Central Indiana Water Study

Phase I: Regional Demand

July 22, 2020

Prepared for the Indiana Finance Authority

Prepared by

PIC
PIC

Pursuant to Senate Enrolled Act 416 and the State of Indiana’s Water Infrastructure Task Force Final Report (dated November 9, 2018), the Indiana Finance Authority has begun to undertake a series of studies to identify water infrastructure needs and solutions, specific to regional areas of the State, as well as efficiencies to be gained through regional partnerships and improved sharing of resources.

June 2020

The Indiana Finance Authority acknowledges the contribution of INTERA Incorporated and Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski for the creation of this report.

Acknowledgments

This report was developed in consultation with a team of professionals from state and federal agencies. The team attended monthly meetings that included project updates and technical discussion of the water forecast methods. This group of dedicated water industry professionals and engineers helped guide the project by listening to our status reports while we were developing the forecast and then again with their patient and generous review of early drafts of this report.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the team members from:

We would also like to thank the regional water utility members of the Central Indiana Collaborative. This group was consulted during the project and provided an important public water supply perspective.

Citation: Indiana Finance Authority, 2020. Central Indiana Water-Supply Needs – 50 Year Forecast, Central Indiana Water Study, Phase I: Regional Demand, 184

Executive Summary

Estimates of water use in the Central Indiana Water Supply Planning Region (Central Region or Region) were developed for the next 50 years for five major water demand sectors: 1) public supply, 2) self-supplied domestic, 3) self-supplied thermoelectric power generation, 4) self-supplied industrial and commercial and 5) self-supplied irrigation and agricultural uses. The forecast of future water use for each sector was developed at the county scale and then, separately, for each public water system at the facility level for all 52 dominant public systems. The primary goal of the Central Indiana Water Study (Study) is to provide a better understanding of the supply and demand of water resources in the Central Indiana region.

The methods used to forecast water use differed by sector and include multiple regression methods and unit demand estimates. These methods provided estimates of future water use as a function of demand drivers and explanatory variables for each of the sectors and subsectors. Explanatory variables are those that influence the unit rates of water demand, such as summer season temperature and precipitation, median household income, employment to population ratio, labor productivity, and precipitation deficits during the irrigation season. For most of the water uses in the Central Region, total demand was estimated by multiplying these unit rates for water use by forecast changes in the demand drivers. Demand drivers included the population served by public supply systems and self-supplied domestic wells, the expected number of employees, and gross estimates of thermoelectric power generation. This report makes use of the projections of the Indiana Business Research Center; alternative growth rates were not considered for population or socioeconomic growth.

For the public water supply sector, scenarios for future water demand were developed to reflect different future conditions, including climatic variability. These different drought and climate scenarios were used to capture the uncertainty in future water use and water demand within the Region.

Total future water demand in the Central Region was estimated to be 111 MGD (29%) more thancurrent withdrawals (2018) (Figure A). Demand for public water supply systems was the largest fraction of this increase. Expected growth in the Region will add over 500,000 people to the larger metropolitan area in the next 50 years (Figure B). Water use increases will primarily occur on the north side of the Region, in Hamilton County, with substantial growth also occurring in Johnson County to the south.

Total water use in this Region over the past decade has not increased substantially. Water use for thermoelectric power generation has declined as coal plants have been decommissioned throughout the Region and are being replaced by different fuel sources that use less water. In the past, thermoelectric cooling water has come from intakes along the White River. Future power generation is anticipated to come from more efficient generating facilities. The drinking water utilities that will experience the largest increase include Citizens Energy, serving the central metropolitan area and many suburbs, as well as other utilities that supply the larger communities in Hamilton and Johnson counties.

While total withdrawals from surface water have declined, use of groundwater from aquifers along the White River, will likely increase to accommodate growth. More than 100 MGD is forecast to be withdrawn from the outwash aquifer that follows the general path of the White River through the Region. This aquifer already supplies the majority of the groundwater used in the Region.

While uses of surface water for industrial and power cooling purposes have declined over the last several decades, use of groundwater for public water systems continues to grow as the metropolitan area expands. Agricultural irrigation will also likely increase, especially in the southeastern part of the Region in parts of Shelby and Johnson counties, where center pivot irrigation has become standard practice. Industrial demand, the most difficult of the water use sectors to forecast, will also increase as more businesses are created in and around the City of Indianapolis. Self-supplied domestic water use is assumed to remain the same over the next 50 years as some utilities expand to add service area in the unincorporated domains, and new homes are developed further away from the city. By the end of the forecast period, anticipated climate variation, change in temperature and precipitation, could potentially add between 10 and 35 MGD of additional demand in the dry summer months. Again, this demand will be focused on the north side of the Region and to the south where growth is expected to continue.

PIC
Figure A:Regional water withdrawals by water-use sector for the Central Region in 2018 and forecasted withdrawals for 2070. Regional annual average withdrawals are expected to increase 111MGD from 385 MGD in 2018 to 496 MGD in 2070. All sectors are expected to increase. Public water supplycomprises ~50% of the total throughout the forecast. Annual 2018 historical water withdrawals are from theIndiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018).Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison,Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
PIC
Figure B: Total historical and projected population and water withdrawals for the Central Indiana Region. Although historically Energy Production has been the largest water-use sector, changes in fuel sources have reduced water withdrawals to under 100 MGD for the sector. Public water supply accounts for approximately 50% of the water withdrawals in the Region. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Historical population from the United States Census (2010). 2020-2050 population projections from the Indiana Business Research Center (2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. History of Water Use in the Region
  3. Commercial and Industrial Sector
  4. Irrigation and Agriculture
  5. Self-Supplied Domestic Sector
  6. Power Generation Sector
  7. Public Water Supply Sector
  8. Seasonal Public SupplyWithdrawals
  9. Climate Scenarios in the Public Water SupplySector

List of Figures

List of Tables

Abbreviations

AWWA
American Water Works Association
C&I
Commercial and Industrial
Central  Region
Central Indiana Water Supply Planning Region
Collaborative
Central Indiana Drinking Water Collaborative
CREAT
Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool
DNR
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
DWS
Domestic Water Supply
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPCD
gallons per capita per day
gpd
gallons per day
GPED
gallons per employee per day
IBRC
Indiana Business Research Center
IFA
Indiana Finance Authority
IR&AG
Irrigation and Agriculture
NWIS
National Water Information System
MGD
million gallons per day
PG
Power Generation
PWS
Public Water Supply
Region
Central Indiana Water Supply Planning Region
SWWF
Significant Water Withdrawal Facility
State
State of Indiana
Study
Central Region Water Study
USGS
United States Geological Survey

1 Introduction

With approximately 40 inches of rainfall per year, Lake Michigan to the north, the Ohio River to the south, and streams and reservoirs in between, Indiana is considered a wet state. In an average sense, this is true. However, Indiana experiences seasonal and sometimes multi-seasonal droughts and rainfall shortages, that cause conflict and create uncertainty. During the drought of 2012, domestic well owners in some locations had dry wells or significantly declining groundwater levels. As climate change becomes a reality, these vulnerabilities are magnified and active water supply planning and management becomes critical to economic sustainability for the State. Water supply planning and management requires knowledge of the amount of water currently being used, how much will be needed in the future and if that water is available from the sources of supply.

The State of Indiana (State) has designated the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA) to coordinate water-related investigations to identify the water infrastructure needs and solutions for specific regions of the State. The Central Indiana Region (Central Region) was defined as a critical area for water planning. The goal of the Central Indiana Water Study (Study) is to provide a better understanding of the water resources, both water demand and water availability, in this area. The objective of the Study is to aid in the management, economic development and environmental health of the Central Region. The Study has been subdivided into five phases:

Phase I.
Regional Demand
Phase II.
Regional Supply
Phase III.
Water Availability Modeling and Optimization
Phase IV.
Infrastructure and Cost Analysis
Phase V.
Public Education and Outreach

This report is the Phase I forecast of regional water demand. Estimates of future demand are presented in 5-year increments out to the year 2070.

The water supply used in the Central Region serves almost 30% of the population of the State and comes from diverse sources including withdrawals from the West Fork of the White River, storage in reservoirs, and groundwater from shallow and deep aquifers. The central portion of the state was chosen for evaluation because a group of water utilities has already organized and meets regularly to discuss their water supply, treatment, and regulatory issues. This group of utilities known as the Central Indiana Drinking Water Collaborative (Collaborative), conducts regular meetings to share information. The boundaries of the Collaborative region are the same as the Central Indiana Water Planning Region and include nine (9) counties centered around Indianapolis: Boone, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby counties (Figure 1.1).

PIC
Figure 1.1: Central Indiana Water Planning Region. Approximate population of 1.93 million people, nearly 30% of the total population of Indiana (2015) (Census, 2010). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

1.1 Approach and Context

The purpose of Phase I is to develop an estimate of current and future water withdrawals in the Central Region. The goal of the fifty-year water demand forecast (2020-2070) is to improve the understanding of current and future groundwater and surface water needs within the residential, commercial and industrial, power generation, and agricultural sectors of the Region. The forecast will be utilized in Phase III of the Study to assess the current and future availability of water resources.

Water use was forecasted on a county level in 5-year increments from 2020-2070 for each water supply sector, including:

The public water supply sector was further divided into forecasts per utility to capture the unique withdrawal patterns within each utility. A summary of withdrawals was tabulated for each county by adding up the public supply and other sector withdrawals for each forecast year. A baseline future scenario was developed for all sectors and drought and climate change scenarios were developed for the largest sector, public water supply. In addition, an analysis of the seasonality of public water supply withdrawals was included.

The forecasting techniques that were used differed by sector and include unit demand methods and multiple regression. These methods provided estimates of future demand as a function of demand drivers and explanatory variables for many sectors and subsectors. The water withdrawal forecast for each water sector is described in Sections 3 through 7. Additional data and graphs for each sector are provided in Appendices A through G.

1.2 Report Organization

This report is organized into an executive summary and ten sections. The executive summary discusses the goals and purpose of the study and summarizes the results for all water use sectors.

Section 1 provides the project introduction and discusses the data and analytical models used to estimate future water demands. Section 2 describes the current and historical water withdrawals in the Central Region. The five water use sectors are described in the five subsequent sections (Sections 3 through 7). Each of these sections briefly describes the water demand sector, summarizes the historical water withdrawals in the sector, and then explains the procedure for deriving water demand relationships for the sector. This is followed by summary of the sector results. Most sections are accompanied by one or more appendices containing detailed tables with primary data and other information used in deriving future water demand.

Section 8 describes the seasonal analysis of the public water supply sector and Section 9 shows the impacts on water withdrawals under simplified climate change scenarios, as well as the potential increase in water demands during a period of intense drought. Section 10 provides a summary of the regional water withdrawal forecast. References for all chapters appear at the end of the report.

Appendices A through G provide details and supplementary tables explaining how demand and population forecasts were made for each sector.

1.3 Understanding Demand Forecasts

Future annual water use estimates are not attempts to estimate the actual water use next year. Instead we are estimating the average amount of water use expected over the next several years. A standard set of methods are used to consider how the factors that alter use may change in the future and then consider how those changes will alter average use over time. An example from San Diego County Water Authority is shown in Figure 1.2 (SDCWA, 2016). The chart shows the reported water use between 1995 and 2015. Although the annual use varies by plus or minus 25,000 acre-feet depending on precipitation and temperature, the average annual water use seems to increase in a predictable way between 1995 and 2007. An event such as the financial crisis of 2008 is not predicted by the forecast model and growth continues from the new reset after that time. The regional growth trend before and the long-term forecast after 2015 is analogous to the baseline forecast in the model – actual use will fluctuate around the forecasted increase. The water withdrawal forecast for the Central Region will similarly project annual average water use for the region, but will not capture the annual variations due to fluctuations in weather and other unforeseeable changes.

PIC
Figure 1.2: San Diego County Water Authority forecast average water demands (SDCWA, 2016). On the left side of the graph, from 1995 to 2007, year to year water use varies as it increases from more than 500,000 acre feet/year to almost 750,000 acre feet/year. The variation from year to year is on the order of 25,000 acre feet/year as the use follows the growth curve (dashed line). While water use varies from year to year it also is clearly affected by unanticipated large-scale economic events, like the 2008 financial crisis. The forecast from 2016 – 2040 illustrates the trend line of renewed growth for “average” water use in the future. Year to year variations will continue to occur around this line based on temperature and precipitation and growth.

1.4 Data Sources

Historical water withdrawal data for the years of 2005-2017 were obtained from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR maintains a database of Significant Water Withdrawal Facilities (SWWF) in the State. The SWWF database contains monthly water withdrawals reported by owners "for any ground or surface water source that either individually or in aggregate is" capable of withdrawing greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) (DNR, 2018). The SWWF data has been reported to the DNR since 1985. The water users within the database are assigned a major water use category based on the primary use of the water at the facility. The six categories coded within the database are: IR (Agriculture/Irrigation), IN (Industry), PS (Public Supply), EP (Energy Production), RU (Rural Use), and MI (Miscellaneous). Data obtained from the SWWF database was divided into sub-sectors within each DNR water use category by sorting facility types by facility names. The sub-sectors were then re-grouped into four major water use sectors. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.3. The SWWF database was the source for all historical water use that is mapped to four of the five major sectors, as illustrated in the Figure 1.3.

Water use estimates in the fifth major sector, self-supplied domestic water supply (DWS), are based on population and per capita water-use in areas outside of public supply service areas. Domestic water supply consists of water supplied to homes with private wells. Water use data for private wells must be estimated, as private wells typically do not have the pumping capacity to require reporting to the State.

The data on water withdrawals in each sector were supplemented with corresponding data on demand drivers and explanatory variables for each demand area and sector. Demand driver data included: resident population and population served and employment population, gross and net thermoelectric generation. The explanatory variable data included: median household income; historical trends; air temperature during the growing season; and growing-season precipitation. Supplemental data on historical and future values of demand drivers and explanatory variables were obtained from a variety of state and federal agencies, including the Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana State Climate Office, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

PIC
Figure 1.3: Data sources mapped to water-use sectors used in the water withdrawal forecast for the Central Region. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Indiana Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

1.5 Water Withdrawals vs Consumptive Use

This study focuses on the forecast of water withdrawals based on voluntary reporting of monthly diversions from streams or groundwater. In this report, the terms water use and water demand are used interchangeably, and both terms are equated here with water withdrawals, as reported in the SWWF database: withdrawal, use and demand refer exclusively to the reported amount of water taken from a source such as a stream, reservoir, or aquifer.

Water withdrawals are not equivalent to consumptive use of water in the Region. Consumptive use is the amount of water used, either by a person, vegetation, or industry, that is not returned or discharged back to the source. Although a portion of the water withdrawals by each sector is considered non-consumptive, the unconsumed water is often returned to a source different from where it was obtained and often with altered water quality. Additionally, water can be withdrawn from one place and returned to geographically different location upstream, downstream, or in a different watershed. These diversions that alter the availability of the water supply are not considered in this phase of the Study. However, in Phase III of the Study, water availability will be evaluated and consumptive use will be analyzed to calculate the regional annual or seasonal water budgets for the Region. This water forecast is limited to determining the amount of water withdrawn from either surface water or groundwater sources within the Central Region.

