Pwpg draft%20chapter%204%20water%20supply%20and%20demand%20summary%20 10 24 14

Chapter 4

Identification of Water Needs

i

Table of Contents

4. Identification of Water Needs ................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 First Tier Water Needs Analysis ................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Identified Shortages for Water User Groups ..................................................................... 4-8 4.1.1 Identified Shortages for Wholesale Water Providers ...................................................... 4-12 4.2.3 Summary of First Tier Water Needs ................................................................................. 4-12

4.2 Second Tier Water Needs Analysis .......................................................................................... 4-13 4.2.1 Summary of Second Tier Water Needs for Water User Groups ...................................... 4-13 4.2.2 Summary of Second Tier Water Needs for Wholesale Water Providers ......................... 4-13

Table of Figures Figure 4-1: PWPA Supplies and Demands (ac-ft/yr) ............................................................................. 4-2 Figure 4-2: Shortages in Region A for Planning Period 2020 to 2070 .................................................. 4-3

Table of Tables Table 4-1: Comparison of Supplies and Demands for the PWPA ....................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2: Identification of Water Needs by County (Values are in ac-ft/yr) ..................................... 4-4 Table 4-3: Year 2020 Shortages by county and Category ................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-4: Year 2040 Shortages by County and Category ................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-5: Year 2070 Shortages by County and Category ................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-6: Decade Shortage Begins by County and Category ............................................................. 4-8 Table 4-7: Projected Irrigation Shortages in the PWPA (Values are in act-ft/yr) ................................ 4-9 Table 4-8: Projected Municipal Shortages in the PWPA (Values are in ac-ft/yr) .............................. 4-10 Table 4-9: Projected Manufacturing Shortages in the PWPA (Values are in ac-ft/yr) ...................... 4-11 Table 4-10: Projected Shortages for Wholesale Providers in the PWPA (Values are in ac-ft/yr) ....... 4-12

Draft Chapter 4 October 2014 Identification of Water Needs

4-1

4. Identification of Water Needs

4.1 Introduction

Water needs are identified by calculating the difference between currently available supplies developed

in Chapter 3 and the projected demands developed in Chapter 2. This chapter outlines first and second

tier water needs scenarios, where the first tier needs are based on all supply limitations identified in

Chapter 3 and second tier needs are those needs after conservation and direct reuse strategies have been

implemented.

This comparison of developed water supply to demands is made for the region, county, basin, wholesale

water provider, and water user group. If the projected demands for an entity exceed the developed

supplies, then a shortage is identified (represented by a negative number). For some users, the supplies

may exceed the demands (positive number). For groundwater users, this water is not considered surplus,

but a supply that will be available for use after 2070.

4.2 First Tier Water Needs Analysis

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) specifies that the currently

available supplies be defined as the most restrictive of current water rights, contracts and available yields

for surface water and historical use and/or modeled available groundwater (MAG) for groundwater. For

the PWPA, geographical and hydrogeological constraints were also considered for irrigation and municipal

users of the Ogallala aquifer. For some counties in the region, these constraints are more restrictive than

current groundwater regulations. However, this approach provides a reasonable assessment of water

demands that may exceed long-term availability.

Considering only developed and connected supplies for the PWPA, on a regional basis there is a projected

regional shortage of over 162,000 acre-feet per year in 2020, increasing to a maximum shortage of

245,000 in 2070. This is shown in Table 4-1 and graphically on Figure 4-1.


4-2

Table 4-1: Comparison of Supplies and Demands for the PWPA

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Supply (Acre-feet) 1,570,941 1,448,995 1,321,853 1,182,013 1,049,906 920,785

Demand (Acre-feet) 1,733,659 1,658,045 1,554,977 1,421,114 1,292,717 1,166,209

Surplus/Shortage (Acre-Feet) -162,718 -209,050 -233,124 -239,101 -242,811 -245,424

Note: This calculation aggregates surpluses and shortages for all water users across the region. Consideration of only the shortages for individual entities will be higher.

