TOPICS IN WATER USE: EASTERN MISSOURI - Missouri Department … · 2014. 11. 18. · Water Resources Report Number 62 TOPICS IN WATER USE: EASTERN MISSOURI Integrity and excellence

i

Water Resources Report Number 62

TOPICS IN WATER USE:EASTERNMISSOURI

Integrity and excellence in all we do

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESGeological Survey and Resource Assessment Division

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

Phone: (573) 368-2125 FAX: (573) 368-2481e-mail: [email protected]

www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/wrp/wrphp.htm

GE

OL

OGICAL SU

RV

EY

& R

eso

urc

e Assessmen

t Div

isio

n

1853 200315 0 YEARS

ii

Missouri Classification Number: MO/NR Ge9:62

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division, 2002,TOPICS IN WATER USE: EASTERN MISSOURI, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, GeologicalSurvey and Resource Assessment Division, Water Resources Report Number 62, 48 p., 12 figs., 2 tbls.

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

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2004105804

iii

Page

Table of Contents

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

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................................................................... 5

3. REGIONAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 7Colleges and Universities ........................................................................................................................................................... 7Regional Transportation .............................................................................................................................................................. 7Population Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................... 12Industry, Commerce and Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 13Physical Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................................ 14Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

4. REGIONAL WATER USE OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 21Water Resource Management ............................................................................................................................................. 21Public Water Supply ....................................................................................................................................................................22Domestic Water Use ....................................................................................................................................................................22Industrial and Commercial Water Use .........................................................................................................................23Agricultural Water Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 23Water Use in Power Production ........................................................................................................................................23Other Instream Flow Uses .....................................................................................................................................................23

5. WATER USE PROBLEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 25DRINKING WATER USE ........................................................................................................................................................25The City of St. Louis Lacks Residential Water Metering .............................................................................25Water Wastage .................................................................................................................................................................................. 26Aging Infrastructure of Public Water Supply Systems .................................................................................. 28MTBE Contamination of Wells .......................................................................................................................................... 29Alluvial Groundwater Pollution in St. Charles County .................................................................................29Freshwater-Salinewater Interface near St. Louis, Missouri ....................................................................... 30

RECREATIONAL WATER USE ........................................................................................................................................ 31Designated Uses of Water Bodies ..................................................................................................................................... 31Bilge Water and Barge Cleaning Operations Can Pollute Waterways .............................................32

INDUSTRIAL WATER USE................................................................................................................................................. 34Missouri River .................................................................................................................................................................................. 34

iv

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER USE ...................................................................................................................................36Combined Sewer Systems ...................................................................................................................................................... 36Section 303(d) List and TMDL’s ........................................................................................................................................ 37Stormwater Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................................... 38

6. WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES AND REGIONAL OBSERVATIONS............................................ 41New Recreational Opportunities for Lakes ............................................................................................................. 41Opportunities for Improved Floodplain Management .................................................................................... 41Alternative Wastewater Systems ..................................................................................................................................... 43Low Impact Development ..................................................................................................................................................... 43Improved Brownfield Management ............................................................................................................................... 44Price and Non-Price Water Conservation Programs ...................................................................................... 45

7. COMMENTS RECIEVED........................................................................................................................................................47

v

List of FiguresFigure No. Page

List of Tables

1. Counties covered by each regional report ...................................................................................................................... 22. Counties of the eastern Missouri region covered in this report ................................................................... 63. Locations of colleges and universities in eastern Missouri ............................................................................... 84. Railways and river ports in eastern Missouri ............................................................................................................ 105. Major roads and cities in eastern Missouri ................................................................................................................... 116. Missouri average annual precipitation 1971–2000................................................................................................ 157. Physiographic provinces of Missouri ................................................................................................................................ 168. Approximate extent of glacial ice in Missouri ........................................................................................................... 179. Generalized groundwater quality ..................................................................................................................................... 19

10. Freshwater-saline groundwater transition zone ..................................................................................................... 2711. Depletions of Missouri River water..................................................................................................................... 3512. St. Louis County swamped after levee break ............................................................................................................ 42

1. Eastern Missouri region counties and populations ............................................................................................... 122. Number of state and federal recreational facilities in eastern Missouri .............................................. 18

vi

1

Introduction

1.

According to the Missouri Water ResourcesLaw (sections 640.400 to 640.435, RSMo), theMissouri State Water Resources Plan is to ad-dress water needs for drinking, agriculture, in-dustry, recreation and environmental protection.Addressing water “needs” requires us to first es-tablish why such needs exist. In some cases, anexisting water need is tied to one or more unre-solved water problems. For example, commu-nities “need” clean water. To meet this need,communities may have to address problems withwater supply infrastructure, adequate quantityand, at the same time, source water quality. Thisreport takes a step toward addressing the waterneeds of eastern Missouri by identifying prob-lems faced in this area.

As noted in the legislation, there are manyaspects of water use problems. Missouri waterlaw is concerned with protecting private indi-vidual water rights and protecting public healthand welfare. In addition to social and economicneeds, there are the environmental needs of theforests, fish and wildlife of Missouri. There arethe facets of quantity and quality of the waterresources, themselves. And there are the politi-cal jurisdictions that administer public watersupplies under Missouri statutes. It is withinthis matrix of considerations that the MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources has ap-proached these regional water use problems andopportunities as well as the broader topic of statewater planning.

To ensure equal consideration for all uses,emphasis was placed on identifying water useproblems in each topical area identified in theWater Resources Law. Similar topics sometimesare addressed in more than one category, re-flecting the different viewpoints of those whoraised these topics as water use problems.

When reading this report on the water useproblems identified in eastern Missouri, it willbecome apparent that many of them are, in fact,very closely related. In addition, because of thediverse perspectives the various contributorsbring to this effort, what, from one standpoint,may appear to be a “serious problem,” may notseem so, from another. For these reasons, thefollowing problems underscore the importanceof working cooperatively in addressing the wa-ter use problems facing eastern Missouri.

The Regional Approach

Water resource professionals commonlysubdivide the state into physiographic units, suchas watersheds or groundwater provinces. Whilethe water supply side is chiefly focused on wherethe water resource is located, its quantity andquality, the water use side is focused primarilyupon administering demands, needs, and thepurposes the water serves. In this series of re-ports, we have chosen to address the subjectusing the broad geographic similarities of thesix field service areas of the Missouri Depart-ment of Natural Resources. This volume is thefifth and final report in the series and finishesthe entire state. As of June 2003, the MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources has reducedits field offices from six to five. This has re-sulted in an increase in the number of countiesthat each remaining field office services. Forthe purpose of these State Water Plan (SWP)reports the traditional Department of NaturalResources service areas are used. This approachprovides continuity with past SWP Phase II re-ports (figure 1). Each of these regions has dis-

TOPICS IN WATER USE: EASTERN MISSOURI

2

Figure 1. Counties covered by each regional report.

tinctive physiographic features and socio-eco-nomic characteristics, as well as being composedof counties, and therefore was chosen for theease of referencing water use problems. Thisapproach allows us to recognize Missouri’s di-versity, and lends itself well to Phase 2 of theState Water Plan.

The area formerly (pre-June 2003) servedby the department’s St. Louis Regional Office is

the focus of this report. Staff members of thisoffice and other state agencies dealing withwater resources were the primary sources ofinformation for this effort. This enables us todraw upon the insights and experiences of fieldstaff, who, by virtue of their work, deal with themany water use problems that face residents ofeastern Missouri on a daily basis.

Topics in Water Use: Southern Missouri

Topics in Water Use:Eastern Missouri

Topics in Water Use:Central Missouri

Topics in Water Use:Northeastern Missouri

Topics in Water Use:Northwestern Missouri

Mis

siss

ippi

Was

hingto

n

Crawfo

rd

Gas

cona

deM

ontg

omer

y

Mon

iteau

Pem

isco

t

Dunkli

n

Schu

yler

Living

ston

Reynolds

Bucha

nan

Rando

lph

Jeffe

rson

St. Lou

is

St. Cha

rles

Bol

linge

r

Scotla

nd

Caldwell

Howard

Stone

Lawren

ce

Mad

ison

Texas

Dent

Pike

Bates

Cass

Ray

Polk

Barry

Iron

Linn

HowellOzark

Pettis

Saline

Henry

Macon

Shannon

Butler

Vernon

Franklin

Wayne

Boone

Oregon

Holt

Taney

Benton

Jasper

Johnson

Phelps

Adair

Carroll

St. Clair

Osage

Douglas

Laclede

Wright

Miller

Dade

Ripley

Ralls

Greene

Clark

Stoddard

Nodaway

Knox

Callaway

Perry

Chariton

Barton

Clay

Camden

Audrain

Dallas

Monroe

Cole

Lewis

Cedar

Scott

Harrison

Lincoln

CarterNewton

Sullivan

Jackson

Morgan

Cooper

Maries

Platte

Pulaski

Shelby

Daviess

Webster

Gentry

Putnam

Lafayette

Mercer

Christian

Atchison

Marion

Warren

New Madrid

Grundy

Clinton

DeKalb

Andrew

McDonald

Hickory

St. Francois

Worth

Cape Girardeau

Ste. Genevieve

St. Louis City

3

Introduction

The Watershed-BasedApproach

The watercourses of the eastern Missouriregion drain either directly or indirectly into theMississippi River. Some drain into the MissouriRiver, which joins with the Mississippi just northof St. Louis.

Watersheds may be defined as the areasof land that drain surface water runoff into acentral watercourse. The watershed usually isnamed after its stream, such as the Cuivre RiverWatershed. In the 1990s, federal and state en-vironmental planners began to put a greateremphasis on consideration of water resourcesand water problems within a watershed con-text. In this manner, they hoped to take intoconsideration all the factors that affect waterquality from a geographic perspective. Com-prehensive watershed assessment, planning, andmanagement of water resources makes sense,but political boundaries (cities, counties, states)rarely follow watershed boundaries. Indeed,boundaries often follow watercourses, effectivelydividing any watershed where this occurs, there-fore, cooperation and coordination among allthe jurisdictions within any watershed is criticalto taking a watershed approach to the solvingof problems like nonpoint source pollution.

Concerning this watershed-based ap-proach, segments of the separate watersheds arefurther subdivided into increasingly smaller “hy-drologic units” so that distinct watersheds maybe broken into more manageable sizes for study.Watersheds (or hydrologic units) have been as-signed identification numbers so that the sev-eral agencies working with them can be in agree-ment on the piece of land they are studying.

There are 2-digit, 4-digit, 6-digit, 8-digit, 10-digit,and 12-digit watersheds. The more digits, thesmaller the watershed identified. The water-shed approach has been endorsed by leadingfederal agencies like the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency (USEPA) and theUnited States Department of Agriculture(USDA). It should be remembered that thesewatersheds define surface water drainage areasonly, and while interacting with groundwaterareas and political boundaries, they are butpieces of the bigger picture of the interrelation-ships of water supply and water use.

Temporal Aspect of Water Use

Times change, and styles change. Percapita, more water is used today than ever be-fore. Those folks who are self-supplied (mostlyrural dwellers on their own wells) use much lesswater per capita than those on public watersupply systems. Hydropower use has evolvedfrom water wheels that turned the stones ofgristmills of early Missourians to the large powergenerating plants of today. Bathing, clotheswashing, and other occasional uses of water byMissouri’s previous generations was nothingcompared to the water use demands of today’slarge population of Missourians. Greater de-mands, in each generation, have resulted in ef-forts to supply ever-greater quantities of waterto our population from finite supplies. Not onlyis it just more people using more water, butrather more people using greater quantities ofwater in a greater variety of ways. This patternis likely to continue.


4

5

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

2.

The State Water Plan (SWP) staff thanksthe following people for their guidance and sup-port in the preparation of this State Water Planreport: Stephen M. Mahfood, director of the Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources (DNR);Mimi Garstang, State Geologist and director ofthe department’s Geological Survey and Re-source Assessment Division (GSRAD); and MikeWells, GSRAD deputy director.

The State Water Plan staff is grateful forthe help of the department’s St. Louis RegionalOffice (SLRO), under the direction of MohamadAlhalabi, for the initial identification of wateruse problems and opportunities in eastern Mis-souri. SLRO staff who provided assistance in-cludes Paul Morris, Kurt Riebeling, and TomSiegel.

In addition, the staff acknowledges the con-tributions made by the State Water Plan Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) members. The IATFrepresentatives providing assistance were: DavidSilvester, Missouri Department of Transporta-tion; Paul Andre, Bart Hawcroft, and GeneWiseman, Missouri Department of Agriculture;

Hans Huenink, Missouri State Water Patrol; andAl Buchanan, Missouri Department of Conser-vation.

For their assistance in providing specificinformation to SWP staff during the researchand data gathering phase of this report we thank:Marlowe Schlegel, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture; E. Ryser, City of Kansas City; Steve Cook,City of Cape Girardeau; and John Madras andTerry Timmons, DNR.

The State Water Plan is especially appre-ciative of the assistance from Dr. Joe Engelnand Dru Buntin, DNR, Director’s Office and fromJim Alexander, Jeff Jaquess, Susan Dunn, DeniseBecker, Bob Bacon, John Drew, Jim Vandike,Steve McIntosh, Mary Woodland, OlabimpeFummi Adetula, Dwight Weaver, DNR, GSRAD;and to all others who helped with this reportbut are not mentioned by name. The StateWater Plan staff, who prepared this report, in-cluded Bruce Netzler, Dr. Mubarak Hamed, Ri-chard Gaffney, W. Terry Frueh, and Charles Hays.Mike Wells directs the GSRAD State Water Plan.


6

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

FRANKLIN

LINCOLN

ST. LOUIS

JEFFERSON

ST. CHARLESWARRENST. LOUISCITY

LOCATION MAP

15 0 15 30MI.

25 0 25 50KM.

7

Regional Description

3.

The eastern region covers six counties andone independent city. These counties areFranklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, St. Charles, St.Louis, and Warren counties, and St. Louis City(figure 2).

The Mississippi River forms the easternboundary of the region. Four of the six coun-ties in the eastern region front on the Missis-sippi River, a path of commerce since early times.Similarly, four of the six counties front on theMissouri River. The confluence of these tworivers in this region of the state has made thealluvial soils of the region very rich and produc-tive, and the Greater St. Louis Area a hub ofcommerce, the third largest railroad center (af-ter Chicago and Kansas City).