1.6 Environmental Uses

Water withdrawals are forecasted for human water-use sectors only. The forecasts do not consider the needs of aquatic ecosystems and the environment. In Indiana, there are no regulated minimum flows for streams or other aquatic environments (DNR, 2015). Although quantifying flow requirements for ecosystems is technically complex and challenging, there is increasing awareness of the negative impacts that altered stream flows have on aquatic habitats and riparian zones. As water supply planning and management evolves in the State, ecosystem uses will likely need to be specifically incorporated into the planning process.

1.7 Forecast Methods

The analytical approach chosen for each water supply sector was based upon the best method for the best available data. The two principle techniques used in this report were the unit-use coefficient method and linear regression. The general approach of these methods is described below and additional information regarding the analytical methods, estimated models, and assumptions is included in the sections that describe each major sector of use.

The general approach to estimating future water demand using the unit-use method can be described as a product of the number of users (i.e., demand driver) and unit quantity of water as:

Qt = Nt × qt
where: Qt = water withdrawals in year t; Nt =number of users (or demand driver) such as population, or employment; and qt =average rate of water usage in gallons per capita-day (GPCD), or gallons per employee-day (GPED). The unit-use coefficient method assumes that future water demand will be proportional to the number of users Nt, while the future average rate of water use, qt, is assumed to remain constant.

When historical water withdrawal relationships can be quantified, qt can be expressed in the form of equations. Thus, the average rate of water usage is expressed as a function of one or more explanatory variables, such as temperature or precipitation. A multiple regression analysis is used to determine the particular relationship between water withdrawals and each explanatory variable. This type of analysis was used in this study for the public water supply sector. The explanatory variables used for this sector were temperature, precipitation, and median household income. More details about the public water supply model are provided in Section 7

1.8 Uncertainty

It is important to understand the uncertainty embedded in determining future water demands in any study area and user sector. This uncertainty is always present and should be considered when making regional water supply planning decisions. Generally, the error associated with the forecast values of water demand can come from the following sources:

  1. Future value error: Future values for one or more model variables cannot be known with certainty. Errors may be introduced when projections are made for the water demand drivers (such as population, employment, or irrigated acreage) as well as the values of the determinants of water usage (such as income, price, precipitation, and other explanatory variables).
  2. Random error: Even if the model is specified correctly and its parameter values are known with certainty, there is random error caused by the additive error process in a linear regression model.
  3. Error in model parameters: The process of estimating the regression coefficients introduces error because estimated parameter values are random variables that may deviate from the “true” values.
  4. Specification error: Errors may be introduced because the model specification may not be an accurate representation of the “true” underlying relationship.
  5. Reporting error: The SWWF database is a self-reporting system. There may be errors in the historic data that do not capture all significant water withdrawals and therefore do not reflect the “true” water withdrawals. These errors are unknowingly introduced into the forecast model.

1.9 Seasonal Analysis

Water withdrawals by public water suppliers were analyzed for seasonal fluctuations by examining the monthly historical water-use patterns of each utility. Typical seasonal variation occurs in response to annual weather changes: high temperatures and decreased precipitation drive customers to use more water in summer months. Further details about these seasonal analyses and the results are discussed in Section 2.

1.10 Climate Scenarios

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (USEPA CREAT) to help drinking water and wastewater utilities understand the potential system-related risks associated with climate change. CREAT provides projections of changes in climate change conditions based on averages of climate model outputs. To understand the range of potential impacts due to climate change in the Central Region, three scenarios were prepared for the public water supply sector. Using temperature and precipitation values from the climate change model output, the scenarios were incorporated into the public water supply forecast model. The scenarios include Warm/Wet Conditions, Hot/Dry Conditions, and a 30% Drought Condition. Further details about these scenarios and the results are discussed in Section 9.

2 History of Water Use in the Region

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Water maintains a Significant Water Withdrawal Facility (SWWF) database organized by the type of use. With the enactment of Indiana Code 14-25-7, beginning in 1985, any groundwater well or surface intake facility with the capacity to withdraw at least 100,000 gallons of water per day has been required to report monthly withdrawals each calendar year. This data, collected and assembled by type of use (irrigation, rural, mining, public supply, industrial, energy generation, and miscellaneous) provides the state with a unique window into the growth and change in water use throughout the state for the past 35 years. Currently, the records maintained by DNR include about 4,200 facilities with over 7,300 groundwater wells and almost 1,300 surface water intakes (DNR personal communication, 2020). The findings described in this report are based upon the information in that database supported by the staff at the Division of Water.

It is clear from the locations of the SWWF that there is more water withdrawal and use near the rivers and streams than further upland (Figure 2.1). This can partially be explained by surface and groundwater availability (more in the gravel-rich outwash aquifers and in the River than the tributaries and the thin till sands), but the use is driven by economic factors as well. The geography of water use is based on demographics and development, which historically follow major rivers and aquifers. One exception to this is mine dewatering operations where bedrock or aggregate is being mined.

PIC
Figure 2.1: Surface water and groundwater withdrawals locations for each water sector in the Central Region (DNR, 2018). Well and intake locations from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database (DNR, 2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

2.1 Trends in Water Use

Water use in the Central Region reported to DNR gives us some indication of the changes over time. The changes from large-scale manufacturing / industrial processing to professional services are reflected in the changing uses of water withdrawn from rivers and aquifers throughout the Region (Figure 2.2). The water use trends for each sector are described and the record of statewide use for each of the sectors is illustrated in the graphs on Figure 2.2 that follow.

PIC
Figure 2.2: Historic surface water and groundwater withdrawals for each water sector in the Central Region. The surface water withdrawals in the region have been declining since 2000. Largest decline of surface water withdrawal has been in the energy sector we are nearly 400 million gallons a day change has occurred from the peak in 2000. Public supplies continues to be an important user of surface water. Nearly 100 MGD are diverted from the White River and it’s tributaries to supply drinking water to communities. Groundwater use, on the other hand, has continued to increase since data has been collected. Public water supply withdrawals from aquifers have more than doubled over the last 30 years (increasing from 60 to 120 MGD). Groundwater use for power plants and commercial and industrial users, never a large fraction of total withdrawals, have been declining. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
2.1.1 Energy Production (EP)

Consistent with national water-use data, the largest water user in Indiana has been, prior to 2015, thermoelectric power for once-through cooling (Figure 2.2; USGS, 2017a). Technology, pricing and energy policy are changing as new fuels and generation methods enter the market and new rules are developed to stimulate non-hydrocarbon energy sources. Nevertheless, until 2013, power plants continued to use very large volumes of water. These cooling systems only consume a small fraction of the intake water and approximately 95 percent of the water withdrawals are returned as warmed effluent discharge. While more power generation facilities use groundwater than in the past, about 95 percent of all cooling water is withdrawn from streams and surface supplies. The energy production category represents relatively few registered SWWFs in Indiana; however, each requires large amounts of water. The power generation water use sector is unlike the other sectors as it has fewer facilities, each of which uses (and returns) a large fraction of the annual total withdrawal.

2.1.2 Commercial and Industrial (C&I)

Figure 2.3 shows total water withdrawals for industrial use by state across the country in 2015. Indiana withdrew more industrial water than any other state that year. However, unlike other sectors of the economy, self-supplied industrial water use has been shrinking as a percent of total water use, both across the country and in Indiana. As one of the most heavily industrialized states in the nation, Indiana has documented a 35 percent reduction in industrial high-capacity water use over the period from 1985 to 2015 (Figure 2.2). The change is likely in response to a number of factors, among them globalization of manufacturing, the normal regulation of industrial wastewater discharge, and the general shift to more efficient operations that focus on streamlined logistics systems.

This trend of reduced industrial water use reflects an important change to the economy of the State that has occurred over the period of record. However, water is a valuable asset and the industrial history of Indiana is being used to attract new fabrication, manufacturing, and commercial enterprises. Industrial water use is an important component of what Indiana has to offer to manufacturers and industries.

PIC
Figure 2.3: Industrial water withdrawals by state in the United States in 2015 (USGS, 2017b).
2.1.3 Agriculture

While it plays an important role in the state’s economy, agriculture is not as much of a driver for water use in the Central Region. The agricultural component of the state’s gross domestic product (GDP) has monotonically increased over the past decade. Recent consolidations and mergers in the agricultural sector indicate that increases in water use will follow as the business of growing food and fuel demand increased management and higher profit margins. Over the last decade, the price of corn and soybeans has required that, even in historically moist areas, some farms add irrigation systems to ensure yields. Consequently, across the state irrigation water use has been the fastest growing category of SWWFs, more than doubling since the first year of the program (Figure 2.4).

PIC
Figure 2.4: Count of registered irrigation facilities in the SWWF database in Indiana from 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). New facilities are added as a response to drought. Reported irrigation facilities from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018).
2.1.4 Public Supply

In most of Central Indiana, the dominant water user is the community drinking water system. The Central Region has over 52 drinking water utilities that together supply over 200 MGD to the public (Figure 2.5). The water utilities in the Region supply water to more than 1.4 million people for domestic use (IFA, 2015). For a variety of reasons, seasonal variation of public supply withdrawals are becoming increasing with higher daily peaks relative to the average day. Much of this can be explained by synchronized lawn irrigation systems.

In the perimeter counties that surround Indianapolis, local water systems are responsible for more than 75 percent of all water use. Over the past two decades, more municipal systems are adding new wells to satisfy growth. Like many Midwestern cities, Indianapolis was built initially as a surface water supply system. Upstream of the city, river water is diverted into the canal that brings water into the intake of the main treatment plant. Wells, reservoirs and other intakes were added to the system to stabilize water quality and improve drought resilience (Figure 2.6).

Indiana has many very small water utilities with one or two wells connected to a small treatment plant to supply their communities. Depending on circumstances, the difficulty and cost of developing the source, treating and safely delivering the water to the end-user, while at the same time satisfying regulatory requirements, is a challenge (IURC, 2013). Historically these smaller drinking water utilities have operated relatively independently of each other, despite the fact that they may all use the same streams and aquifers. This independence reflects the fact that, until recently, there was little indication that their uses affected one another. The success in convening meetings among these regional water users for planning and coordination is a pre-requisite for model regional water management. These collaborative discussions are critical to providing the information the public needs to protect the resource.

PIC
Figure 2.5: Reported 2018 water withdrawals for the public water supply service areas in the Central Region. Service areas are the boundaries within which a PWS provides drinking water. Historical 2018 public water supply (PWS) withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Public water supply service areas from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
PIC
Figure 2.6: Source water for public water supply service areas in the Central Region. Service areas are the boundaries within which a PWS provides drinking water.Historical 2018 public water supply (PWS) withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Public water supply service areas from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

2.2 Seasonal Variation and Conservation

Trends in average annual water use, like the ones forecast here, are useful for planning on a regional scale, but most utilities and other water users have higher demand during the warm season. These utilities need to pay attention to seasonal variation to manage supplies. Figure 2.7 shows that the regional, average-monthly water use increases during the warm months by about 30%. Public drinking water supplies are the largest water user in the Central Region, but commercial, industrial, power and irrigation water users are also important. For the mining and power sector, water withdrawals reflect mine production or power that supplies the electric grid. In the irrigation sector withdrawals are driven by temperature and the timing and duration of rainfall.

PIC
Figure 2.7: Monthly average per capita water withdrawals in the Central Region plotted with the long-term average monthly high temperatures. There is a seasonal increase in water withdrawals that correlates to the average monthly high temperature in the Central Region. Increases in summer use in urban settings has been related to people taking longer showers and increases in lawn irrigation (Rathnayaka, et al., 2015). The graph also shows that base water use in the region is unaffected when average monthly high temperatures fall below about 60 degrees (F 0). Water use data is from the Indiana DNR Significant Water Withdrawal Facilities database (1998 – 2018) and population data is based on U.S. Census estimates for the 9-county region. Temperature data is from the Indiana State Climatologist for the Indianapolis weather station.

The seasonal curve and annual variation from responses to weather changes (e.g. drought) point to opportunities for conservation to reduce withdrawals. In other words, the increase in the warmer seasons can potentially be managed by conservation. It’s difficult to predict how much water demand reduction is achievable without having some historical data from implemented conservation efforts. While there is no regional data to analyze conservation, Citizens Energy Group (Citizens), which serves Indianapolis and most of Marion County (and portions of others), has data from the 2012 drought which highlights the impacts of voluntary and mandatory steps to manage demand during a water shortage (CEG, 2013). With a tiered drought response action plan already in place before the 2012 drought, the utility was able to effectively manage the drought through public response to water shortage triggers. The demand reductions achieved in 2012 are illustrated in Figure 2.8. The reductions were determined by modeling the expected demand that would have occurred without issuing the Tier 2 voluntary lawn watering ban or the Tier 3 mandatory lawn watering ban. Managing the seasonal curve can successfully be done with communication and cooperation with the public.

PIC
Figure 2.8: Citizens Energy Group’s estimated 2012 demand reductions realized by drought management actions (CEG, 2013). Graph taken from Citizen’s Drought Management Plan. Shows a water demand reduction over 30% from voluntary and mandatory lawn watering bans during the drought.

2.3 Summary of Historical Water Use

From 1985 to 2015, the largest volume of water used in the Central Region has consistently been for thermoelectric power generation (Figure 2.9). Since that period of time, however, the water use picture has changed dramatically. In the last several years power generation withdrew less water than other major users. As coal fired power plants have shut down in the Region, water use has fallen for power generation from over 500 MGD into the range of 50 MGD, below the combined use reported by self-supplied commercial and industrial users and well below the 200+ MGD used each year by drinking water systems. This shift in thermoelectric power generation water use is the most remarkable change illustrated by the history of reported water use in the Central Region. Because self-supplied commercial and industrial use is dramatically affected by the development of new businesses and manufacturers with access to the water resource, predicting future water use is difficult. Mining activity, driven by infrastructure investments, also adds to the commercial and industrial use category. Demand for drinking water in Central Indiana has increased as the population and economy have grown. Future increases will likely be satisfied by new high capacity wells completed in the outwash aquifer in combination with strategic local surface water storage.

PIC
Figure 2.9: Historical monthly average water withdrawal for each water sector, 2005-2018, in the Central Region. While the Energy Production sector has a large historic range of withdrawals, due to recent changes in fuel sources the current range of withdrawals is much lower, as shown by the March 2018 data point. Also note the small variation in monthly withdrawals in the industrial sector. Historical withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

2.4 Sources of Central Indiana’s Water Supply

In 2018, 64% of all the reported water use in the Central Region was withdrawn from a surface waterbody and much of that from the West Fork White River (Figure 2.10). This dependence on surface water is a common feature of the water supplies of major cities in the country, including Louisville, Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Cincinnati. The Central Region diverted 232 MGD from Fall Creek, Eagle Creek, the West Fork White River, as well as reservoirs and quarries in 2018. Just less than 100 MGD of this water is treated for public supplies for Indianapolis, and the remainder is used for industrial process water and thermoelectric cooling. Another 100+ MGD of groundwater is used for public supplies in the Region. The Region has been shifting to groundwater to satisfy the local needs of growth. The southeastern portion of the Region is also using more groundwater to supply new irrigation wells (Figure 2.10). These two trends (i.e., increasing groundwater use for drinking water and irrigation) will determine if current resources can satisfy local demand. Fortunately, the most rapid growth of irrigation water use is in the northern portion of the State with more productive aquifers. Industrial water use and cooling water for power generation are not likely to grow in the next few decades.

