ML042790521

Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use in 2030

ML042790521
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	12/31/2004
From:	Hutson S, Koroa M, Murphree C Tennessee Valley Authority, US Dept of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
03-4302
Download: ML042790521 (79)

Text

Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Prepared in cooperation with the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4302 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Cover photographs courtesy of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Used with permission.

Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 By Susan S. Hutson, M. Carolyn Koroa, and C. Michael Murphree U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4302 Prepared in cooperation with the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Nashville, Tennessee 2004

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm name in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to:

Copies of this report may be purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100 Box 25286 Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286

Contents iii CONTENTS Abstract..................................................................................................................................................................................

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................

2 Purpose and scope.......................................................................................................................................................

2 Hydrologic setting......................................................................................................................................................

4 Sources of data and methods of analysis.....................................................................................................................

5 Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................................

8 Water use...............................................................................................................................................................................

9 Instream use................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Total offstream water use.............................................................................................................................................

11 Thermoelectric power........................................................................................................................................ 41 Industrial........................................................................................................................................................... 45 Public supply..................................................................................................................................................... 53 Irrigation............................................................................................................................................................ 62 Projections of water use........................................................................................................................................................ 68 Trends in water use................................................................................................................................................................ 73 Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ 76 Selected references............................................................................................................................................................... 77 Glossary................................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Appendix A. Water-use data sources for the Tennessee River watershed in 2000................................................................ 87 Appendix B. Hydrologic unit codes and names.................................................................................................................... 88 Appendix C. Improving hydropower and water quality at the Tennessee Valley Authority dams....................................... 89 FIGURES 1-5.

Maps showing:

1. Total freshwater withdrawals per square mile and percent consumptive loss in the conterminous United States by watershed region in 1995..........................................................

3

2. The Tennessee River watershed and major tributaries.................................................................................

4

3. Reservoir catchment areas in the Tennessee River watershed......................................................................

6

4. The 8-digit hydrologic unit codes of the Tennessee River watershed.........................................................

7

5. States and counties in the Tennessee River watershed.................................................................................

8

6. Schematic showing the interrelation of water-using entities and water-use transactions to sources of supply...........................................................................................................................

9

7. Graphs showing source and disposition of total water use in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000................

11

8. Maps showing total water withdrawals by source and by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000....................................................................................................................... 12

9. Schematic showing cumulative consumptive use at major water-use tabulation area junctures and net water demand for reservoir catchment areas in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000...................................... 13

10. Map showing intensity of per capita use withdrawals by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000............................................................................................................. 14

11. Schematic showing source, use, and disposition of water in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000................. 15

12. Graph showing comparison of water withdrawal and consumptive use by category, in million gallons per day, in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.................................................................. 16

13. Graph showing disposition of water used by thermoelectric power plants in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000....................................................................................................................... 41 14-15.

Maps showing:

14. Distribution of thermoelectric power plants in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000............................. 42

15. Thermoelectric power water withdrawals by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.............................................................................................................. 44

iv Contents 16.

Graphs showing source and disposition of water used by industry in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000......................................................................................................................

45 17-18.

Maps showing:

17.

Industrial water withdrawals by source and by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000...................................................................................................

46 18.

Industrial water withdrawals by State and county in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000....................

47 19.

Graphs showing source and disposition of water used for public supply in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000...........................................................................................................

53 20-21.

Maps showing:

20.

Public-supply withdrawals by source and by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.............................................................................................................

54 21.

Population distribution in the Tennessee River watershed and surrounding areas by county in 2000...............................................................................................................................

55 22.

Graph showing source of water used for irrigation in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000...........................

62 23.

Maps showing irrigation withdrawals by source and by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000............................................................................................................

63 24.

Schematic showing projected cumulative consumptive use at major water-use tabulation area junctures in the Tennessee River watershed in 2030.....................................................................................

70 25.

Maps showing projected percent and volume increases in water withdrawals by reservoir catchment area in the Tennessee River watershed from 2000 to 2030.................................................................

71 26-28.

Graphs showing:

26.

Projected percent increase in industrial and public-supply water use in the Tennessee River watershed from 2000 to 2030...........................................................................................

72 27.

Trends in surface-and ground-water withdrawals and population for 1965 to 2000, and projection of total water withdrawal in 2030 for the Tennessee River watershed.......................................

74 28.

Trends in water withdrawal by water-use category from 1965 to 2000, and projected total withdrawal, 2030, for the Tennessee River watershed.........................................................................

75 TABLES

1. Total offstream water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000...........................................................................

17

2. Total offstream water use by hydrologic unit in 2000..........................................................................................

19

3. Total offstream water use by county in 2000........................................................................................................

20

4. Total water use by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000......................................................................

23

5. Total water use by category and hydrologic unit in 2000.....................................................................................

25

6. Total water use by category and county in 2000...................................................................................................

26

7. Surface-water withdrawal by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000.....................................................

29

8. Surface-water withdrawal by category and hydrologic unit in 2000....................................................................

