Water Demands 22 Water Demands 23 Draft Projections for DB22 Water Demands 24 Water Demands 25 Water Demands 26 Water Demands 27 County COOKE 1,583 9 378 446 511 586 DALLAS 3,38 2,656 2,279 1,93 1,922 1,916 DENTON 4,326 2,729 3,345 4,36 5,24 6,291 ELLIS 147 213 164 123 82 55 FANNIN FREESTONE 5,347 5,115 5,251 5,286 5,356 5,582 GRAYSON 79 91 17 123 142 163 HENDERSON 67 67 67 67 67 67 JACK 1,555 1,745 1,698 1,731 1,768 1,862 KAUFMAN 296 386 491 646 783 951 NAVARRO 883 1,71 1,282 1,572 1,86 2,76 PARKER 3,182 4,29 4,6 4,73 4,124 4,364 TARRANT 7,367 4,482 1,589 1,537 1,497 1,464 WISE 1,32 11,159 12,337 13,975 15,378 17,694 Demands are in acre-feet per year
221 Regional Water Planning Cycle Project No.: 312-51-1 Date: Prepared For: Prepared By: February 28, 217 Tom Gooch, Freese and Nichols, Inc. Amy Kaarlela, Freese and Nichols, Inc. Preston Dillard, Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Brian McDonald, Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. The 221 Region C Water Plan will incorporate projections for municipal demands, as well as nonmunicipal demands for irrigation, livestock, manufacturing, mining, and steam electric power. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) provided the planningg groups with draft non-municipal demand projections. The draft non-municipal demand projections will be reviewed by the individual planning groups, and recommendations will be provided to the TWDB.. The TWDB will consider the recommended changes from the planning groups, and the final projectionss will ultimately be adopted by the planning groups and the TWDB and incorporated into the 222 Statee Water Plan. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document information related to historical mining usage and provide information supporting recommended modifications to the draft mining demands. BACKGROUND Mining water use is water used for oil and gas development, as well as coal and lignite, sand aggregate, and other resource extraction. The TWDB publishes historical annual mining water use estimates for each county. 1 Since the year 2, the region-wide mining water use estimates have ranged from 2,335 acre-feet (ac-ft) to 41,4 ac-ft (see Figure 1 for usage information by year). As of January 217, historical data estimates were available through the year 214. 1 Texas Water Development Board, Historical Water Use Estimates, Summary Water Use Estimates, County, Summary, 2 and Later. URL: http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/reportserverext/pages/reportviewer.aspx?%2fwu% %2fSumFinal_CountyReport&rs:Co mmand=render, accessed January 217. Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-13 \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water 1 of 8 demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
6, Figure 1. Region C Total County Mining Comparison 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections Previous TWDB Mining Data 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Note: Historical data include mining water use for all of Henderson County. Projections include only the portion of Henderson County located in Regionn C. Draft State Water Plan Projections TWDB s draft mining water demandd projections for the 222 State Water Plan (SWP) are the same as the projections used in the 217 SWP. The 217 SWP projections were originally developed from a 211 TWDB-contracted study with the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) 2 and a September 212 update to the BEG study. 3 The 217 SWP projections for Fannin and Henderson Counties were then revised based on input from the. The BEG study estimated current mining water use and projected use across the planning horizon using data collected from trade organizations, government agencies, and other industry representatives. The projections include information from four mining categories: oil and gas, aggregates, coal and lignite, and other. The BEG study projects the overall state-wide mining use to peak between 22 and 23 (primarily influenced by oil and gas production). The coal and aggregate mining industry is projected to continue to increase throughout the planning period. The historical water use pattern in Figure 1 indicates that the primary driverr for mining water use in Region C is the oil and gas categories. However, mining water use in several Region C counties appears to be driven by the coal/aggregate mining industries. Figure 1 also indicates that the TWDB mining historical dataa have been revised since the last round of planning. 2 Bureau of Economic Geology, Current and Projected Water Use in the Texas Mining and Oil and Gas Industry, prepared for Texas Water Development Board, Junee 211. 3 Bureau of Economic Geology, Oil and Gas Water Use in Texas: Update to the 211 Mining Water Use Report, prepared for Texas Water Development Board, September 212. \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water 2 of 8 demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
One or more of the following criteria must be verified by the Planning Group and the Executive Administrator for consideration of revising the mining water demand projections: Evidence that mining water use in a county is substantially different than the draft projections. This could include trends in water use data from FracFocus national online registry, 4 the Texas Railroad Commission, or other sources. Evidence of new facilities coming online, reported closures in surveyed facilities that may impact county projections The Planning Group must provide the following data associated with the identified criteria for justifying any adjustments to the mining water demand projections: Historical (21 214) water use dataa and description of a surveyed or future facility, and any other information necessary to estimate water use. Reports describing alternative trends or anticipated water use for mining. Other data that the RWPG considers adequate to justify an adjustment to the mining water demand projections will be considered. Data Used in the Evaluation of Draft Mining Demands Data used to evaluate the draft mining demands were obtained from the following sources: TWDB o o Historical mining water use data by county, 2-214 (referenced earlier). Historical industrial water use survey, 21-215. 