PIC
Figure 2.10: Sources of water supply in the Central Region for the 2018 calendar year:Infographic (DNR, 2018). Historical 2018 withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural ResourcesSignificant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Region includes the following ninecounties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
PIC
Explanation of the water supply sources infographic (Figure 2.10). This set of charts is designedto illustrate the origin of the water used in the Region by industrial, public supplies and irrigators. The largestpie chart in the upper left shows that more than half of the water used in the Region is diverted from streams,rivers, canals and reservoirs. 1) The bar chart in the upper right shows how much water comes from whichsurface water source. The colors in the bar chart describe how that water is used (see legend). 2) The pie chartin the center left of the image shows that more than 75% of all groundwater reported in the DNR database ispumped from the outwash aquifer along the river, with the remaining 29 MGD from the deeper bedrock aquiferor from the sand and gravel layers further from rivers and streams (unconsolidated) (see cross-section figurebelow). 3) The colorful pie chart in the center shows that almost 90% of the water from the outwash goes topublic drinking water wells and the remaining 10% used by industry, irrigation, and energy production. 4) Thebar chart in the middle right of the image shows how much water each of the public suppliers used in the Region.5) In the lower left-hand corner of the image is a bar chart showing which bedrock formation is the sourceof supply for these deeper rock wells. 6) The pie chart at the lower edge of the page shows how much watereach user group pumps from these unconsolidated aquifers that are embedded in the soils away from the mappedoutwash – again, public drinking water is the primary use. 7) Finally, the small bar chart next to the legendshows which community systems rely on that unconsolidated aquifer for their drinking water.

3 Commercial and Industrial Sector

Often, the Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Sector is defined to include both water that isself-supplied and water purchased from the Public Water Supply (PWS) Sector for commercial and industrial use. Presented here, because the SWWF database collects only self-supplied water withdrawals, the C&I Sector data include only self-supplied water withdrawals by industrial and commercial establishments. Water purchased for use by the C&I Sector is also in the PWS Sector,but only makes up a small percentage (less than 2%) of the public water supply sector(Section 7). C&I withdrawals represent approximately 20% of total reported water use in theState.

The C&I Sector has been divided into self-supplied mining and self-supplied non-mining sub-sectors for demand forecasting, as illustrated in Figure 1.3. In each sub-sector, the forecast is based on projections of future employment and historical rates of water use in gallons per employee per day (GPED). A summary of the historical data and the forecast for eachsub-sector is provided in this section. Additional data and county graphs are in AppendixA.

3.1 Self-Supplied Non-Mining Sub-Sector

Self-supplied, non-mining withdrawals have decreased approximately 30% from 12.4 MGD in 2005 to 8.5 MGD in 2017 (Table ??). This reduction in water use is due, in part, to new efficiencies in production technology that function with lower water requirements for cooling and production. The largest withdrawals in this sub-sector occur in Marion County, accounting for over 50% of the Region total. Withdrawals in this sub-sector are primarily from groundwater, much of which is returned to surface water sources after use.

Table 3.1: Historical non-mining Commercial and Industrial withdrawals by county.
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.003 0.000 0.013
Hamilton 0.086 0.042 0.043 0.030 0.031 0.023 0.023 0.028 0.028 0.037 0.033 0.033 0.032
Hancock 0.007 0.008 0.019 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.015 0.010 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.002
Hendricks 0.052 0.039 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.168 0.167 0.180 0.178 0.180 0.180 0.050 0.050
Johnson 0.219 0.155 0.142 0.139 0.152 0.153 0.141 0.143 0.137 0.180 0.170 0.217 0.164
Madison 0.538 0.584 0.566 0.620 0.541 0.537 0.453 0.421 0.443 0.538 0.569 0.585 0.560
Marion 9.465 9.349 7.416 7.488 7.443 8.344 7.285 7.045 6.600 6.253 6.342 6.014 5.460
Morgan 1.609 1.593 1.618 1.575 1.546 1.537 1.509 1.381 1.999 2.002 1.998 2.005 2.002
Shelby 0.447 0.165 0.225 0.227 0.013 0.041 0.097 0.033 0.180 0.167 0.176 0.057 0.222
Total 12.43 11.94 10.08 10.15 9.78 10.81 9.69 9.25 9.58 9.37 9.48 8.97 8.50
Table 3.2: Percent of non-mining Commercial and Industrial supply delivered from public water supply systems. Source: USGS (2017a)
County Percent of delivered supply
Boone36
Hamilton21
Hancock31
Hendricks24
Johnson25
Madison31
Marion36
Morgan33
Shelby40
All 9-co.34

Because the future population of employees is the important factor in this analysis, we considered two employment forecasts for comparison. The first used rates of employment growth based on assumed values, which were related to historical rates and the projected statewide rates shown in Table 3.3. The second employment forecast was generated to verify the assumptions of the first, and uses the projections of the rates of growth in labor force by county. While the total county labor force is not the same as total county employment, the rates of growth in the labor force should be similar tothe rates of employment growth.

Table 3.3: Employment growth rates in the non-mining Commercial and Industrial sub-sector. Notes: Statewide rate from IBRC, 2019.
County 2005-2017 Historical growth (%) Assumed annual growth (%) Explanation of assumed growth
Boone3.820.61Statewide rate
Hamilton2.850.61Statewide rate
Hancock0.830.42One half of historical rate*
Hendricks3.420.61Statewide rate
Johnson0.630.63Historical close to Statewide rate
Madison-0.890.20Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Marion-0.310.20Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Morgan-1.240.20Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Shelby-0.080.20Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Table 3.4: Future employment in the non-mining Commerical and Industrial sub-secor, based on assumed growth rates.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Boone 21,437 22,099 22,781 23,485 24,210 24,957 25,728 26,522 27,341 28,185 29,055
Hamilton 131,452 135,510 139,694 144,007 148,453 153,037 157,762 162,632 167,654 172,830 178,166
Hancock 19,371 19,781 20,200 20,628 21,065 21,511 21,966 22,432 22,907 23,392 23,887
Hendricks 56,011 57,710 59,523 61,361 63,255 65,208 67,221 69,297 71,436 72,642 75,915
Johnson 46,913 48,409 49,953 51,547 53,191 54,888 56,639 58,445 60,310 62,234 64,219
Madison 35,868 36,228 36,591 36,959 37,330 37,705 38,083 38,466 38,852 39,242 39,636
Marion 525,376 530,651 535,979 541,360 546,795 552,285 557,830 563,431 569,088 574,801 580,572
Morgan 12,495 12,620 12,747 12,875 13,004 13,134 13,266 13,400 13,534 13,670 13,807
Shelby 15,649 15,806 15,965 16,125 16,287 16,450 16,616 16,782 16,951 17,121 17,293
Table 3.5: Water-withdrawal forecasts by county for the non-mining Commercial and Industrial sub-sector. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
Hamilton 0.035 0.037 0.038 0.039 0.040 0.041 0.043 0.044 0.045 0.047 0.048
Hancock 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010
Hendricks 0.140 0.144 0.149 0.153 0.158 0.163 0.168 0.173 0.178 0.184 0.190
Johnson 0.195 0.201 0.207 0.214 0.221 0.228 0.235 0.242 0.250 0.258 0.266
Madison 0.574 0.579 0.585 0.591 0.597 0.603 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.628 0.634
Marion 6.267 6.330 6.393 6.457 6.522 6.588 6.654 6.721 6.788 6.856 6.925
Morgan 2.022 2.042 2.063 2.083 2.104 2.125 2.147 2.168 2.190 2.212 2.234
Shelby 0.134 0.135 0.136 0.138 0.139 0.140 0.142 0.143 0.145 0.146 0.148
Total 9.377 9.480 9.583 9.688 9.794 9.902 10.010 10.121 10.232 10.345 10.460
Table 3.6: Historical mining Commercial and Industrial withdrawals by county. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24
Hamilton 38.07 35.28 31.87 31.12 31.37 24.54 23.00 26.45 27.32 20.58 25.84 27.95 35.75
Hancock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Hendricks 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.37 0.34 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.39 0.46 0.42 0.35 0.42
Johnson 0.01 1.58 1.45 1.35 1.39 1.13 1.34 1.33 1.21 0.00 1.44 1.41 1.39
Madison 0.68 0.71 0.87 4.79 3.30 1.61 2.25 1.77 0.32 0.26 0.30 0.27 1.86
Marion 6.72 7.94 7.92 5.33 5.16 5.46 5.92 6.34 6.48 6.60 33.13 27.83 30.45
Morgan 2.15 2.84 1.96 1.59 0.85 0.74 0.85 1.12 0.90 0.91 1.55 1.75 1.96
Shelby 1.57 1.46 0.83 1.50 1.20 1.21 1.30 1.09 1.22 1.78 1.69 1.94 1.50
Total 49.19 49.81 45.10 46.05 43.63 35.14 35.40 38.58 37.85 30.61 64.37 61.50 73.58
3.1.1 Forecast based on employment trends

The 12-year historical employment trends are unlikely to continue throughout the 2020-2070 forecast period. To address this variability, other information on expected growth in future employment was examined. According to the Indiana University Business Research Center, the average growth rate of total Gross State Product over the 2018-2039 period is projected to be 2.31% per year. Over the same period, total Indiana employment is projected to grow at a rate of 0.61%, with employment in manufacturing falling at a rate of 0.62% and non-manufacturing employment growing at a rate of 0.82% (IBRC, 2019). A summary of historical and assumed growth rates for the self-supplied, non-mining sub-sector is presented in Table ??, and estimates of future employment in the sub-sector are presented in Table ??.

Table 3.7: Employment growth rates in the mining Commercial and Industrial sub-sector. Notes: Statewide rate from IBRC, 2019.
County 2005-2017 Historical annual trend Assumed annual growth (%) Explanation of assumed growth
Boone0.000.00Minor mining withdrawals in 2017
Hamilton0.020.61Statewide growth rate
Hancock0.000.00Minor withdrawals, no growth
Hendricks0.000.00No trend since 2010
Johnson0.000.00No growth in mining employment
Madison0.000.10Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Marion0.000.61Statewide growth rate
Morgan-0.030.10Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Shelby-0.100.10Assumed slow growth vs. negative historical
Table 3.8: Water-withdrawal forecasts by county for the mining Commercial and Industrial sub-sector. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hamilton 27.12 27.96 28.82 29.71 30.63 31.58 32.55 33.56 34.59 35.66 36.76
Hancock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hendricks 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Johnson 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59
Madison 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31
Marion 31.01 31.97 32.95 33.97 35.02 36.10 37.22 38.36 39.55 40.77 42.03
Morgan 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.67 1.68
Shelby 1.85 1.86 1.87 1.88 1.89 1.90 1.91 1.92 1.93 1.94 1.95
Total 63.88 65.69 67.56 69.49 71.48 73.52 75.63 77.80 80.04 82.35 84.73
Table 3.9: Water-withdrawal forecasts by county for the Commercial and Industrial sector of the Central Region. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Hamilton 27.16 28.00 28.86 29.75 30.67 31.62 32.59 33.60 34.64 35.71 36.81
Hancock 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Hendricks 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60
Johnson 1.79 1.79 1.80 1.80 1.81 1.82 1.83 1.83 1.84 1.85 1.86
Madison 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.94
Marion 37.28 38.30 39.34 40.43 41.54 42.69 43.87 45.08 46.34 47.63 48.96
Morgan 3.62 3.65 3.68 3.71 3.73 3.77 3.80 3.83 3.86 3.88 3.91
Shelby 1.98 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.08 2.09 2.10
Total 73.26 75.17 77.14 79.18 81.27 83.42 85.64 87.92 90.27 92.70 95.19

Projected water demand in each county was calculated in 5-year increments through 2070 (Table ?? and Figure 3.10). Based upon the assumed rates of mining employment growth and the base year rates of per employee use, the mining water use forecast shows an increase in water withdrawals from 64.37 MGD in 2015 to 84.73 MGD in 2070. The greatest withdrawals are expected in Hamilton and Marion counties due to the presence of sand and gravel mining operations using large quantities of water. These operations involve pumping water for dewatering and washing. Water withdrawals in Hamilton, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby counties are expected to increase by 2070, while mining withdrawals in Boone, Hancock, Hendricks, and Johnson counties are expected remain low.

PIC
Table 3.10: Historical and forecast withdrawals for the mining and non-mining Commercialand Industrial sub-sectors.Regional water withdrawals are expected to increase from 73 MGD in 2020 to95 MGD in 2070. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural ResourcesSignificant Water Withdrawals Database, 2005-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Region includes the following ninecounties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

4 Irrigation and Agriculture

Throughout the world, irrigation (including water for agriculture, or growing crops) isone of the most important uses of water. Almost 70 percent of all the world’s freshwaterwithdrawals are for irrigation purposes (USGS, 2018). In the United States alone, irrigationwithdrawals were an estimated 118,000 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2015. The majority ofthese withdrawals (81%) and irrigated acres (74%) were in the 17 contiguous WesternStates where average annual precipitation typically is less than 20 inches (USGS, 2018).In Indiana, where the average annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches per year,water withdrawals for irrigation purposes in 2015 were estimated to be 133 MGD (USGS,2018).

The Irrigation and Agriculture (IR&AG) Sector includes water withdrawals from the followingsub-sectors, as illustrated in Figure 1.3: Crop/Orchard Irrigation, Golf Course Irrigation,Aquaculture/rural use, and Miscellaneous use. Of the five water sectors, IR&AG is the smallest,making up less than 5% of the total withdrawals in the Region. In 2015, 11.50 MGD were withdrawnfor agriculture and irrigation purposes in the Region.Future water withdrawal projections were based on historical trends of reported water withdrawals bycounty and agricultural sub-sector. Trends were calculated based upon variations in water-useutilizing 2005 to 2017 USGS data. The following sections describe the method and procedures used toforecast irrigation and agriculture withdrawals.

4.1 Historical withdrawals

Water withdrawal data from 2005 to 2017, available from the DNR Significant Water WithdrawalFacilities (SWWF) database were evaluated (2018 data was unavailable at the time of analysis, butlater added to graphs and tables). Additional data from United States Geological Survey’s (USGS)National Water Information System (NWIS) (DNR, 2018) were also used to verify and supplementthe SWWF data. Total regional historical withdrawals ranged from 10 MGD in 2006 to 19 MGDin 2012 (Table ??). The annual variation in this sector is primarily driven by weatheras evidenced by increased in withdrawals in 2012 when Indiana experienced a drought.Weather-related increases occur in both the golf course and cropland sub-sectors. Othersub-sectors, such as aquaculture, are relatively stable throughout the thirteen-year historicalperiod.

The sub-sector water withdrawals also vary geographically (Figure 4.2). Marion, Hamilton, andMorgan counties comprise over 75% of the total withdrawals in 2018. Graphs of total waterwithdrawals for 2005 to 2018 for each county by withdrawal type are provided in Appendix B. InHamilton and Marion counties, golf course withdrawals are largest in the Region. Morgan Countywithdrawals are predominantly from one aquaculture farm. The largest volume of water used forcropland irrigation is in Shelby County.