Colleges and Universities

There are 24 colleges situated in the coun-ties of the eastern region. The list includes, al-phabetically, Concordia Seminary (St. LouisCity); East Central Missouri College (FranklinCo.); Florissant Valley Community College (St.Louis Co.); Fontbonne College (St. Louis Co.);Forest Park Community College (St. Louis City);Greenleaf College (St. Louis Co.); Harris-StoweState College (St. Louis City); Jefferson College(Jefferson Co.); Keller Graduate School of Man-agement (St. Louis City); Lindenwood Univer-sity (St. Charles Co.); Logan College of Chiro-practic (St. Louis Co.); Maryville College (St.Louis Co.); Meramec Community College (St.Louis Co.); Missouri Baptist College (St. LouisCo.); Missouri Technical College (St. Louis Co.);Patricia Stevens College (St. Louis City); RankenTechnical College (St. Louis City); St. Charles

Community College (St. Charles Co.); St. LouisCollege of Pharmacy (St. Louis City); St. LouisUniversity (St. Louis City); Sanford Brown Col-lege (St. Louis Co.); University of Missouri-St.Louis (St. Louis Co.); Washington University (St.Louis Co.), and Webster University (St. Louis Co.)(figure 3). There also are branches of other col-leges that offer courses in the region.

Regional Transportation

Navigation

Commercial river navigation in the easternregion of Missouri is entirely by way of the Mis-sissippi and Missouri rivers. The MississippiRiver has a year-round commercial navigationseason and the Missouri River’s commercial navi-gation season typically is from April 1 to De-cember 1 annually. A nine-foot navigation chan-nel depth, and a 300-foot width, is maintainedon these reaches of the Missouri and Mississippirivers (Bacon, 2002). Port authorities in the re-gion are the Jefferson County Port Authority,St. Louis County Port Authority, Port of Metro-politan St. Louis and the City of St. Louis PortAuthority’s Port District (figure 4).

The Jefferson County Port is located onthe Mississippi River at river mile 150, south ofmetropolitan St. Louis. It has underground stor-age and access to the Union Pacific and theBurlington Northern-Santa Fe railroads (Mis-souri Ports, 2002).

The St. Louis County Port, also south ofmetropolitan St. Louis, is on the Mississippi Riverat the mouth of the River Des Peres at Missis-sippi River mile 171. A riverboat casino is lo-



8

cated at the port and barge ties are available(Missouri Ports, 2002).

The largest and most active port in the state,the Port of Metropolitan St. Louis, also known

as the City of St. Louis Port, is located on theMississippi River and extends 70 miles, fromMississippi River mile 138.8 to river mile 208.8(Missouri Ports, 2002). Encompassing both

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

LOCATION MAP

St. Louis Metro Area:CONCORDIA-SEMINARY (St. Louis)FLORISSANT VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE (Ferguson)FONTBONNE COLLEGE (Clayton)FOREST PARK COMMUNITY COLLEGE (St. Louis)GREENLEAF UNIVERSITY (Maryland Heights)HARRIS-STOWE STATE COLLEGE (St. Louis)KELLER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (St. Louis)LOGAN COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC (Chesterfield)MARYVILLE UNIVERSITY (Maryville)MERAMEC COMMUNITY COLLEGE (Kirkwood)MISSOURI BAPTIST COLLEGE (Creve Coeur)MISSOURI TECHNICAL COLLEGE (Creve Coeur)PATRICIA STEVENS COLLEGE (St. Louis)RANKEN TECHNICAL COLLEGE (St. Louis)ST. LOUIS COLLEGE OF PHARMACY (St. Louis)ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY (St. Louis)SANFORD BROWN COLLEGE (campuses in Fenton, Hazelwood, and St. Charles)UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ST. LOUIS (Bel Nor)WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (Clayton)WEBSTER UNIVERSITY (Webster Groves)

Union:EAST CENTRAL MISSOURI COLLEGE

Hillsboro:JEFFERSON COLLEGE

St. Charles:LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY

St. Peters:ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY COLLEGE

15 0 15 30MI.

25 0 25 50KM.

9


banks of the Mississippi River and at 33.3 mil-lion tons annually, it is the third largest inlandport in the U.S. and ranks 23rd in the nation(USACE, 2002). The port has 76 piers, wharvesand docks on the Missouri side and 58 on theIllinois side for a total of 134. The port has over55 fleeting areas that allow barges to be heldawaiting movement. Petroleum, chemicals, grainand coal are the chief commodities movingthrough the port, representing approximately80 percent of the cargo handled. The Port ofMetropolitan St. Louis is the northernmost pointon the Mississippi River that normally remainsice-free and open during the winter months, andis the northernmost point on the river with lock-free navigation to the Gulf of Mexico(SLRC&GA, 2002).

The City of St. Louis Port Authority’s PortDistrict (CSLPAPD) lies between river mile 171.9and 191.2. Lying within the city limits and en-compassed within the boundaries of the Port ofMetropolitan St. Louis, these 19.3 miles ofriverfront include 30 docks handling specificproducts, commodities and services, warehous-ing, manufacturing, barge switching, fleeting andbarge cleaning and repair services. TheCSLPAPD coordinates city-owned riverfrontproperty with river users to encourage capitalinvestment and increased commercial volume.There are two general-public dock facilities (Mis-souri Ports, 2002).

Railroads

Passenger rail transportation via Amtrakhas one trunk line from St. Louis across thesoutheastern Missouri region, stopping in Pop-lar Bluff, Missouri, and Little Rock, Arkansas,and ending in San Antonio, Texas. Another linecrosses the state to Jefferson City and KansasCity, with a third line heading to Chicago. Allof these trains have other stops too numerousto mention here. There are three Class 1 railfreight service companies in the east centralregion of Missouri: Burlington Northern–SantaFé (BNSF), Norfolk Southern (NS), and UnionPacific (UP) (see figure 4).

Rails to Trails

The roadbed of the former Missouri, Kan-sas, and Texas (MKT or the “Katy”) Railroad hasbeen conserved by the State of Missouri, De-partment of Natural Resources, Division of StateParks, to form the Katy Trail State Park, run-ning more or less parallel to the Missouri Riverfrom St. Charles County westward to nearBoonville, where it crosses the river and headssouthwestward. This major hiking-biking trailis a popular state park with many major andminor trailheads for access. Those interested infollowing the Lewis and Clark Trail in Missourion foot or by bicycle find this trail attractive.

Aviation

St. Louis’ Lambert International Airfield isthe only airport in the region with commercialairline service. Currently under expansion, it isthe busiest airport in Missouri, having passen-ger, air freight, and military flights daily. Thereare numerous major air carriers providing ser-vice from Lambert Field. Numerous smaller air-ports serve the region as well.

Highways

U.S. Interstate Highway transportationroutes include I-44, which heads southwestwardtoward Springfield, Oklahoma, and Texas; I-55,which roughly parallels the Mississippi Riversouthbound; I-70, which heads towards KansasCity and Indianapolis; and I-170 and I-270,which are St. Louis by-pass routes.

Other major U.S. numbered highways in-clude Route 40, which sometimes runs paralleland sometime concurrent with I-70; Route 50,which heads westward to Kansas City throughJefferson City; and Routes 61 and 67, which runnorth-south (figure 5).

The Great River Road (State Highway 79in Lincoln County, and U.S. Highways 61 and67, Jefferson County) run parallel to the Missis-sippi River, and is marked with signs showing a


10

Figure 4. Railways and river ports in eastern Missouri.

UP

BNSFUP

NS

BN

SF

UP

BN

SFHillsboro

Union

Warrenton

Troy

Clayton

St. Louis City

St. Charles

St. Louis County

Jefferson County

UP

BNSFUP

NS

BN

SF

UP

BN

SFHillsboro

Union

Warrenton

Troy

Clayton

St. Louis City

St. Charles

St. Louis County

Jefferson County

Burlington Northern-Santa FeNorfolk SouthernUnion PacificCounty SeatRiver PortRailroad

LOCATION MAP

BNSF NS UP

LEGEND

15 0 15 30MI.

25 0 25 50KM.

11

Figure 5. Major roads and cities in eastern Missouri.


4444

70

55

270

170

67

4061

61

170

44

5055

67

Troy

Warrenton

St. Charles

Union

Hillsboro

St. Louis

Clayton

44

LOCATION MAP15 0 15 30

MI.

25 0 25 50KM.

LEGENDCounty Seat


12

riverboat helm. The Lewis and Clark Trail (StateHighway 94 in St. Charles and Warren coun-ties, and State Highway 100 in St. Louis andFranklin counties) runs parallel to and alongboth sides of the Missouri River, the route trav-eled by the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804-1806. Forest Park in St. Louis was the site ofthe fair, and several buildings from the fair stillstand, including the Missouri Historical Societyand the St. Louis Art Gallery. U.S. Route 40and I-64 run along the south side of Forest Park.The Bicentennial Commemoration of the Loui-siana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expe-dition will be observed in 2003 – 2006.

Population Characteristics

All of the counties in the region grew inpopulation between the 1990 and 2000 cen-suses, with the increase ranging from 4,000 to

71,000 people (2-35 percent increases). The Cityof St. Louis however, lost nearly 50,000 people,continuing a downward trend. The populationgrowth since 1990 in the St. Louis Metro Re-gion was 5.1 percent compared to 9.1 percentfor the state. The region is becoming increas-ingly urban and suburban, with rapid growthand development in the counties outside of theCity of St. Louis.

The largest city in the region is St. Louis,with almost 350,000 people; St. Charles followsat nearly 60,000. Total population for the re-gion, according to the 2000 census, was2,003,762 (table 1). This represents an averageof 531.2 persons per square mile. Fifty-two per-cent of the population in the 7-county region isfemale, with 48.0 percent male. Eleven per-cent of the total population were rural residentsin 1990. By age groups, 26.3 percent of thepopulation is less than 18 years old, 8.7 percentis 18-24, 30.2 percent is 25-44, 22.3 percent is

County Name County Seat Major Town(s)* River Port(s)Franklin-93,807 Union-7,784 Pacific-5,561 New Haven-1,909

Washington-13,092Jefferson-198,099 Hillsboro-1,729 Arnold-20,080

De Soto-6,364Festus-9,956

Lincoln-38,944 Troy-6,647 Elsberry- 1,898St. Charles-283,883 St. Charles-59,997 Lake St. Louis-10,059

O’Fallon-45,888St. Peters-51,332Wentzville-7,058

St. Louis-1,016,315 Clayton-12,826 Ballwin-31,223 Florissant-50,229Chesterfield-46,973Ferguson-22,090Hazelwood-26,174Kirkwood-27,270Maryland Heights-25,937University City-37,462Webster Groves-23,064Wildwood-33,445

Warren-24,525 Warrenton-5,209St. Louis City-348,189

(Regional Population: 2,003,762. per Census Bureau Website: www.census.gov, June 2001).*for St. Louis County, only cities over 20,000 people were included in the list.

Table 1. Eastern Missouri region counties and their populations.

13

45-64, and 12.6 percent is 65 or older. Themedian age is 36 years. The 2000 census iden-tified 846,055 housing units and 782,531 house-holds within the region (U.S. Census Bureau,2002).

Education statistics list 7.1 percent of theregion’s residents 25 and older with less than a9th grade education, 14.1 percent had greaterthan 9th grade but less than 12th, 35.8 percenthad graduated from high school, 30.0 percentwere college degreed and 12.9 percent heldgraduate degrees. Employment and income datashow 33.6 percent of the available workforcewere managers/professionals, 26.8 percent heldtechnical/sales/administrative positions, 13.5percent were employed in a service industry, 0.1percent farming and farm related, and 20.5 per-cent in “other” employment sectors. The aver-age annual household income was $46,042 andthe average home value was $105,102. The un-employment rate for the region was at 5.5 per-cent. Approximately 9.4 percent of the region’sresidents were at or below the poverty level. Thiscompares with 11.8 percent for the state as awhole. However, the poverty rate in the urbancore is much higher, at 24.7 percent. The un-employment rate during 2001 for the St. LouisMetro Region was 4.6 percent, slightly lowerthan the state’s rate of 4.7 percent. Again, therate in the urban core is higher, at 8.2 percent.The growth in personal income and per capitaincome in the St. Louis Metro Region over thepast decade is slightly less than the growth ofthe state as a whole. Per capita income in theregion was an extremely high $33,102 during2000, slightly more than the $27,271 for the state(MERIC, 2003).

Industry, Commerce andAgriculture

More than 2.5 million people live in the St.Louis region (including those in Illinois), mak-ing it the 18th largest metropolitan area in theUnited States. The region’s main industries in-clude aviation, biotechnology, chemicals, elec-tric utilities, food and beverage manufacturing,refining, research, telecommunications, andtransportation (MDED, 2003).

The economy of the St. Louis Metro Re-gion is generally trailing the economy of Mis-souri as a whole. However, there has been anextremely varied amount of economic growthin this region during the last ten years. St. Louisis home to a wide variety of high tech and highvalue-added manufacturing processes. Localfirms like GKN Aerospace, Mallinckrodt, andBoeing are profitable companies because of theirability to incorporate new technologies with tra-ditional manufacturing products.

St. Louis is a regional center for both infor-mation technology (IT) and the application ofIT in businesses ranging from finance, manu-facturing and distribution. St. Louis has a par-ticularly high concentration of jobs in the ITfields of communications services, and com-puter-integrated design services. The region alsoboasts rapid growth in other IT sectors, includ-ing programming services, prepackaged softwareand computer- related services.

The St. Louis Regional Commerce andGrowth Association (RCGA) is the chamber ofcommerce and economic development organi-zation for the bi-state St. Louis region. Formedin 1973, RCGA is the result of the merger ofthree separate organizations: the Chamber ofCommerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, the St.Louis Regional Industrial Development Corpo-ration, and the St. Louis Research Council(MDED, 2003).

Some of the top employers in the St. Louisregion include A.G. Edwards and Sons,Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., Edward D. Jones& Co., and Schnuck’s Markets. The Greater St.Louis Area ranks sixth in the United States as aheadquarters location for Fortune 500 compa-nies. Anheuser-Busch, Emerson Electric, MayDepartment Stores, Premcor, Graybar Electric,Express Scripts, and AmerenUE are all Fortune500 companies headquartered in the St. Louismetro area (MDED, 2003).

Other major firms in the eastern Missouriregion include McDonnell-Douglas Branch ofBoeing, the TWA branch of American Airlines,research and technical firms like Mallinkrodt;automobile manufacturers like GM at Wentzville,Chrysler at Fenton, and Ford at Hazelwood, andso on. Even the St. Louis Cardinals, the St. LouisRams, and the St. Louis Blues are commercial



14

professional teams that have fans in a wide areaand make St. Louis stand out, economically.