31

9. Surface-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000.................................................................................

32 10.

Ground-water withdrawal by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000.....................................................

35 11.

Ground-water withdrawal by category and hydrologic unit in 2000....................................................................

37 12.

Ground-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000.................................................................................

38 13.

Thermoelectric power water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000................................................................

41 14.

Thermoelectric power water use by hydrologic unit in 2000...............................................................................

43 15.

Thermoelectric power water use by county in 2000.............................................................................................

43 16.

Industrial water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000....................................................................................

48 17.

Industrial water use by hydrologic unit in 2000....................................................................................................

50 18.

Industrial water use by county in 2000.................................................................................................................

51 19.

Public-supply water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000.............................................................................

56 20.

Public-supply water use by hydrologic unit in 2000.............................................................................................

58 21.

Public-supply water use by county in 2000..........................................................................................................

59 22.

Irrigation withdrawal by water-use tabulation area in 2000.................................................................................

64 23.

Irrigation withdrawal by hydrologic unit in 2000.................................................................................................

65 24.

Irrigation withdrawal by county in 2000...............................................................................................................

66 25.

Water-use projections for the Tennessee River watershed by water-use tabulation area in 2030.........................

68 26.

Trends of estimated water use in the Tennessee River watershed, 1965 to 2030.................................................

73

Contents v CONVERSION FACTORS, DATUM, AND ACRONYMS Multiply By To Obtain Area acre 43,560 square foot (ft2) acre 4,047 square meter (m2) acre 0.001562 square mile (mi2) square mile (mi2) 2.590 kilometer square (km2)

Flow gallon per day (gal/d) 3.785 liter per day million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1.121 thousand acre-feet per year million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.001547 thousand cubic feet per second million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.6944 thousand gallons per minute million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.003785 million cubic meters per day million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1.3815 million cubic meters per year thousand acre-feet per year 0.8921 million gallons per day thousand acre-feet per year 0.001380 thousand cubic feet per second thousand acre-feet per year 0.6195 thousand gallons per minute thousand acre-feet per year 0.003377 million cubic meters per day Selected water equivalents in inch-pounds units are listed below:

1 gallon

=

8.34 pounds 1 million gallons

=

3.07 acre-feet 1 cubic foot

=

62.4 pounds

=

7.48 gallons 1 acre-foot (acre-ft)

=

325,851 gallons

=

43,560 cubic feet 1 inch of rain

=

17.4 million gallons per square mile

=

27,200 gallons per acre

=

100 tons per acre Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

ACRONYMS DOE, EIA U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration GIS Geographic information system HUC Hydrologic unit code NWUIP USGS National Water-Use Information Program POTW Publicly owned treatment works RCA Reservoir catchment area TVA Tennessee Valley Authority TVA-WUDS Tennessee Valley Authority Water-Use Data System USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA, NPDES, PCS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Permit Compliance System USGS U.S Geological Survey WRR Water-resources regions WUTA Water-use tabulation area

Abstract 1 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 By Susan S. Hutson1, M. Carolyn Koroa2, and C. Michael Murphree3 ABSTRACT Estimates indicate that after increases in water withdrawals from 1965 to 1980 in the Ten-nessee River watershed, withdrawals declined from 1980 to 1985 and remained steady from 1985 to 1995. Water withdrawals in the Tennessee River watershed during 2000 averaged about 12,211 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of fresh-water for offstream uses22 percent more than the 1995 estimate. The 2000 estimate is nearly the same as the estimate for 1980, the highest year of record, with 12,260 Mgal/d. The reuse potential of water from the Tennessee River is high because most of the water withdrawn for offstream use is returned to the river system. Besides water quality, reuse potential reflects the quantity of water avail-able for subsequent uses and is gaged by consump-tive use, which is the difference between water withdrawals and return flow. For the Tennessee River watershed, return flow was estimated to be 11,562 Mgal/d, or 95 percent of the water with-drawn during 2000. Total consumptive use accounts for the remaining 5 percent, or 649 Mgal/d.

Estimates of water withdrawals by source indicate that during 2000, withdrawals from sur-face water accounted for 98 percent of the total withdrawals, or 11,996 Mgal/d, 23 percent more than during 1995. Total ground-water withdrawals during 2000 were 215 Mgal/d, or 17 percent less than during 1995.

During 2000, thermoelectric power with-drawals were estimated to be 10,276 Mgal/d; industrial, 1,205 Mgal/d; public supply, 662 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 68.9 Mgal/d. Return flows were estimated to be: thermoelectric power, 10,244 Mgal/d; industrial, 942 Mgal/d; and public supply, 377 Mgal/d. Consumptive use was esti-mated to be: thermoelectric power, 32.2 Mgal/d; industrial, 263 Mgal/d; public supply, 285 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 68.9 Mgal/d. Each category of use affects the reuse potential of the return flows differ-ently. The consumptive use in the river is compara-tively small because most of the water withdrawn from the Tennessee River watershed is used for once-through cooling for the thermoelectric power and industrial sectors.