Table 4.1: Historical withdrawals for Irrigation and Agriculture sub-sectors. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
Sub-sector 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Crop/Orchard 1.66 1.12 3.17 1.34 1.14 2.07 3.66 6.63 4.08 2.98 1.72 2.37 2.24 3.22
Golf Course 3.45 1.93 4.16 2.98 2.43 4.36 3.46 4.92 3.24 2.17 2.42 2.34 2.53 2.99
Landscape/other 1.43 0.85 1.53 1.08 0.81 1.35 1.39 1.38 1.05 0.98 1.03 0.69 1.13 0.87
Aquaculture/Rual 3.20 3.00 3.21 3.21 3.52 3.28 3.28 3.30 3.25 3.24 3.27 3.36 3.33 3.36
Miscellaneous 3.52 3.09 3.59 4.71 3.39 3.42 2.53 3.13 2.74 3.76 3.06 2.07 3.22 2.32
Total 13.26 9.99 15.66 13.33 11.28 14.48 14.32 19.35 14.36 13.14 11.50 10.82 12.45 12.76
PIC
Figure 4.1: County distribution of Irrigation and Agriculture withdrawals in 2018.

4.2 Forecast method

Table 4.2: County growth trends in Irrigation and Agriculture sub-sectors.
County Sub-sector Historical growth 2005-2017 (%) Assumed growth 2020-2070 (%)
Boone Crop/Orchard 0.00 0.00
Golf Course -4.44 0.00
Landscape/other -4.27 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 2.44 2.44
Hamilton Crop/Orchard 3.04 1.52
Golf Course 0.64 0.64
Landscape/other -2.51 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous -1.81 0.00
Hancock Crop/Orchard 1.38 1.38
Golf Course -4.63 0.00
Landscape/other 9.11 3.00
Aquaculture/Rual 28.11 3.00
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Hendricks Crop/Orchard 0.00 0.00
Golf Course -10.07 0.00
Landscape/other -0.53 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Johnson Crop/Orchard 4.72 2.36
Golf Course -1.30 0.00
Landscape/other -21.63 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous -5.30 0.00
Madison Crop/Orchard 2.62 2.62
Golf Course -6.49 0.00
Landscape/other -2.74 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Marion Crop/Orchard -3.48 0.00
Golf Course -1.70 0.00
Landscape/other -1.15 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous -3.47 0.00
Morgan Crop/Orchard 5.23 3.00
Golf Course -6.52 0.00
Landscape/other 0.00 0.00
Aquaculture/Rual 0.36 0.36
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Shelby Crop/Orchard 5.90 2.00
Golf Course -1.74 0.00
Landscape/other 2.20 2.20
Aquaculture/Rual 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0.37 0.37

Irrigation and other landscape water uses are driven by weather: more water is applied to crops when temperatures are high and precipitation is low. Ideally, when forecasting irrigation withdrawals, weather impacts are incorporated into the prediction by correlating the amount withdrawn (in million gallons/acre) to the temperature and precipitation during the time period. However, this is not possible in the Central Region. Although we have annual withdrawal data, we do not know the number of acres to which that water is applied. Without the acreage, we don’t know if increased withdrawals are due to weather or due to an increase in acreage. Therefore, future water demand projections were based on historical trends of reported water withdrawals by county and agricultural subsector. Trends were calculated based upon observed variation from 2005 to 2017. If growth trends were negative the assumed forecast trend was set to zero (resulting in constant values for all forecast years at the base year level). However, if the calculated historical trends were greater than 3% per year, then the assumed trend for the forecast was set at 3% per year or less. The base year irrigation water use was calculated as the average for the 5 most recent years (i.e., 2013-2017). The growth trends for each county are reported in Table 4.3 and 4.5.

Table 4.4: Continued, County growth trends in Irrigation and Agriculture sub-sectors.
County Sub-sector Historical growth 2005-2017 (%) Assumed growth 2020-2070 (%)
Madison Crop/Orchard 2.62 2.62
Golf Course -6.49 0.00
Landscape/other -2.74 0.00
Aquaculture/Rural 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Marion Crop/Orchard -3.48 0.00
Golf Course -1.70 0.00
Landscape/other -1.15 0.00
Aquaculture/Rural 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous -3.47 0.00
Morgan Crop/Orchard 5.23 3.00
Golf Course -6.52 0.00
Landscape/other 0.00 0.00
Aquaculture/Rural 0.36 0.36
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Shelby Crop/Orchard 5.90 2.00
Golf Course -1.74 0.00
Landscape/other 2.20 2.20
Aquaculture/Rural 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous 0.37 0.37

4.3 Predicted withdrawals

A summary of historical and forecast IR &AG water withdrawals by sub-sector is presented in Figure4.1. The increase in withdrawals forecasted for the IR&AG Sector is small, from 12.75MGD in 2020 to 18.90 MGD in 2070 (Table ??). The growth is driven primarily by thethe crop/orchard sub-sector, increasing from 2.94 MGD to 7.64 MGD in 2070 (Figure4.1). More than half of the cropland withdrawals in the Central Region is projected tooccur in Shelby County (Table ??). Regionally, Shelby, Hamilton, Marion, and Morgancounties is projected to account for 85% of the irrigation and agriculture withdrawals in 2070.

PIC
Figure 4.1: Forecast withdrawals for the Irrigation and Agriculture sector.
Table 4.6: Forecast withdrawals for the Irrigation and Agriculture sector. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
Sub-sector 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Crop/Orchard 2.94 3.22 3.54 3.89 4.28 4.70 5.18 5.70 6.28 6.92 7.64
Golf Course 2.58 2.61 2.65 2.69 2.73 2.77 2.82 2.86 2.91 2.95 3.00
Landscape/other 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.21
Aquaculture/Rual 3.35 3.41 3.48 3.54 3.61 3.68 3.75 3.83 3.90 3.98 4.06
Miscellaneous 2.90 2.91 2.91 2.92 2.93 2.93 2.94 2.95 2.96 2.97 2.98
Total 12.75 13.16 13.60 14.07 14.59 15.16 15.78 16.46 17.20 18.01 18.90
Table 4.7: County-level forecast of Irrigation and Agricultural withdrawals in Central Region in MGD. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.47
Hamilton 3.76 3.84 3.93 4.02 4.13 4.23 4.34 4.46 4.59 4.73 4.87
Hancock 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
Hendricks 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Johnson 0.68 0.74 0.80 0.88 0.96 1.05 1.15 1.26 1.39 1.53 1.69
Madison 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.37
Marion 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99
Morgan 3.50 3.57 3.64 3.71 3.78 3.86 3.94 4.03 4.12 4.21 4.31
Shelby 1.85 2.03 2.23 2.45 2.69 2.96 3.25 3.58 3.94 4.33 4.77
Total 12.75 13.16 13.60 14.07 14.59 15.16 15.78 16.46 17.20 18.01 18.90
PIC
Table 4.9: County distribution of Irrigation and Agriculture withdrawals forecast for 2070.Theincrease in withdrawals forecasted for the IR&AG Sector is small, from 12.75 MGD in 2020 to 18.90 MGD in2070. Regionally, Shelby, Hamilton, Marion, and Morgan counties is projected to account for 85% of the irrigationand agriculture withdrawals in 2070.

5 Self-Supplied Domestic Sector

The self-supplied domestic sector includes water withdrawn from private homeowner wells. Statewidemore than 25% of the people in Indiana drink water from a private well located on their property(USGS, 2017c). These domestic users are widely distributed and are not subject to management bystate agencies and unlike other sectors, withdrawals for this sector are not collected in theDNR SWWF database. Unfortunately, this makes it difficult to know the exact number ofpeople who use private domestic water wells and, therefore, methods of estimation must beapplied.

The two basic methods of water use estimation are based upon: 1) reported PWS populationserved numbers or 2) estimation of the population outside the PWS service areas (Figure5.1). The known value for both methods is the total county population. Then, either thetotal PWS population served is subtracted from the county population (Method 1) or thedomestic population is estimated using the number of parcels that are outside of service areas(Method 2). Both of these methods and the resulting water-use estimates for 2015 aredescribed in more detail in the following sections, however, the forecast for this report usedMethod 1, by subtracting the number of people served by the public water systems from the“known” population in each county (Figure 5.1). The PWS population served data usedwas reported by the utilities in a previous IFA study (Indiana Finance Authority, 2016).

PIC
Figure 5.1: Diagram of two methods that can be used to determine the population ofself-supplied domestic. In this report, we use method 2.

5.1 Domestic water use

A 2017 USGS report (Open-file Report 2017-1131) estimated the domestic water-use in 2015 for the United States (USGS, 2017c) and found that domestic self-supplied population has decreased from 2010 to 2015. Similarly, the domestic per capita use has decreased from 81 GPCD in 2010 to 77 GPCD in 2015 in the United States. For Indiana, the 2015 average per capita rate was 76 GPCD (USGS, 2017c) and we used this per capita rate to calculate the total county domestic use for the two methods.

It should be noted that in many communities around the country per capita urban water use has fallen over time as modern fixtures are added to apartments and homes. Recent investigations have shown that rural areas are not becoming more efficient (Sankarasubramanian et al, 2017) but the estimates used in this analysis show that rural uses are in line with national estimates. In this report, the “domestic use” covers only homes that use private wells. The estimated use of 76 gpcd is reasonable as it is close to the national average of 83 gpcd (indoor and outdoor) in the US in the 2015 USGS data. Other work by the AWWA Research Foundation (DeOreo, et al, 2016) showed that average indoor residential use was close to 53 gpcd.

5.1.1 Method 1 - Population served estimation method

This method estimates the self-supplied domestic population in each county by subtracting the 2015population served for each utility from the known total population of each county (Table 5.1). ThePWS population served was reported to the IFA directly by the utilities in IFA Utility Report (2016).When service territories crossed county boundaries, GIS tools were used with data such ascensus-block population to estimate the portion of population served in each county. In most ruralcounties there are only a few small water utilities, so the population that rely on domestic water wellscan reliably be determined by subtraction from the county census data. When the population servedby the utility is small, the magnitude of the error is also small relative to the total population in eachcounty. However, this estimation by subtraction method can be difficult near metropolitan areas.

Table 5.1: Self-supplied domestic population estimated for 2015 with county population andpopulation served by public water supply. *Assumed 76 gallons per capita per day.
County County population Public-supplied population Estimated domestic users 2015 Domestic water-use (MGD)*
Boone 63,400 45,287 18,113 1.38
Hamilton 309,172 247,085 62,087 4.72
Hancock 72,392 44,379 28,013 2.13
Hendricks 158,059 101,789 56,270 4.28
Johnson 149,338 119,153 30,185 2.29
Madison 129,495 99,916 29,579 2.25
Marion 938,058 759,812 178,246 13.55
Morgan 69,646 55,558 14,088 1.07
Shelby 69,646 55,558 14,088 1.07
Total 1,934,002 1,511,880 422,122 32.08

The total number of domestic water-users in the Region is estimated is 422,122. As a method check,we compared our domestic population estimate with the 2015 USGS domestic-use population values;385,326 people (USGS, 2017c). These two domestic population estimates have a difference of 36,796people, this translates into a difference of 2.8 MGD spread across the nine county Region, an arguablysmall difference.

Using Method 1 to estimate the domestic population and the USGS estimate of 76 GPCD, the 2015estimate of domestic withdrawals translates into just over 32 MGD of water withdrawals throughoutthe Region (Table 5.1).

5.1.2 Method 2 - Domestic parcel estimation method

An alternate approach to estimate the domestic-use was to count the number of land parcels in theareas outside of the public water supply service areas. After confirming that there were records ofprivate water wells on a large fraction of these parcels, an estimate was made of total domesticpopulation based on the average number of people per home in the rural areas outside of the PWSservice territories. The results of this method are provided in Table 5.2. This approach provided anindependent estimate that showed large differences in the most densely populated counties.

Table 5.2: Self-supplied domestic population estimated for 2015 using the number of land parcels and estimates of people per parcel. *Assumed 76 gallons per capita per day.
County Parcels w/out Public Supply Estimated persons per parcel Estimated domestic users 2015 Domestic water-use (MGD)*
Boone 6,609 2.58 17,051 1.30
Hamilton 7,474 2.69 20,105 1.53
Hancock 10,207 2.59 26,436 2.01
Hendricks 10,928 2.72 29,724 2.26
Johnson 6,288 2.67 16,788 1.28
Madison 16,219 2.40 38,925 2.96
Marion 6,717 2.51 16,859 1.28
Morgan 7,554 2.65 20,018 1.52
Shelby 8,466 2.46 20,826 1.58
Total 80,462 2.59 (average) 206,732 15.71

Using Method 2 to estimate the domestic population and the USGS estimate of 76 GPCD, the 2015 estimate of domestic withdrawals translates into 15.7 MGD of water homeowner withdrawals throughout the Region (Table 5.2).

5.1.3 Understanding the difference between Method 1 and Method 2

Method 1 incorporates the data collected from the public water suppliers and, therefore, coordinates with the public supply forecast. However, Method 2 has ramifications to the public water supply sector because it yields alternative estimates for the population served values for each county. To analyze the difference this estimate will have on the public water supply withdrawals we have to calculate the new withdrawals generated by this bounding case. The population served was back-calculated in each county from the parcel estimated domestic supply. From this, we can re-calculate the 2015 public water supply withdrawals (Figure 5.2). As compared to the previously calculated public water supply withdrawals for 2015 (total 206 MGD, see Section 7), the average water use in 2015 is less by approximately 7.5 MGD.

The uncertainty in the domestic supply population could be managed with further investigation bythe County Health Departments in the Region. A survey of homeowner wells and water use wouldimprove the confidence in the forecast for water demand state-wide. However, the scattereddistribution of homeowner wells over the entire Region minimizes the hydraulic impacts of this sectoron other water uses.

Figure 5.2: Comparisons of the regional 2015 domestic and public water supply withdrawalscalculated using Method 1 versus Method 2. The total difference regionally is approximately 8 MGD.
PIC

5.2 Domestic water withdrawal forecast

Two forecasts were calculated; one using a constant GPCD and another that modified future GPCD with conservation and median household income (MHI) growth. Both forecasts applied the county population projections growth rates to the 2015 domestic population calculated using Method 1. The results of the two forecasts were very similar, resulting in a 2020 total domestic water-use of ~33.7 MGD and a 2070 projected total of 44.7 MGD in the Region. The results of the constant GPCD forecast are shown in Table ?? and Figure 5.4. The counties with the largest total population (Marion, Hamilton, and Hendricks) also have the largest domestic population and, therefore, the largest withdrawals for domestic supply.

Despite the importance of domestic water use by individual domestic well owners in some counties, it is difficult to accurately estimate domestic use with the limited data available. Water shortages caused by over pumping by high capacity wells or from lack of recharge, could cause serious disruptions in those rural areas served by self-supplied domestic wells. While these factors are important in the rural areas of the study region, additional investigation is needed to understand these risks. Given that we can only roughly estimate the average unit use (gpcd) and number of users (i.e., active wells as a sole source of water supply), we are limited to the accounting for this use by providing our best estimate.