Figure 4-1: PWPA Supplies and Demands (ac-ft/yr)

On a county-basis, there are fourteen counties with shortages over the planning period. These include

Armstrong, Carson, Dallam, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore,

Ochiltree, Potter, and Randall. Table 4-2 presents first tier water needs by county. Figure 4-2 shows the

spatial distribution of shortages in the region for years 2020, 2040 and 2070. Typically the counties with

the largest shortages are those with large irrigation demands. The shortages by category and county for

years 2020, 2040 and 2070 are summarized in Tables 4-3, 4-4 and 4-5, respectively. Based on this analysis,

there are significant irrigation shortages over the 50-year planning period. The municipal shortages

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Irrigation Livestock Manufacturing

Mining Municipal Steam Electric Power

Available Supply


4-3

Figure 4-2: Shortages in Region A for Planning Period 2020 to 2070


4-4

Table 4-2: Identification of Water Needs by County (Values are in ac-ft/yr)

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

County Surplus/Need

Armstrong 116 67 22 -18 -55 -93

Carson 946 369 191 101 -28 -176

Childress 216 217 217 217 219 219

Collingsworth 965 956 953 953 946 940

Dallam -79,886 -92,541 -95,512 -89,164 -79,965 -70,715

Donley 186 194 201 203 204 204

Gray 1,212 -755 -1,546 -1,384 -2,280 -3,214

Hall 165 128 116 48 15 -20

Hansford 177 109 -16 -388 -651 -896

Hartley -77,545 -93,712 -99,092 -93,227 -84,020 -74,803

Hemphill -211 -266 -328 -404 -481 -553

Hutchinson -85 -1,624 -2,850 -4,329 -5,632 -6,930

Lipscomb 94 91 -6 -240 -365 -483

Moore -2,600 -4,352 -6,003 -8,931 -15,697 -20,759

Ochiltree -454 -938 -1,414 -1,856 -2,322 -2,771

Oldham 828 796 801 800 798 795

Potter -5,854 -12,032 -18,316 -25,217 -31,490 -38,529

Randall -3,784 -8,305 -12,976 -18,328 -23,677 -28,921

Roberts 451 448 451 369 302 234

Sherman 813 785 773 615 416 219

Wheeler 1,531 1,315 1,208 1,079 951 828

TOTAL -162,718 -209,050 -233,124 -239,101 -242,811 -245,424 Note: Supply values are shown for the county in which it is used, which may differ from the county of the supply source.

shown are attributed to growth, reduction of surface water supplies, limitations in developed water rights,

or infrastructure limitations. A brief discussion of these shortages is presented in the following section.

4-5

Table 4-3: Year 2020 Shortages by county and Category

County

Irrigation Manufacturing Mining Municipal Steam Electric Livestock Total

Supply Demand Shortage Supply Demand Shortage Supply Demand Shortage Supply Demand Shortage Supply Demand Shortage Supply Demand Shortage Supply Demand Shortage

ARMSTRONG 4,194 4,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 563 447 116 0 0 0 645 645 0 5,402 5,286 116

CARSON 55,702 55,702 0 1,127 419 708 14 14 0 1,517 1,279 238 0 0 0 692 692 0 59,052 58,106 946

CHILDRESS 7,489 7,308 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,842 1,822 20 0 0 0 505 490 15 9,836 9,620 216

COLLINGSWORTH 18,856 17,943 913 0 0 0 0 0 0 762 716 46 0 0 0 606 600 6 20,224 19,259 965

DALLAM 290,465 369,864 -79,399 9 9 0 0 0 0 1,697 2,183 -486 0 0 0 4,437 4,437 0 296,607 376,493 -79,886

DONLEY 24,246 24,080 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 643 623 20 0 0 0 1,330 1,330 0 26,219 26,033 186

GRAY 21,291 21,291 0 4,600 4,350 250 75 75 0 4,809 4,609 200 1,409 1,409 0 2,114 1,352 762 34,298 33,086 1,212

HALL 10,134 10,134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 797 702 95 0 0 0 406 336 70 11,337 11,172 165

HANSFORD 134,924 134,902 22 90 58 32 577 577 0 1,243 1,120 123 0 0 0 3,432 3,432 0 140,266 140,089 177

HARTLEY 268,060 345,365 -77,305 5 5 0 7 7 0 1,269 1,509 -240 0 0 0 6,498 6,498 0 275,839 353,384 -77,545

HEMPHILL 1,907 1,907 0 6 6 0 2,314 2,314 0 733 944 -211 0 0 0 1,275 1,275 0 6,235 6,446 -211

HUTCHINSON 40,104 40,008 96 25,227 25,347 -120 184 184 0 5,087 5,148 -61 0 0 0 847 847 0 71,449 71,534 -85

LIPSCOMB 20,075 20,009 66 147 147 0 1,098 1,098 0 969 941 28 0 0 0 947 947 0 23,236 23,142 94

MOORE 143,035 143,028 7 7,175 9,052 -1,877 16 16 0 4,626 5,356 -730 200 200 0 3,676 3,676 0 158,728 161,328 -2,600

OCHILTREE 57,243 57,243 0 0 0 0 824 824 0 2,621 3,075 -454 0 0 0 4,216 4,216 0 64,904 65,358 -454

OLDHAM 3,937 3,937 0 0 0 0 475 475 0 964 647 317 0 0 0 1,740 1,229 511 7,116 6,288 828

POTTER 3,608 3,427 181 7,417 9,713 -2,296 941 941 0 25,492 29,425 -3,933 25,387 25,387 0 675 481 194 63,520 69,374 -5,854