Average per capita use for all offstream uses was 2,710 gallons per day per person in 2000, com-pared to the record high of 3,200 in 1975 and 1980.

The intensity of use for the Tennessee River water-shed as measured as a function of area was 298,489 gallons per day per square mile in 2000.

In 2030, water withdrawals are projected to increase by about 15 percent to 13,990 Mgal/d. By category, water withdrawals are projected to increase as follows: thermoelectric power, 11 percent or 1,152 Mgal/d; industry, 31 percent or 368 Mgal/d; public supply, 35 percent or 232 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 37 percent or 25.2 Mgal/d. Total consumptive use is projected to increase about 51 percent or 334 Mgal/d to 980 Mgal/d. Per capita use in 2030 is calculated to be about 2,370 gallons per day, about 26 percent less than in 1980. Water transfers to the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway for navigation lockages were estimated as 200 Mgal/d for 2000 and 800 Mgal/d for 2030. Water transfers for hydropower commit-ments through Barkley Canal averaged 3,361 Mgal/d for 2000 and are estimated to be an average of 4,524 Mgal/d in 2030.

1Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Memphis, Tennessee.

2Senior Geographic Analyst, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

3Data Analyst, Systems Information, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

2 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 INTRODUCTION The Tennessee River system is the Nations fifth largest river system with a 40,910 mi2 drainage area.

The Tennessee water-resources region (WRR), which corresponds to the Tennessee River watershed, ranked tenth among the 21 nationally designated WRRs in the United States in the volume of average daily with-drawals of freshwater in 1995. These withdrawals account for less than 3 percent, or 10,000 Mgal/d, of the overall total freshwater use of 341,000 Mgal/d in 1995. Of the 10,000 Mgal/d, about 80 percent was used for once-through cooling in the generation of electricity. In 1995, the Tennessee WRR produced 8 percent of the Nations total power from thermoelec-tric and hydroelectric plants and ranked fourth in over-all power production. The Tennessee WRR ranked twelfth in thermoelectric-power production and fifth in hydroelectric-power production (Solley and others, 1998).

As measured by intensity of freshwater with-drawals in gallons per day per square mile (gal/d/mi2),

the Tennessee WRR was the most intensively used watershed among the 18 WRRs in the conterminous United States, averaging 244,439 gal/d/mi2 in 1995.

Measured as a ratio of consumptive use to water with-drawals, the reuse potential of the Tennessee WRR is high. The consumptive use in 1995 was about 3 percent of the water withdrawals (289 of the 10,000 Mgal/d) (fig. 1). The California WRR was the second most intensively used watershed averaging 226,978 gal/d/mi2. The reuse potential of the Tennes-see River watershed is high compared to the California WRR. In the California WRR, nearly 80 percent of the 36,500 Mgal/d of water withdrawals was for irrigation and about 70 percent of the applied irrigation water was consumptively used. In 1995, the California WRR had the greatest consumptive use, and the Tennessee WRR ranked eighteenth (or fourth lowest). As a per-centage of the total water withdrawals, consumptive use in the Tennessee WRR was the smallest at 3 per-cent in 1995 (fig. 1).

About 4.5 million people resided in the Tennes-see River watershed in 2000, an increase of about 15 percent since 1990. The watershed includes parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (fig. 2). A series of 49 dams and reservoirs regulates flow on the Tennes-see River system. Reservoirs in the watershed devel-oped by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) add more than 643,749 surface acres to the water resources of the area and contribute substantially to public sup-plies, navigation, flood damage reduction, power pro-duction, water quality, and fisheries and wildlife management. The reservoirs also provide recreational and aesthetic benefits. The reservoirs offer a broad range of water-resource benefits on which much of the economic progress in the watershed has been built.

The abundance of water in the watershed supports the sport and commercial fisheries and the tourist industry and helps attract industry and commercial activity to the region (Hutson and others, 1990). The TVA has federal responsibility for operating the reservoirs in the Tennessee River watershed.

Wisely managing the water resources in the Tennessee River watershed and preserving and enhancing the diverse and rich aquatic ecosystems are dependent on accurate and complete information on the availability and use of the water resources. Reli-able water-use information about where water is used, how water is used, how much water is used, and how that use has changed over time is required by regula-tory and resource agencies.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooper-ation with the TVA, conducted an investigation to col-lect and analyze water-use information for 2000 and to project water demand to 2030 for the Tennessee River watershed. These data will be used by TVA as part of the water-supply analysis for the TVA reservoir opera-tions study. Reservoir system operating policies affect reservoir levels, when changes in reservoir levels occur, and the amount of water flowing through the reservoir system at different times of the year. The res-ervoir operations study being conducted by TVA is a formal evaluation of TVA policies for operating the reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. The purpose of the study is to determine if changes in the TVA res-ervoir operating policies would produce greater over-all public value. Water supply, of which water use is a component, is one of the criteria being used to evalu-ate reservoir policy.

