DOCSLIB.ORG

[Short Report Title]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Regional Water Plan – Panhandle Water Planning Area VOLUME I January, 2000 Prepared for the Panhandle Water Planning Group through a contract with the Panhandle Regional Water Plan Regional Planning Panhandle Water Planning Area Commission Amarillo, Texas PPC99134 Prepared by: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 4055 International Plaza Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76109 817/735-7300 The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station The Texas Agricultural Extension Service USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Bureau of Economic Geology TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Chapter No. Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-1 1.0 SENATE BILL 1 1-1 1.1 REGIONAL WATER PLANNING AREA 1-3 1.1.1 Population 1-4 1.1.2 Economic Activities 1-8 1.1.3 Climate 1-9 1.2 Major Water Providers 1-11 1.3 Sources of Water 1-12 1.3.1 Groundwater 1-12 1.3.2 Surface Water 1-20 1.4 Current Water Users and Demand Centers 1-25 1.4.1 Municipal Use 1-25 1.4.2 Industrial Use 1-26 1.4.3 Agricultural Use 1-28 1.5 Natural Resources 1-32 1.5.1 Natural Region 1-32 1.5.2 Regional Vegetation 1-34 1.5.3 Regional Geology 1-37 1.5.4 Mineral Resources 1-37 1.5.5 Soils 1-39 1.5.6 Wetlands 1-41 1.5.7 Aquatic Resources 1-42 1.5.8 Wildlife Resources 1-43 1.6 Threats and Constraints to Water Supply 1-44 1.7 Existing Programs and Goals 1-47 1.7.1 Federal Programs 1-47 1.7.2 Interstate Programs 1-48 1.7.3 State Programs 1-49 1.7.4 Local Programs 1-51 1.7.5 Other Information 1-52 2.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND FOR THE REGION 2-1 2.1 Population 2-3 2.2 Historical Water Use and Projected Water Demand 2-6 2.3 Major Water Providers 2-16 3.0 EVALUATION OF ADEQUACY OF CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES 3-1 3.1 Groundwater Supplies 3-2 3.1.1 Major Aquifers 3-5 3.1.2 Minor Aquifers 3-7 3.2 Surface Water Supplies 3-10 i TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Chapter No. Page No. 3.2.1 Lake Meredith 3-16 3.2.2 Palo Duro Reservoir 3-17 3.2.3 Greenbelt Reservoir 3-19 3.2.4 Other Potential Surface Water Sources 3-20 4.0 COMPARISON OF CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES TO DEMAND 4-1 4.1 Comparison of Demand to Currently Available Supplies 4-2 4.2 Identified Needs for the PWPA 4-8 4.3 Conclusions 4-10 5.0 IDENTIFIED REGIONAL NEEDS AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES 5-1 5.1 Regional Needs 5-1 5.2 Evaluation Procedures 5-2 5.3 Strategy Development Assumptions 5-4 5.4 Municipal Needs 5-4 5.4.1 City of Amarillo 5-5 5.4.2 Palo Duro River Authority Member Cities 5-6 5.4.3 Claude 5-10 5.4.4 Groom 5-11 5.4.5 Panhandle 5-12 5.4.6 Skellytown 5-13 5.4.7 White Deer 5-14 5.4.8 Lefors 5-14 5.4.9 McLean 5-14 5.4.10 Canadian 5-15 5.4.11 Vega 5-16 5.4.12 Canyon 5-17 5.4.13 Lake Tanglewood 5-18 5.4.14 Shamrock 5-18 5.4.15 Wheeler 5-19 5.4.16 Perryton 5-21 5.4.17 County-Other, Moore County 5-22 5.4.18 County-Other, Oldham County 5-22 5.4.19 County-Other, Potter County 5-22 5.4.20 County Other, Randall County 5-23 5.5 Manufacturing Needs 5-24 5.5.1 Moore County 5-25 5.5.2 Potter County 5-26 5.5.3 Randall County 5-26 5.6 Steam Electric Power Needs 5-27 5.6.1 Moore County 5-27 5.6.2 Potter County 5-28 5.7 Mining Needs 5-29 5.7.1 Oldham County 5-29 5.7.2 Potter