RANDALL 18,762 18,000 762 532 589 -57 0 0 0 24,528 29,017 -4,489 0 0 0 2,654 2,654 0 46,476 50,260 -3,784

ROBERTS 5,958 5,958 0 0 0 0 1,502 1,502 0 606 273 333 0 0 0 487 369 118 8,553 8,102 451

SHERMAN 220,998 220,966 32 0 0 0 35 35 0 1,435 654 781 0 0 0 3,449 3,449 0 225,917 225,104 813

WHEELER 9,098 8,203 895 0 0 0 3,268 3,268 0 1,665 1,147 518 0 0 0 1,695 1,577 118 15,726 14,195 1,531

Grand Total 1,360,085 1,513,469 -153,384 46,335 49,695 -3,360 11,330 11,330 0 83,868 91,637 -7,769 26,996 26,996 0 42,326 40,532 1,794 1,570,941 1,733,659 -162,718

4-6

Table 4-4: Year 2040 Shortages by County and Category

County



ARMSTRONG 3,708 3,708 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 432 22 0 0 0 652 652 0 4,814 4,792 22

CARSON 48,776 48,776 0 957 499 458 14 14 0 1,017 1,284 -267 0 0 0 700 700 0 51,464 51,273 191

CHILDRESS 6,789 6,601 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,915 1,896 19 0 0 0 505 495 10 9,209 8,992 217

COLLINGSWORTH 17,170 16,255 915 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 749 37 0 0 0 606 605 1 18,562 17,609 953

DALLAM 224,569 318,795 -94,226 10 10 0 0 0 0 1,388 2,674 -1,286 0 0 0 4,920 4,920 0 230,887 326,399 -95,512

DONLEY 22,013 21,847 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 626 591 35 0 0 0 1,333 1,333 0 23,972 23,771 201

GRAY 18,539 18,539 0 4,700 4,463 237 67 67 0 2,940 5,430 -2,490 2,299 2,299 0 2,114 1,407 707 30,659 32,205 -1,546

HALL 9,274 9,274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 741 692 49 0 0 0 406 339 67 10,421 10,305 116

HANSFORD 115,781 115,759 22 93 63 30 602 602 0 1,140 1,208 -68 0 0 0 3,724 3,724 0 121,340 121,356 -16

HARTLEY 201,640 300,290 -98,650 5 5 0 6 6 0 1,140 1,582 -442 0 0 0 7,498 7,498 0 210,289 309,381 -99,092

HEMPHILL 1,685 1,685 0 6 6 0 1,244 1,244 0 761 1,089 -328 0 0 0 1,284 1,284 0 4,980 5,308 -328

HUTCHINSON 34,731 34,635 96 26,510 28,249 -1,739 170 170 0 3,986 5,193 -1,207 0 0 0 903 903 0 66,300 69,150 -2,850

LIPSCOMB 17,716 17,650 66 140 161 -21 446 446 0 972 1,023 -51 0 0 0 993 993 0 20,267 20,273 -6

MOORE 123,297 123,290 7 7,284 10,038 -2,754 16 16 0 3,400 6,656 -3,256 0 0 0 4,155 4,155 0 138,152 144,155 -6,003

OCHILTREE 49,414 49,414 0 0 0 0 503 503 0 2,042 3,456 -1,414 0 0 0 3,729 3,729 0 55,688 57,102 -1,414

OLDHAM 3,524 3,524 0 0 0 0 639 639 0 964 669 295 0 0 0 1,740 1,234 506 6,867 6,066 801

POTTER 3,092 3,091 1 5,952 11,191 -5,239 1,341 1,341 0 21,663 34,932 -13,269 28,408 28,408 0 675 484 191 61,131 79,447 -18,316