Purpose and Scope This report presents water-use estimates for 2000 and water-use projections to 2030 for the Tennessee River watershed. The TVA uses a number of computer-based mathematical models to coordinate and optimize reservoir operation in the Tennessee River watershed. The data from this report aggregated

Introduction 3

4 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 to the reservoir catchment area (RCA) were input to the TVA reservoir-management models to evaluate alternative water-supply scenarios for determining future multi-purpose reservoir-management practices.

Each section of this report consists of text, illus-trations, and tables showing data for each water-use tabulation area (WUTA) and associated reservoir catchment area (RCA), hydrologic unit (referred to by hydrologic unit code, HUC), and states and counties within the Tennessee River watershed. This report contains information on total water use by category and source of water, water projections to the year 2030, and trends in water use for 1965 to 2000. Infor-mation and data on four categories of offstream water usethermoelectric power, industrial, public supply, and irrigationare presented for 2000 and projected to 2030. Estimates of water withdrawn from surface-and ground-water sources, estimates of consumptive use, and estimates of wastewater releases and thermo-electric-power and industrial return flows are pre-sented for 2000.

Hydrologic Setting The headwaters of the Tennessee River water-shed are in the mountains of western Virginia and North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and northern Geor-gia (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1990) (fig. 2). The Tennessee River is formed by the confluence of the Holston and the French Broad Rivers near Knoxville, Tennessee. The river flows to the southwest and is fed by three principal tributariesthe Little Tennessee, the Clinch, and the Hiwassee Rivers. As the Tennessee River flows south, west, and then north, two other major tributaries, the Elk and Duck Rivers, contribute to the flow that eventually joins the Ohio River at Pad-ucah, Kentucky.

The Tennessee River watershed drainage area is 40,910 mi2. The drainage area to Chattanooga, Ten-nessee is 21,400 mi2; west of Chattanooga to the Ohio River, the drainage area is 19,500 mi2. The drainage area lies mostly in Tennessee (55 percent or 22,545 mi2) with parts in Alabama (17 percent or

Introduction 5 6,780 mi2), Georgia (4 percent or 1,475 mi2), Ken-tucky (2 percent or 966 mi2), Mississippi (1 percent or 414 mi2), North Carolina (13 percent or 5,480 mi2),

and Virginia (8 percent or 3,250 mi2). Forty-nine dams constitute the Tennessee River water-control system.

The reservoirs are operated year round for the pur-poses of navigation, flood damage reduction, power generation, water supply, water quality, and recreation.

The operation of the reservoirs is linked to rainfall and runoff patterns in the watershed.

The rainfall varies seasonally, annually, and geographically. The mean-annual rainfall in the drain-age area is about 52 inches, ranging from a low of 36 inches in 1985 to a high of 65 inches in 1973 (Ten-nessee Valley Authority, 1990). The heaviest concen-trations of rainfall occur in mountainous areas along the headwaters of the tributaries where mean-annual rainfall is more than 90 inches. In parts of the French Broad, Clinch, and Holston River watersheds, the mean-annual rainfall is as low as 40 inches.

The mean-annual runoff is about 22 inches, about 42 percent of the mean-annual rainfall over the drainage area. Considerable natural storage, provided by the deep soils and extensive underground storage in many tributary areas, stabilizes runoff to some extent.

During most of the year, dense ground cover on the steep slopes also limits rapid runoff from intense rain-fall. In winter, however, when plants are dormant, run-off increases and the ground becomes wetter, reducing natural storage and thereby increasing runoff.

Sources of Data and Methods of Analysis The data for this report are stored in the Tennes-see Valley Authority Water-Use Data System (TVA-WUDS), which is a site-specific relational database.

Each record in the database is labeled as a withdrawal or return flow water-use transaction. A water-use site may have either a withdrawal transaction or a return-flow transaction, or both. Each water-use transaction for a site in the database is assigned to a WUTA, RCA, HUC, State, and county. For some water-use sites, the intake for the water withdrawal is located in one RCA, and the outfall for the return flow is downstream of the dam in the next RCA. In such a case, the data records for the site indicate the different locations of the intake and outfall.

The database contains preliminary water-withdrawal data for 2000 collected by the States of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia and the USGS National Water-Use Information Program (NWUIP) as of December 2001 (appendix A). A supplementary inventory by TVA and USGS of industrial and thermo-electric power facilities in the watershed provided additional water-withdrawal and return-flow data. The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE, EIA) electricity database was a secondary source of information on water withdrawal, return flow, and power generation for the thermoelec-tric plants in the watershed (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2000a and 2000b). The municipal wastewater, the industrial sanitary, process, and cooling water, and the mining return-flow data are from the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-tion System program, Permit Compliance System (USEPA, NPDES, PCS). Stormwater-runoff discharge was excluded from the return-flow totals. The USGS NWUIP provided estimates of population data for the HUCs based on the U.S. Bureau of the Census data for 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001). The popula-tion estimates were generated by applying geographic information system (GIS) computer techniques to the population and associated boundary and centroid of each census tract in the watershed (Kristin S. Linsey, USGS, written commun., 2001).