County 5-30 5.8 Irrigation Needs 5-31 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Chapter No. Page No. 5.8.1 Use of the Potential Evapotranspiration Network for Scheduling Irrigation 5-35 5.8.2 Change in Crop Variety 5-36 5.8.3 Irrigation Equipment Changes 5-38 5.8.4 Change in Crop Type 5-45 5.8.5 Implementing Conservation Tillage Methods 5-53 5.8.6 Precipitation Enhancement 5-54 5.8.7 Economic Value of Transfer of Water to Deficit Counties for Irrigation Use 5-55 5.8.8 Summary of Irrigation Strategies 5-57 5.9 Livestock Needs 5-61 5.10 Water Transfers and Water Marketing Companies 5-61 5.11 Bush Control 5-61 5.12 Socioeconomic Impact of Not Meeting Needs 5-61 6.1 Regulatory, Administrative or Legislative Recommendations 6-1 6.2 Regulatory Issues 6-1 6.3 Legislative Issues 6-2 6.4 Recommendations for Future State Water 6-4 7.0 PLAN ADOPTION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 7-1 7.1 Panhandle Water Planning Group 7-1 7.1.1 Panhandle Water Planning Group Public Information and Education Commitment 7-3 7.2 Public Participation Activities 7-4 7.2.1 Special Regional Water Planning Presentations 7-4 7.2.2 Media Events and Coverage 7-5 7.2.3 Electronic Outreach 7-6 7.2.4 Formal Public Information Meetings 7-7 7.2.5 Workshops and Surveys 7-8 7.3 Panhandle Water Planning Group Functions 7-9 7.3.1 Panhandle Water Planning Group Meetings 7-9 7.3.2 Panhandle Water Planning Group Committee Activities 7-10 7.4 Plan Adoption Process 7-10 7.4.1 Public Hearing 7-10 7.4.2 Initially Prepared Plan Adoption 7-11 7.4.3 Response to Comments 7-11 7.4.4 Final Regional Water Plan Adoption 7-11 7.5 Local Participation in the Regional Water Planning Process 7-11 7.6 Conclusion 7-12 References Ref-i iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 1 Estimated Available Water Supply in Aquifers Underlying PWPA E-8 2 Water Management Strategies for Reducing Irrigation Demands E-13 1-1 Voting Membership of Panhandle Water Planning Group 1-4 1-2 PWPA Projected Population by City, County, and Rural Areas by Decade 1-6 1-3 Populated Areas included in County-Other 1-8 1-4 Economic Activities of Counties in the PWPA 1-9 1-5 Summary of Policies and Agencies Affecting Texas Water Quality 1-12 1-6 Groundwater Districts in PWPA 1-13 1-7 Estimated Groundwater Storage of the Ogallala Aquifer in the PWPA 1-17 1-8 Individual Water Rights in the PWPA: Permitted and Actual Use 1-20 1-9 Surface Water Segments in the PWPA and Associated Water Quality Issues 1-22 1-10 Water Used by CRMWA Member Cities in the PWPA during 1996 1-25 1-11 Historical and Projected Municipal Water Use for the PWPA 1-26 1-12 Historical and Projected Industrial Water Use for the PWPA 1-27 1-13 Number of Farms and Acres of Harvested Cropland in the PWPA, 1978 through 1997 1-28 1-14 Projected Irrigation Water Use for the PWPA 1-29 1-15 Estimates of Livestock Water Use in the PWPA during 1997 1-30 1-16 Projections for Livestock Water Use in the PWPA 1-31 1-17 Mineral Resource Production for Counties in the PWPA 1-37 1-18 Physical Characteristics of Playas Within the PWPA 1-42 3-1 Available Water Supply from the Ogallala Aquifer 3-6 3-2 Recharge Rage, Pumpage Rage, and Estimated Annual Availability Of the Seymour Aquifer 3-7 3-3 Recharge Rate, Pumpage Rate, and Estimated Annual Availability Of the Blaine Aquifer 3-8 3-4 Recharge Rate, Pumpage Rate, and Estimated Annual Availability Of the Dockum Aquifer 3-8 3-5 Average