In addition to these major corporations,many entrepreneurial businesses flourish in theSt. Louis area. In fact, St. Louis ranked secondin the U.S. in Entrepreneur magazine’s listing ofthe top places for small business, marking fourstraight years on that publication’s Top 10 list.Inc. magazine placed St. Louis among the Top10 areas for growing firms. Black Enterprisemagazine also named St. Louis as one of sixnew business meccas for African Americans(MDED, 2003).

For the most part, agriculture in the six-county region no longer plays a major role inthe economy of Missouri. One segment of thefarm economy that is outstanding is the nurs-ery business. Shrub and tree nurseries of thisregion comprise 2,517 acres and generate morethan $100 million, 42 percent of the state’s cashreceipts in nursery products (Schlegel, 2003).

In the eastern region, another outstandingsegment of the agricultural sector is the emerg-ing winemaking, grape-raising business. Thenumber of small wineries in the region is grow-ing, and the number of growers of wine grapesalso is growing in the region. Tourists are alsoattracted to the vineyards of the region for wine-tasting visits.

As a matter of fact, the first federally des-ignated viticulture area in the United States isthe region around Augusta, in St. CharlesCounty. This area has been nicknamed the“Rhineland of Missouri.” Of the 41 listed winer-ies in the 2002 list from the Missouri Depart-ment of Agriculture, Market Development Di-vision, Grape and Wine Program, 12 are locatedin the eastern Missouri Region. Six are in St.Charles County, four are in Franklin County,one is in Warren County, and one is in Jeffer-son County.

Indeed, the awareness of the place of agri-culture in the economy is growing among thelargely urban population, and the popularity offarmers’ markets and of organically grown pro-duce is rising.

Another important agricultural crop in theurban region is lawn sod, grown for installationat new home and office building sites. Much ofthe agricultural irrigation water use in the re-gion is for the growing of sod. Sod farms in the

St. Louis metropolitan area include: LincolnCounty has 9 sod farms, with 804 acres; St.Charles County has 5 sod farms, with 797 acres,and St. Louis County has 6 sod farms, with 800acres (Schlegel, 2003).

Among the major agricultural goods of thestate, the six counties of the eastern region donot rank among the high producers, except thatFranklin County ranks 9th among the 114 coun-ties of Missouri in hog and pig production. Al-phabetically, in other agricultural goods, FranklinCounty ranks 16th in hay production, and 19th inmilk cows; Jefferson County ranks 41st in milkcows; Lincoln county ranks 17th in corn produc-tion, 19th in hogs and pigs, and 20th in wheatproduction; St. Charles County ranks 20th in cornproduction; St. Louis County ranks 57th in wheatproduction, and Warren County ranks 27th inhogs and pigs (MASS, 1999).

Physical Characteristics

Eastern Missouri has a humid, continentalclimate with average annual temperatures fromabout 54o F to 56o F. Long term annual precipi-tation averages from 36 to 42 inches through-out the region (figure 6). Rainfall amounts aregenerally highest in the spring and lowest inthe fall and winter months. Evapotranspira-tion, the process of precipitation being returnedto the air through direct evaporation or tran-spiration of plants, consumes from 28 to 30inches of annual rainfall. Surface runoff of pre-cipitation averages from 9 to 12 inches annu-ally.

About half of eastern Missouri lies in thedissected till plains of the Central Lowland Re-gion (northern Missouri), and the other half liesin the northern part of the Salem Plateau ofthe Ozarks physiographic region common tomost of southern Missouri (figure 7). During thelast period of glaciation, called the Wisconsinglaciation, the exposed rocks of northern Mis-souri, eroded by earlier glacial advances, werescoured again by advancing ice sheets. The far-thest reach of the ice is shown in Figure 8. Theresult of the glacial scouring is a combination ofpreglacial and postglacial eroded surfaces, bestcharacterized by being called “almost flat”.

15

Glacial till or drift, composed of sand,clay, silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders, de-posited on the surface and in valleys thatwere eroded earlier, can be quite thick, up toseveral hundred feet in the dissected till plains(Brookshire, 1997). These glaciated plains

and glacial till are constantly being erodedby rainfall and dissected by runoff, gradu-ally destroying the formerly nearly level to-pography. In the glaciated area, particularlynear the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, post-glacial winds carried large quantities of fine

Figure 6. Missouri average annual precipitation from 1971-2000. Source: Office of State Climatologist, University of Missouri-Columbia.

AVERAGE 1971-2000 TOTAL ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

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

0 25 50 100 150 200 MILES



16

L I M I T O

F G L A C I A T I O N

O Z A R K SOSAGE PLAINS

SPRINGFIELD

PLATEAU

SALEMPLATEAU

SOUTHEASTERN

LOWLANDS

ST.

FRANCOIS

MOUNTAINS

DISSECTED TILL PLAINS

E U

R E

KA

SPR IN

GS

E SC

AR

PM

ENT

0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles

0 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers

Figure 7. Physiographic provinces of Missouri. Source: Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Geological Survey andResource Assessment Division.

17


Figure 8. Approximate extent of glacial ice in Missouri.

F r

e s

h w a

t e

r -

s a

l i n

e w a t e r t r a n s

i t i

o n z o n e

AtchisonNodaway

Holt

Worth

Gentry

Andrew

Buchanan

De Kalb

Harrison

Daviess

ClintonCaldwell

Mercer

Grundy

Living

ston

Putnam

Sullivan

Schuy

ler

Adair

ScotlandClark

Knox Lewis

Linn Macon Shelby Marion

PlatteClay Ray

Carroll

Chariton

Rando

lph MonroeRalls

Pike

JacksonLafayette

Saline Howard

Boone

Audrain

Mon

tgom

ery

Callaway

Lincoln

Warren

St. Cha

rles

St. Louis

Jefferson

Franklin

Gas

cona

de

OsageCole

Moniteau

Cooper

Morgan

Miller Maries

Pettis

John

son

Cass

Henry

Bates Benton

St. Clair CamdenHickory

Vernon

Barton

Jasper

Newton

McDonald

Cedar

Dade

Lawrence

Barry

Polk

Greene

Christian

StoneTaney

Dallas Laclede

Webster Wright

PulaskiPhelps

Crawford

Was

hingt

on

Ste.Genevieve

Douglas

Ozark

Texas

Howell

Dent

Shannon

Reynolds

Iron

St.Francois

Madison

Perry

Oregon

Carter

Ripley

Wayne

ButlerB

ollin

ger Cap

e

Girard

eau

Scott

StoddardM

ississ

ippi

NewMadrid

Pem

isco

t

Dunklin

Freshwater-salinewatertransition zone

LEGEND

Fres

h

water - sali ne

water transition zon


18

silt into the air, subsequently depositing it inthe “river hills.” The silty material, depos-ited in wind-blown drifts (like sand dunes,but finer-grained), is called loess. Except forthe alluvial groundwater along the major riv-ers, the northern part of Lincoln and theeastern parts of St. Charles and St. Louiscounties have saline groundwater that re-quires extensive treatment to make it po-table. The rest of the region in the dissectedtill plains has the Cambrian-Ordovician aqui-fer underlying it, which can provide signifi-cant quantities of groundwater. The shallowaquifer can, however, be adversely impactedby drought conditions.

The remainder of the eastern region is in-cluded in the Salem Plateau of the Ozark Pla-teau physiographic region. This area is com-posed of mostly Ordovician- and Cambrian-agesedimentary rocks. The landscape is maturelydissected with steep-sided valleys separated bymore gently rolling uplands. Modern soils aretypically thin except for the upland areas. Inthose areas, bedrock is overlain by thick depos-its of unconsolidated residuum (weathered rock),typically permeable, allowing high rates ofgroundwater recharge. Karst topography hereis typical and widespread. Caves in St. Louiswere used as warehouses and wine cellars inthe early history of the city. The aquifer in thisarea is known as the Ozark Aquifer, and is un-confined. It receives recharge primarily from

precipitation and lateral movement of ground-water from outcropping bedrock, and can pro-duce large quantities of good-quality ground-water.

Water stored in the flood plain deposits ofthe Missouri and Mississippi rivers is called al-luvial groundwater. These deposits generallyare very good sources of drinking water and al-luvial wells generally yield large quantities ofwater (figure 9).

Recreation

The gentle hills, rivers and lakes in easternMissouri provide a scenic backdrop for twelvestate parks and historic sites, and numerousconservation and wildlife areas (table 2), eventhough the area is heavily urbanized. All typesof water recreation, including fishing, sailing,swimming, canoeing, water-skiing, andmotorboating are available on the area’s streamsand small lakes, although not as many choicesexist as in the southern part of the state.

Other notable waterfront, excursion, com-mercial, gaming, historical, and water-bornenavigation sites include the downtown water-front areas of the cities of St. Louis and St.Charles. There are also numerous MissouriDepartment of Conservation (MDC) recreationalriver accesses on the Big, Bourbeuse, Cuivre,Mississippi, Missouri, and Meramec rivers, toname but a few (MDC, 2002).

County State Parks1 MDC2 Federal3

Franklin 2 7 0Jefferson 3 4 0Lincoln 1 9 0St. Charles 2 7 1St. Louis 3 5 1Warren 0 3 0St. Louis City 1 0 1

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

Table 2. Number of state and federal recreational facilities in Eastern Missouri.

19

Figure 9. Generalized groundwater quality map.

SCALE0 20 40 60 80 MILES

0 20 40 60 80 KILOMETERS

MISSOURI GROUNDWATERMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL RESOURCESGEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DIVISIONP.O. Box 250, Rolla, MO 65402

2002

DNR/GSRAD Fact Sheet No. 4

PRODUCTION REGIONSAND AQUIFERS

MISSOURI AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERALLUVIUMYield is normally 1,000+ gallons per minute (gpm),water is suitable for irrigation. Softening and iron removal recommended for drinking water.

GLACIAL DRIFT AND ALLUVIUMYield is normally 1-15 gpm. Drift-filled preglacialchannels locally yield 200 to 500 gpm. Alluvium inlower reaches of major rivers can locally yield400+ gpm. Iron removal and disinfection isrecommended. Bedrock aquifers generally yieldmineralized water.

CRETACEOUS AND TERTIARY SANDS,AND ALLUVIUMAlluvium typically yields 1,000+ gpm; Tertiary sands,500 to 1,000 gpm. Both contain high iron. Wells inCretaceous sands typically produce 150 to 1,000gpm, have lower iron, are softer, have higher tempera-ture waters, and may be artesian.

PENNSYLVANIAN AND MISSISSIPPIANLIMESTONES AND SANDSTONESYield 1 to 15 gpm to depth of about 400 feet.Aquifers below 400 feet yield mineralized water.Wells in shallow Mississippian limestones yield 1 to10 gpm. Deeper high-yield aquifers yield mineralized water. MISSISSIPPIAN LIMESTONES (SOUTHWESTMISSOURI), ORDOVICIAN AND CAMBRIANDOLOMITES AND SANDSTONESYield 15-500 gpm, depending on depth and producingformations. Yields locally exceed 1,000 gpm in someareas including Springfield, Columbia and Rolla. Yieldsdiminish substantially east of the St. Francois Mt. region.Highly-productive aquifers become mineralized north of freshwater-salinewater transition zone.

CAMBRIAN AND PRECAMBRIAN ROCKSDolomites typically yield 15 to 50 gpm. Lamotte Sand-stone locally yields 300+ gpm. Precambrian igneousrocks normally yield 0 to 15 gpm.

FRESHWATER-SALINEWATER TRANSITION ZONENorth and west of this line, high-yielding aquiferscontain water too mineralized to be used withoutextensive treatment

WAYNE

BOLLINGER

CAPEGIRARDEAU

SCOTT

STODDARDMISSISSIPPI

NEWMADRID

DUNKLIN

PEMISCOT

ATCHISON

NODAWAY

HOLT

WORTH

GENTRY

ANDREW

HARRISON

MERCERPUTNAM

SCHUYLER

PLATTE

GRUNDY

DE KALB

BUCHANAN

DAVIESS

CALDWELLCLINTON

CLAYRAY

LIVINGSTON

CARROLL

SULLIVAN

LINN

CHARITON

JACKSONLAFAYETTE

SALINE HOWARD

ADAIR

MACON

SCOTLANDCLARK

KNOX LEWIS

SHELBY MARION

MONROERANDOLPH

RALLS

LINCOLN

PIKE

AUDRAIN

BOONE

MO

NTG

OM

ERY

CALLAWAY ST. CHARLESWARREN

OSAGE

GAS

CO

NAD

E

FRANKLIN

COLE

MONITEAU

PETTIS

COOPER

JOHNSON

BENTON

MORGANHENRY

MILLER

MARIES

ST. LOUIS

JEFFERSON

CRAWFORDWASHINGTON

ST.FRANCOIS

STE.GENEVIEVE

PERRY

PHELPS

CASS

BATES

VERNON

ST. CLAIR

HICKORY

CAMDEN

PULASKI

BARTON

JASPER

NEWTON

McDONALD

CEDAR

DADE

LAWRENCE

BARRY

POLK

GREENE

DALLAS

TEXAS

LACLEDE

WEBSTER WRIGHT

CHRISTIAN

STONETANEY

DOUGLAS

OZARK

HOWELL

DENTIRON

MADISONREYNOLDS

SHANNON

CARTER

OREGONRIPLEY

BUTLER

Regional D

escription


20

Sources:

Bacon, Robert, Hydrologist, Water ResourcesProgram, Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division, Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources. Personal communi-cation, October 16, 2002.

Brookshire, Cynthia, 1997, Water ResourcesReport number 47, Missouri WaterQuality Assessment, Missouri StateWater Plan Series Volume III, Missouri De-partment of Natural Resources, Division ofGeology and Land Survey.

Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service (MASS),1999, www.agebb.missouri.edu/mass

Missouri Economic Research and InformationCenter (MERIC), 2003, www.ded.state.mo.us/business/researchandplanning/re-gional/slmetro/index.shtml

Missouri Department of Agriculture, MarketDevelopment Division, Grape & Wine Pro-gram, Jefferson City, Mo., Come TasteMissouri Wine Country, 2002 brochure.