To assure the quality of the data, the preliminary 2000 water-withdrawal and municipal wastewater return-flow site data were aggregated to the county level and compared to the 1995 USGS county water-use data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2002). Gaps in the 2000 county water-withdrawal data by category were adjusted using a projection factor based on the Woods and Poole economic data (Woods and Poole Econom-ics, Inc., 2001). Missing record for wastewater releases and industrial return flows was estimated using ratios derived from the collected site-specific data for 2000 from TVA-WUDS. For wastewater releases, a coefficient of 0.57 was applied to public-supply withdrawals. For industrial return flows, a coefficient of 0.79 was applied to industrial withdrawals.

Water-use numerical data are the average daily quantities used. Irrigation water is applied during only a part of the year and at variable rates; therefore, the actual rate of application is greater than the average rate given in the tables in this report. Numerical data in the text generally are rounded to three significant fig-ures for values less than 100 and presented as integers

6 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 for values of 100 and greater. The tables show these values to two decimal places in million gallons per day. Per capita use data in gallons per day are shown as an integer. In the illustrations, values are generally expressed as integers or to 1-decimal place if the value is less than 1.0. All numbers were rounded indepen-dently; thus the sums of independently rounded num-bers may not equal the totals in the report. The percentage changes discussed in the text were calcu-lated from the unrounded data and appear as integers.

Cumulative consumptive-use values are expressed as integers.

Water-use data are aggregated to one of the 30 RCA units in the watershed because the data in this report were input to the TVA reservoir-management models that use similar units. The water-use data are aggregated by HUCs because these units are often used as a geographical framework for detailed water-resources planning and for evaluating interbasin trans-fer of water or wastewater. Because the HUCs are widely recognized and used, a spatial analysis of the water use is included by HUC. The type and availabil-ity of the water-use data varies by State and is deter-mined by State law, the presence of a water-permitting or water-use program, and funding. The State and county data are important data-analysis units used in formulating policy and making water-management decisions; therefore, these data are included in the report.

Fourteen WUTAs and 30 RCAs constitute the Tennessee River watershed. The WUTA groups RCAs to account for the complete site-specific water-use transactions between adjoining RCAs and is used to determine consumptive use at a large scale. An RCA (fig. 3) is a natural drainage area truncated by a dam.

Within this topographically distinct area, precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, shallow and deep infiltra-tion to and discharge from the soil, and subsurface storage contribute to the water impounded in the reser-voir by the dam. The reservoir is a functional unit operated to meet specific objectives ranging from power generation to recreation. The guidelines under

Introduction 7 which a reservoir is operated are part of an integrated management plan of the entire reservoir system, thus linking water availability throughout the watershed.

Net water demand was calculated by subtracting return flow from withdrawals and was determined for each RCA. The net water demand is accumulated at the downstream boundary of the WUTA to calculate a consumptive use. Cumulative consumptive use was calculated at key junctures of the WUTAs (Fort Loud-oun, Watts Bar-Chickamauga, Nickajack, Gunters-ville, Wheeler-Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky) in the river system and indicates a sum of consumptive use in the watershed to that juncture. Cumulative con-sumptive use for the Tennessee River watershed was calculated at Kentucky Dam. The diversion of water to the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway for lockages for navigation and the diversion of flow from Kentucky Reservoir to Barkley Reservoir for generating hydro-electric power also are losses to the river system.

The Kentucky and Normandy RCAs function with a unique operational water-supply requirement for Normandy Reservoir. The other RCAs exclude areas downstream of the reservoir; however, Nor-mandy Dam is operated to meet downstream flow requirements mandated by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, at Shelbyville, Tennessee. Net water demand for Normandy was calculated using the withdrawals and return flows in the Normandy Reser-voir and in the area downstream of the dam to the City of Columbia, Tennessee.

Thirty-two watershed areas designated by HUC constitute the Tennessee River watershed (Seaber and others, 1984) (appendix B) (fig. 4). Several counties in the Tennessee River watershed are only partially located within the basin (fig. 5). For each of these counties, only the water-use transactions occurring within the basin were compiled for this study. In Vir-ginia, the water-use data for an embedded political unit such as Bristol City were aggregated to the neigh-boring county unit.

8 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Acknowledgments The authors thank the personnel from the many State and local agencies in Alabama, Georgia, Ken-tucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia who assisted with the compilation of data for 2000, and the USGS water-use specialists from Ala-bama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Caro-lina, and Virginia who assisted with the collection and compilation of the data for this report. The authors also appreciate the assistance provided by George E.

Welch, TVA, in coordinating the industrial and ther-moelectric power water-use survey and by Melissa Alverson, TVA, in producing the cover and several graphics for the report.