5 Identified water use associated with NAICS Sector 21: Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction. United States Geological Survey mining water use data for 21. 6 Fracfocus.org hydraulic fracturing water use data, 212-215. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requires Texas oil andd gas operators to disclose on the FracFocus 4 https://fracfocus.org/ 5 Texas Water Development Board, Historical Water Use Estimates, Summary Water Use Estimates, Other Water Use Related Reports, Historical Surveyed Industrial Water Intake by Planning Region. URL: http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/reportserverext/pages/reportviewer.aspx?%2fwu% %2fHistoricalIndustrial&rs:Command =Render, accessed January 217. 6 United States Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 21. URL: https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/21/index.html, accessed January 217. \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water 3 of 8 demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
website chemical ingredients and water volumes usedd in the hydraulic fracturing treatment of oil and gas wells for all wells initially permitted and undergoing hydraulic fracturing after February 1, 212. 7 TCEQ mining water right diversions, 21-214. 8 The BEG study and update mentioned earlier. In severall counties, the USGS reported 21 mining water use that is much higher than estimates from state sources. It appears that there may be a mismatch between the definitions of mining water use between the USGS and state sources. Since regional water planning is generally based on data reported to the state, state dataa sources have been given precedence, and the USGS data have been ignored. RCWPG RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO DRAFT MINING WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS After reviewing the data described in the previous section, thee Region C Water Planning Group (RCWPG) recommends no change to the majority of the draft county-level mining water demand projections. However, the RCWPG believes thatt changes to the projections are warranted in several counties. In each of these cases, the changes are intended to bridge gaps between recent peak mining water use and projections based on long-term trends. Graphs showing the RCWPG-recommended mining water demand projections are presented for each Region C county in Appendix A. Deviations from the draft projections are explained below: Ellis County The TWDB reported that Ellis County mining water use was 3,56 ac-ft in 28. However, this usage was not sustained, and the next largest TWDB-reported water use was 375 ac-ft in 21. In contrast, the TCEQ mining water right diversions were consistently between 612 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr) and 931 ac-ft/yr. This level of water use is supported by the 214 TWDB historical industrial water use survey, althoughh it s not clearr why the survey resulted in zero or near-zero estimatess in other years. Since the TCEQ mining water right diversions provide the most consistent data for Ellis County, it is recommended that the peak mining water right diversion (931 ac-ft) be used for the 22 projected mining water demand and that the projected mining water demand should transition to match the draft 24-27 projections. 7 Fracfocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, Fracfocus Data Download. URL: https:// /fracfocus.org/data-download, accessed January 217. 8 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Use Data Files. URL: http://tceq. state.tx.us/permitting/water_rights/permitting/water_rights/ /wrwud/, accessed January 217. \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water 4 of 8 demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
Fannin County 21-214 TWDB historical mining water use estimates are significantly greater than the projected mining water demand. Therefore, itt is recommended that the peak historical mining water use estimate (574 ac-ft) be used for the 22 projected mining water demand and that the projected mining water demand should transition to match the draft 24-27 projections. Grayson County Fracfocus estimates of water usedd for hydraulicc fracturing ranged between 129 ac ft/yr and 299 ac ft/yr during 213 215. It is recommendedd that the peak Fracfocus estimate (299 ac-ft) be used for the 22 projected mining water demand and that the projected mining water demand should transition to match the draft 24-27 projections. Henderson County The draft projections are based on the TWDB mining water use estimates that were available during the previous round of planning (67 ac-ft in 28). However, thesee historical estimates have been revised significantly downward in the intervening years. Therefore, it is recommended that the draft projections for the entire county be revised to match those from the 211 BEG study. However, part of Henderson County is located in Region C, and part is located in Region I. Therefore, the recommended changes were distributed to Region C in proportion to the percentagee of the county-wide mining water demand that is projected to occur in Region C. Jack County The TWDB mining water use estimate for 21 matches the 21 projection from the BEG study, and both are significantly greater thann the draft projections. Therefore, it is recommended that the draft projections be revised to match those from the 211 BEG study through 23. Navarro County The TWDB mining water use estimates for 28-211 range from 1,123 ac-ft/yr to 1,193 ac-ft/yr and are greater than the draft water demand projections in the early decades. Therefore, it is recommended that the peak historical mining waterr use estimatee (1,193 ac-ft) be used for the 22 projected mining water demand andd that the projected mining water demand should transition to match the draft 24-27 projections. Tarrant County The peak TWDB mining water use estimate (13,976 ac-ft in 211) is much greater than the draft water demand projections. Therefore, it is recommended that the peak historical mining water use estimate (13, 976 ac-ft) be used for the 22 projected mining water demand and that the projected mining water demand should transition to match the draft 24-27 projections. \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water 5 of 8 demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