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC),Conservation Atlas, 2002: www.conservation.state.mo.us/atlas

Missouri Department of Economic Development(MDED), Economic Research and Informa-tion Center, personal communication, 2003.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Di-vision of Geology and Land Survey, 1986,Missouri Water Atlas.

Missouri Port Authority Association (MissouriPorts), 2002 www.missouriports.com,w w w . m i s s o u r i p o r t s . c o m /stlouiscityport.html, www.missouriports.com/portmap.gif, www.missouriports.com/stlouiscoport.html, www.missouriports.com/jeffcoport.html

Regional Commerce & Growth Association(RCGA), 2003: www.econdev.stlrcga.org

Schlegel, Marlowe, Deputy State Statistician,USDA, MASS, Columbia, Mo. Personalcommunication, February 10, 2003.

St. Louis Regional Commerce & Growth Asso-ciation (SLRC&GA), St. Louis RegionalEconomic Development, 2002, Facts andFigures: Water Transportation ,www.econdev.stlrcga.org/default.asp?p-124

United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE), 2002, www.mvs.usace.army.mil/e n g r / r i ve r / N av i g a t i o n / n av . h t m ,www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/fcport1.htm,w w w . i w r . u s a c e . a r m y . m i l / n d c /portname00.htm

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002: www.census.gov

21

Water Resources Management

There are many issues that confront andhinder water resource managers. Watershedmanagement has now become the preferredmethod for evaluating water resources and iden-tifying problems and solutions. A watershed maybe defined as the natural or disturbed unit ofland on which all the water that falls (or ema-nates from springs or snowmelt), collects bygravity, and fails to evaporate, runs off via acommon outlet (Gaffney and Hays, 2000). Whilethese units are natural and logical boundaries,they seldom follow political boundaries. Thiscreates a problem for planners who must nowcoordinate many agencies, municipalities, andvaried interests. Cooperation among all stake-holders is usually needed to implement andmanage an effective watershed managementplan. This cooperation is often difficult, if notimpossible. On the local level, municipalities maynot have the funding, expertise, or political willto become involved in a regional or state plan.

On many water topics, there are organiza-tional challenges to address. For example, theprotection of wetlands involves many state andfederal agencies. Some wetland manipulationsrequire federal permits while others do not, andthis situation appears to change frequently inthe wake of federal court decisions. There arefederal and state guidance and executive orders,all of which back the concept of stopping theloss of wetlands. However, there are few formalmeans to prevent wetland losses when manyactivities that destroy wetlands are beyond regu-lation. An understanding of the missions of eachagency involved in the discussion, as well as what

assistance each can lend, would be useful in solv-ing the larger problem (Madras, 2001).

The state is working with the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) districts to unifythe approaches to Section 404 permits and theircorresponding Section 401 water quality certi-fications. Similarly, the state is working withparties that frequently obtain certifications sothat the requirements of certifications can beaccommodated within the design of the projects.A major initiative is to make these requirementsknown at an early stage of the process so thedesign can anticipate them (Madras, 2001). Con-tinued state budget constraints exacerbate thedifficulties.

Jurisdictional issues also arise in water re-sources planning and management. Many riverbasins are interstate and therefore, fall underjurisdiction of the federal government. This isimplicit in the United States Constitution, inwhich the federal government reserves the rightto “regulate commerce with foreign nations, andamong the several states, and with the Indiantribes.” In the early years of our country, com-merce was carried out via waterways and navi-gation was a critical issue. A stream is navi-gable if it can float a boat that can be involvedin commerce. It was also deemed that the de-fense of our country was dependent in large parton the protection of navigable waters.

The USACE is now involved with issuingwetland permits, granting permits for dredge andfill in navigable waters, flood control, water sup-ply, dam safety, floodplain management, andmore recently, environmental protection andrestoration. The United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) is charged with the

4.

Regional Water Use Overview



22

administration of the Clean Water Act (CWA).It is involved in water resource planning, re-search, and enforcement. In most cases, theUSEPA has delegated much authority to thestates in regards to water resources protectionand management. Recent court rulings mayhave both clouded and clarified the role of theUSACE in determining what wetland areas areand are not within their administrative jurisdic-tion to regulate under the CWA and other fed-eral laws.

The following description of water use ineastern Missouri is included to provide contextfor the water use problems identified in this re-port. The categories used below are the sameas those used by the United States GeologicalSurvey (USGS) in the National Water-Use In-formation Program. In addition, most of thewater use data provided in this section was col-lected through this program.

Public Water Supply

The percentage of publicly supplied waterin eastern Missouri allocated to commercial,domestic, and industrial uses are higher thanstatewide averages. The percentage of waterwithdrawn for public supply delivered for do-mestic use in 2000 was approximately 57 per-cent compared to 50 percent for Missouri state-wide (USGS, 2003).

Public water use is often defined as com-munity-wide applications of water, such asfirefighting and filling public swimming pools.Public water use also includes transmission losses(water lost from leaking pipes and joints whilebeing delivered to domestic, commercial andindustrial users). Approximately 21.7 percentof eastern Missouri’s publicly supplied waterwent to public uses in 2000 compared to 27.7percent statewide (USGS, 2003).

Similarly, 2000 commercial use of publicwater supplies was slightly higher in easternMissouri than for the state overall. Commercialwater use is defined by the USGS as “water formotels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, othercommercial facilities, and institutions” (Solley,et. al., 1993). In 2000, approximately 9 percent

of eastern Missouri’s publicly supplied water wasdelivered to commercial water users comparedto 8 percent statewide (USGS, 2003). Similarly,public water supply deliveries for industrial usein eastern Missouri were low in 2000. Com-pared to the statewide figure of 14 percent, in-dustrial water users in eastern Missouri ac-counted for over 24 percent of total public wa-ter supply usage (USGS, 2003).

Twenty-eight percent of the population ofeastern Missouri receiving water from publicwater systems is supplied by groundwater wellscompared with a state average of 43 percent.In eastern Missouri, 94 percent of citizens areconnected to a public water supply comparedto 85 percent statewide.

Domestic Water Use

Domestic water use is often defined as “wa-ter used for household purposes”, such as drink-ing, cooking, bathing, and washing clothes anddishes. Excluding thermoelectric and hydroelec-tric power generation, domestic water use is thepredominant use of water in eastern Missouri.The National Water-Use Information Programof the United States Geological Survey (USGS)estimated 2000 domestic water use in easternMissouri at 62.9 billion gallons of water. USGSfigures indicate that per capita usage was ap-proximately 86 gallons/day for domestic usage.While 96 percent of eastern Missouri’s domes-tic water requirements are supplied by publicwater systems, private water supplies serve someof the area’s population. Approximately 112,000people in eastern Missouri withdrew water fromprivate supplies in 2000 (USGS, 2003). USGSdata from 2000 indicates that 100 percent ofself-supplied domestic water withdrawals camefrom groundwater sources, although it is likelythat a small percentage of users obtained waterfrom surface water sources. In the 1990 U.S.Census of Population and Housing, approxi-mately 2,400 housing units in eastern Missourireported using “some other source” for water, acatch-all category which the United States Cen-sus Bureau (USCB) defines as “water obtainedfrom springs, creeks, rivers, lakes, cisterns, etc.”

23

Industrial and CommercialWater Use

Industrial water use in eastern Missouri ishigh, and accounts for 24 percent of public wa-ter supply deliveries. The USGS estimated 2000industrial water withdrawals at 2.3 billion gal-lons throughout the year. Industrial water us-ers across Missouri typically rely on public sup-plies rather than self-supplied water. In 2000,industrial water users in eastern Missouri re-ceived 32.8 billion gallons of water from publicwater systems, approximately 94 percent of theirtotal water use (USGS, 2003). In 2000, 55 per-cent of total self-supplied withdrawals for in-dustrial use came from groundwater sources.USGS data indicates varying levels of industrialwater use throughout eastern Missouri, with allbut one county showing little or no industrialwater use at all.

In eastern Missouri, commercial water useis less than industrial water use. Commercialwater use in eastern Missouri totaled nearly 12.3billion gallons in 2000. Commercial water usein eastern Missouri depends mostly on publicwater supply deliveries supplying approximately98 percent of the region’s commercial waterrequirements (USGS, 2003).

Agricultural Water Use

Farmers in eastern Missouri withdraw wa-ter both to irrigate farmlands and to water theirlivestock. Groundwater sources account for mostof eastern Missouri’s agricultural water with-drawals. In 2000, over two-thirds of the 1.8 bil-lion gallons of water withdrawn for agriculturaloperations in eastern Missouri was taken fromthe region’s aquifers (USGS, 2003).

Irrigation water withdrawal in eastern Mis-souri surpassed livestock water withdrawals in2000, exceeding 1 billion gallons of water.Three-fourths of livestock water withdrawalswere from surface water sources, consistent withthe state as a whole. Livestock production isevenly distributed across eastern Missouri (otherthan St. Louis City and County having essen-tially no livestock production), with individualcounties withdrawing up to 321 million gallons

per year (USGS, 2003). A variety of livestock israised in eastern Missouri, each of which musthave access to water throughout the year. Farm-ers in eastern Missouri withdrew slightly morethan 780 million gallons of water for their live-stock in 2000. Irrigation water withdrawals aresomewhat spread out in eastern Missouri, withtwo counties (Jefferson County and St. LouisCity) having virtually no irrigation.

Less than 1 percent of irrigation withdraw-als in eastern Missouri came from surface watersources in 2000, as compared to the statewidevalue of 4 percent (USGS, 2003).

Water Use in Power Production

The Major Water Users Database of theMissouri Department of Natural Resources re-ported total thermoelectric power generationwithdrawals in eastern Missouri at approxi-mately 950 billion gallons of water in 2000 (Mis-souri Department of Natural Resources, 2001).Withdrawals for thermoelectric power genera-tion are used primarily for power plant coolingand come mainly from surface water sources.Although thermoelectric power generation re-quires vast amounts of water, very little of it isactually consumed. Statewide, more than 99percent of all thermoelectric power withdraw-als were returned to their source waters. In east-ern Missouri, five facilities (Ashley Plant, St. LouisCity; Labadie Plant, Franklin Co.; Meramec Plant,St. Louis Co.; Rush Island Plant, Jefferson Co;and Sioux Plant, St. Charles Co.) account forthe region’s thermoelectric power generation.All of the plants get their water from the Mis-sissippi River, except Labadie, which uses Mis-souri River water. There are no hydroelectricpower plants in the region.

Other Instream Flow Uses

Fish and other aquatic organisms in east-ern Missouri’s lakes and streams depend uponflowing water for survival and aquatic habitatpreservation. Many municipalities in easternMissouri rely upon flowing water to safely re-lease wastewater back into the environment.



24

Swimming areas and boat launches found onnearly every body of water within the regionaccommodate recreational activities throughoutmuch of the year. Although no water is with-drawn, each of these is a “use” of water as well.Collectively, these are often referred to as“instream” uses.

Eastern Missouri has many opportunitiesfor water-based recreation. There are show-boats, floating restaurants, excursion steamboats,and gambling boats based in St. Charles and St.Louis. In addition, there are marinas on thetwo big rivers, the Missouri and the Mississippi.There are several state parks, such asCastlewood, Confluence Point, Cuivre River, andMeramec that are connected to local rivers.Canoeing and boating is a favorite pastime onsome of the rivers and lakes of the region.

Preservation of aquatic wildlife and habitatis another important “instream” use of water.Numerous conservation areas maintained by theMissouri Department of Conservation are lo-cated in eastern Missouri. Although some up-land drainages may become dry during droughtconditions, many rivers and streams in easternMissouri have permanent streamflow that sup-ports fish and wildlife throughout the year, par-ticularly the large rivers. Fishing in these streamsis another flow-dependent use.

Sources:

Gaffney, Richard M., and Hays, Charles R., 2000,Water Resources Report Number 51, ASummary of Missouri Water Laws,Missouri State Water Plan Series VolumeVII, Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Division of Geology and Land Sur-vey.

Madras, John, Planning Section Chief, WaterPollution Control Program, Department ofNatural Resources, Water Protection andSoil Conservation Division. Written com-munication, 2001.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geo-logical Survey and Resource AssessmentDivision, Water Resources Program, 2001,Major Water Users Database, 2001.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources,Water Pollution and Soil Conservation Di-vision, 1996, Inventory of MissouriPublic Water Systems, 1996.

Pflieger, William L., 1989, Aquatic Commu-nity Classification System for Mis-souri, Missouri Department of Conserva-tion, Aquatic Series No. 19.

Solley, W. B., Pierce R. R., Perlman, H. A., 1993,Estimated Use of Water in the UnitedStates in 1990, United States GeologicalSurvey Circular 1081.

U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, Census ofPopulation and Housing, 1990.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2003,www.water.usgs.gov/watuse

Vandike, James E., 1995, Water Resources Re-port Number 45, Surface Water Re-sources of Missouri, State Water PlanSeries Volume 1, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology andLand Survey.

25

Water Use Problems

5.

Water Use Problems

ing factor. The cost for the city to produce andthe price paid by consumers for drinking wateris very reasonable, this being a third factor. Afourth factor is that water meters are an addi-tional piece of equipment that, while not abso-lutely necessary for water service delivery, addsan additional cost to the final price of waterdelivered to the home.

Water meters are an excellent way to en-courage water conservation. Water meters in-crease the knowledge and control that individualresidents have over their personal water usageand their water bill. Typically, metered custom-ers use water more carefully since they pay forwhat they use. It calls attention to things likeleaking fixtures. Problems are usually fixedquickly, especially if you have to pay for thewasted water. Lawn and garden watering is scru-tinized more carefully, again monetary savingsbeing the driving factor. A side benefit of de-creased lawn and garden watering is less po-tential surface water pollution from runoff. Ex-cessive lawn and garden watering can wash fer-tilizers and insecticides into stormwater drains,causing aquatic and downstream pollution prob-lems. Meters are also a useful tool for the cityfor determining present water consumption,quantities lost in transmission, and future growthand consumption planning, however, the eco-nomic costs of installing meters can be fairlysubstantial. The question then centers onwhether or not the economic benefits, whichare primarily savings in long term expansioncosts, outweigh the initial capital costs of in-stalling meters.

Wastewater management is also a factor.Less water coming out of the tap means lesswater going down the drain, therefore, less quan-tities of wastewater that must be treated at the

Drinking Water Use

The City of St. Louis LacksResidential Water Metering

Problem:

Lack of water metering can result in waterwastage. Non-metered water service can alsoskew the true cost to produce and the pricecharged for drinking water.