Water Use 9 WATER USE Water in river and reservoir systems can be used instream for hydroelectric power generation, for navi-gation, for maintaining minimum streamflows to sup-port fish and wildlife habitat, and for the assimilation of wastewater. Water also can be withdrawn from the river and reservoir systems to meet offstream needs for thermoelectric power, industry, public supply, and irri-gation. Water use in this report is limited primarily to the offstream transactions of water withdrawal, return flow, and consumptive use in the Tennessee River watershed (fig. 6). Water delivered to a user from a public supplier or water released from a user to a wastewater treatment plant is not accounted for in this report; however, these transactions are shown as B and C in figure 6.

Surface-and ground-water withdrawals and consumptive-use estimates are reported for thermo-electric power, industry, public supply, and irrigation.

Wastewater releases are reported as return flows in the public-supply category. Wastewater releases refer to water released from private and public wastewater-treatment facilities as designated by the USEPA as publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The reported wastewater releases include the quantity of water released to a stream and exclude the quantity of water reclaimed for beneficial uses, such as irrigation of golf courses and parks. Return flow also is reported for the thermoelectric power and industrial categories.

The diversion of flow to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in the Mobile River watershed for lockages for navigation and to the Barkley Reservoir in the Cumberland River watershed for generating hydro-electric power are identified as interbasin transfers.

10 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Instream use Instream use occurs without diverting or with-drawing water from surface-or ground-water sources.

Examples of instream use are hydroelectric power generation, navigation, maintenance of minimum streamflows to support fish and wildlife habitat, and for wastewater assimilation. Quantitative estimates for most instream uses are difficult to compile for a large-scale regional watershed, and assessing the instream water use in the Tennessee River watershed was beyond the scope of this report. However, because instream uses compete with offstream uses and affect the quality and quantity of water resources for all uses, effective water-resources management requires that methods and procedures be devised to enable instream uses to be assessed quantitatively.

Knowledge about the processes and functions of instream flow can be integrated with engineering designs sensitive to the environment to meet the bio-logical and commercial water-use needs for instream use. TVA is developing the science and technology to increase the efficiency and capacity of its 30 hydro-electric plants without degrading water quality (appen-dix C). Nine main river and 19 tributary hydroelectric projects within the Tennessee River watershed have the potential to generate 3,700 megawatt hours of elec-tricity. This capacity represents about 13 percent of TVAs generating capacity and is important to meet peak power demands and maintain power system reli-ability within the watershed, particularly during the summer months. State-of-the-art hydroturbines, con-trol systems, system optimization models, and water-quality technologies are used to balance regional needs for energy and power. Minimum instream flows typically are provided by multiple techniques, includ-ing re-regulation weirs at Norris, Chatuge, South Hol-ston, small minimum flow turbines at Tims Ford, Nottely, Blue Ridge, and turbine pulsing units at Apalachia, Boone, Cherokee, Douglas, Ft. Patrick Henry, Watauga, and Wilbur.

Navigation on the Tennessee River system is important for commercial shipping and recreational boating. Cargo transported on the Tennessee River system averages 50 million tons per year. The Tennes-see River system also provides passage for 20,000 rec-reational vessels each year and supports the boat building, marina, and sports fishing industries. Four-teen locks at 10 dams in the river system are operated to support navigation. Jointly, the USACE, U.S. Coast Guard, and TVA maintain a year-round 11-foot deep navigation channel on 800 miles of main stem and tributary rivers. Passage also is maintained on many more miles of secondary channels for recreational use.

The instream use for hydroelectric power and naviga-tion of the Tennessee River system does not affect the consumptive use because the water remains in the river system.

Water Use 11 Total Offstream Water Use Total freshwater withdrawals during 2000 were estimated to be 12,211 Mgal/d for the offstream cate-gories of thermoelectric power, industry, public sup-ply, and irrigation (tables 1, 2, and 3). Per capita use for the offstream uses in 2000 was 2,710 gal/d of freshwater (table 2). Estimates of withdrawals by source indicate that during 2000, total surface-water withdrawals were 11,996 Mgal/d. Total ground-water withdrawals were 215 Mgal/d. Return flows to streams from thermoelectric power, industrial, and municipal wastewater facilities are estimated to have been 11,562 Mgal/d. Consumptive use was 649 Mgal/d. Water withdrawals that exclude thermo-electric power totals (nonpower withdrawals) are esti-mated as 1,935 Mgal/d, return flows as 1,319 Mgal/d, and consumptive use as 617 Mgal/d. Surface water supplied 98 percent of the total water, and ground water supplied the remaining 2 percent (fig. 7). The total consumptive use of water was 5 percent, and return flow was 95 percent of the disposition of the water.

A comparison of total water withdrawals by WUTA (table 1) indicates that Watts Bar-Chickamauga (3,187 Mgal/d) and Wheeler-Wilson (2,552 Mgal/d) account for 47 percent of the total water withdrawn in the Tennessee River watershed. A similar comparison of total withdrawals by HUC (table 2, appendix B) indicates that 06030002 Wheeler Lake (2,390 Mgal/d) and 06010207 Lower Clinch (1,848 Mgal/d) account for about 35 percent of the total withdrawals. The spatial distribution of total water withdrawals by HUC and by source is shown in figure 8. A comparison of total water withdrawals by State within the watershed is shown in table 3.