RANDALL 16,844 15,976 868 389 684 -295 0 0 0 21,018 34,567 -13,549 0 0 0 2,677 2,677 0 40,928 53,904 -12,976

ROBERTS 5,155 5,155 0 0 0 0 611 611 0 606 272 334 0 0 0 487 370 117 6,859 6,408 451

SHERMAN 190,719 190,687 32 0 0 0 151 151 0 1,448 707 741 0 0 0 3,825 3,825 0 196,143 195,370 773

WHEELER 8,330 7,433 897 0 0 0 1,413 1,413 0 1,481 1,183 298 0 0 0 1,695 1,682 13 12,919 11,711 1,208

Grand Total 1,122,766 1,312,384 -189,618 46,046 55,369 -9,323 7,223 7,223 0 70,491 106,285 -35,794 30,707 30,707 0 44,621 43,009 1,612 1,321,853 1,554,977 -233,124

4-7

Table 4-5: Year 2070 Shortages by County and Category

County



ARMSTRONG 2,472 2,472 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 335 428 -93 0 0 0 663 663 0 3,470 3,563 -93

CARSON 32,517 32,517 0 814 624 190 14 14 0 906 1,272 -366 0 0 0 713 713 0 34,964 35,140 -176

CHILDRESS 4,601 4,401 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,058 2,041 17 0 0 0 505 503 2 7,164 6,945 219

COLLINGSWORTH 11,757 10,837 920 0 0 0 0 0 0 832 812 20 0 0 0 614 614 0 13,203 12,263 940

DALLAM 144,312 212,530 -68,218 11 11 0 0 0 0 957 3,454 -2,497 0 0 0 5,803 5,803 0 151,083 221,798 -70,715

DONLEY 14,730 14,564 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 621 583 38 0 0 0 1,339 1,339 0 16,690 16,486 204

GRAY 12,359 12,359 0 4,300 4,129 171 47 47 0 3,298 7,286 -3,988 3,320 3,320 0 2,114 1,511 603 25,438 28,652 -3,214

HALL 6,182 6,182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 688 -83 0 0 0 406 343 63 7,193 7,213 -20

HANSFORD 77,195 77,173 22 120 74 46 1 1 0 393 1,357 -964 0 0 0 4,219 4,219 0 81,928 82,824 -896

HARTLEY 126,063 200,193 -74,130 5 5 0 3 3 0 971 1,644 -673 0 0 0 9,359 9,359 0 136,401 211,204 -74,803

HEMPHILL 1,124 1,124 0 6 6 0 68 68 0 756 1,309 -553 0 0 0 1,302 1,302 0 3,256 3,809 -553

HUTCHINSON 23,186 23,090 96 29,325 33,741 -4,416 34 34 0 2,561 5,171 -2,610 0 0 0 1,010 1,010 0 56,116 63,046 -6,930

LIPSCOMB 11,833 11,767 66 69 193 -124 3 3 0 713 1,138 -425 0 0 0 1,083 1,083 0 13,701 14,184 -483

MOORE 76,022 82,193 -6,171 4,191 11,937 -7,746 15 15 0 2,162 9,004 -6,842 0 0 0 5,032 5,032 0 87,422 108,181 -20,759

OCHILTREE 32,942 32,942 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1,497 4,268 -2,771 0 0 0 4,058 4,058 0 38,500 41,271 -2,771

OLDHAM 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 0 808 808 0 964 666 298 0 0 0 1,740 1,243 497 5,862 5,067 795

POTTER 2,587 2,061 526 3,989 13,622 -9,633 1,831 1,831 0 15,710 45,316 -29,606 37,669 37,669 0 675 491 184 62,461 100,990 -38,529

RANDALL 11,713 10,650 1,063 233 852 -619 0 0 0 15,426 44,791 -29,365 0 0 0 2,719 2,719 0 30,091 59,012 -28,921

ROBERTS 3,437 3,437 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 391 271 120 0 0 0 487 373 114 4,317 4,083 234

SHERMAN 127,157 127,125 32 0 0 0 20 20 0 945 758 187 0 0 0 4,497 4,497 0 132,619 132,400 219

WHEELER 5,858 4,955 903 0 0 0 119 119 0 1,234 1,315 -81 0 0 0 1,695 1,689 6 8,906 8,078 828

Grand Total 730,396 874,922 -144,526 43,063 65,194 -22,131 2,968 2,968 0 53,335 133,572 -80,237 40,989 40,989 0 50,033 48,564 1,469 920,785 1,166,209 -245,424


4-8

4.2.1 Identified Shortages for Water User Groups

A shortage occurs when developed supplies are not sufficient to meet projected demands. In the PWPA

there are 34 water user groups (accounting for basin and county designations) with identified shortages

during the planning period. Of these, there are twenty-six cities and county other water users in fifteen

counties that are projected to experience a water shortage before 2070. The largest shortages are

attributed to high irrigation use or significant increase in municipal demand and comparably limited

groundwater resources in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Randall Counties.