Discussion:

The City of St. Louis is relatively “waterrich” with the Missouri and Mississippi riversbeing the sources for the city’s drinking water.The city’s two water treatment plants, HowardBend Facility located on the Missouri River, andChain of Rocks Plant on the Mississippi River,process an average of 150 million gallons a day.Together, they have a combined capacity of 686million gallons per day; 450 million gallons atthe Chain of Rocks Plant and 236 million gal-lons at the Howard Bend Facility. The city’spublic water supply system was created in 1831,the City of St. Louis becoming the owner in 1835.The Chain of Rocks Plant began operating in1894, and the Howard Bend Facility in 1929(City of St. Louis, 2003).

Individual residential water meters wereextremely uncommon 172 years ago, whichpartly explains why the City of St. Louis, withits long history of public water supply, does nothave universal residential metering. A secondexplanation is that water is normally not a com-modity in short supply in St. Louis, hence his-torically, conservation has not been a major driv-


26

wastewater treatment plants. Less electricity isused in both wastewater and drinking watertreatment because less water is being managedat both ends. With a decrease in the demandfor drinking water there is a proportional de-crease in the quantity of filters and chemicalsused to produce it, which can lead to lower pro-duction costs. All these conservation factors,prompted by metered water conservation, canlead to a more secure supply during times ofsevere drought and an economic savings for boththe consumer and the city, especially duringtimes of economic downturns.

Sources:

City of St. Louis, February 3, 2003, Water De-partment web pages on: History, Cus-tomer Service, and Water Quality;www.stlwater.com

Water Wastage

Problem:

Water is a precious natural resource withmany uses, however, humans often waste it inmany ways, which can lead to a wide range ofproblems.

Discussion:

Water is essential to life. We often think itis unlimited, in part because we pay so little fordrinking water, which can lead to our wastingit. This waste takes on many forms: overwateringof lawns (as evidenced by water flowing off oflawns into the street), use of high volume flushtoilets, etc. It can also be considered wastingwhen high quality water is used when that oflower quality could be used in its place (such asfor irrigation, flushing toilets, etc.). Water wast-age becomes a problem felt most strongly dur-ing times of drought, but there are also othertimes when it is felt (i.e. the gradual growth ofper capita use, combined with an increasingpopulation, can exceed the supply in a region).

During times of drought, the need for wa-ter is felt more strongly. In part, this is becausethere is less of it and people are encouraged toconserve water so that a supply will last longerfor everybody. The need for water is often ex-acerbated because precipitation rates are lowerduring the time of year (late summer) whenpeople want their lawns and gardens to grow,which requires more watering. Heat plus lackof precipitation often makes people crave wa-ter more (for swimming, drinking, etc.).

Water supplies can be taxed even duringtimes of abundant rainfall. Water use increasesfor two reasons: 1) increasing population (morepeople using water means more water is used),and 2) per capita consumption tends to increaseover time (USGS, 2002). This can be a ratherinsidious phenomenon as it happens graduallyover years or perhaps decades (in contrast to adrought scenario, the effects of which may ap-pear more rapidly, and are clear to see). It mayappear that there is abundant water if there hasbeen abundant precipitation, which may makeit seem less important to conserve water. De-veloping more water supplies is often expen-sive, and the amount of water available from anew reservoir is often significantly more expen-sive than the amount of water saved via con-servation practices (Gleick, 2000).

As water supplies become stressed, manyproblems can occur. If a source runs out, it mayneed to be replaced, usually at a very high cost.If the source is from a reservoir, the quality maygo down dramatically as the reservoir falls. Thisis due to water at the bottom often being turbid(muddy). If the source is from wells, the ground-water table may drop, which can make wells godry, produce less water, or require the wells tobe redeveloped. If the supply is from a stream,creatures can have problems (i.e. low dissolvedoxygen, habitat loss, etc.) because they are con-sidered less important than using water fordrinking and other uses when humans choosehow to allocate water.

Wastage of water adversely affects energyand economics: it takes energy (pumping, treat-ing, etc.), which costs money and natural re-sources, to get the water to a consumer. Thus,when water is wasted energy and money arealso wasted.

27

Water Use Problems

Wastage of water can take on many forms.North Americans use many appliances that con-sume more water than the same appliance do-ing the same job in other parts of the world.For example, an average European washingmachine and dishwasher use considerably lesswater and energy than ours do. One of the big-gest uses of water in the average home is theflush toilet. Many of the older models of toiletuse much more water than necessary; in someplaces (i.e. Australia), toilets have the option fora full flush or ½ flush. Some of water wastage isnothing more than habit. Leaks and drips areanother surprising waste of water: what mayseem like a slow drip can add up to 10,000 gal-lons a year.

The way people landscape around build-ings affects the amount of water they use. Prettygreen lawns require much more water thanxeriscaped lawns or lawns that employ goodrainwater capture/use, such as rain gardens.

High quality groundwater can be found inabout two-thirds of the eastern Missouri region,however there are some areas with naturallyoccurring high-salinity groundwater unsuitablefor use as drinking water (see figure 10, fresh-water-saline groundwater transition zone). Thehigh quality groundwater is an excellent sourceof drinking water but it does need treatment forhuman consumption. There are many useswhere water of lower quality could replace highquality groundwater. For example, greywater(household wastewater not coming from a toi-let) can be used as irrigation or for flushing toi-lets (see Chapter 6). This is similar to waterreuse (a.k.a. water reclamation), which usestreated wastewater for certain applications.Thermoelectric plants use large volumes of wa-ter, and some of them are considered “single-pass” (which means that fresh water is used oncebefore being released into the environment).This water could easily be reused for many pur-poses other than drinking.

F r

e s

h w a

t e

r -

s a

l i n

e w a t e r t r a n s

i t i

o n z o n e

AtchisonNodaway

Holt

Worth

Gentry

Andrew

Buchanan

De Kalb

Harrison

Daviess

ClintonCaldwell

Mercer

Grundy

Living

ston

Putnam

Sullivan

Schuy

ler

Adair

ScotlandClark

Knox Lewis

Linn Macon Shelby Marion

PlatteClay Ray

Carroll

Chariton

Rando

lph MonroeRalls

Pike

JacksonLafayette

Saline Howard

Boone

Audrain

Mon

tgom

ery

Callaway

Lincoln

Warren

St. Cha

rles

St. Louis

Jefferson

Franklin

Gas

cona

de

OsageCole

Moniteau

Cooper

Morgan

Miller Maries

Pettis

John

son

Cass

Henry

Bates Benton

St. Clair CamdenHickory

Vernon

Barton

Jasper

Newton

McDonald

Cedar

Dade

Lawrence

Barry

Polk

Greene

Christian

StoneTaney

Dallas Laclede

Webster Wright

PulaskiPhelps

Crawford

Was

hingt

on

Ste.Genevieve

Douglas

Ozark

Texas

Howell

Dent

Shannon

Reynolds

Iron

St.Francois

Madison

Perry

Oregon

Carter

Ripley

Wayne

Butler

Bol

linge

r Cape

Girard

eau

Scott

StoddardM

ississ

ippi

NewMadrid

Pem

isco

t

Dunklin

Freshwater-salinewatertransition zone

LEGEND

Fres

h

water - sali ne

water transition zon

Figure 10. Freshwater-salinegroundwater transition zone map.


28

Sources:

Gleick, P. H., 2000, The Changing WaterParadigm: A Look at Twenty-firstCentury Water Resources Develop-ment, Water International, Vol. 25, Num-ber 1, pp.127-138, March, 2000.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2002,www.water.usgs.gov/watuse

Aging Infrastructure of PublicWater Supply Systems

Problem:

The basic equipment, structures and instal-lations public water suppliers use to provideservices can become less efficient or break withage and become undersized with increasing de-mand. It is difficult for many communities tofind the money to adequately update their sys-tems. Since much of the population of easternMissouri is served by public water supplies, thisproblem is especially relevant.

Discussion:

The National Water Use Information Pro-gram of the USGS estimated in 2000 that 95percent of the population of eastern Missouriwas served by public water supplies. The agesof municipal water supply systems and publicwater supply districts in eastern Missouri rangebetween 8 and 172 years. Forty-four percent ofthem are between 31 and 50 years old, and 18percent of them are 51 years old or more.

The problems caused by aging water sup-ply infrastructures are many. Aging water linesthat are made of materials inferior to those al-lowed by current technology become fracturedand begin to leak. Leakage, also called “trans-mission loss,” reduces system efficiency and canhave a negative impact on the system’s revenuegeneration. This, in turn, may make it more dif-ficult for the water supply system to finance

much needed improvements in the future. Amore common problem is rupture of these oldwater lines, which means that customers arewithout water until it is fixed, and there can besignificant disturbance above-ground sinceworkers have to tear up the surface (often aroad) to get to the pipes (Ryser, 2001).

Aging water supply infrastructures may alsoimpact water quality. Outward leaking pipescan also leak inward if there is a sudden loss ofpressure, allowing the system to become con-taminated. In addition, some very old serviceconnections may have lead joints, which mayleach lead into drinking water. In the humanbody, accumulations of lead as well as prolongedexposure to even very small amounts of leadcan result in serious health effects. Older sys-tems may also have “dead-end” lines in whichwater may become stagnant and undrinkable.Some rural water districts laid water lines withan older form of PVC piping, which now leachesvinyl chloride (a known human carcinogen) intothe water when it is at a dead end for a while(Timmons, 2001).

Quite often, lines and facilities that wereadequate when they were first constructed, areundersized when it comes to present servicerequirements. With age, systems may no longerbe able to convey the amount of water that sys-tem users need. Present household, industrialand public uses, such as firefighting, may be lim-ited. Without viable alternatives, future devel-opment may also be restricted as potential us-ers are discouraged from locating their facilitiesin a service region unable to support their needsfor water.

Sources:

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

Timmons, T., Missouri Department of NaturalResources, Water Protection and Soil Con-servation Division, Public Drinking WaterProgram. Personal communication, Feb-ruary 2001.

29

MTBE Contamination of Wells

Problem:

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) hasbeen found in trace amounts in several wells inthe Eastern Missouri region. Other contami-nants also have been detected, including ben-zene.

Discussion:

Reformulated gasoline is required in the Cityof St. Louis, Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, andSt. Louis Counties, in order to help the area’sair quality “non-attainment” status. MTBE issometimes added to reformulated gasoline tohelp it burn more cleanly and completely. Thecompound is added to conventional gasoline toreduce engine knocking. MTBE has been usedas a gasoline additive since 1979. The USEPAhas placed MTBE on its Drinking Water Con-taminant Candidate List (CCL) for additionalresearch and possible regulation (USEPA, 2004).The department monitors all community andnon-transient non-community public water sup-plies for MTBE contamination. Seven privatewells and one public drinking water well in theregion have been found to have trace amountsof MTBE, as of June 2001.

Regular gasoline may contain up to 15 per-cent by volume of MTBE. Higher percentagesare typically found in premium grades and re-formulated gasoline. MTBE can enter watersupplies through gasoline spills, storage tankleaks, or discharges from two-cycle engines.MTBE also can enter the atmosphere from air-borne emissions from vehicles. It can travelthrough groundwater faster than other compo-nents of gasoline, and its chemical compositiondoes not readily degrade.

Public water supply systems are routinelytested for MTBE contamination. Private wellsare rarely tested. MTBE has a turpentine-likeodor and unpleasant taste, both of which aredetectable at quantities less than that consid-ered harmful. MTBE use has been reduced sig-nificantly recently, with plans in progress to fur-ther curtail its use. Benzene, a component ofall gasoline, is a more serious health risk than

MTBE. It is a known cancer-causing agent atlevels much lower than the likely exposure toMTBE.

Source:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, on-line at www.dnr.state.mo.us/mtbe/cntwlmap.htm and www.dnr.state.mo.us/mtbe/homemtbe.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), 2004, on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/cclfs.html and www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/cclfs.html#table1 andwww.epa.gov/safewater/mtbe.html

Alluvial GroundwaterPollution in St. Charles County

Problem:

The alluvial groundwater in parts of St.Charles County has petroleum contamination.Due to the characteristics of the alluvial depos-its, other types of contamination may make itinto the shallow groundwater or contaminationalready in the groundwater may come to thesurface during a flood and pollute the surfacewater.

Discussion:

People living on the floodplain between theMississippi and Missouri rivers near West Alton,Missouri have historically used the shallow al-luvial groundwater. In fact, the water table canbe within several meters of the surface, and thesupply is quite abundant. However, this prox-imity to the surface means that there is less fil-tration of the water as it seeps through the soiland unconsolidated sands and gravel of theriver’s alluvium, thereby creating the potentialfor easy pollution.

In the vicinity of West Alton, St. CharlesCounty, there is an underground petroleum pipe-line system that was reported to have a leak in

Water Use Problems


30

the late 60s or early 70s. During the summer of2002, a citizen noticed a petroleum-based odor.This was reported to the department and in-vestigated. Preliminary results showed highconcentration of contamination in certain soilhorizons. Some of the water wells that weresampled also contained Methyl Tertiary ButylEther (MTBE) and benzene, which are typicallyassociated with petroleum products. Furthertesting in the pipeline trench detected exten-sive contamination. Four inches of petroleumwas found in one temporary monitoring welland 30 inches in another.

The company responsible for the pipelinehas been cooperative and is cleaning up the leak.Although the responsible party is willing to sup-ply bottled water to the local citizens effectedby the petroleum contamination, some of thesurrounding citizens (not immediately effected)want to retain their own water supplies. WestAlton’s residents have their own private watersupply and private sewage treatment system(septic tanks). These water wells are “sand point”wells. They are easy to construct because theunconsolidated material is sand and gravel allu-vial deposits and the water table is close to thesurface. All that is needed to get water is topound or push a 2-inch pipe, with a drive pointon the bottom, into the ground to a certaindepth. A screened interval just above the drivepoint lets in the water and it is pumped to thesurface. Although, this type of well may pro-duce adequate water quantity for private usepurposes, it does not provide any protection fromsurface-derived contamination, and therefore,any future potential contamination events (pipe-line leaks, tanker truck accidents, septic tankeffluent, etc.) have a high probability of causinga pollution problem similar to the one currentlybeing addressed.

In addition, since this area is in the floodplain between two large rivers, when floods oc-cur, septic tank effluent and petroleum prod-ucts that are lighter than water and have fil-tered into the ground, will be forced to the sur-face due to rise of the groundwater table. In-creased development of this area will only in-crease the potential of future pollution incidentseffecting citizens. It is important to note thatthe location of the sand point water well be uphill and, as far away from the land owner’s sep-

tic tank and field as the property will allow. Itis also important to be aware of the neighbor’sseptic field. Contamination of a private waterwell from a nearby septic tank is all too pos-sible.