A comparison of the draft projections for the 2222 SWP (provided by TWDB), the final 217 SWP projections, and the proposed RCWPG revisionss to the draft 222 SWP projections is presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. County projections for 22 weree based on recent peak mining water use from different years and different data sources. Therefore, it is not surprisingg that the total revised 22 projection (48,95 ac-ft) is greater than the peak mining water use reported by TWDB for the region as a whole (41,4 ac-ft in 21). \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water 6 of 8 demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
Table 1. Comparison of o Region C Mining Demand Projections County Name Collin Cooke Dallas Denton Ellis Fannin Freestone Grayson Henderson Jack Kaufman Navarro Parker Rockwall Tarrant Wise Total 217 SWP Projections Draft Projections for 222 SWP 22 23 24 25 26 27 22 23 24 25 26 27 1,583 3,38 9 2,656 378 2,2799 446 1,93 511 1,922 586 1,916 1,583 3,38 99 2,,656 378 2,279 446 1,93 511 1,922 586 1,916 4,326 2,729 3,3455 4,36 5,24 6,291 4,326 2,,729 3,345 4,36 5,24 6,291 147 5,347 213 5,115 164 5,2511 123 5,286 82 5,356 55 5,582 147 5,347 2132 1 5,,115 164 5,251 123 5,286 82 5,356 55 5,582 79 67 1,555 91 67 1,745 17 67 1,6988 123 67 1,731 142 67 1,768 163 67 1,862 79 67 1,555 91 676 1,,745 17 67 1,698 123 67 1,731 142 67 1,768 163 67 1,862 296 883 386 1,71 491 1,2822 646 1,572 783 1,86 951 2,76 296 883 3863 1,,71 491 1,282 646 1,572 783 1,86 951 2,76 3,182 4,29 4,66 4,73 4,124 4,364 3,182 4,,29 4,6 4,73 4,124 4,364 7,367 4,482 1,5899 1,537 1,497 1,464 7,367 4,,482 1,589 1,537 1,497 1,464 1,32 11,159 12,3377 13,975 15,378 17,694 1,32 11,159 12,337 13,975 15,378 17,694 38,858 35,311 33,6622 36,483 39,38 43,739 38,858 35,311 33,662 36,483 39,38 43,739 Recommendedd RWPG Revisions 22 23 24 25 1,583 9 378 446 3,38 2,656 2,279 1,93 4,326 2,729 3,345 4,36 931 547 164 123 574 351 5,347 5,115 5,251 5,286 299 23 17 123 434 56 481 484 3,396 1,821 1,698 1,731 296 386 491 646 1,193 1,238 1,282 1,572 3,182 4,29 4,6 4,73 13,976 7,783 1,589 1,537 1,32 11,159 12,337 13,975 26 27 511 586 1,922 1,916 5,24 6,291 82 55 5,356 5,582 142 163 479 469 1,768 1,862 783 951 1,86 2,76 4,124 4,364 1,497 1,464 15,378 17,694 48,95 39,494 33,597 36,47 39,212 43,623 Gray shading indicates a recommended change in the mining water demand projections. Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-13 \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 popp water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx 7 of 8
Figure 2. Region C Mining Comparison of Water Use Estimates, 217 State Water Plan Projection, Proposed Projections, and Revised Projections 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 1, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Note: Historical data and projections from BEG studies include mining water use for all of Henderson County. Other projections, including the RWPG recommended projections, include only the portion of Henderson County located in Region C. Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-13 8 of 8 \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
Attachment A Mining Demand by County Historical Usage and Projections Comparison Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-13 \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
25 Figure 1A. Collin County Mining Comparison 2 15 1 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 7, Figure 2A. Cooke County Mining Comparison 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 3,5 Figure 3A. Dallas County Mining Comparison 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
7, Figure 4A. Denton County Mining Comparison 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 3,5 Figure 5A. Ellis County Mining Comparison 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 7 Figure 6A. Fannin County Mining Comparison 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
9, Figure 7A. Freestone County Mining Comparison 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 1,8 Figure 8A. Grayson County Mining Comparison 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 6 4 2 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
1,4 Figure 9A. Henderson County Mining Comparison 1,2 1, 8 6 4 2 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining Note: Historical data and projections from BEG studies include mining water use for all of Henderson County. Other projections, including the RWPG recommended projections, include only the portion of Henderson County located in Region C. 6, Figure 1A. Jack County Mining Comparison 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 1, Figure 11A. Kaufman County Mining Comparison 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
2,5 Figure 12A. Navarro County Mining Comparison 2, 1,5 1, 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 12, Figure 13A. Parker County Mining Comparison 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 35 Figure 14A. Rockwall County Mining Comparison 3 25 2 15 1 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx
16, Figure 15A. Tarrant County Mining Comparison 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining 3, Figure 16A. Wise County Mining Comparison 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Draft Mining 222 SWP Projections Mining 217 SWP Projections BEG 212 Oil & Gas BEG 211 Mining \\ftw2.ftw.apai\share\projects\312\51-1\2- wrk prod\2-7 reports\task 2 pop water demand projections\mining\miningdemandmemo_r4clean.docx