Pumpage and Projected Groundwater Availability in the Rita Blanca Aquifer for Counties 3-9 3-6 Projected Groundwater Availability in the Whitehorse Aquifer For Counties in the PWPA 3-10 3-7 Descriptive Information of Water Supply Reservoirs in the PWPA 3-15 3-8 Water Rights in the PWPA Greater Than 1,000 acre-feet/yr. 3-15 3-9 Water Rights in the PWPA Less Than 1,000 acre-feet/yr. 3-16 3-10 Projected Yield and Available Supply of Lake Meredith 3-18 3-11 Projected Yield and Available Supply of Palo Duro Reservoir 3-19 3-12 Projected Yield and Available Supply of Greenbelt Reservoir 3-21 3-13 Descriptive Information of Minor Reservoirs in the PWPA 3-22 3-14 Acreage and Estimated Maximum Storage of Play Lakes in the PWPA 3-25 4-1 Comparison of Supply and Demand by County 4-5 4-2 Year 2000 Needs by County and Category 4-6 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 4-3 Year 2020 Needs by County and Category 4-7 4-4 Year 2050 Needs by County and Category 4-8 4-5 Decade Need Begins by County and Category 4-9 4-6 Municipalities with Identified Need 4-10 5-1 Identified Needs in the PWPA 5-1 5-2 Undeveloped Water Rights 5-4 5-3 Distribution of water from Palo Duro Reservoir 5-6 5-4 Irrigation Needs Identified in the PWPA 5-32 5-5 Possible water management strategies for reducing irrigation demands 5-33 5-6 Irrigated acres for selected counties and crops in 1997 5-34 5-7 Annual water savings using NPPET for scheduling irrigation 5-35 5-8 Water savings by changing from long season corn to short Season corn varieties 5-37 5-9 Water savings by changing from long season sorghum to short Season sorghum varieties 5-38 5-10 Furrow-irrigated acres in 1997 5-40 5-11 Water Savings when Shifting from Furrow Irrigation 5-41 5-12 Water savings when shifting furrow irrigated crops to surge flow 5-42 5-13 Water savings when shifting furrow irrigated crops to LESA 5-43 5-14 Water savings when shifting furrow irrigated crops to LEPA 5-44 5-15 Water savings when shifting furrow irrigated crops to DRIP 5-45 5-16 Water savings when converting from irrigated corn to irrigated sorghum 5-47 5-17 Water savings when converting from irrigated corn to irrigated cotton 5-48 5-18 Water savings when converting from irrigated corn to irrigated soybeans 5-49 5-19 Water savings when converting from irrigated sorghum to irrigated wheat 5-50 5-20 Water savings when converting from irrigated soybeans to irrigated wheat 5-51 5-21 Water savings when converting from irrigated crops to dryland farming 5-52 5-22 Total Water savings for the next 50 years (2000-2050) for Different Crop Conversions 5-53 5-23 Water savings via implementation of conservation tillage 5-54 5-24 Water savings for 2010-2050 via precipitation enhancement 5-55 5-25 Estimated breakeven water prices for irrigated crop producers in the PWPA5-56 5-26 Water Demand Reductions for Irrigation Strategies with Change in Crop Variety for Years 2020-2050 (in acre-feet/year) 5-57 5-27 Water Demand Reductions for Irrigation Strategies with Change in Crop Type for Years 2020-2050 (in acre-feet/year) 5-59 5-28 Revised Irrigation Demands 5-60 7-1 Panhandle Water Planning Group – Voting Members 7-1 7-2 Panhandle Water Planning Group – Former Members 7-2 7-3 Panhandle Water Planning Group Ex-Oficio Positions 7-3 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.
Recommended publications
  • RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub

    RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub

    1 RFP No. 212f for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub Final Report Contributing authors: David S. Ruppel, V. Alex Sotola, Ozlem Ablak Gurbuz, Noland H. Martin, and Timothy H. Bonner Addresses: Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 (DSR, VAS, NHM, THB) Kirkkonaklar Anatolian High School, Turkish Ministry of Education, Ankara, Turkey (OAG) Principal investigators: Timothy H. Bonner and Noland H. Martin Email: [email protected], [email protected] Date: July 31, 2017 Style: American Fisheries Society Funding sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Turkish Ministry of Education- Visiting Scholar Program (OAG) Summary Four hundred mesohabitats were sampled from 36 sites and 20 reaches within the upper Red River drainage from September 2015 through September 2016. Fishes (N = 36,211) taken from the mesohabitats represented 14 families and 49 species with the most abundant species consisting of Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis, Red River Shiner Notropis bairdi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Red River Pupfish Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (a species of greatest conservation need, SGCN) and Plains Killifish Fundulus zebrinus were more abundant within prairie streams (e.g., swift and shallow runs with sand and silt substrates) with high specific conductance. Red River Shiner (SGCN), Prairie Chub Macrhybopsis australis (SGCN), and Plains Minnow were more abundant within prairie 2 streams with lower specific conductance. The remaining 44 species of fishes were more abundant in non-prairie stream habitats with shallow to deep waters, which were more common in eastern tributaries of the upper Red River drainage and Red River mainstem. Prairie Chubs comprised 1.3% of the overall fish community and were most abundant in Pease River and Wichita River.
  • Stream Monitoring and Educational Program in the Red River Basin

    Stream Monitoring and Educational Program in the Red River Basin

    Stream Monitoring and Educational U.S. Department of the Interior Program in the Red River Basin, U.S. Geological Survey Texas, 1996–97 100 o 101 o 5 AMARILLO NORTH FORK 102 o RED RIVER 103 o A S LT 35o F ORK RED R IV ER 1 4 2 PRAIRIE DOG TOWN PEASE 3 99 o WICHITA FORK RED RIVER 7 FALLS CHARLIE 6 RIVE R o o 34 W 8 98 9 I R o LAKE CHIT 21 ED 97 A . TEXOMA o VE o 10 11 R 25 96 RI R 95 16 19 18 20 DENISON 17 28 14 15 23 24 27 29 22 26 30 12,13 LAKE PARIS KEMP LAKE LAKE KICKAPOO ARROWHEAD TEXARKANA EXPLANATION 0 40 80 120 MILES Reach 1—Lower Red River (mainstem) Basin Red River Basin in Texas Reach 2—Wichita River Basin NEW OKLAHOMA Reach 3—Pease River Basin MEXICO ARKANSAS Reach 4—Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River Basin Reach 5—North Fork and Salt Fork Red River TEXAS Basins 12 LOUISIANA USGS streamflow-gaging and water-quality station and reference number (table 1) 22 USGS streamflow-gaging station and reference number (table 1) Figure 1. Location of Red River Basin, Texas, and stream-monitoring stations. This fact sheet presents the 1996–97 Texas Panhandle, and becomes the Texas- 200,000 acre-feet are in the basin (fig. 1): stream monitoring and outreach activities Oklahoma boundary. It then flows Lake Kemp, Lake Kickapoo, Lake of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), through southwestern Arkansas and into Arrowhead, and Lake Texoma.
  • National Register Nomination File

    National Register Nomination File

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. Name of Property Historic Name: SH 203 (Old SH 52) Bridge at Salt Fork of the Red River Other name/site number: State Highway 52 Bridge at Salt Fork of the Red River Name of related multiple property listing: Historic Road Infrastructure of Texas 2. Location Street & number: Texas State Highway 203 at Salt Fork of the Red River City or town: Wellington State: Texas County: Collingsworth Not for publication: Vicinity: 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following levels of significance: national statewide local Applicable National Register Criteria: A B C D State Historic Preservation Officer ___________________________ Signature of certifying official / Title Date Texas Historical Commission State or Federal agency / bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. _______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ Signature of commenting or other official Date ____________________________________________________________ State or Federal agency / bureau or Tribal Government 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that the property is: ___ entered in the National Register ___ determined eligible for the National Register ___ determined not eligible for the National Register.
  • Great Bowls of Fire Get Bragging Rights and a Handsome Keeping Your Community Strong