The two largest categories of withdrawals were thermoelectric power and industrial (tables 4, 5, and 6). During 2000, the most water (10,276 Mgal/d, 84 percent) was withdrawn for cooling at the thermo-electric plants (table 4). The largest thermoelectric-power water withdrawal (2,108 Mgal/d, 21 percent) was from the Wheeler Reservoir in the Wheeler-Wilson WUTA (table 4). Industrial withdrawals accounted for 10 percent (1,205 Mgal/d) of the total (table 4). The largest industrial withdrawal, 497 Mgal/d, was from the Fort Patrick Henry RCA and was 41 percent of the total industrial withdrawals (table 4). The return flow from thermoelectric power, industrial, and municipal wastewater facilities is 11,562 Mgal/d, or 95 percent of the water withdrawals (table 4). The largest return flow by category is thermoelectric power, 10,244 Mgal/d, or 89 percent of the total return flow (table 4). Overall, thermoelectric power has the smallest consumptive use; less than 1 percent, or 32.2 Mgal/d, of the thermoelectric power water withdrawals is consumptively used, compared to 263 Mgal/d (22 percent) for industry, 285 Mgal/d (43 percent) for public supply, and 68.9 Mgal/d (100 percent) for irrigation. Surface-water withdraw-als by water-use category are shown by WUTA (table 7), by HUC (table 8), and by county (table 9).

Ground-water withdrawals by water-use category are shown by WUTA (table 10), by HUC (table 11), and by county (table 12).

Consumptive use and interbasin transfers account for most of the water lost from the Tennessee River watershed. Consumptive use is reported as an increasing number at the junctures of the WUTAs to show the influence of the cumulative water withdraw-als and return flows on water availability. The cumula-tive consumptive use at the juncture of Fort Loudoun WUTA is 176 Mgal/d; Watts Bar-Chickamauga, 288 Mgal/d; Nickajack, 300 Mgal/d; Guntersville, 317 Mgal/d; Wheeler-Wilson, 533 Mgal/d; Pickwick, 563 Mgal/d; and Kentucky, 649 Mgal/d for 2000 (fig. 9). The average daily lockage is 200 Mgal/d through the Jamie Whitten lock on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, and the average daily diversion of flow is 3,361 Mgal/d for hydroelectric power gener-ation at Barkley Dam; the 200 and the 3,361 Mgal/d are interbasin transfers.

12 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 SURFACE-WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY EXPLANATION 1.2 - 10 10 - 100 220 - 650 1,290 - 1,850 2,375 GROUND-WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY EXPLANATION 0.1 - 2 2 - 5 7 - 10 12 - 15 30 - 35 TOTAL WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY EXPLANATION 2 - 10 10 - 100 220 - 630 1,325 - 1,870 2,390 Figure 8. Total water withdrawals by source and by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.

Tennessee River watershed boundary

Water Use 13

14 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 INTENSITY OF WITHDRAWALS LOW HIGH EXPLANATION Figure 10. Intensity of per capita use withdrawals by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.

Tennessee River watershed boundary The intensity of use for the Tennessee River watershed measured as a function of area was 298,489 gal/d/mi2 in 2000. Gross per capita use also is a measure of intensity of use. High per capita use val-ues in the Tennessee River watershed generally corre-spond to sparsely populated watersheds with large thermoelectric power water withdrawals. Gross per capita use (fig. 10 and table 2) ranges from 19,782 gal/d (Kentucky Lake, 0604005) to 39 gal/d (Lower Duck, 06040003).

The source, use, and disposition of the 12,211 Mgal/d of water withdrawn in the Tennessee watershed during 2000 is summarized in figure 11.

Surface water was the source of 11,996 Mgal/d, and ground water was the source of the remaining 215 Mgal/d. Industry withdrew 1,134 Mgal/d of sur-face water and 71 Mgal/d of ground water; consumed 263 Mgal/d; and returned the remaining 942 Mgal/d as flow to the river (fig. 11).

Water Use 15

16 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Water withdrawn for thermoelectric power is used for cooling water, and most of this water is returned to the Tennessee River. As a result, thermoelectric power use has little impact on overall water availability in the watershed because the result-ing consumptive use is low. By category, withdrawals and consumptive use are compared as follows. Ther-moelectric power water withdrawals are more than eight times larger than industrial water withdrawals (fig. 12). Public supply water withdrawals are slightly more than one-half of industrial water withdrawals, and irrigation water withdrawals are slightly more than one-tenth of public-supply withdrawals. Con-sumptive use accounts for 5 percent of the total water withdrawals. Consumptive use for irrigation is more than twice that of thermoelectric power. Consumptive use for industry (263 Mgal/d) and public supply (285 Mgal/d) is about the same for both categories, and together these two categories account for about 84 percent of the total consumptive use. The combined consumptive use for industry and public supply is about 17 times greater than that of thermoelectric power.