Table 5.3 Forecast for the self-supplied domestic sector using a constant per capita rate of 76 GPCD
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone 1.53 1.69 1.82 1.92 2.00 2.06 2.13 2.18 2.22 2.25 2.27
Hamilton 5.24 5.79 6.38 6.90 7.32 7.69 8.05 8.38 8.67 8.94 9.17
Hancock 2.25 2.38 2.50 2.61 2.70 2.77 2.84 2.92 2.99 3.05 3.11
Hendricks 4.61 4.98 5.35 5.72 6.02 6.26 6.48 6.70 6.90 7.08 7.25
Johnson 2.44 2.58 2.72 2.84 2.94 3.03 3.12 3.19 3.26 3.33 3.38
Madison 2.22 2.19 2.16 2.12 2.07 2.03 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99
Marion 13.92 14.21 14.46 14.69 14.93 15.16 15.39 15.57 15.73 15.87 15.99
Morgan 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Shelby 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Total 33.70 35.34 36.92 38.33 39.50 40.53 41.50 42.43 43.26 44.01 44.67
PIC
Table 5.4: Forecast of self-supplied domestic water withdrawals by county. Domestic water withdrawals are expected to increase with the domestic population from 2020 to 2070. The water withdrawals are predicted to increase from ~34 MGD in 2020 to ~45 MGD in 2070.

6 Power Generation Sector

Power generation has historically been water intensive, however, as fuel sources change and the generation process becomes more efficient, water use has declined. This trend is evident across the country and in the Central Region. In 2005, water withdrawals exceeded 360 MGD for power generation. In 2017, water use for power generation was reported to be less than 70 MGD. For this sector, separate forecasts of water demand were prepared for thermoelectric and geothermal power production. A straightforward unit-coefficient method was used in this study to derive future quantities of water withdrawals. This method represents cooling water demand as a product of total gross generation at the plant and the unit rate of water required in gallons per kilowatt-hour. The specific coefficients and relationship for the two main types of cooling systems are discussed below.

6.1 Thermoelectric Power

Water withdrawn by power plants is classified by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as thermoelectric generation water use (USGS, 2017b). It represents the water applied in the production of heat-generated electric power. The heat sources may include fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, natural gas, or processes such as nuclear fission. The main use of water at power plants is for cooling. Nearly 90 percent of electricity in the United States is produced with thermally-driven, water-cooled generation systems which require large amounts of water.

The three major types of thermoelectric plants include: conventional steam, nuclear steam, and internal combustion plants. In internal combustion plants, the prime mover is an internal combustion diesel or gas-fired engine. Since no steam or condensation cooling is involved, almost no water is used by internal combustion power generation.

In conventional steam and nuclear steam power plants, the prime mover is a steam turbine. Water is heated in a boiler until it turns into steam. The steam is then used to turn the turbine-generator, which produces electricity. While water demand for energy generation are similar for plants of the same type, the actual unit amounts of water withdrawn per kilowatt-hour of gross generation vary from plant to plant even when the same type of cooling is used and at the same level of thermal efficiency. Significant differences in unit water use per kilowatt-hour of electricity generation among different types of cooling systems were reported in previous studies (Harte and El-Gasseir, 1978; Gleick, 1993). Some of the reasons for this variability are easily explained. For example, in load-following plants using once-through cooling systems, intake pumps are left on when the level of generation declines. This is often caused by the lack of control technologies to regulate flow to match the fluctuating load on generators. There is limited ability to close or open control valves on pipes between the pumps and the condenser, or regulate the operation of pumps.

Better measurement and control of flows is available on closed-loop systems with cooling towers. The make-up water is usually metered and its flow rate could be regulated automatically depending on the quality of the recirculating water. However, the level of control varies among plants and the amounts of intake water per kilowatt-hour of generation also vary. Without advanced technologies for water measurement and control, it is difficult to optimize system operations to minimize water intake as well as operational costs associated with maintaining the high efficiency of heat transfer in the condenser. For these reasons, the water-use rate is calculated individually for each power plant (in gallons per kWh) and used for the future projection.

6.1.1 Central Indiana Thermoelectric Power

Three counties have thermoelectric power plants in the Region: Hamilton County, Marion County, and Morgan County. Water withdrawals reported for 2005-2017 for the largest thermal power plants in each county were obtained from the DNR Significant Water Withdrawal Facilities (SWWF) database and can be seen in Table ?? (DNR, 2018).Water withdrawals for thermoelectric power have decreased substantially from over 360 MGD in 2005 to less than 60 MGD in 2018, and is primarily due to facilities changing from coal to natural gas.

Table ?? describes the owner, capacity, and water-use of each plant. Hamilton County’s primary power plant is operated by Duke Energy Indiana LLC and withdraws the least amount of water in the Region. Marion County has three major plants: two operated by Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPL) and one by Citizens Energy Group. Together these plants require the greatest water withdrawal of the Region. The IPL plant on Harding Street converted from coal to natural gas in 2016 resulting in significantly lower water withdrawal rates in 2017. Morgan County contains one power plant operated by IPL. The plant shifted from coal to natural gas in 2017 which will likely lower withdrawal in the following years. As evidenced in the reduction of water withdrawals per kWh, in particular, the Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL) Georgetown and Eagle Valley have changed fuel sources from coal to natural gas, which requires less water. Due to the monetary investment and efficiencies gained from the change in fuel source, it is assumed that the power generators will maintain the current fuel choice into the forecasted future.

PIC
Table 6.7: Historical and forecast water withdrawals for thermoelectric power generation inthe Central Region (DNR, 2018). As evidenced in the recent historic reduction of water withdrawals, somefacilities have changed fuel sources from coal to natural gas which requires less water. Annual historical waterwithdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database,1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton,Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
Table 6.4: Historical withdrawals for power generation in the Central Region. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Hamilton 0.87 0.43 0.86 0.73 0.51 0.40 0.47 0.24 0.09 0.05 0.09
Marion 148.91 134.81 136.42 138.03 134.58 141.46 133.43 140.68 157.98 139.96 107.93
Morgan 211.55 191.18 186.23 164.97 142.31 165.33 149.52 61.38 68.60 84.18 37.85
Total 361.33 326.42 323.50 303.74 277.41 307.20 283.42 202.29 226.68 224.18 145.87
Table 6.5: Thermoelectric power generators in the 9-county Central Region. Notes: IPL = Indianapolis Power and Light.
County Owner Facility Name Fuel Type Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Gallons/kWh in 2010 Gallons/kWh in 2017
Hamilton Duke Energy Noblesville Natural Gas 300 0.64 0.13
Marion IPL Harding Street Natural Gas 1196 11.42 10.60
IPL Georgetown Distillate Fuel Oil / Diesel 671 4.28 0.25
Citizens Energy CC Perry K Natural Gas 20 1296.50 249.70
Morgan IPL Eagle Valley Natural Gas / Steam 158 51.18 2.71
Table 6.6: The thermoelectric power generation water withdrawals forecast. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Hamilton 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24
Marion 49.09 50.64 52.23 53.89 55.60 57.37 59.21 61.12 63.09 65.13 67.25
Morgan 7.36 7.74 8.14 8.55 8.99 9.44 9.93 10.43 10.96 11.52 12.11
Total 56.60 58.53 60.53 62.61 64.76 67.00 69.33 71.75 74.27 76.88 79.60
Table 6.7: Historical withdrawals for geothermal power in the Central Region (DNR, 2018). Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Hendricks 0.22 0.18 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.25
Marion 5.26 4.96 5.64 5.04 5.15 6.29 5.37 6.41 4.67 5.43 4.52 5.61 5.03 0.98
Shelby 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.12
Total 5.58 5.23 5.99 5.33 5.42 6.66 5.71 6.75 4.97 5.71 4.82 5.94 5.31 1.35
Table 6.8: Historical county trends (2013-2017) used for future trends for geothermal waterwithdrawal forecast (DNR, 2018).
County Historical trend (2013 - 2017) (%)
Hendricks 0.25
Marion 0.60
Shelby 0.33
Table 6.9: The geothermal power generation water withdrawals forecast for the Central Region.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Hendricks 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22
Marion 5.12 5.27 5.43 5.59 5.76 5.94 6.12 6.30 6.49 6.69 6.89
Shelby 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Total 5.40 5.56 5.72 5.89 6.06 6.24 6.42 6.61 6.81 7.01 7.21
Table 6.10: The total power generation water withdrawals forecast in the Central Region. Notes: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Boone - - - - - - - - - - -
Hamilton 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24
Hancock - - - - - - - - - - -
Hendricks 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22
Johnson - - - - - - - - - - -
Madison - - - - - - - - - - -
Marion 54.21 55.91 57.66 59.48 61.36 63.31 65.33 67.42 69.58 71.82 74.14
Morgan 7.36 7.74 8.14 8.55 8.99 9.44 9.93 10.43 10.96 11.52 12.11
Shelby 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Total 62.00 64.09 66.25 68.50 70.83 73.25 75.76 78.37 81.08 83.89 86.82
PIC
Figure 6.3: Historical and forecast water withdrawals for geothermal power generation in theCentral Region (DNR, 2018).
PIC
Table 6.13: Total historical and forecast power generation water withdrawals in the CentralRegion (DNR, 2018). As evidenced in the recent historic reduction of water withdrawals, some facilities havechanged fuel sources from coal to natural gas which requires less water. Annual historical water withdrawals arefrom the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR,2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson,Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.

7 Public Water Supply Sector

The public water supply (PWS) sector represents water withdrawals for both community and non-community water systems. The water supplier is generally publicly or privately owned and provides water to residential areas, commercial establishments, industry, and various institutions. This section summarizes the forecast for public water supply systems within the Central Region. Variables such as population growth, income, and climate are closely evaluated to estimate future water demand.

Using publicly available historical population and water-use data, projected water withdrawals by each public water provider were forecast from 2020 to 2070. Historical withdrawal data were examined to determine base year (2015) values of annual withdrawal (in MGD), population served, and per capita use (GPCD). This baseline forecast assumes historical average weather (normal weather) patterns will be observed into 2070. A modified per capita long-term forecast of PWS was prepared for each of the 52 individual water systems.

7.1 Historical Data

The water withdrawals reported in DNR Significant Water Withdrawal Facilities (SWWF) databasewere used for the forecast analysis. These data are reported by individual public water suppliers andare considered the best available data. However, additional data from the United States GeologicalSurvey’s (USGS) Water-use database were analyzed as a verification of these data and are presentedin the following paragraphs (USGS, 2017a).

7.1.1 USGS water-use data

Population served, as opposed to total population, is the number of people served by a public watersupplier within that supplier’s service area. Population served data collected from 1985 to 2015were obtained from the USGS water-use database (USGS, 2017a). Historically, populationserved by public water supply systems in the 9-county Region had been increasing at theannual (compounded) rate of 1.51 % (Table ??). Much of the growth was seen in Hamiltonand Hendricks counties as their populations increased at the rate of nearly 7 % per year.Madison County had the lowest observed population growth with an increase of 0.06 % peryear.

Table 7.1: Historical public water supply population served by county in the Central Region from 1985-2015 (USGS, 2015).
County 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Trend/ Annual Growth Rate
Boone 19,650 21,840 24,750 27,300 30,820 33,531 37,500 0.0222
Hamilton 49,850 61,700 94,520 122,800 184,552 215,047 246,659 0.0685
Hancock 15,170 18,940 20,920 22,820 26,013 28,841 29,878 0.0222
Hendricks 22,240 30,510 37,510 45,070 74,287 90,455 101,921 0.0651
Johnson 55,100 69,200 83,890 95,050 105,960 115,215 123,447 0.0262
Madison 90,430 92,100 94,690 95,090 92,984 93,856 92,492 0.0006
Marion 729,960 709,810 747,280 786,450 788,904 825,701 858,264 0.0061
Morgan 24,860 28,850 35,600 38,210 39,983 39,476 38,897 0.0147
Shelby 16,220 18,450 20,080 20,370 20,526 20,840 20,860 0.007
Total 1,023,480 1,051,400 1,159,240 1,253,160 1,364,030 1,462,960 1,550,930 0.0151
Table 7.2: Historical public water supply water withdrawals by county in the Central Region from 1985-2015 in MGD (USGS, 2017a). Note: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Trend/ Annual Growth Rate
Boone 2.99 1.65 1.95 2.03 2.08 1.78 2.01 -0.0088
Hamilton 6.82 7.35 17.49 32.68 31.96 41.63 35.69 0.0643
Hancock 2.6 2.77 2.54 3.25 3.69 3.37 3.18 0.0097
Hendricks 2.36 2.58 3.6 4.3 4.6 3.62 5.1 0.0227
Johnson 5.87 8.4 10.61 10.84 12.46 9.66 10.04 0.0127
Madison 10.87 12.76 13.31 14.48 11.11 13.54 14.98 0.0065
Marion 122.71 125.41 131.78 124.62 141.02 123.37 111.3 -0.0017
Morgan 2.61 4.55 5.21 5.54 5.67 11.03 10.52 0.0492
Shelby 2.11 2.93 3.41 4.01 4.06 5.05 5.66 0.0310
Total 158.94 168.4 189.9 201.75 216.65 213.05 198.48 0.0088
Table 7.3: Historical public water supply per capita withdrawal rates by county in the Central Region from 1985-2015 in MGD (USGS, 2017a). Note: MGD = million gallons per day.
County 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Trend/ Annual Growth Rate
Boone 152.2 75.5 78.8 74.4 67.5 53.1 53.6 -0.0339
Hamilton 136.8 119.1 185.0 266.1 173.2 193.6 144.7 0.0066
Hancock 171.4 146.3 121.4 142.4 141.9 116.8 106.4 -0.0124
Hendricks 106.1 84.6 96.0 95.4 61.9 40.0 50.0 -0.0286
Johnson 106.5 121.4 126.5 114.0 117.6 83.8 81.3 -0.0107
Madison 120.2 138.5 140.6 152.3 119.5 144.3 162.0 0.0059
Marion 168.1 176.7 176.3 158.5 178.8 149.4 129.7 -0.0074
Morgan 105.0 157.7 146.3 145.0 141.8 279.4 263.6 0.0314
Shelby 130.1 158.8 169.8 196.9 197.8 242.3 271.3 0.0238
Total 155.3 160.2 163.8 161.0 158.8 145.6 128.0 -0.0054
7.1.2 SWWF data

The DNR SWWF database reports annual and monthly withdrawals for all significant water users(able to withdraw 100,000 gallons per day), including public water suppliers. Tables ?? and ??summarize annual withdrawals obtained from the SWWF database for 52 public water systemswithin the 9 counties (DNR, 2018). Annual withdrawals showed increasing trends in 28 systems.