    Great Bowls of Fire Get Bragging Rights and a Handsome Keeping Your Community Strong

    THE CLARENDON 11.26.2015 The Texas Panhandle’s First Newspaper. Established 1878. Enterprise THE CLARENDON NEWS & THE DONLEY COUNTY LEADER www.ClarendonLive.com Single 00 Courthouse lighting, chili cookoff this Saturday Copy $1 The Christmas season will start endonLive.com. community. Chili Challenge with a chance to win plaque, and the ballot of one lucky in a big way in Clarendon this week- Small Business Saturday began Saturday’s highlight will be the $250 in Clarendon Cash. taster will receive $250 in Clarendon THIS WEEK end with merchant sales, the light- in 2010 when American Express second annual Courthouse Light- Chili Challenge ballots and a Cash from the Chamber. ing of the Courthouse, and the third founded it to help small businesses ing Celebration, beginning at 5 p.m. list of participating merchants will Also on Saturday night, the 2 Shopping at small annual Chili Challenge. get more exposure during one of the with an appearance by Santa Claus be available for $5 each from the VFW Ladies Auxiliary will hold a businesses can make a big Local merchants are ready to biggest shopping weekends of the and caroling featuring local chil- Clarendon Visitor Center at Mulkey soup dinner at the Clarendon Lions impact this holiday season. help you find something for every- year. dren’s groups. The formal lighting Theatre immediately following the Hall for $5 per person featuring 4 Peggy recalls past holiday one on your Christmas list with their According to small business will be at 6 p.m. Courthouse Lighting. Chili tasters homemade chicken noodle or potato cooking disasters.
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A

    Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A

    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
  • Index of Surface-Water Stations in Texas, January 1989

    Index of Surface-Water Stations in Texas, January 1989

    INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS, JANUARY 1989 Compiled by Jack Rawson, E.R. Carrillo, and H.D. Buckner U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 89-265 Austin, Texas 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports 8011 Cameron Road Federal Center, Bldg. 810 Austin, Texas 78753 Box 25425 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Introduction.......................................................... 1 Definition of terms................................................... 2 Availability of data .................................................. 3 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1. Map showing the locations of active surface-water stations in Texas, January 1989.................................... In pocket 2. Map showing the locations of active partia1-record surface- water stations in Texas, January 1989..................... In pocket TABLES Table 1. Streamflow, quality, reservoir-content, and partial-record stations maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with State and Federal agencies............... 5 111 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS JANUARY 1989 Compi1ed by Jack Rawson, E.R. Carrillo, and H.D. Buckner INTRODUCTION The U.S. Geological Survey's investigations of the water resources of Texas are conducted in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board, river authorities, cities, counties, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Interna­ tional Boundary and Water Commission, and others. Investigations are under the general direction of C.W. Boning, District Chief, Texas District. The Texas District office is located at 8011A Cameron Road, Austin, Texas 78753.
  • Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine

    Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine

    FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF RIVERINE ORGANISMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT by David S. Ruppel, M.S. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Aquatic Resources and Integrative Biology May 2019 Committee Members: Timothy H. Bonner, Chair Noland H. Martin Joseph A. Veech Kenneth G. Ostrand James A. Stoeckel COPYRIGHT by David S. Ruppel 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, David S. Ruppel, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my major advisor, Timothy H. Bonner, who has been a great mentor throughout my time at Texas State University. He has passed along his vast knowledge and has provided exceptional professional guidance and support with will benefit me immensely as I continue to pursue an academic career. I also thank my committee members Dr. Noland H. Martin, Dr. Joseph A. Veech, Dr. Kenneth G. Ostrand, and Dr. James A. Stoeckel who provided great comments on my dissertation and have helped in shaping manuscripts that will be produced in the future from each one of my chapters.
  • Water Supply Permit Availability Report