Total shortages for all water user groups are projected to be approximately 162,718 acre feet per year in

2020, increasing to 233,124 acre feet per year in 2040 and approximately 245,424 acre-feet per year by

the year 2070. Of this amount, irrigation represents approximately 94 percent in the 2020 projections

and over 59 percent of the total shortage in 2070 with shortages ranging from 79,000 to 74,000 acre-feet

per year. The shortages attributed to the other water use categories total approximately 102,000 acre-

feet per year in 2070.

A summary of when the individual water user group shortages begin by county and demand type is

presented in Table 4-6. To account for the level of accuracy of the data, a shortage is defined as a demand

greater than the current supply by more than or equal to 10 acre-feet per year.

Table 4-6: Decade Shortage Begins by County and Category

County Irrigation Municipal Manufacturing Mining Steam Electric Power

Livestock

Armstrong - 2050 - - - -

Carson - 2030 - - - -

Childress - - - - - -

Collingsworth - - - - - -

Dallam 2020 2020 - - -

Donley - - - - - -

Gray - 2030 - - - -

Hall - 2050 - - - -

Hansford 2040 - - - -

Hartley 2020 2020 - - -

Hemphill - 2020 - - - -

Hutchinson 2020 2020 - - -

Lipscomb - 2040 2040 - - -

Moore 2060 2020 2020 -


4-9

County Irrigation Municipal Manufacturing Mining Steam Electric Power

Livestock

Ochiltree - 2020 - - - -

Oldham - - - - -

Potter - 2020 2020 - - -

Randall - 2020 2020 - - -

Roberts - - - - - -

Sherman - - - -

Wheeler - 2070 - - - -

Irrigation

Irrigation shortages are identified for Dallam, Hartley, and Moore Counties. All of these counties rely

heavily on the Ogallala for irrigation supplies. Shortages are observed in two counties starting in 2020.

Table 4-7: Projected Irrigation Shortages in the PWPA (Values are in act-ft/yr)

COUNTY 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

DALLAM 79,399 91,675 94,226 87,452 77,836 68,218

HARTLEY 77,305 93,368 98,650 92,699 83,415 74,130

MOORE 3,882 6,171

TOTAL 156,704 185,043 192,876 180,151 165,133 148,520

Municipal

Municipal supplies in the PWPA are typically groundwater while surface water is used in counties with

limited groundwater and by river authorities and their member cities to supply their customers. For some

cities, there is additional groundwater supply but it is not fully developed. A list of the municipalities

indicating a shortage is presented in Table 4-8.


4-10

Table 4-8: Projected Municipal Shortages in the PWPA (Values are in ac-ft/yr)

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

AMARILLO 5,890 13,669 21,815 31,334 39,861 49,182

BOOKER 0 0 79 264 359 451

BORGER 184 619 952 1,343 1,647 1,927

CACTUS 583 778 974 1,170 1,347 1,529

CANADIAN 275 331 395 468 542 611

CANYON 1,038 1,612 2,176 2,770 3,779 4,313

CLAUDE 0 0 0 35 72 110

COUNTY-OTHER MOORE 0 0 0 13 21 30

COUNTY-OTHER POTTER 683 956 1,262 1,583 1,953 2,548

COUNTY-OTHER RANDALL 638 979 1,339 1,731 2,172 2,638

DALHART 749 1,138 1,558 1,982 2,399 2,807

DUMAS 290 1,021 1,785 2,679 3,550 4,437

GRUVER 0 0 111 196 272 344

HAPPY 1 0 1 1 3 6

LAKE TANGLEWOOD 172 200 225 248 266 284

MCLEAN 0 0 0 89 135 182

MEMPHIS 0 0 0 68 100 133

PAMPA 0 1,691 2,491 2,190 2,985 3,806

PANHANDLE 89 521 582 577 576 576

PERRYTON 478 963 1,438 1,877 2,341 2,786

SPEARMAN 0 0 0 283 466 634

STINNETT 0 0 0 115 165 216

SUNRAY 0 232 501 633 752 847

TCW SUPPLY 75 251 375 466 535 569

TEXLINE 0 73 170 258 335 362

WHEELER 184 249 308 365 412 453

TOTAL 11,329 25,282 38,536 52,738 67,043 81,781 P


4-11

Manufacturing

There are five counties with manufacturing shortages identified in the PWPA. Most manufacturing

interests buy water from retail providers or develop their own groundwater supplies. For each of these

counties, much of the shortage is associated with shortages associated with wholesale water providers.

