican River Sand Plain, the Buffalo, and the Sheyenne Delta. Figure 44 shows the locations of these aquifers. When water is pumped from the aquifer the withdrawal will eventually impact surface water resources. The amount of time for this impact is based on the distance from a well to the surface water resource and the geology of the aquifer. provides average well distance to rivers and geologic parameters for several watersheds. Table 19. Aquifer Geologic Properties and Pumping Locations Watershed Specific Yield Transmissivity [ft 2 /day] Average Well Distance to Stream [ft] Otter Tail (upper) ,500 18,500 Pelican ,000 16,000 Buffalo ,250 2,000 to 4,000 Sheyenne , ,000 to 18,000 Wild Rice (upper) , ,000 Western Wild Rice (lower) , ,000 Red Lake ,000 2,000 to 9,000 Turtle ,000 14,000 Source: USGS, Note: 1. Median value of regional aquifers. Figure 45 shows the possible timing impacts of groundwater pumping on rivers. If, for example, groundwater pumping were to cease in the given watersheds there would not be an immediate significant decrease in depletions to streams. Just as it takes a period of time for groundwater pumping to impact surface water, it also takes time for the depletions from past pumping to reduce. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 82

83 Figure 44. Red River Aquifers pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 83

84 Figure 45. Estimated Groundwater Surface Water Interactions Marketing irrigation water uses to municipal uses might have a significant benefit in a long drought. For example, the above marketing example has the potential to reduce depletions to the Red River enough to offset shortages to municipal water users on the mainstem. However, the timing of the groundwater impacts on surface water means that initiation of a water market would need to be done early in the drought and continued for the duration of the drought. Additional issues complicating a water market approach include: In a willing buyer willing seller model, not all water right holders will participate. If a minimum number of water rights are not involved, additional non market approaches would still be required to mitigate drought impacts. In prior appropriation jurisdictions, a beneficial use clause for water rights has historically discouraged water speculation. If a right holder does not use water for a recognized use over a period of time, their right may be invalidated. Water law changes may be necessary to allow for leasing of water without the right holder in danger of losing their rights. In riparian jurisdictions, the permit to use water is not generally considered as a property right. Manitoba, while a prior appropriation jurisdiction, also does not consider a water license as a transferable property right. Water permit holders in this situation may have little or no leverage to market their permit to others. Again, water law changes may be needed to affect a water market. It may be difficult to set acceptable prices that water should be leased to balance the goal of reducing risks with preventing water speculation. In drought conditions, there may be a lack of pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 84

85 data to set market prices. One approach is to use a broker to set uniform pricing, as practiced in some western irrigation districts. 4.7 Water Rights Enforcement Coordination Each jurisdiction has provisions to curtail certain water uses during a drought. Water right curtailment is not in itself a drought mitigation measure, although it occurs during drought conditions. Enforcement of water right provisions provides the ground rules so that various water users can anticipate their risk of water shortage. In prior appropriation water law, curtailment of junior water users in favor of senior right holders is an expectation for all right holders. In Minnesota water law, curtailment of industrial or irrigation water users in favor of municipal uses or in stream flow is also an expectation of all permit holders. While currently no agreement exists on how water is shared between jurisdictions during a drought, coordinating water rights enforcement actions may be beneficial. For example, a situation may exist where North Dakota is preparing to curtail water use as a critical senior right holder is expecting to suffer shortages. Simultaneously, Minnesota is also considering curtailment for similar reasons although for different water users. By coordinating the timing of when curtailment occurs on shared water resources, such as the Red River, it may be possible to benefit the senior priority right holders for both North Dakota and Minnesota. A similar approach may be applicable to internationally shared basins. There would not necessarily be formal water sharing agreements or changes made to respective water law under this arrangement. Each jurisdiction would be operating under its current water law, with benefits of coordination of actions that would be normally taken. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 85

86 5. Recommendations for Jurisdictional Consideration Existing drought management plans are in place for several municipalities. State and provincial plans addressing drought as a natural hazard are either published or in the process of being revised or created. While future proposed water supply and demand management approaches may reduce drought impacts, there is an immediate need to prepare for drought with the available resources. As drought affects a larger region, promoting cooperative responses maximizes the resources available to the basin. Many of the existing drought management plans were developed in response to past drought but remain untested. For example, the drought of 1988 to 1992 generated the Fargo and Grand Forks drought management plans and the Minnesota water permit curtailment procedure. In the event that a severe drought of extended duration reoccurs it is not certain how these plans would interact. The establishment of a basin wide Drought Action Committee ( Committee ) is recommended. The Committee could be comprised of emergency management and water resources agencies from each jurisdiction. Initial tasks for this Committee will be to develop and refine the definition of drought for the basin as a natural hazard. This includes evaluation of indicators to describe the severity of the drought. The previously described drought response options would be reviewed by the Committee for refinement. Figure 46 illustrates how the Committee might chose to prioritize the options based on drought severity and duration. These activities could include: Evaluate the feasibility of drought preparedness, reporting, monitoring, and response. Evaluate various drought indicators to describe drought severity and recommend a set of indicators for basin wide drought forecasting and monitoring. Evaluate the feasibility of drought response options. Develop a detailed plan on how the jurisdictions will cooperate and act, and what will trigger such action. Work with the national, state, and provincial climate offices to develop a basin specific water supply, demand, and shortage forecasting system that is accessible through a public website. Develop a common drought forecasting, reporting, and monitoring system in the basin. Initiate dialogues with emergency management agencies of the basin on coordinating drought related basin wide disaster relief efforts. Initiate consultations with the public and stakeholders for drought response and monitoring. Initiate a study program for climate change adaptation to drought. Start a dialogue on drought re operation of the three major supply reservoirs of Orwell, Traverse, and Ashtabula. Some operational changes will require state permit changes, or Congressional reauthorization of project uses, and/or action under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act. pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 86

87 Figure 46. Drought Options pw://pwappoma001:northcentral_omaha/documents/d{48e9db48 685e 4671 a854 6edd4b7e16b1} 87