    Water Supply Permit Availability Report

    Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 2012 Update Water Supply Permit Availability Report Revised October 2011 Prepared by CDM under a cooperative agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board Contents Section 1 - Water Supply Permit Availability Analyses Section 2 - Analysis of Water Available for Current and Future Permitting 2.1 Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma ......................................................... 2-1 2.2 Groundwater Permitting Availability ........................................................ 2-2 2.2.1 Methodology .............................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Results ....................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Surface Water Permitting Availability .................................................... 2-10 2.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 2-10 2.3.2 Difference in USACE Reservoir Contracts and Permitting .... 2-12 2.3.3 Protecting Yield above Federal Reservoirs ............................ 2-12 2.3.4 Results ..................................................................................... 2-12 Section 3 - Interstate River Compacts 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Canadian River Compact (1950) ............................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Purposes ...................................................................................
  • Phase II Contaminants Investigation of Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Texas 1993-1994

    Phase II Contaminants Investigation of Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Texas 1993-1994

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Contaminants Program PHASE II CONTAMINANTS INVESTIGATION OF BUFFALO LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TEXAS 1993 - 1994 by Denise L. Baker 1, Joel D. Lusk 2, and Craig M. Giggleman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arlington Ecological Services Field Office 711 Stadium Drive, East, Suite #252 Arlington, Texas 76011 September 1998 PHASE II CONTAMINANTS INVESTIGATION OF BUFFALO LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TEXAS 1993 - 1994 ABSTRACT Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge is located in the Southern High Plains in Randall County, Texas. The lake from which the Refuge received its name has not contained water since the 1980s. In 1987, a Phase I contaminants investigation of the Refuge was conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas, Field Office. The results of this investigation indicated that elevated concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus compounds), salts, copper, strontium, and zinc were found in and downstream of cattle feedlot waste retention lagoons; Tierra Blanca Creek, the major lotic contributor of the Refuge, had degraded water quality, primarily attributed to run-off and discharges from cattle feedlots; and that nutrient concentrations retained in soils in the dry reservoir bed in Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge were elevated to the extent that inundation could create unacceptably high nutrient concentrations in the surface water. Consequentially, in 1993, a Phase II contaminants study was initiated at the Refuge by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the extent of contamination in stormwater run-off entering the Refuge via Tierra Blanca Creek; to determine the extent of contamination in soils and vegetation within the Refuge; to evaluate the ability of crops grown in the Refuge to reduce soil contaminant concentrations; and to monitor contaminant levels in soils, surface water, and vegetation of moist soil management units constructed in the southern portion of the Refuge.
  • Changing Patterns and Perceptions of Water Use In

    Changing Patterns and Perceptions of Water Use In

    CHANGING PATTERNS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WATER USE IN EAST CENTRAL TEXAS SINCE THE TIME OF ANGLO SETTLEMENT A Dissertation by WENDY WINBORN PATZEWITSCH Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2007 Major Subject: Geography CHANGING PATTERNS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WATER USE IN EAST CENTRAL TEXAS SINCE THE TIME OF ANGLO SETTLEMENT A Dissertation by WENDY WINBORN PATZEWITSCH Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Jonathan M. Smith Committee Members, Peter J. Hugill Christian Brannstrom Bradford P. Wilcox Head of Department, Douglas J. Sherman May 2007 Major Subject: Geography iii ABSTRACT Changing Patterns and Perceptions of Water Use in East Central Texas Since the Time of Anglo Settlement. (May 2007) Wendy Winborn Patzewitsch, B.A., Trinity University; M.S., Southern Methodist University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Jonathan M. Smith Patterns and perceptions of water use have changed since Anglo settlement in Texas in the early nineteenth century. Change has not been constant, gradual, or linear, but rather has occurred in fits and spurts. This pattern of punctuated equilibrium in water use regimes is the central finding of this dissertation. Water use is examined in terms of built, organizational, and institutional inertias that resist change in the cultural landscape. Change occurs only when forced by crisis and results in water management at an increasing scale. Perception is critical in forcing response to crisis.
  • Reconaissance of the Chemical Quality of Surface Waters of The