Table 7.4: Historical water withdrawals reported by public water suppliers in the DNR SWWF database from 2005-2017 in MGD (DNR, 2018).
County System/Utility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Trend
Boone Advance Water Works 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.057
Jamestown Mun. Water Work 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 -0.012
Lebanon Utility Service 1.76 1.66 1.90 1.75 1.52 1.50 1.56 1.67 1.51 1.53 1.73 1.77 1.64 -0.004
Town of Thorntown 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 -0.031
Lost Run Farm Community 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.311
Hamilton Arcadia Water Department 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 -0.018
Atlanta Water Department 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 -0.021
Carmel Municipal Water 8.45 8.15 8.63 7.42 6.79 9.01 8.65 11.79 12.12 11.05 11.27 11.57 12.01 0.043
Citizens Water of Westfield 4.46 4.89 9.42 8.72 6.44 10.3 6.73 7.94 8.69 7.35 7.18 6.53 5.83 0.006
Indiana-American Water Co 3.04 3.29 3.87 3.70 3.60 4.02 3.88 4.25 3.95 4.07 4.29 4.27 4.19 0.022
Indiana-American Water Co 3.04 3.29 3.87 3.70 3.60 4.02 3.88 4.25 3.95 4.07 4.29 4.27 4.19 0.022
Sheridan Water Works 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22 -0.022
Town of Cicero Utilities 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.40 0.44 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.41 -0.001
Hancock City of Greenfield 3.04 2.92 3.07 2.97 2.62 2.68 2.56 2.76 2.72 2.76 2.67 2.59 2.47 -0.014
Gem Water/Town of Cumberland 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.051
Town of Fortville 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.60 0.51 0.59 0.48 0.44 0.43 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.53 -0.024
Hendricks Danville Water Company 0.30 0.48 0.42 0.57 0.51 0.52 0.14 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.087
North Salem Water Corporation 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 -0.027
Town of Brownsburg 1.09 1.07 1.14 1.40 1.32 1.50 1.48 1.47 1.71 1.68 1.75 1.85 1.97 0.052
Town of Plainfield 4.06 3.98 3.01 3.97 3.61 4.09 4.40 4.70 4.60 4.31 4.22 4.29 4.65 0.018
Johnson Bargersville Water Department 2.61 2.43 3.09 2.69 2.54 2.88 2.82 3.26 2.83 2.79 2.75 2.89 3.02 0.009
Indiana-American Water Co Inc 9.07 8.55 9.41 9.07 8.54 9.33 8.33 9.91 9.02 8.81 8.78 8.96 9.12 0.000
Princes Lakes Water and Sewage 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.004
Town of Edinburgh 0.71 0.65 0.70 0.74 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.89 0.79 0.83 0.83 1.16 0.83 0.029
Madison Alexandria Water Works 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.70 0.83 0.81 0.82 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.72 0.73 0.71 0.007
Anderson Water Department 3.71 3.55 4.43 5.02 5.01 5.58 5.32 5.20 5.29 5.57 5.74 5.74 5.54 0.032
Citizens Water of South Madison 0.00 0.24 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.28 0.68 0.95 2.29 0.77 0.394
Elwood Water Utility 2.53 2.17 2.30 1.82 1.43 1.38 1.14 1.22 1.34 1.30 1.14 1.13 1.18 -0.073
Indiana-American Water Co Inc 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 -0.058
Ingalls Water Department 1.13 1.23 1.22 1.06 1.09 1.06 1.11 1.03 1.07 0.97 1.02 1.08 1.09 -0.011
Pendleton Municipal Water 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.15 0.29 0.31 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.28 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.057
Town of Chesterfield 0.31 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.24 0.23 -0.027
Town of Edgewood 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 -0.018
Town of Frankton 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.29 2.94 0.25 0.337
Town of Orestes 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.009
Marion City of Lawrence Utilities 4.58 4.47 5.04 4.79 4.18 4.21 4.34 4.16 4.49 4.74 3.95 4.22 4.32 -0.008
Town of Speedway 2.70 2.71 2.66 2.31 2.09 2.30 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.29 2.30 2.07 2.01 -0.020
Citizens Energy Group 151.6 152.0 168.0 148.4 141.4 140.3 137.5 135.5 133.7 120.5 124.5 124.8 125.3 -0.023
Morgan Brown County Water Utility 1.14 1.16 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.01 1.22 1.08 1.18 1.23 1.32 1.33 1.32 0.018
City of Martinsville 1.77 1.50 1.43 1.41 1.25 1.53 1.60 1.67 1.56 1.57 1.51 1.54 1.57 0.002
Indiana-American Water Co 1.08 1.05 1.10 1.03 0.99 1.04 1.00 1.06 1.03 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.97 -0.012
Mapleturn Utilities Inc 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 -0.007
Morgan County Rural Water 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.45 0.41 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.005
Painted Hills Utilities 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.003
Town of Brooklyn 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.18 0.030
Town of Morgantown 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 -0.012
Town of Paragon 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 -0.033
Shelby Indiana-American Water Co 3.41 3.01 3.25 2.94 2.75 2.71 3.17 2.95 3.24 3.02 3.10 2.97 0.04 -0.002
Town of Morristown 0.54 0.54 0.63 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.62 0.61 0.006
Town of St. Paul 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.003
Waldron Conservancy District 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.002
Regional Total 218.5 217.4 241.8 219.6 206.2 214.6 206.0 212.6 210.4 195.4 206.1 204.1 200.3
Table 7.7: Projected county population in the Central Region from 2010 - 2050 (IBRC, 2018).
County 2010 2015 2019 (Actual) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Boone 56,640 63,400 66,999 70,556 77,632 83,749 88,634 92,011 94,916 97,944
Hamilton 274,569 309,172 330,086 343,179 379,478 417,754 452,289 479,841 503,823 527,582
Hancock 70,002 72,392 76,351 76,353 80,876 85,043 88,710 91,845 94,320 96,643
Hendricks 145,448 158,059 167,009 170,323 184,022 197,902 211,355 222,337 231,528 239,515
Johnson 139,654 149,338 156,225 158,713 168,123 176,917 184,715 191,249 197,161 202,884
Madison 131,636 129,495 129,641 127,604 126,187 124,262 121,902 119,524 117,118 114,759
Marion 903,393 938,058 954,670 963,732 983,721 1,001,231 1,017,228 1,033,719 1,049,932 1,065,757
Morgan 68,894 69,646 70,116 70,302 71,372 72,001 72,188 71,931 71,411 71,095
Shelby 44,436 44,442 44,593 44,600 44,953 45,039 44,801 44,244 43,755 43,247
Table 7.8: Fractional growth of county population during each 5-year time increment (IBRC, 2018). *=The 5-year increment ratios were assumed fro the period from 2050-2070 based on the preceding trend during 2020-2050.
County 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055* 2060* 2065* 2070*
Boone 0.119 0.113 0.100 0.079 0.058 0.038 0.032 0.032 0.023 0.018 0.015 0.012
Hamilton 0.126 0.110 0.106 0.101 0.083 0.061 0.050 0.047 0.041 0.035 0.030 0.026
Hancock 0.034 0.055 0.059 0.052 0.043 0.035 0.027 0.025 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.020
Hendricks 0.087 0.078 0.080 0.075 0.068 0.052 0.041 0.034 0.034 0.030 0.026 0.023
Johnson 0.069 0.063 0.059 0.052 0.044 0.035 0.031 0.029 0.024 0.022 0.019 0.017
Madison -0.016 -0.015 -0.011 -0.015 -0.019 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Marion 0.038 0.027 0.021 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.008
Morgan 0.011 0.009 0.015 0.009 0.003 -0.004 -0.007 -0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Shelby 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.002 -0.005 -0.012 -0.011 -0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 7.9: Estimated constant elasticities of precipitation, temperature and income.
County Elasticity of Precipitation Elasticity of Average Air Temperature Elasticity of Median Household Income
Boone -0.0148 0.2149 0.2211
Hamilton -0.1073 0.6002 0.2200
Hancock -0.0091 0.0812 0.5351
Hendricks -0.0431 0.2853 0.5240
Johnson -0.0746 0.3275 0.2079
Madison -0.0281 0.0739 0.3928
Marion -0.0420 0.2452 0.0882
Morgan -0.0583 0.1421 0.3127
Shelby -0.0404 0.1099 0.3127
Table 7.10: Forecasted water withdrawals for public water suppliers in the Central Region from 2020-2070 in MGD.
County Water Supply System/Utility 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Boone Advance Water Works 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11
Jamestown Mun. Water Work 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Lebanon Utility Service 1.86 2.04 2.20 2.32 2.40 2.46 2.53 2.58 2.62 2.65 2.67
Town of Thorntown 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19
Lost Run Farm Community 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Hamilton Arcadia Water Department 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22
Atlanta Water Department 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09
Carmel Municipal Water 12.50 13.77 15.11 16.30 17.24 18.04 18.82 19.52 20.14 20.67 21.14
Citizens Water of Westfield 7.72 8.51 9.33 10.07 10.65 11.14 11.63 12.06 12.44 12.77 13.06
Indiana-American Water Co 4.66 5.13 5.63 6.07 6.42 6.72 7.01 7.27 7.52 7.70 7.88
Sheridan Water Works 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.43
Town of Cicero Utilities 0.51 0.56 0.62 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86
Hancock City of Greenfield 2.84 3.02 3.20 3.35 3.49 3.61 3.72 3.84 3.96 4.07 4.17
Gem Water/Town of Cumberland 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22
Town of Fortville 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.63
Hendricks Danville Water Company 0.92 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.22 1.28 1.33 1.39 1.44 1.48 1.53
North Salem Water Corporation 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07
Town of Brownsburg 1.91 2.07 2.24 2.41 2.55 2.67 2.78 2.89 2.99 3.09 3.18
Town of Plainfield 4.63 5.03 5.44 5.85 6.19 6.48 6.74 7.01 7.26 7.49 7.71
Johnson Bargersville Water Department 2.98 3.14 3.29 3.42 3.53 3.63 3.72 3.80 3.86 3.92 3.97
Indiana-American Water Co Inc 9.37 9.89 10.37 10.78 11.12 11.42 11.71 11.95 12.17 12.35 12.51
Princes Lakes Water and Sewage 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.06
Town of Edinburgh 0.99 1.05 1.10 1.14 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.29 1.31 1.33
Madison Alexandria Water Works 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
Anderson Water Department 5.61 5.56 5.48 5.39 5.29 5.19 5.10 5.11 5.11 5.12 5.13
Citizens Water of South Madison 1.29 1.28 1.26 1.24 1.22 1.20 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18
Elwood Water Utility 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.13 1.11 1.09 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07
Indiana-American Water Co Inc 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Ingalls Water Department 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pendleton Municipal Water 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37
Town of Chesterfield 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Town of Edgewood 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Town of Frankton 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Town of Orestes 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Marion City of Lawrence Utilities 4.39 4.45 4.49 4.53 4.57 4.61 4.64 4.66 4.68 4.68 4.69
Town of Speedway 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.33 2.36 2.37 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.41 2.41
Citizens Energy Group 126.20 128.38 130.22 131.84 133.52 135.15 136.72 137.82 138.74 139.52 140.15
Morgan Brown County Water Utility 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31
City of Martinsville 1.55 1.57 1.59 1.59 1.58 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56
Indiana-American Water Co 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Mapleturn Utilities Inc 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Morgan County Rural Water Co 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Painted Hills Utilities 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Town of Brooklyn 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Town of Morgantown 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Town of Paragon 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Shelby Indiana-American Water Co 3.13 3.15 3.15 3.14 3.09 3.06 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.01 3.01
Town of Morristown 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58
Town of St. Paul 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Waldron Conservancy District 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Regional Total 206.60 213.38 219.73 225.29 230.02 234.22 238.28 241.87 245.02 247.74 250.09
Table 7.13: Public water supply water withdrawals (in MGD) forecast by county in the Central Region. MGD = million gallons per day.
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Boone 2.27 2.48 2.67 2.82 2.91 3.00 3.08 3.14 3.19 3.22 3.25
Hamilton 25.82 28.46 31.22 33.68 35.61 37.27 38.89 40.34 41.61 42.72 43.67
Hancock 3.41 3.63 3.84 4.03 4.20 4.34 4.47 4.62 4.76 4.89 5.02
Hendricks 7.50 8.15 8.81 9.47 10.01 10.49 10.91 11.35 11.75 12.13 12.48
Johnson 14.13 14.92 15.64 16.26 16.78 17.23 17.66 18.08 18.35 18.63 18.87
Madison 11.26 11.15 11.00 10.81 10.62 10.42 10.23 10.25 10.27 10.28 10.30
Marion 132.85 135.12 137.02 138.71 140.45 142.14 143.76 144.88 145.83 146.61 147.25
Morgan 5.49 5.57 5.61 5.63 5.60 5.56 5.53 5.53 5.52 5.52 5.51
Shelby 3.87 3.90 3.91 3.88 3.83 3.79 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.73 3.73
Total 206.60 213.38 219.73 225.29 230.02 234.22 238.28 241.87 245.02 247.74 250.09

Temperature is also positively correlated with water usage with a further interdependence on seasonalfluctuation. Residents use greater water during the summer months than cooler months. Temperatureelasticities ranged from 0.07 to 0.60 with the greatest elasticity in Hamilton County and the lowest inMadison County. Precipitation on the other hand is negatively associated with water withdrawalprimarily due to rainfall providing greater natural water availability for lawn and garden irrigation.Precipitation elasticities were expected to be smaller than the other two variables and ranged from-0.015 to -0.11. The greatest precipitation elasticity was calculated in Hamilton County and the lowestin Boone County. For this baseline scenario, normalized weather was assumed. Normalweather is the average conditions experienced for the 30-year time span of 1980-2010.Recognizing that there is seasonal dependence of climate variables such as temperature andprecipitation, water withdrawal rates were also forecasted for various climate scenarios (see Section9).

The application of historical or assumed future trends used the formula:

F V = BY V × (1+ r)(fy- 2015)

where: FV= future value (income ratio), BYV=base year value, r=annual growth/decline rate, fy=future year

For each five-year increment from 2020 to 2070, population-served size was calculated using estimatedgrowth rates, and GPCD was recalculated to include expected county median household income(MHI) elasticity and corresponding income ratio. The annual growth of future MHI was assumed at0.6 % per year. The assumption is based on historical data and compared to some statewideprojections. For the state of Indiana, the long-term (35 years) income growth was 0.30 percent/year(FRED, 2020). The future per capita use rates were also assumed to be affected by the ongoing waterconservation trend, which was assumed at -0.2 % per year. The forecast for each utility isshown in Tables ?? - ??. Graphs for each of the utility forecasts are provided in AppendixD.

PIC
Table 7.14: Public water supply water withdrawals (in MGD) forecast by county in the CentralRegion. This sector is expected to grow from 206 MGD in 2020 to over 250 MGD in 2070. Most of the growth inthe region will occur in Hamilton County. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Departmentof Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Central Region includesthe following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, andShelby.

8 Seasonal Public Supply Withdrawals

Water use and water withdrawals are, in part, driven by the weather as reflected in the public supply model. In that model (see Section 7), the elasticities for temperature and precipitation were calculated for each water utility and capture how water withdrawals are affected by weather. Temperature is positively correlated with water usage, meaning water use is greater during the summer months than cooler months. Precipitation on the other hand is negatively associated with water withdrawal, meaning water use decreases with more rainfall by providing more availability for lawn and garden irrigation. The weather effect is evident in monthly fluctuation of withdrawals reported in the SWWF database. Through examination of the monthly data for each utility reported from 1985-2017, seasonal effects are apparent for some utilities.