Sources:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources,2002, Department Hosts PublicAvailability Session and Meeting onSept. 25 for West Alton, News ReleaseNo. 095, September 16, 2002.

Freshwater-SalinewaterInterface near St. Louis,Missouri

Problem:

The groundwater in the Eastern MissouriRegion is not potable in certain areas due tonaturally occurring high salinity.

Discussion:

Groundwater is water beneath the earth’ssurface within a zone of saturation.

Water supplies in the St. Louis area areavailable from surface sources such as streamsand rivers, and underground sources such asbedrock and alluvial (unconsolidated materialsdeposited by streams and rivers such as sandand gravel) aquifers that underlie the region.Aquifers are layers of rock and other geologicmaterials capable of transmitting and storingusable quantities of water. The bedrock aqui-fers in this region are primarily comprised ofdolomite and limestone.

The principal factors affecting groundwa-ter quality in the area involve the complex in-terrelations imposed by the lithology (type ofrock) of the rock units; the permeability of therock units; the controls on water movementexerted by the geologic structure; the length oftime water has been in the aquifer and the dis-tance it has moved from the recharge area; and

31

the degree of flushing of entrapped saline wa-ter (connate water) from the rock units. Con-nate water is the ancient water that was includedwithin the sediments as they were being depos-ited. These sediments later became the rocks(dolomite and limestone) that underlie this re-gion today.

The quality of groundwater in the area var-ies greatly, ranging from 122 mg/l dissolved sol-ids to 17,500 mg/l dissolved solids. As a gen-eral rule, 500 mg/l dissolved solids is the upperlimit for a public water supply. For comparisonpurposes, seawater on average has 34,000 mg/l dissolved solids.

Water from the alluvial deposits generallyis a very hard calcium-magnesium-bicarbonatetype with iron and manganese content com-monly high. Saline water has moved upwardfrom the underlying bedrock into the alluvialaquifers at Valley Park and Times Beach (nowRoute 66 State Park) in the Meramec River val-ley and in the Mississippi River valley north ofSt. Peters. This upward leakage may be a natu-ral occurrence, but part of it is probably throughboreholes of improperly constructed old wellsor the casing has deteriorated in these old wells.Improperly abandoned deep wells could also becontributing to this problem. Where head pres-sure differences permit, some water is undoubt-edly moving from the shallow aquifers intodeeper ones through these wells (Miller et al.,1974).

The usability of the groundwater containedin bedrock is related to its geographic locationand depth beneath the land’s surface. The wa-ter contained in all bedrock aquifers in theNortheast part of the region is non-potable.Proceeding to the southwest, across the region,the top of the non-potable groundwater aquiferbecomes deeper, with a potable groundwaterzone lying above the non-potable aquifer. Theexception is the area around Eureka, which hasnon-potable groundwater in all bedrock aqui-fers. The reason for this natural occurrence isunder study and may be related to the geologicstructure and type of rock underlying that area.

Sources:Miller, Don, et.al., 1974, Water Resources Re-

port Number 30, Water Resources of

the St. Louis Area, Missouri GeologicalSurvey and Water Resources, 114 p.

Miller, Don, and Vandike, James E., 1997, WaterResources Report Number 46, Groundwa-ter Resources of Missouri, MissouriState Water Plan Series Volume II, MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources, Divisionof Geology and Land Survey, 210 p.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources,2002, Water Resources Report Number 60,Topics In Water Use: Central Mis-souri, Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Geological Survey and ResourceAssessment Division, 60 p.

Recreational Water Use

Designated Uses of WaterBodies

Problem:

Most of the rivers and streams in the Mis-sissippi River Basin fail to fully support all oftheir “designated uses” due primarily to healthand safety concerns, and contaminated runoff.

Discussion:

The Mississippi River is one of the world’smajor river systems in size, habitat diversity, andbiological productivity. It is the largest and sec-ond longest river in North America, flowing3,705 kilometers from its source at Lake Itascain the Minnesota North Woods, through themidcontinental United States, the Gulf of MexicoCoastal Plain, and its subtropical Louisiana Delta.Commercially, the Mississippi is one of theworld’s most important and intensively regulatedrivers; the term ‘regulated’ applies to rivers thatare impounded and leveed. The river is navi-gable by ocean vessels upstream as far as Ba-ton Rouge, Louisiana, and by commercial craftwith a 9-foot (2.7-meters) draft as far as Minne-apolis (USGS, 2003).

Water Use Problems


32

“Designated uses” are water body uses asdetermined by the state agency that adminis-ters the Clean Water Act. Every water body inthe state must have at least one designated use,per the USEPA, based on water quality stan-dards. The Missouri Clean Water Commission(CWC) designated both the Missouri and theMississippi rivers with the following beneficialuses of water: irrigation, livestock and wildlifewatering, protection of warm water aquatic lifeand human health-fish consumption, boatingand canoeing, drinking water supply, industrialprocess water and industrial cooling water. Inaddition, part of the Mississippi River was des-ignated for whole body contact (Clean WaterCommission, 2003).

There has been a significant increase inrecreational boating and angling activity on theLower Missouri and Mississippi rivers. This isdue in part to increased awareness of the possi-bilities due to new boat ramps and publicitystemming from commemoration of the Lewisand Clark Expedition. Boaters frequently gatheron the natural sandbars and islands that formalong the rivers. Above the Melvin Price Lockand Dam, at Pool 26, there are marinas at Alton,Ill., and Portage des Sioux, Mo. Many recre-ational uses occur in this area. The MissouriRiver is too swift for swimming, however, somesmall craft can be used here and Washington,Missouri has a marina. Recreational craft on thelower Missouri River range in size from kayaksto large speedboats (MSWP IATF, 2003). Therecould be problems because there is not currently(2003) the capacity to absorb the increased tour-ism. The Meramec River is a favored canoeingriver.

Sources:

Clean Water Commission, 2003, available atwww.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c20-7b.pdf

Missouri State Water Plan, Inter Agency TaskForce (MSWP IATF), public meeting 24Sept. 2003.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2003,available at www.biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ms137.htm

Bilge Water and BargeCleaning Operations CanPollute Waterways

Problem:

Release of bilge or ballast water and theimproper cleaning and maintenance of bargesand tows can cause pollutants to enter Missouri’swaterways. This can have a detrimental impacton human health and the environment and isalso contrary to the terms of the Clean WaterAct, Missouri Water Quality Standards, and otherenvironmental and water laws.

Discussion:

In 1997, a St. Louis-based shipyard and fourof its employees pled guilty to pumping bilgewater and dumping petroleum wastes into theMeramec River. The USEPA and Missouri De-partment of Natural Resources jointly investi-gated the case (USEPA, 2003).

St. Louis is a major inland port and water-borne navigation center for the Mississippi andMissouri rivers. The Port of St. Louis handlesapproximately 33 million tons of commoditiesannually. It is the largest port in the region, thesecond busiest inland port in the country, andthe 23rd largest overall in the nation based ontonnage. Around eighty percent of the cargohandled includes petroleum, chemicals, grain andcoal. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, recordsindicate that over 4.3 million tons of petroleumand petroleum products, and over 1.2 milliontons of chemicals and related products werehandled at the Port of St. Louis in the year 2000.These figures do not include tonnage that justmoved through the port in transit to other des-tinations (USACE, 2003). The Port of St. Louishas over 130 piers, wharves and docks and morethan 50 fleeting areas, including special areasfor services that include barge cleaning and ves-sel repair. Looking only at these numbers, onequickly realizes that there is substantial poten-tial for a contaminant release in the St. Louisarea that is related to commercial navigation.

The bilge is the lowest internal part of theouter hull of a vessel. Bilge water is water and

33

Water Use Problems

other fluids that seep or leak into the bilge, col-lecting there, and becoming stagnant, dirty andcontaminated. There is no intention on the partof the vessel operator to increase the volume ofbilge water, but rather to prevent the bilge wa-ter from escaping the ship and entering theenvironment. Bilge water is significantly differ-ent than ballast water. Ballast water is waterthat is intentionally pumped into and out ofspecially designed holding tanks on a vessel toimprove its stability and control its draft. Bal-last water, typically taken directly from thewaterbody that the vessel is floating in at thetime, can ultimately be transported hundreds,or even thousands of miles to a new locationbefore being released into a different environ-ment.

Contaminated bilge and ballast water and,improper barge and tow cleaning can cause bioliquids and solids, petroleum, chemicals, trash,and exotic species to be released into water-ways. Substances that are categorized as cor-rosive, flammable, reactive or toxic are classi-fied as hazardous wastes under federal laws. Arelease can be intentional and occur when asubstance is knowingly released directly into thewaterway. It can result from unintentional mis-handling, when it is not properly managed andcontained during cleaning process, or as runofffrom inadequately protected and maintainedcleaning sites. Contamination from mishandlingcan occur when bilge water that is evacuatedfrom the ship to shore is not placed in propercontainment. Contamination can be short-termacute point source or long-term chronic non-point source and it can flow either directly intothe waterway or as accumulated leachate froma shore area.

Overseen by the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency and the Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources, Section 312 of the federalClean Water Act (CWA) helps protect humanhealth and the aquatic environment from haz-ardous compounds and disease-causing micro-organisms that can be present in discharges fromvessels. The CWA provides for laws, regula-tions, monitoring, enforcement and penaltiesthat are incentives to keep people from pollut-ing and penalizes them when they do. The dis-charge of constituents from vessels can intro-

duce, into waterways, disease-causing pathogensthat pose a public health concern. It can alsoadversely affect the recreational use of thosewaterbodies. The discharge of chemical com-pounds such as oil and gasoline in bilge water,as well as the by-products from their decompo-sition, can poison plants, fish and wildlife. Thedischarge of foreign ballast water can also in-troduce hazardous substances and harmful ex-otic species into native waters (USEPA, 2003).It is surmised that at least two exotic species,the zebra mussel and the round goby, were trans-ported to this country in ballast water, and re-leased into the environment when the water waspumped out of the ship.

In addition to the CWA, other federal andstate laws and regulations protect waterways byestablishing a comprehensive framework forenvironmental protection. These laws include:the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), the Federal WaterPollution Control Act (FWPCA), the PollutionPrevention Act (PPA), the Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Compre-hensive Environmental Response, Compensa-tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Toxic Sub-stance Control Act (TSCA), the Federal FacilityCompliance Act (FFCA), and the Revised Stat-utes of Missouri Chapters 260, 319 and 644.

Developed jointly by the USEPA and theU.S. Department of Defense (USDOD), Section325 of the 1996 National Defense Authoriza-tion Act – Uniform National Discharge Stan-dards (UNDS) addresses liquid discharges fromArmed Forces vessels. From time to time, mili-tary vessels discharge toxic or hazardous sub-stances. The UNDS helps to ensure that whendischarges occur, it is in a manner that is asenvironmentally benign as possible.

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), in additionto USEPA, USACE, USDOD and the departmentmonitor vessels and enforce regulations for ves-sels transporting oil, noxious liquids, garbage,waste and ballast water on our nation’s navi-gable waters. The USCG’s main area of em-phasis is in making sure that these substancesare transported properly, and that each com-mercial vessel transporting these substances hasan approved vessel response plan (VRP) shoulda mishap or spill occur.


34

Sources:

United States Army, Corps of Engineers(USACE), Waterborne Commerce ofthe United States, part 2 ,www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/pdf/wcusmvgc00.pdf, January 30, 2003.

United States Coast Guard, www.uscg.mil/d14/units/msohono/references/cfrs/sub%20o/part%20159.htm, and www.uscg.mil/vrp/faq/planreq.shtml, January 30, 2003.

United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA): Headquarters; Office of Water;and Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Wa-tersheds, www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/lets_help/foghorn.html#Debris, andyosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/c042dad347b5c47a852564d10070006f?OpenDocument, January 30, 2003.

Industrial Water Use

Missouri River

Problem:

Competition with interstate interests forMissouri River water may reduce Missouri’s fu-ture beneficial uses of the Missouri River.

Background:

The Missouri River main stem reservoirsystem (System) is the largest in the UnitedStates. The storage capacity of the MissouriRiver main stem reservoirs is over 73 millionacre-feet (MAF) (USACE, 1979). In contrast,Harry S Truman Reservoir has a capacity ofapproximately 5 MAF (USACE, 1981). The Sys-tem was designed to provide flood control, wa-ter supply, power generation, navigation, waterquality, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhance-ments. The System is managed and operatedby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water

released from the lowest Missouri River reser-voir, at Gavins Point Dam, accounts for a sig-nificant proportion of the river’s water flowingto its confluence with the Mississippi River.

Missouri River water is used by Missouri-ans in several ways. Intakes in the river drawwater for both public drinking water suppliesand for cooling use in power plants. In addi-tion, barges navigate the river, moving agricul-tural commodities, such as grain and fertilizer,and construction materials, such as asphalt, andcement, up and down the river. Water provideshabitat for fish and wildlife, and for river-basedrecreation. Water from the Missouri River alsobenefits Missourians as it continues down theMississippi River by supporting instream flow,Mississippi River navigation, and a myriad ofuses.

Since the System was completed in theearly 1960s, the reservoirs have remained atrelatively constant levels, refilled by runoff fromthe annual mountain snowmelt. In the late1980s, the System experienced its first substan-tial drought that lasted for 5 years. In 1988, thefirst year of the drought, runoff was only aboutone half of normal. When this occurred, up-stream states saw reservoir levels begin to de-cline into the large carryover multiple use pool(storage designed to provide water for down-stream use during prolonged drought). Theybecame extremely concerned about possibleimpacts to a reservoir recreation industry thathad developed and the stocked, cold-water fishthat drives that industry. To address these con-cerns, the USACE entered into a revision pro-cess of the Master Water Control Manual (Mas-ter Manual), the document that provides therules for operation of the System. ChangingMissouri River reservoir operations for endan-gered species is also part of the Missouri RiverMaster Manual revision process.

After 14 years, the USACE is likely near-ing the end of their review and update of theMissouri River Master Manual. Almost everyplan studied by the USACE provides less usablewater to the state of Missouri. A Preferred Planwill likely be selected by the USACE in the nearfuture.