For Moore County, these shortages are the result of limited groundwater supplies for the city of Cactus.

In Potter and Randall Counties, the shortages are associated with shortages identified with the city of

Amarillo. In Hutchinson County the shortage is associated with the city of Borger. In Lipscomb County the

shortage is associated with the city of Booker.

Table 4-9: Projected Manufacturing Shortages in the PWPA (Values are in ac-ft/yr)

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

HUTCHINSON 120 994 1,739 2,614 3,487 4,416

LIPSCOMB 0 0 21 69 97 124

MOORE 1,877 2,346 2,754 4,445 6,147 7,746

POTTER 2,296 3,783 5,239 6,714 8,130 9,633

RANDALL 57 182 295 401 508 619

TOTAL 4,350 7,305 10,048 14,242 18,369 22,538

Mining

There are no mining shortages in the PWPA.

Steam Electric Power

There are no steam electric shortages in the PWPA

Livestock

There are no identified livestock shortages in the Panhandle Planning Area. This is because it was assumed

if there was sufficient supply available within the county, this supply would be developed by livestock

producers. For most counties, water for livestock is from groundwater and/or local stock ponds. In the

heavily pumped counties, there will be competition for groundwater supplies. It is assumed that the

decrease in water used for irrigation will be available for livestock use.


4-12

4.1.1 Identified Shortages for Wholesale Water Providers

There are six wholesale water providers located in the PWPA. Of these entities, four are projected to have

shortages within the planning period: CRMWA, City of Amarillo, City of Borger, and City of Cactus. Much

of the early shortages are associated with the loss of Lake Meredith as a reliable supply and infrastructure

constraints associated with current well field production. These shortages increase over the planning cycle

due to growth and reduced availability from the Ogallala aquifer with current well fields. Table 4-10 shows

the projected water supply needs for the wholesale water providers in the PWPA. Greenbelt M&IWA and

the Palo Duro River Authority do not show a water shortage. However, both water providers are

considering developing water management strategies to help meet their customers’ needs and prepare

for potential impacts to current water sources associated with the ongoing drought.

Table 4-10: Projected Shortages for Wholesale Providers in the PWPA (Values are in ac-ft/yr)

Wholesale Provider 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Amarillo 6,923 16,003 25,428 36,325 45,436 55,926

Borger 177 1,557 2,679 3,982 5,190 6,438

Cactus 2,518 3,199 3,821 4,384 4,914 5,465

CRMWA 35,450 48,351 58,636 70,974 75,959 80,936

4.2.3 Summary of First Tier Water Needs

On a water user group basis, the total demands exceed the total developed supply starting in 2020, largely

attributed to the geographical constraints of the demand centers and developed supplies. Most of the

shortages are associated with large irrigation demands that cannot be met with groundwater sources

beneath currently irrigated lands. Other shortages are due to limitations of infrastructure and/or growth.

The evaluation of regional water supplies indicates that groundwater supplies could be further developed.

However, often the needed infrastructure is not developed or the potential source is not located near a

water supply shortage. The first tier needs report provided by TWDB is provided in Attachment 4-1 at the

end of this chapter. Further review of the region’s options and strategies to meet shortages is explored

in more detail in Chapter 5 and the impacts of these strategies on water quality are discussed in Chapter

6.


4-13

4.2 Second Tier Water Needs Analysis

The second tier water needs analysis compares currently available supplies with demands after reductions

from conservation and direct reuse. Conservation and direct reuse are both considered water

management strategies and are discussed further in Chapter 5. The second tier needs report provided by

TWDB is provided in Attachment 4-2 at the end of this chapter.

4.2.1 Summary of Second Tier Water Needs for Water User Groups

Under the second tier water needs analysis municipal water needs were reduced through conservation

and reuse supplies. Municipal water needs were reduced by XXXX acre-feet/year or XXXX % in year 2020

and by XXXX acre-feet/year or XXXX% in 2070. Irrigation water needs were also reduced due to irrigation

conservation strategies.

4.2.2 Summary of Second Tier Water Needs for Wholesale Water Providers

4.3 Socio-Economic Impacts of Not Meeting Shortages

To be included when the TWDB provides the report.

Documents

Pwpg draft%20chapter%204%20water%20supply%20and%20demand%20summary%20 10 24 14