Table 8.1: Predicted monthly water supply water withdrawals (in MGD) per county in the Central Region in 2070. Average annual water withdrawals for PWS are projected to be 250 MGD in 2070, while the average peak monthly withdrawals in that year (shown in the table) are expected to be ~350 MGD. Recall that actual monthly withdrawals will vary. The forecast predicts the long term average withdrawals.
County Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Boone 2.96 3.24 2.84 3.25 3.33 3.62 3.54 3.51 3.49 3.30 3.12 2.81
Hamilton 30.29 32.56 31.79 36.90 43.69 59.21 60.64 61.03 59.13 40.02 35.47 32.81
Hancock 5.14 5.05 4.61 4.74 4.75 5.19 5.16 5.20 5.18 4.83 5.07 5.34
Hendricks 10.68 11.66 10.63 11.85 12.75 14.64 14.59 14.93 14.27 11.75 11.07 10.91
Johnson 16.57 18.09 16.09 17.51 18.85 22.38 22.75 23.21 21.90 17.39 16.16 15.53
Madison 9.92 11.35 9.97 10.19 10.01 10.80 10.45 10.54 10.71 9.99 10.13 9.68
Marion 106.91 124.94 111.56 117.62 134.69 186.04 211.89 220.16 208.70 144.74 107.75 91.51
Morgan 5.31 6.05 5.34 5.46 5.54 5.87 5.73 5.80 5.69 5.17 5.21 5.07
Shelby 3.50 3.83 3.47 3.68 3.70 4.03 3.81 3.96 3.94 3.71 3.68 3.48
Total 191.27 216.02 196.31 211.19 237.31 311.79 338.56 348.34 333.00 240.91 197.66 177.15

The monthly values are obtained by redistributing average annual MGD by calendar months. The percent of annual use during each month was calculated as average from historical water use data. For example, on average Carmel Municipal Water in Hamilton County uses 15% of the annual water withdrawals in July and 5% of the annual water withdrawals in January. This seasonal variation is evident regionally as seen in Figure 8.1, however, a closer examination of county and utility data reveals that the seasonal trends are only in four counties; Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, and Marion. Graphs of the individual public water supply utilities, provided in Appendix E, show that, in fact, the seasonal trend is evident in only five utilities; Carmel Municipal Water, Town of Plainfield, Indiana American Water Company (Johnson Co.), Bargersville Water Department, and Citizens Energy Group. In particular, Citizens Energy Group and Carmel Municipal Water have the largest summer/winter divergence of water withdrawals. These two utilities withdraw double in the summer as in winter. Seasonal variation for each county and individual utilities in each county is provided in Appendix E.

PIC
Figure 8.1: Seasonal water withdrawal for the public water supply sector for the year 2070 inMGD. Average annual water withdrawals for PWS are projected to be 250 MGD in 2070, while the average peakmonthly withdrawals in that year (shown in the graph) are expected to be ~350 MGD. Recall that actual monthlywithdrawals will vary. The forecast predicts the long term average withdrawals.

9 Climate Scenarios in the Public Water Supply Sector

The following analysis of climate change impacts on water demand is necessarily general. As notedpreviously, the scope and scale of this investigation does not allow for a high-resolution assessment ofhow some climate change scenarios could stretch seasons or alter the seasonal cycles. In this work,climate change is a shift from historically observed climate conditions as a result of natural processesand human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

The changes in climate will place additional stress on water availability and resources. To adequatelyaddress future water demand within the Public Water Supply (PWS) sector, climate projections wereapplied to Public Water Supply (PWS) withdrawals as a means of assessing water demand over arange of conditions. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the ClimateResilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (USEPA CREAT) to help drinking water andwastewater utilities understand the potential system-related risks associated with climatechange. CREAT provides projections of changes in climate change conditions based onaverages of climate model outputs. To understand the range of potential impacts due toclimate change in the Central Region, three scenarios were prepared for the public watersupply sector. The climate scenarios represent conditions based on the average of fiveclimate models utilizing higher temperatures/less precipitation (Hot/Dry scenario), moderatetemperature increases/greater precipitation (Warm/Wet scenario), and historical droughtscenario (30% less precipitation than the Hot/Dry scenario). The 30 percent drought isclose to what we experienced in 1963. The various moisture/temperature climate changescenarios are meant to consider the impact of these future climate regimes becomes our new baseline.

This chapter focuses on a range of climate scenarios and their impact on public water supplywithdrawals by public and private establishments within the Central Region.

Table 9.1: Summary of climate change scenarios; simulated precipitation and temperaturechanges in the future due to climate change (EPA, 2016).Historic regional average precipitation is ~43 inches/year and average temperature is ~52 °F (MRCC, 2019).
Scenario Name Temperature change (°F) Precipitation change (%)
2035 2060 2035 2060
Hot/Dry 3.1 - 3.2 6.0 - 6.2 -0.3 - -0.6 -0.5 - -1.2
Warm/Wet 2.3 4.4 - 4.5 6.0 - 6.5 11.7 - 12.6
Severe Drought 3.1 - 3.2 6.0 - 6.2 -30 -30

9.1 CREAT Climate Models

In the previous section of the report (see Section 7), regional public water supply withdrawals wereforecast into 2070 using baseline (2015) conditions and normalized weather (average 1980-2010). Inthese climate change scenarios, public water withdrawals are the forecasted into 2070 using thepredicted relationship between water demand and climate change with conditions projected by theU.S Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (USEPACREAT) (EPA, 2016). Critical to its use in this report, CREAT is one of the tools used bywater utilities to evaluate the risk of climate change on water supply. The fact that this approach to defining the risks of climate change has been adopted by leading water systems inthe country gives us confidence that these scenarios will be useful to the Central Region, especially because the Region’s water withdrawals are dominated by public water supply. The CREAT Methodology Guide describes the approach for addressing climate change risks as follows:

CREAT provides projected changes from Global Climate Models17 (GCMs) as available from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5). CREAT uses an ensemble-informed approach to derive meaningful choices from the results of 38 model runs for each 0.5 by 0.5 degree location. This approach involves generating a scatter plot of normalized, projected changes in annual temperature and precipitation by 2060 for all models. Statistical targets were calculated based on the distribution of these model results and the five models closest to those targets were averaged to generate each projection (Figure 5). The targets were designed to capture a majority of the range in model projections of changes in annual temperature and precipitation, as follows:

Once the models for each projection were selected, these models were ensemble-averaged to calculate annual and monthly changes for temperature and precipitation. CREAT selects the most appropriate data to match the defined planning horizon from two available data sets – one for 2035, which is based on projection data for 2025-2045, and one for 2060, which is based on projection data for 2050-2070. The selection of the appropriate CREAT-provided time period is based on the End Year defined by the user during the time period selection. If the End Year is 2049 or earlier, the 2035 data are selected; otherwise, CREAT selects the 2060 data set.

To account for each climate scenario, temperature and precipitation ratios were applied to the GPCDfor each five-year projection, that was then translated to annual withdrawal. The temperature andprecipitation ratios for the H/D and W/W climate scenarios were calculated using the followingequations:

           ( (Th +  △Te ))e T emperature Ratio =  ----------- Th
Where T = climate variable of interest (temperature); Th= the historical value; Te =projectedchange in variable due to climate change; and e = elasticity constant.
           (     △Pe- )ePrecipitation Ratio = P-+--(1-+--100-)              Ph
Where P = climate variable of interest (precipitation); Ph= the historical value; Pe =projectedchange in variable due to climate change; and e = elasticity constant.The temperature and precipitation ratios were then used to obtain future GPCD as shownbelow:
GP CDf = GP CD2015(Income Ratio )e(Conservation Ratio)(T emperature Ratio)(PrecipitationRatio )
Where: GPCDf = future per capita use, GPCD2015 = base year per capita use, and e = household income elasticity.Future population estimated previously for the baseline scenario using expected growth rates percounty was used to transform GPCDf into future withdrawal (MGD).

Monthly withdrawals were forecasted for the years 2035 and 2070 using the monthly fraction of annualwithdrawal by each utility per county. These monthly fractions for each utility were calculated fromthe average historically observed monthly data (2008 to 2017).

9.2 Historical Data

The water demand forecast applied historical water-use data from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which provided annual withdrawal estimates in 53 water systems in the Region. The period of record extended from from 2005 to 2017 (DNR, 2018). The data set was reproduced in Section 7. To assess the impact of climate change on temperature and precipitation on both a monthly and annual basis, a baseline of historically observed weather recorded in each county was assembled (Table 9.2). These values became the reference points for annual precipitation and average annual temperatures used to estimate alternative climate scenarios in the project area. For each analysis the average annual values were decomposed into a monthly distribution. The seasonal fluctuation in water use in each month is based on the relationship between use in that month and the annual average water withdrawal.

Table 9.2: Historic average annual recorded precipitation (inches) and average annual temperature (degrees F) per county (MRCC, 2019).
County Precipitation (inches) Temperature (°F)
Boone 42.75 52.22
Hamilton 42.18 51.55
Hancock 45.81 51.69
Hendricks 41.78 53.10
Johnson 44.83 51.67
Madison 41.44 51.76
Marion 42.44 53.07
Morgan 44.73 51.32
Shelby 41.93 52.40

9.3 Hot/Dry Scenario

The Hot/Dry (H/D) annual and monthly forecasts were estimated for each utility per county. The annual projections were conducted in five-year increments into 2070, whereas the monthly projections were limited to the years 2035 and 2060 (EPA, 2016). The H/D climate scenario is characterized by the following changes in temperature (°F) and precipitation (%) (Table 9.3). The H/D scenario predicts relatively constant increases in temperatures, with Morgan and Johnson Counties expected to experience slightly greater temperature increases by 2035 and 2060. Marion and Hendricks Countiesare expected to see the greatest decrease in precipitation (%) in 2060.

Table 9.3: USEPA CREAT projected average annual temperature (degrees F) and precipitation (%) change in 2035 and 2060.
County Boone Temperature (°F) Precipitation (%)
Boone 2035 3.1 -0.5
2060 6.1 -1.0
Hamilton 2035 3.1 -0.5
2060 6.1 -1.0
Madison 2035 3.1 -0.5
2060 6.0 -0.9
Hendricks 2035 3.1 -0.6
2060 6.0 -1.2
Marion 2035 3.1 -0.6
2060 6.0 -1.2
Hancock 2035 3.1 -0.3
2060 6.0 -0.6
Morgan 2035 3.2 -0.3
2060 6.2 -0.5
Johnson 2035 3.2 -0.3
2060 6.2 -0.5
Shelby 2035 3.1 -0.3
2060 6.0 -0.6

9.4 Warm/Wet Scenario

The Warm/Wet (W/W) annual and monthly forecasts were estimated for each utility per county. The annual projections were conducted in five-year increments into 2070 and the monthly projections were limited to the years 2035 and 2060 (EPA, 2016). The W/W climate scenario is characterized by the following changes in temperature (°F) and precipitation (%) (Table 9.4). With the exception of a few counties, the W/W scenario predicts temperature and precipitation increases in 2035 and 2060 to be relatively constant across the region with average increases in precipitation of 6.3% in 2035 and 12.3% in 2060.

Table 9.4: USEPA CREAT projected average annual temperature (degrees F) and precipitation (%) change in 2035 and 2060.
County Boone Temperature (°F) Precipitation (%)
Boone 2035 2.3 6.3
2060 4.5 12.3
Hamilton 2035 2.3 3.6
2060 4.5 12.3
Madison 2035 2.3 6.45
2060 4.5 12.5
Hendricks 2035 2.3 6.4
2060 4.4 12.5
Marion 2035 2.3 6.4
2060 4.4 12.5
Hancock 2035 2.3 6.5
2060 4.4 12.6
Morgan 2035 2.3 6.0
2060 4.5 11.7
Johnson 2035 2.3 6.0
2060 4.5 11.7
Shelby 2035 2.3 6.5
2060 4.4 12.6

9.5 30% Drought

Historically, the driest year for Indiana occurred in 1963 with mean precipitation measuring 29.32 inches, which is a 30% deficit of the annual, normal precipitation of 41.5 inches. To simulate a similar drought, the 30% drought scenario predicts 70% of precipitation anticipated in the H/D scenario will occur with the same expected temperature increases in both 2035 and 2060 (EPA, 2016). This scenario shows that the peak use in this case would increase in the range of 30 MGD from the baseline. This level of regional hydrologic deficit was experienced by the region in 1963. Active collaboration among the utilities will be required to provide for communities that endure such a drought.

Table 9.5: Hot/Dry Scenario - Predicted monthly public water supply water withdrawals (in MGD) per county in the Central Region in 2070. Average annual water withdrawals for the hot/dry scenario are projected to be 265 MGD in 2070, while the average peak monthly withdrawals in that year (shown in the table) are expected to be ~370 MGD. Recall that actual monthly withdrawals will vary. The forecast predicts the long term average withdrawals. MGD = million gallons per day.
County Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Boone 3.03 3.32 2.91 3.33 3.41 3.71 3.62 3.60 3.57 3.38 3.19 2.88
Hamilton 32.43 34.86 34.04 39.51 46.77 63.39 64.92 65.33 63.31 42.84 37.97 35.13
Hancock 5.18 5.10 4.65 4.78 4.79 5.23 5.21 5.24 5.23 4.87 5.12 5.39
Hendricks 11.01 12.02 10.97 12.22 13.15 15.10 15.05 15.40 14.72 12.13 11.41 11.26
Johnson 17.20 18.78 16.71 18.18 19.58 23.24 23.62 24.10 22.73 18.05 16.77 16.13
Madison 10.00 11.44 10.06 10.27 10.09 10.89 10.53 10.63 10.80 10.08 10.22 9.76
Marion 114.17 132.64 119.15 125.62 143.87 198.84 226.51 235.36 223.09 154.66 115.08 97.70
Morgan 5.40 6.15 5.43 5.55 5.63 5.97 5.83 5.89 5.78 5.26 5.30 5.15
Shelby 3.55 3.88 3.52 3.72 3.75 4.07 3.86 4.01 3.99 3.76 3.73 3.52
Total 201.97 228.19 207.42 223.18 251.04 330.45 359.15 369.57 353.22 255.03 208.79 186.91

9.6 Climate Scenario Demand Projections

Using the combination of climate variables for each scenario, withdrawal per county in 2035 and 2070 was forecasted on an annual and monthly basis (Figure 9.8 and Tables ??- ??). Individual county graphs of the climate change scenario forecasts are provided in Appendix G. For all scenarios, the predicted withdrawals are expected to increase from the baseline scenario, particularly in the summer months. In the drought scenario, the August withdrawals are expected to increase over 30 MGD in relation to the baseline forecast.