Another related issue is water depletion andout-of-basin diversion or transfer of water. Theupper Missouri River basin lies in the western

35

Water Use Problems

United States where water demand often out-paces water availability and it is treated as acommodity that is bought and sold. Water deple-tion is water that is consumed or lost due tosome activity and is no longer available for use(figure 11). Currently, the U.S. Bureau of Recla-mation estimates that there are approximately13.7 Million acre-feet of depletions occurringannually within the basin. This amounts toapproximately 22 percent of the annual aver-age volume that flows past Hermann, Missouri(1958-2002). Out-of-basin transfer of waterphysically removes water from the basin whereit originated for use in a different river basin.For example, in North Dakota the Garrison Di-version Project will transfer water from the Mis-souri River basin into the Red River of the Norththat drains into Canada’s Hudson Bay. Thisproject has massive pumps capable of pumpingapproximately 1 million acre-feet of water peryear (enough water to supply a city of approxi-

mately 2 million people) from the USACE lakebehind Garrison Dam (Garrison Diversion, 2000).Tribal water rights could influence future wateravailability in the Missouri River. The Mni SoseIntertribal Water Rights Coalition, an organiza-tion representing many of the basins 28 Tribeson water issues, have estimated tribal waterrights at over 21 MAF, of which approximately11 MAF could be depleted (presented in a draftdocument submitted to the Missouri River Ba-sin Association). Out-of-basin diversions anddepletions mean less water flowing downstream,thereby decreasing the amount available for useby Missouri.

Although the USACE’s decision will likelybe made in the near future, water managementof the Missouri River main stem system andupstream out-of-basin transfers of water willcontinue to be a potential problem and impor-tant issue for Missouri.

Missouri River BasinDepletion Data used by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Year

Current depletionestimate 13.7 MAF/yr

Figure 11. Depletions of Missouri River water.


36

Sources:

Garrison Diversion, 2000, website:www.garrisondiv.org/complete.htm

United States Army Corps of Engineers,(USACE), 1979, Missouri River MainStem Reservoir System ReservoirRegulation Manual –Master Manual,Omaha, Nebraska.

United States Army Corps of Engineers,(USACE), 1981, Lake RegulationManual – Harry S. Truman Reservoir,Kansas City, Missouri.

United States Army Corps of Engineers,(USACE), 2001, Revised Draft Environ-mental Impact Statement: MasterWater Control Manual-MissouriRiver, Omaha, Nebraska.

United States Army Corps of Engineers,(USACE), 2003, Missouri RiverMainstem System 2002-2003 AnnualOperating Plan, Omaha, Nebraska.

Environmental Water Use

Combined Sewer Systems

Problem:

The St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District(MSD) mixes sanitary sewage and stormwaterrunoff in combined sewer systems (CSSs). Dur-ing heavy rains, the large volume of runoff over-whelms the system, and flushes untreated sew-age into surface waters, thereby polluting thosewaters. The economic costs to rehabilitate sewersystems are large. In addition, CSSs increaseoperational costs for wastewater treatment fa-cilities (WWTF).

Discussion:

Before clean water regulations, municipali-ties sometimes sent untreated sewage directly

into receiving bodies of water. Thus, it was con-venient to design systems that combined thesanitary sewage and the stormwater runoff(known as a combined sewer system, CSS) sincethey were directed to the same place. Passageof the Clean Water Act (CWA) mandated thatall sanitary sewage be treated before being re-leased into the environment, and that stoppedconstruction of CSSs.

Since passage of the CWA, all of the flowsin a CSS have been redirected to a WWTF fortreatment. This extra volume of water causeshigher treatment plant operational costs thanif the stormwater did not come to the facility.This is especially true considering that the firstpart of stormwater runoff has a lot of extra pol-lutants carried with it, such as litter, waste oil,lawn fertilizer, etc. When there is excessive flowcaused by a rainstorm or snowmelt (sometimesthere is over 10 times the amount of water flow-ing in the system due to a storm than duringnormal flows), it can exceed the capacity of thetreatment facility and/or the CSS. This excessflow is then directed to surface waters withouttreatment, (termed a combined sewer overflow,CSO). This overflow of untreated sanitary sew-age is a pollution discharge (violating the CWA),and can cause health and environmental prob-lems.

Municipalities are in the process of imple-menting a CSO Control Plan initiated by USEPA.They must characterize their CSOs (i.e. fre-quency, flow, pollution levels, etc.) and start us-ing minimum technology-based controls to mini-mize the impact of these on the environment.Finally, they must develop a long-term controlplan (LTCP) which should ensure that all theirdischarges comply with the CWA. There arethree basic LTCP abatement options: eliminatethe overflow by separating stormwater and sani-tary sewage, provide treatment of the overflow,or maintain and monitor the overflow to ensurethat what comes out is sufficiently diluted as tonot pollute significantly (USEPA, 2001). Thelatter could eventually become a problem asminimum contaminant levels are lowered; thus,what was once acceptable may no longer be so.

The only known CSOs that exist in east-ern Missouri are in the St. Louis Metropolitanregion. St. Louis has approximately 208 theyknow of, and are still finding ones they didn’t

37

Water Use Problems

know about. Their main effort has been focusedon keeping the system free of blockages throughregular inspections, and installing equipmentthat properly directs the flow. A big obstacle tothis is finding the money for the abatementmeasures. For example, the city of CapeGirardeau spent $23 million and 5 years reha-bilitating their CSOs (Cook, 2001), and that sys-tem was but a fraction the size of the St. Louissystem. There is also the question of the outfallsthat they don’t know about, and it has been dif-ficult to locate them all.

Sources:

Cook, Steve, Environmental Services Coordina-tor, City of Cape Girardeau. Personal com-munication, May 2001.

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

Section 303(d) List andTMDL’s

Problem:

Within the region are a number of streamsand lakes that have been identified as pollutedas a direct result of human activities. The pol-lutants include lead, ammonia, chlordane, zinc,nonvolatile suspended solids, and excessive sedi-ment. Two rivers are also listed due to habitatloss, which is considered as a “condition” byUSEPA and the department. These pollutantsand conditions affect the usability of the water,adversely impact aquatic life, and can be costlyto clean up.

Discussion:

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the corner-stone of surface water quality protection in theUnited States. While the CWA does not dealdirectly with groundwater nor with water quan-tity issues, it does employ a variety of regula-

tory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reducedirect pollutant discharges into waterways, fi-nance municipal wastewater treatment facilities,and manage polluted runoff. These tools areemployed to achieve the broader goal of restor-ing and maintaining the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the nation’s waters. Ini-tially, states’ enforcement of the CWA focusedmainly on the chemical aspects of the “integ-rity” goal. However, during the last decade, moreeffort has been given to physical and biologicalintegrity. In the early decades of the Act’s imple-mentation, efforts were also focused on regulat-ing discharges from traditional “point source”facilities, such as municipal sewage treatmentplants and industrial facilities, with less effortgiven to non-point sources (runoff from streets,construction sites, farms, and other “wet-weather” sources) (USEPA, 2003).

Starting in the late 1980s, efforts to addresspolluted runoff have increased significantly, pri-marily through voluntary programs, includingcost sharing with landowners who must man-age runoff. There has been a shift from a pol-lutant-by-pollutant and source-by-source ap-proach to holistic watershed-based strategies(USEPA, 2003).

The Section 303(d) List, mandated as partof the federal Clean Water Act, is a compilationof waterbodies that do not meet Missouri’s wa-ter quality standards. The Missouri Section303(d) List identifies the stream, river or lake,the county, the number of miles or acres im-pacted, the specific pollutant(s) or condition(s),the source of the pollutants, priority, and reme-diation schedule. TMDL’s (total maximum dailyloads) is the measure of the amount of a spe-cific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilateand still meet minimum water quality standards.The TMDL program and Section 303(d) list alsoprovides a framework for cleaning up impairedwaters (Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, 2003).

Two lakes and six streams and rivers in theregion have been placed on the 1998 Section303(d) List as impaired waterbodies (at the timeof writing the 2002 list had not been finalized).These waterbodies include: Creve Coeur Lakeand Lake St. Louis, Big River, Rock Creek, Sa-line Creek, Indian Camp Creek, and the Mis-souri and Mississippi rivers. The sources for the


38

pollutants and the conditions include urban non-point source runoff, channelization, lead minetailings, and point source runoff (Missouri De-partment of Natural Resources, 2003).

Several of the pollutants and sites can belabeled near-term, in that changes in manage-ment, operations or engineered solutions couldaddress them almost immediately, such as up-grading sewage treatment plants. Others mightbe considered intermediate-term. These wouldrequire all the improvements specified for nearterm but would require it for a longer time andgreater extent, such as clean up of a closed land-fill. The remainder could be called extended-term. These would require an extensive long-term social, economic and environmental com-mitment, and include old lead mining tailings,channelized rivers and non-point urban runoff.

Cost and commitment to the community,city, business and industry, and the public, inboth amount of dollars and duration of effort,to adequately address the near-term, interme-diate-term and extended-term issues associatedwith these 303(d) sites could vary considerably.Commitment is important because sometimesprojects get started but there is not sufficientcommitment (money and effort) to finish them.What ultimately occurs is the pollution prob-lem is not fully taken care of, but a lot of moneyand resources have gone into it. Upgrading awaste-water treatment plant is costly, but ismuch less costly than un-doing riverchannelization, creating wetlands in suburbanareas, and removing heavy metals from miles ofriver water and sediment. The human healthimpacts could very well be even more costly fornot committing adequate funds and efforts thanfor doing it. Many times, these long-term soci-etal health costs are not incorporated when talk-ing about how much it costs to continue pollut-ing versus cleaning it up and taking the neces-sary steps to prevent future pollution.

There is concern for two other streams, thePeruque and the Dardenne. While these arenot currently on the Section 303(d) list, withoutpreventive action they could be listed in the fu-ture. Besides the environmental and humanbenefits from keeping these two streams off the303(d) list there is economic motivation.

It is less costly, economically, to preventenvironmental pollution than to let it occur andthen invest the funds to clean it up after thefact. Besides the concern for human healthimpacts, there are aesthetic impacts, recreationalboating considerations, direct impacts on fishand other wildlife as well as the aquatic andadjoining terrestrial habitat concerns. To eachof these pollution concerns there are detrimen-tal economic, social and environmental impacts.

Sources:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources,January 21, 2003, www.dnr.state.mo.us/wpscd/wpcp/wpc-tmdl.htm

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Ser-vices, January 30, 2003, Health Depart-ment Advises Missourians on FishSafety , www.health.state.mo.us/NewsReleases/02FishAdvisory.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), February 13, 2003, Introductionto the Clean Water Act, www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa

Stormwater Infrastructure

Problem:

Many cities in the region are struggling tofind cost-effective approaches to manage andupgrade their storm water infrastructure. AfterMarch 2003, cities have to meet the minimumcontrol measures required by National Pollut-ant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Phase II Storm Water Rule. With no federalmonies allocated to help cities to comply, thecost of achieving compliance will be steep. Theconsequences of noncompliance and the impactof the NPDES Phase II Storm Water Rule willbe far reaching.

39

Discussion:

Many cities have grown exponentially inthe last two decades, which has led to moreimpervious surfaces and greater amounts ofstorm water runoff. Unfortunately, the old creekscouldn’t keep up with it, and some of the olderhomes in the older parts of town felt the bruntof the expansion by the erosion in their creeks.Unless it is raining, stormwater management isnot as visible of a priority to communities asthe construction and repair of streets and roads,or the enhancement of police and fire protec-tion. As a result, stormwater systems in the cityjurisdictions are many times old and in need ofrepair. Additionally, rapid development in manyareas has increased runoff problems and causedexisting systems to be inadequate. To makematters worse, local flooding problems can bechronic when affected by runoff from adjacentcities and towns.

The USEPA has passed the National Pol-lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Phase II Stormwater regulations to improvewater quality by reducing non-point source pol-lution carried by stormwater. Many cities in theregion fall under the NPDES Phase IIStormwater requirements. These cities are fac-ing difficulties in approaching the minimumcontrol measures required by the NPDES PhaseII Stormwater rule. It requires permits for con-struction activities disturbing one or more acresof land area. Phase II also requires regulatedsmall local governments systems, called munici-pal separate storm sewer systems or MS4s, bepermitted and implement comprehensive stormwater management programs. The Phase II ruleis an extension of NPDES Phase I Stormwaterrule. The Phase I rule was issued in 1990 andcovered medium and large municipal separatestorm sewer systems and construction activi-ties disturbing more than 5 acres (USEPA 2002).

Phase II stormwater permit applicationsmust address six minimum control measures:public education and outreach, public involve-ment and participation, illicit discharge detec-tion and elimination, runoff from constructionsites, runoff from new development and rede-velopment, and pollution prevention duringmunicipal operations.

The USEPA is consciously attempting tomake the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Regula-tions accomplish its statutory objectives in theleast burdensome and most cost-effective fash-ion. It is estimated that for a city of 50,000people, it will cost between $70,000 and$390,000 to achieve compliance (Reese, 2002).Under Phase II, each regulated community willneed to develop a set of Best Management Prac-tices (BMPs) under each of six specific programminimums. These BMPs can be any combina-tion of programs, structures and other controlsthat, in the agreed opinion of the permit writerand the regulated community, meet the stan-dard of reducing pollution discharge to watersof the state to the Maximum Extent Practicable(MEP). In this process, permittees and permitwriters would evaluate the proposed stormwatermanagement controls to determine whether re-duction of pollutants to the MEP could beachieved with the identified BMPs (Reese, 2002).

Sources:

United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), 2002, Phase II NPDES Storm Wa-ter Program, available at cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphase2.cfm

Reese, Andrew J., 2002, NPDES Phase II CostEstimates, Ogden Environmental andEnergy Services, Inc., 3800 Ezell Rd., Suite100, Nashville, TN.

Water Use Problems


40

41

Water Use Opportunities and Regional Observations

6.

New RecreationalOpportunities for Lakes

Entities that manage a lake, or that are in-tending on building a lake, could create a nichemarket by prohibiting motor craft on the lake.They could have a swimming area at one endand non-motorized boating in others. Therewould be added benefits if it were a water sup-ply lake, for the water quality could be increasedby not having the petroleum-related productsin the water. For example, Quabbin Reservoirin Massachusetts is used for non-motorized craftand water supply only. There are still numer-ous opportunities throughout the region forpeople with motorized craft to recreate on arealakes.