    Reconaissance of the Chemical Quality of Surface Waters of The

    ( TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPORT 129 RECONNAISSANCE OF THE CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SURFACE WATERS OF THE RED RIVER BASIN, TEXAS By Donald K. Leifeste, James F. Blakey. and Leon S. Hughes Prepared by the U.S GeologH;.1 Su..... ey in c:oope,-"on wIth the TellllS Waler Development Board M~ 1971 TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD W. E. Tinsley, Chairman Marvin Shurbet. Vice Chairman Robert B. Gilmore John H. McCoy Milton T. Potts earl Illig Harry P. Burleigh. EXl!QJtive Director ( Authorization for use or reproduction of any material contained in this publication, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted without the n«:essity of securing permission therefor. The Board would appreciate acknowledgement of the source of original material so utilized. ( ( Published and distributed bV the Texas Water Development Board ( Post Office Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 ( ( ii i :;.oC , ~no <.. ... qa 1)0 lal TABLE OF CONTENTS Pogo ABSTRACT .... _.... INTRODUCTION . 3 RED RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN 3 General Description 3 Population and Municipalities 5 Agricultural and Industrial Development ...............•... 9 Development of Surface·Water Resources . 9 CHEMICAL QUALITY OF THE WATER 9 Chemical·Quality Records ....................••............••......•.. 9 Streamflow Records . 10 Environmental Factors and Their Effects on the Chemical Quality of the Water ...............•...........................•. 10 Geology ..................••.••..••.••..••••...•..•....•••..•...•. 10 Streamflow . 12 Actillities of Man ., 12 Relation of Quality of Water to Use 17 Domestic Use 17 Industrial Use 19 Irrigation .. 19 Geographic Variations In Water Quality ............•.................... 19 Dissolved Solids ... 21 Chloride . 22 Hardness ...........••.••..•••••..•••••..•••••.••••••..•••••.•••.. _ 22 Other Constituents .......•.........•.••••.....•......•......•...••.•. 22 Water Quality in Reservoirs 22 Buffalo Lake . 22 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS IConl'd.) p,.
  • 1978 Election Results Announced Board Appoints General Manager

    1978 Election Results Announced Board Appoints General Manager

    Published monthly by High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, 2930 Avenue Q, Lubbock, Texas 79405 Volume 24-No. 1 Publication number 564920, Second Class Postage paid at Lubbock, Texas January, 1978 1978 Election Results Announced The complete but unofficial results HOCKLEY COUNTY of the January 21 election held by the Committeeman-at-large High Plains Underground Water Con­ J. E. Wade servation District No. 1 revealed that Commissioner's Precinct No. Three voters re-elected three members to the Jack Earl French Board of Directors and voted 16 Coun­ ty Committeemen into office. LAMB COUNTY Elected to the Board of Directors Commissioner's Precinct No. One were: James P. Mitchell of Wolfforth, Billy J. Langford Selmer H. Schoenrock of Levelland, Commissioner's Precinct No. Four and Malvin A. Jarboe of Floydada. They Edward Fisher will again join A. W. Gober of Farwell LUBBOCK COUNTY and Ray Gerk of Hereford, who are Committeeman-at-large currently beginning the second year of Owen Gilbreath their present two-year terms. Commissioner's Precinct No. Three The only contested race in the 1978 Clifford Hilbers District election was for Director's Precinct One, involving voters in Lub­ LYNN COUNTY bock, Lynn and Crosby counties. These Commissioner's Precinct No. One returns show that the incumbent, Gary Houchin James Mitchell, defeated former Dis­ Commissioner's Precinct No. Four trict Manager Frank A. Rayner of Lub­ Freddie Kieth bock for the Director's seat. Mitchell The official canvassing of the votes was voted into office for his second will be conducted during the regular term by a count of 879 to 168, garner­ meeting of the Board on February 6, ing approximately 84 percent of the and at this time the Board will conduct ballots.