Table 9.6: Warm/Wet Scenario - Predicted monthly public water supply water withdrawals (in MGD) per county in the Central Region in 2070. Average annual water withdrawals for the warm/wet scenario are projected to be 258 MGD in 2070, while the average peak monthly withdrawals in that year (shown in the table) are expected to be ~360 MGD. Recall that actual monthly withdrawals will vary. The forecast predicts the long term average withdrawals. MGD = million gallons per day.
County Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Boone 3.01 3.30 2.89 3.31 3.38 3.68 3.59 3.57 3.54 3.36 3.17 2.85
Hamilton 31.45 33.81 33.02 38.32 45.37 61.49 62.98 63.38 61.41 41.56 36.84 34.08
Hancock 5.16 5.08 4.64 4.76 4.78 5.22 5.19 5.23 5.21 4.85 5.10 5.37
Hendricks 10.87 11.86 10.82 12.06 12.98 14.90 14.85 15.19 14.52 11.96 11.26 11.11
Johnson 16.89 18.44 16.40 17.84 19.22 22.82 23.19 23.66 22.32 17.72 16.47 15.83
Madison 9.95 11.38 10.00 10.22 10.04 10.83 10.47 10.57 10.74 10.02 10.16 9.71
Marion 110.87 128.79 115.70 121.99 139.70 193.02 219.87 228.45 216.55 150.15 111.75 94.89
Morgan 5.34 6.08 5.37 5.49 5.57 5.90 5.76 5.83 5.72 5.20 5.24 5.10
Shelby 3.52 3.85 3.49 3.69 3.72 4.04 3.83 3.98 3.95 3.73 3.70 3.50
Total 197.05 222.60 202.32 217.68 244.74 321.90 349.73 359.86 343.97 248.56 203.68 182.43
Table 9.7: 30% Drought Scenario - Predicted monthly public water supply water withdrawals (in MGD) per county in the Central Region in 2070. Average annual water withdrawals for the 30% drought scenario are projected to be 274 MGD in 2070, while the average peak monthly withdrawals in that year (shown in the table) are expected to be ~383 MGD. Recall that actual monthly withdrawals will vary. The forecast predicts the long term average withdrawals. MGD = million gallons per day.
County Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Boone 3.05 3.34 2.92 3.35 3.43 3.73 3.64 3.61 3.59 3.40 3.21 2.89
Hamilton 33.74 36.27 35.42 41.11 48.67 65.96 67.56 67.98 65.88 44.58 39.51 36.55
Hancock 5.20 5.12 4.67 4.80 4.81 5.25 5.23 5.26 5.25 4.88 5.14 5.41
Hendricks 11.19 12.22 11.15 12.42 13.36 15.35 15.30 15.65 14.96 12.32 11.60 11.44
Johnson 17.67 19.30 17.16 18.67 20.11 23.88 24.26 24.76 23.36 18.55 17.23 16.57
Madison 10.10 11.56 10.16 10.38 10.20 11.01 10.64 10.74 10.91 10.18 10.32 9.86
Marion 118.63 137.86 123.82 130.54 149.51 206.71 235.51 244.72 231.95 160.77 119.58 101.51
Morgan 5.52 6.28 5.55 5.67 5.75 6.09 5.95 6.02 5.90 5.37 5.41 5.26
Shelby 3.60 3.94 3.57 3.78 3.80 4.14 3.92 4.07 4.05 3.81 3.78 3.58
Total 208.71 235.86 214.41 230.71 259.65 342.12 372.00 382.82 365.85 263.88 215.80 193.07
PIC
Table 9.8: Summary of Central Region public water supply water withdrawals forecast with CREAT climate scenarios in 2070. Note that all scenarios produce greater withdrawal forecasts than the baseline (historical) condition. Summer months are expected to continue to be the limiting conditions for water availability. Average annual water withdrawals for the 30% drought scenario are projected to be 274 MGD in 2070, while the average peak monthly withdrawals in that year (shown in the graph) are expected to be ~383 MGD. Recall that actual monthly withdrawals will vary. The forecast predicts the long term average withdrawals.

10 Regional Summary

Total water use in this Region over the past decade has not increased substantially. Water use for thermoelectric power generation has declined as coal plants have been decommissioned throughout the Region and are being replaced by different fuel sources that use less water. In the past, thermoelectric cooling water has come from intakes along the White River. Future power generation is anticipated to come from more efficient generating facilities. The drinking water utilities that will experience the largest increase include Citizens Energy, serving the central metropolitan area and many suburbs, as well as other utilities that supply the larger communities in Hamilton and Johnson counties. Projected water uses in each of the counties in the Region reflect the population in each county as well as the industrial and power sectors located within the county (Figure 10.1). For most counties, the public water supply sector accounts for over 50% of the total water withdrawals.

Total future water demand in the Central Region was estimated to be 111 MGD more than current withdrawals (2018) (Figure 10.2 and Table ??). Demand for public water supply systems was the largest fraction of this increase in the Region. The geography and timing of the anticipated increase is critical for resource and infrastructure planning. Figure 10.2 shows rapid growth occurring in the Region, particularly in Hamilton, Boone, and Hendricks counties. Increased management of the supplies in these areas will be necessary to develop and protect source waters in a way that ensures the sustainability of the regional supply, especially during drought. Additional data and cooperation are likely going to be important to regional growth. Meeting future needs and developing the supplies in a way that is both economical and sustainable is the challenge for regional utilities for the next 50 years.

While total withdrawals from surface water have declined, use of groundwater from aquifers along the White River will likely increase to accommodate growth. More than 100 MGD is forecast to be withdrawn from the outwash aquifer that follows the general path of the White River through the Region. This aquifer already supplies the majority of the groundwater used in the Region.

Surface water withdrawals for industrial and power cooling purposes has declined over the last several decades as use of groundwater for public water systems continues to grow and the metropolitan area expands. Agricultural irrigation will also likely increase, especially in the southeastern part of the Region in parts of Shelby and Johnson counties, where center pivot irrigation has become standard practice. Industrial demand, the most difficult of the water use sectors to forecast, is expected to increase as more businesses are created in and around the city. Self-supplied domestic water use is assumed to remain the same over the next 50 years as some utilities expand to add service area in the unincorporated domains, and new homes are developed further away from the city. By the end of the forecast period, anticipated climate variation, due to changes in precipitation and temperature, could potentially add between 10 and 35 MGD of additional demand in the dry summer months. Again, this demand will be focused on the north side of the Region and to the south where growth is expected to continue.

County summaries of the water forecasts are provided in Tables ?? - ??. Phase III of the water study will utilize this water withdrawal forecast generated from this work and incorporate it into the water availability study.

PIC
Figure 10.1: Summary water withdrawal forecast for 9-county Central Region in 2070. Regionally, public water supply is the predominant water-use in all counties except for Morgan County, where power generation uses dominate.
PIC
Figure 10.2: Summary water withdrawal forecast for 9-county Central Region. Although historically Energy Production has been the largest water-use sector, changes in fuel sources have reduced water withdrawals to under 100 MGD for the sector. Public water supply accounts for approximately 50% of the water withdrawals in the Region. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Historical population from the United States Census (2010). 2020-2050 population projections from the Indiana Business Research Center (2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
Table 10.1: Future regional water withdrawals by sector for the Central Region in MGD. Although historically Energy Production has been the largest water-use sector, changes in fuel sources have reduced water withdrawals to under 100 MGD for the sector. Public water supply accounts for approximately 50% of the water withdrawals in the Region. Annual historical water withdrawals are from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Significant Water Withdrawals Database, 1985-2018 (DNR, 2018). Historical population from the United States Census (2010). 2020-2050 population projections from the Indiana Business Research Center (2018). Central Region includes the following nine counties: Boone, Hendricks, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby.
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Commercial & Industrial 73.26 75.17 77.15 79.18 81.27 83.42 85.64 87.92 90.28 92.70 95.19
Domestic Supply 33.70 35.34 36.92 38.33 39.50 40.53 41.50 42.43 43.26 44.01 44.67
Energy Production 62.00 64.09 66.25 68.50 70.83 73.25 75.76 78.37 81.08 83.89 86.82
Irrigation & Agriculture 12.75 13.16 13.60 14.07 14.59 15.16 15.78 16.46 17.20 18.01 18.90
Public Water Supply 388.31 401.14 413.65 425.37 436.21 446.58 456.96 467.05 476.84 486.35 495.67
PIC
Table 10.2: Percent change from 2018-2070 in water withdrawals by public water supply service area in the Central Region. Higher growth for public water supply is concentrated in Hamilton County, while Madison and Morgan counties are expected to see a decrease in water withdrawals.
Table 10.2: Future regional water withdrawals for each county by sector for the Central Region in MGD.
Boone 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 2.27 2.48 2.67 2.82 2.91 3.00 3.08 3.14 3.19 3.22 3.25
Commercial & Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Irrigation & Agriculture 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.47
Energy Production 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Domestic Supply 1.53 1.69 1.82 1.92 2.00 2.06 2.13 2.18 2.22 2.25 2.27
Hamilton 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 25.82 28.46 31.22 33.68 35.61 37.27 38.89 40.34 41.61 42.72 43.67
Commercial & Industrial 27.16 28.00 28.86 29.75 30.67 31.62 32.59 33.60 34.64 35.71 36.81
Irrigation & Agriculture 3.76 3.84 3.93 4.02 4.13 4.23 4.34 4.46 4.59 4.73 4.87
Energy Production 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24
Domestic Supply 5.24 5.79 6.38 6.90 7.32 7.69 8.05 8.38 8.67 8.94 9.17
Hancock 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 3.41 3.63 3.84 4.03 4.20 4.34 4.47 4.62 4.76 4.89 5.02
Commercial & Industrial 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Irrigation & Agriculture 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.20
Energy Production 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Domestic Supply 2.25 2.38 2.50 2.61 2.70 2.77 2.84 2.92 2.99 3.05 3.11
Hendricks 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 7.50 8.15 8.81 9.47 10.01 10.49 10.91 11.35 11.75 12.13 12.48
Commercial & Industrial 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60
Irrigation & Agriculture 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Energy Production 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22
Domestic Supply 4.61 4.98 5.35 5.72 6.02 6.26 6.48 6.70 6.90 7.08 7.25
Johnson 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 14.43 14.92 15.64 16.26 16.78 17.23 17.66 18.03 18.35 18.63 18.87
Commercial & Industrial 1.79 1.79 1.80 1.80 1.81 1.82 1.83 1.83 1.84 1.86 1.86
Irrigation & Agriculture 0.68 0.74 0.80 0.88 0.96 1.05 1.15 1.26 1.39 1.53 1.69
Energy Production 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Domestic Supply 2.44 2.58 2.72 2.84 2.94 3.03 3.12 3.19 3.26 3.33 3.38
Madison 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 11.26 11.15 11.00 10.81 10.62 10.42 10.23 10.25 10.27 10.28 10.30
Commercial & Industrial 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94
Irrigation & Agriculture 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.27
Energy Production 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Domestic Supply 2.22 2.19 2.16 2.12 2.07 2.03 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99
Marione 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 132.85 135.12 137.02 138.71 140.45 142.14 143.76 144.88 145.83 146.61 147.25
Commercial & Industrial 37.28 38.30 39.35 40.43 41.54 42.69 43.87 45.09 46.34 47.63 48.95
Irrigation & Agriculture 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99
Energy Production 54.21 55.91 57.66 59.48 61.36 63.31 65.33 67.42 69.58 71.82 71.14
Domestic Supply 13.92 14.21 14.46 14.69 14.93 15.16 15.39 15.57 15.73 15.87 15.99
Morgan 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 5.49 5.57 5.61 5.63 5.60 5.56 5.53 5.53 5.52 5.52 5.51
Commercial & Industrial 3.62 3.65 3.68 3.71 3.74 3.77 3.80 3.83 3.86 3.89 3.92
Irrigation & Agriculture 3.50 3.57 3.64 3.71 3.78 3.86 3.94 4.03 4.12 4.21 4.31
Energy Production 7.36 7.74 8.14 8.55 8.99 9.44 9.93 10.43 10.96 11.52 12.11
Domestic Supply 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Shelby 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
Public Water Supply 3.87 3.90 3.91 3.88 3.83 3.79 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.73 3.73
Commercial & Industrial 1.99 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.10
Irrigation & Agriculture 1.85 2.03 2.23 2.45 2.69 2.96 3.25 3.58 3.94 4.33 4.77
Energy Production 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Domestic Supply 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41

References

   Indiana Finance Authority. Evaluation of indiana water utilities - an analysis of the States aging infrastructure. Senate Bill 347, Report to the Indiana State Legislature, 2016a. URL https://www.in.gov/ifa/files/IFA-Report-11-18-2016.pdf.

   San Diego County Water Authority. 2016 annual report. https://www.sdcwa.org/annualreport/2016/water-diversification, 2016b.

   US Census Bureau. County level median household income, indiana. QuickFacts Data Tools, 2010. URL https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.

   US Census Bureau. Industry statistics portal, business data from the u.s. census bureau. Business and Industry Statistic Portal, 2012. URL https://www.census.gov/econ/isp/.

   W. DeOreo, P. Mayer, B. Dziegielewski, and J. Kiefer. Residential end uses of water, version 2. Water Research Foundation, 2016. URL https://www.waterrf.org/resource/residential-end-uses-water-version-2-0.

   DNR. Significant Water Withdrawal Facility Data - 1985-2018. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2018. URL https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/4841.htm.

   EIA. Electricity Data Browser. United States Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Beta, 2019. URL https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/data/browser/.

   FRED. Federal Reserve Economic Data. Economic Research Division, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2020. URL https://fred.stlouisfed.org.

   Peter Gleick. Water and Conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International security, vol 18, no. 1, summer 1993, p 79-112, 1993.

   Citizens Energy Group. Drought management plan. http://www.citizensenergygroup.com/pdf/Drought-Management-Plan.pdf, 2013.

   John Harte and Mohamed El-Gasseir. Energy and water. Science, vol 199, issue 4329, p 623-634, 1978.

   IBRC. Long Range Projection Summary - Center for Econometric Model Research. Indiana Business Research Center - Indiana University, Kelly School of Business, 2019. URL https://ibrc.kelley.iu.edu/analysis/cemr/long-range-summary.html.

   IDNR. Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 2015. URL https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/watshplan.pdf.

   IURC. Water Utility Resource Report: A look at Indiana’s water supply and resource needs. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 2013. URL https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/IURC-2013-Water-Uility-Resources-Report.pdf.

   Matt Kinghorn. Indiana Population Projections to 2050. InContext - Indiana Business Research Center - Indiana University, Kelly School of Business, 2018. URL http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2018/mar-apr/article1.asp.

   K. Rathnayaka, H. Malano, S. Maheepala, B. George amd B. Nawarathna, M. Arora, and P. Roberts. Seasonal demand dynamics of residential water end-uses. Water, Volume 7, pages 202 to 216, 2015.

   A. Sankarasubramanian, J. Savo, K. Larson, S. Seo, R. Sinha, R. Bhowmik, A. Ruhi Vidal, K. Kunkel, G. Mahinthakumar, E. Berglund, and J. Kominoski. Synthesis of public water supply use in the united states: Spatio-temporal patterns and socio-economic controls. Earth’s Future, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000511.

   USGS. Water Use Data for Indiana. United States Geological Survey - National Water Information System:Web Interface, 2017a. URL https://waterdata.usgs.gov/in/nwis/water_use.

   USGS. Guildelines for Preparation of State Water-use Estimates for 2015. United States Geological Survey - National Water-Use Science Project, 2017b. URL https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2017/1029/ofr20171029.pdf.

   USGS. Public supply and domestic water use in the United States, 2015. United States Geological Survey - Open File Report 2017-1131, iv, 6 p., 2017c. URL https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171131.

   USGS. Estimated us of water in the United States in 2015. United States Geological Survey - Circular 1441, ISBN 978-1-4113-4233-0, 2018. URL https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441l.