There are many small lakes in the east-ern Missouri region that provide recreationalopportunities. However, many people dislikerecreating there because motorized craft (mo-torboats, jet skis, etc.) can be used on them.These people like to canoe, swim, fish, sail, orbird watch, among other quiet activities, awayfrom the disruption that motorized watercraftcause. Some people feel safer when there arenot fast motor boats zipping by them, and aremore comfortable swimming in water that doesnot smell like gasoline and combustion by-prod-ucts. Large portions of the boundary waters areain northern Minnesota are an example of a verypopular water recreation area whose draw, inpart, is having areas without motor craft; largenumbers of people go there to fish and boat,infusing the local economy with money.

Opportunities for ImprovedFloodplain Management

A “floodplain” is the lowland adjacent to ariver that gets flooded when the river rises aboveits banks. The largest and most notable flood-plain in the eastern Missouri Region is the Mis-souri River floodplain in St. Louis, St. Charles,Franklin, and Warren counties. Floodplains aredesignated by the frequency of the flood that islarge enough to cover them. For example, the10-year floodplain will be covered by the 10-year flood and the 100-year floodplain by the100-year flood. Another way of expressing theflood frequency is the chance of occurrence in agiven year, which is the percentage of the prob-ability of flooding each year. For example, the100-year flood has a 1 percent chance of occur-ring in any given year (FMA, 2003).

While dams, levees, channels and other pro-tective works provide some measure of protec-tion against some specific level of flooding, thevery nature of flooding often shows this to be afalse sense of security. Levee failures are usu-ally due to a flow greater than their design flow,poor maintenance, erosion and undercutting ofthe levee by high flow, or a combination of thesefactors (FMA, 2003). When the levee breaks,the area it was protecting gets flooded.

While there is a wide range of measuresthat can be used to protect against flooding prob-ably the smartest is to do the obvious: followfloodplain management recommendations –don’t develop and build in the floodplain andflood prone areas in ways that are inconsistent

Water Use Opportunities and RegionalObservations


42

with potential future flooding (FMA, 2003). Com-mon sense says that the use function of the landshould be compatible with the location. Wiseproperty management says you don’t use thefloodplain for incompatible purposes (Gaffney,2003). Areas that are prone to flooding can beused for agricultural purposes, forested or openareas, wetlands, hunting preserves, parks, ballfields, or other compatible purposes. Compat-ible uses not only protect property but protectthe water as well. When a paint factory, a drycleaner or a sewer plant, for example, is built ina floodplain and a flood occurs, the floodwaterhas the potential to become contaminated byeverything that it washes away. This in-turncan cause water pollution problems downstreamand, after the flood has subsided, land and soilcontamination.

There are very real negative aspects asso-ciated with non-compatible flood plain devel-opment. These negative aspects include agreater chance of loss of personal property dueto floodwaters, increased pollution of water andland, valuable agricultural land taken out of pro-

duction, added cost to replace damaged infra-structure-roads, sidewalks, pipelines after flood-ing has passed, and, most important, a greaterchance for the loss of human life. This last pointnot only includes those who drive through flood-water, those who refuse to leave, and those whogo back into a flooded area and get themselvesstranded, but also the emergency responderswho have to put their lives on the line to rescuea person.

Sources:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, March26, 2003, Floodplain Management,www.fema.gov/fima/floodplain.shtm

Floodplain Management Association (FMA),March 26, 2003, Floodplain Management:www.floodplain.org/flood_basics.htm

Gaffney, Richard M., Water Resources ReportNumber 54, Flood Report Analysis,Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Geology andLand Survey, 1996.

Gaffney, Richard M.,Planner, GeologicalSurvey and Re-source AssessmentDivision, MissouriDepartment ofNatural Resources,personal communi-cation, March 31,2003.

Figure 12. St. Louis Countyswamped after levee break.

43

Alternative WastewaterSystems

In many rural settings, residences useseptic systems to take care of their wastewater.These are time-tested systems, and their mass-production is refined. However, they do not workadequately in all scenarios. If the local soil con-ditions are poor, wastewater may not be ad-equately treated, and it may leak pollution toeither surface or groundwater. Space can alsobe a limiting factor in choosing such a system.In addition, the wastewater is not used, it is only‘discarded’.

Some residences separate greywater fromblackwater (the former does not include waste-water from a toilet). Blackwater can either betreated more intensely to take care of patho-gens, or not created in the first place. If oneuses current composting toilet technology, noblackwater is created, and no pathogenic pollu-tion is emitted to the environment since patho-gens are killed in the composting process. Thereare many models of composting toilets sold onthe market, in addition to the owner-built ones.Blackwater can also be put into a lagoon sys-tem for treatment (something that is commonlydone, and therefore the technology is refined).

In greywater systems, the water is usu-ally run through a filter, then stored temporarily,used, or released to the environment. If one iscareful about what they put down the drain, thegreywater can be used for irrigation (eitherthrough a leach field or sub-surface drip irriga-tion) or for flushing a toilet. This concept is some-times called water recycling since the water isused twice. The Uniform Plumbing Code evenhas an appendix for greywater systems’ designand installation. Using greywater also cuts backon using higher quality freshwater (see topic,Water Wastage), and plants thrive on the addednutrients when the system is operated properlyin the right context. Greywater can be put intoa septic system, knowing that it is pathogen-free, and therefore will not contaminate localwater bodies; however, in this situation, the wa-ter is not put directly to any beneficial use anddoes not conserve freshwater.

Low Impact Development

Urban development can cause numerousproblems for local waterways, such as waterquality impairment, increased flooding, andstreambank erosion. However, there are somenew approaches in designing new and redesign-ing existing development that help to minimizestormwater runoff’s impacts to the aquatic en-vironment by mimicking the pre-developmenthydrology as closely as possible.

One such approach, called low impact de-velopment (LID), is gaining momentum. LID isa real paradigm shift: instead of moving the wateraway as quickly as possible and treating thestormwater with expensive treatment options(now considered the conventional approach),LID aims to slow the water down and let theenvironment treat and infiltrate the water, asclose as possible to where precipitation falls. Ituses site-specific, lot-level stormwater manage-ment to decrease stormwater runoff impacts, byintegrating environmental aspects into all phasesof planning and construction. These lot-levelmeasures include rain barrels, swales, porouspaving and other measures that slow down thewater and help it absorb into the ground in-stead of only running off. In addition to the in-creased groundwater recharge, fewer pollutantsare added to waterways due to the filtering andbiotreating of pollutants on-site. Less down-stream erosion occurs because of the lower peakflows. There are also opportunities for increasedretention and conservation of water, therebydecreasing demands on water supply systems.Although not a panacea nor without drawbacks,LID, in concert with other approaches such asbrownfield redevelopment (see next Opportu-nity), can have positive impacts on stormwater,and water quality and quantity.

LID also has economic advantages. It costsless for both construction and maintenance ofdevelopment, in large part because of the lowinfrastructure costs. Sometimes, more lots canbe placed in a given area, thereby increasingthe profitability for the developer. Enhancedaesthetics combined with the environmentalbenefits help to improve property values whencompared with conventional development.



44

A new subdivision in Fredrick County,Maryland used LID in the entire developmentprocess. There were many measures that in-creased the profitability of the project (replac-ing curbs with grassed swales, increasing thenumber of lots from 68 to 70, etc.). Extensivemodeling helped designers determine which fea-tures to use to mimic as closely as possible thepre-development hydrology in a cost-effectivemanner (NRDC, 2001).

Sources:

Low Impact Development Center, www.lowimpact development\Low Impact Develop-ment Center - Home.htm

Natural Resource Defence Council (NRDC), 2001,Stormwater Strategies, www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/stoinx.asp

Improved BrownfieldManagement

Brownfields are former industrial and com-mercial properties, in many instances abandonedtracts of land and buildings, where redevelop-ment is complicated by real or perceived con-tamination. In many, if not most instances, themajor concern with brownfields is contaminantsor toxics found on the site polluting adjacentsurface and groundwaters. Redevelopingbrownfields means transforming those sites con-taminated with hazardous or toxic substancesinto safe, productive properties and eliminatingor minimizing water pollution concerns. Rede-velopment of brownfields transforms unproduc-tive (due to potential liability from contamina-tion) real estate into useable property, creatingjobs, allowing expansion of businesses, and en-hancing tax bases. However, prospective pur-chasers, real estate developers, and lenders areoften reluctant to acquire brownfields becauseof the inherent cleanup liability of not onlyknown contaminants but also others that maybe discovered after the property has been ac-

quired. The environmental and monetary li-ability resulting from the purchase of abrownfield can be very daunting, even thoughthe location might be otherwise desirable.

The United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency’s (USEPA) Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) Brownfields Preven-tion Initiative (BPI) encourages the reuse ofpotential RCRA brownfields so that the landbetter serves the needs of the community ei-ther through more productive commercial orresidential development or as greenspace. Itseeks to capitalize on the redevelopment of po-tential RCRA brownfields to achieve successfulcleanup and long-term sustainable reuse of thesesites. Through the brownfields programs, theUSEPA seeks to promote the reuse of industrialsites instead of development of valuable farm-land or other open “greenfields” for industrialor commercial use. The benefits of the BPI in-clude the preservation of these greenfields, thecleanup of contamination, the revitalization ofcommunities blighted by brownfields and pro-tection of existing greenspace in communities.

Socially, redevelopment of brownfields helpsto slow urban sprawl – and thereby, minimizesstormwater runoff and prevents inefficient uti-lization of water and land resources in urbanareas. Environmentally, brownfield redevelop-ment aids in preventing the spread of surfaceand groundwater pollution not only to new ar-eas by keeping industry in areas that are his-torically industrial, but also provides a mecha-nism for cleaning up existing sites or at leastcontaining the contaminants to that site. Inaddition, some stormwater runoff problems canbe avoided or minimized by using and improv-ing upon the existing stormwater infrastructure,and not causing problems over a widespread areadue to urban sprawl. Redevelopment slows theindustrial development and paving of green ar-eas where groundwater recharge takes place.Economically, the upside of brownfield redevel-opment includes utilizing a tract of land for com-mercial or industrial purposes that is alreadyzoned for commercial or industrial use and hasan existing water infrastructure. New water andwastewater infrastructure does not need to beconstructed to meet these demands.

45

Sources:

United States Environmental Protection Agency,February 25, 2003, Brownfields Cleanup:w w w . e p a . g o v / e b t p a g e s /cleabrownfields.html

Price and Non-Price WaterConservation Programs

Water conservation is not a new idea inthe United States. In fact, more than 40 statesnow have some type of water conservation pro-gram. Nationwide surveys already indicate morethan 80 percent of water utility customers sup-port some form of water conservation measures(Kranzer, 1988). Water suppliers and consumerscan choose from a wide variety of available waterconservation practices, programs, and strategiesproven capable of significantly reducing waterconsumption.

In a review of 24 residential water demandarticles, Espey (1997) found almost all estimateddemand to be price unresponsive regardless ofdemand model specification and geographic lo-cation. When demand is price unresponsive, thequantity of water demanded is not relativelysensitive to changes in price, and increases inprice to encourage water conservation result inless than proportional reductions in water de-mand. When demand is not price sensitive, in-creases in price will also result in increases inutility revenue. Although consumers respond toprice, the price increases necessary to obtainsignificant reduction in demand and associatedincreases in revenue are problematic for publicwater providers, because of the lack of publicsupport, and because of political acceptance ofincreases in rates and regulatory constraints. Wa-ter demand that is relatively unresponsive toprice and institutional and political constraintson the ability to use price incentives to reducedemand have contributed to water provider in-terest in using non-price conservation measures.

Non-price water conservation measuressuch as public information programs, distribu-

tion of retrofit devices, appliance rebates, andwater use ordinances are designed to reducewater demand by influencing consumer behav-ior and preferences. Water providers nationwideare implementing non-price conservation mea-sures as a substitute or in addition to price in-centive programs to reduce residential waterdemand. Water conservation can have majorenvironmental and economic benefits.

Reducing drinking water demand throughconservation helps improve water quality, pro-tect drinking water resources and maintainsaquatic ecosystems. The efficient use of drink-ing water can also prevent pollution by reduc-ing wastewater flows and using less energy.Water conservation can be an effective approachto reducing the adverse effects of all types andsources of non-point source pollution most com-monly associated with urban uses of water.Water conservation can lessen the need to with-draw ground or surface water supplies for mu-nicipal or industrial demands.

Water conservation measures become ex-tra important during times of drought, when alimited supply of water has more demandsplaced on it. The department has a MissouriDrought Plan that was widely used in the mostrecent drought by communities to help themdeal with decreased water supplies. In addi-tion, there is a multi-agency Drought Assess-ment Committee that meets during times ofdrought to coordinate local, state and federalplanning and response.

Sources:

Kranzer, B. S., 1988, Determinants of Resi-dential Water Conservation Behav-ior: an Investigation of Socio-Eco-nomic and Psycho-Dynamic Factors,Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois Univer-sity, Carbondale.

Espey, M., J. Espey, and W.D. Show, 1997, PriceElasticity of Residential Demand forWater: A Meta-Analysis, Water Re-sources Research 33(6):1369-1374.



46

47

7.

Comments Received

Topics in Water Use: Eastern Missouri wasreviewed at several stages of preparation. OnMarch 8, 2004, the draft report was placed onthe Department of Natural Resources’ Geologi-cal Survey and Resource Assessment Division’sinternet web page for a 30-day review and com-ment by the public. This request for public com-ment was also publicized statewide by issuing adepartmental newsrelease (Department of Natu-ral Resources NEWS Vol. 32, No. 060). The draftreport was available in electronic format at thedepartmental website or, upon request, as a pa-per-copy version.

During the comment period the public no-tice and news release were electronically ac-cessed 144 times and the draft report 24 times.There was one telephone request for a paper-

copy of the draft report. There was one newsreport interview requested by and given to a St.Louis radio station.

Two individuals submitted written com-ments on the draft report on April 7, 2004.These comments can be viewed upon requestto the Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources, Geologic Survey and Resource Assess-ment Division’s custodian of records, DeputyDirector Bill Duley. This report incorporates,as appropriately, the suggestions and recom-mendations that were received from public com-ments.

The department extends its sincere thanksto those individuals who took the time and ef-fort to review a draft of this document and es-pecially to those who provided comments.


48

Documents

TOPICS IN WATER USE: EASTERN MISSOURI - Missouri Department … · 2014. 11. 18. · Water Resources Report Number 62 TOPICS IN WATER USE: EASTERN MISSOURI Integrity and excellence