Water Use 17 Table 1. Total offstream water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values are in million gallons per day. Net water demand and consumptive use are expressed as integers. WUTA, water-use tabulation area]

Withdrawal Water-use tabulation area Surface Ground Total Total return Net water demand Reservoir catchment area water water water flow Consumptive use Cherokee Watauga 12.40 9.40 21.80 2.85 19 South Holston 21.30 8.01 29.31 2.33 27 Boone 0.00 3.72 3.72 23.62

-20 Fort Patrick Henry 513.10

.00 513.10

.00 513 Cherokee 639.22 13.00 652.22 1,103.66

-451 WUTA total 1,186.02 34.13 1,220.15 1,132.46 88 Douglas Douglas 110.78 11.98 122.76 57.50 65 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 77.52 1.60 79.12 56.39 23 Cumulative consumptive use 176 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 4.64 1.13 5.76 3.37 2

Santeetlah 0.44

.00 0.44

.00 0.4 Tellico 4.16 0.57 4.73 1.09 4

WUTA total 9.23 1.70 10.93 4.46 6

Norris Norris 29.88 3.42 33.30 10.69 23 Melton Hill 500.36 1.58 501.94 479.33 23 WUTA total 530.25 4.99 535.24 490.02 45 Hiwassee-Ocoee Chatuge 1.73 0.18 1.91 0.27 2

Nottely 0.60 0.55 1.15 0.24

.9 Hiwassee 0.93 0.00 0.93 0.10

.8 Apalachia 2.94 0.00 2.94

.00 3

Blue Ridge 33.25 0.05 33.30 0.33 33 Ocoee 0.01 1.11 1.12 24.63

-24 WUTA total 39.46 1.90 41.36 25.57 16 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 1,494.66 1.11 1,495.77 1,366.58 129 Chickamauga 1,667.10 24.02 1,691.12 1,775.56

-84 WUTA total 3,161.76 25.13 3,186.89 3,142.13 45 Cumulative consumptive use 288

18 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 1. Total offstream water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000Continued Withdrawal Water-use tabulation area Surface Ground Total Total return Net water demand Reservoir catchment area water water water flow Consumptive use Nickajack Nickajack 62.94 9.86 72.80 60.49 12 Cumulative consumptive use 300 Guntersville Guntersville 1,594.42 7.86 1,602.28 1,585.93 16 Cumulative consumptive use 317 Tims Ford Tims Ford 58.57 2.80 61.37 40.50 21 Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 2,449.02 45.82 2,494.84 2,328.13 167 Wilson 53.77 3.36 57.13 27.81 29 WUTA total 2,502.79 49.18 2,551.96 2,355.94 196 Cumulative consumptive use 533 Pickwick Pickwick 1,308.23 5.41 1,313.64 1,291.56 22 Cedar Creek 3.00 1.13 4.13

.00 4

Upper Bear Creek 2.81 0.16 2.97

.00 3

WUTA total 1,314.04 6.70 1,320.74 1,291.56 29 Cumulative consumptive use 563 Normandy Normandy 26.30 2.11 28.41 2.19 26 Kentucky Kentucky 1,322.24 54.94 1,377.17 1,317.30 60 Watershed total 11,996 215 12,211 11,562 649

Water Use 19 Table 2. Total offstream water use by hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. Water-use transactions in million gallons per day; gross per capita use, in gallons per day]

Hydrologic Withdrawal Total unit Gross per Surface Ground Total return Net water code Population capita use water water water flow demand 06010101 32,017 19,446 621.90 0.71 622.61 0.00 623 06010102 238,626 2,273 534.40 8.00 542.40 488.56 54 06010103 163,921 129 12.20 9.01 21.21 13.46 8

06010104 178,460 166 17.32 12.30 29.62 632.52

-603 06010105 338,535 147 47.09 2.70 49.79 19.93 30 06010106 72,472 498 35.45 0.65 36.10 27.31 9

06010107 107,541 129 11.62 2.31 13.92 5.78 8

06010108 164,582 164 16.57 10.43 27.01 11.39 16 06010201 419,747 524 218.28 1.62 219.90 59.07 161 06010202 36,959 114 3.95 0.26 4.21 2.17 2

06010203 43,448 48 1.22 0.88 2.10 1.20 0.9 06010204 48,438 107 4.60 0.57 5.17 1.09 4

06010205 142,559 194 25.13 2.58 27.71 9.90 18 06010206 64,584 83 4.50 0.83 5.33 0.42 5

06010207 181,670 10,172 1,845.46 2.44 1,847.90 486.73 1,361 06010208 68,681 135 9.06 0.21 9.27 1,347.86

-1,339 06020001 467,720 3,600 1,652.85 30.87 1,683.71 1,757.61

-74 06020002 202,501 433 83.11 4.48 87.59 79.05 9

06020003 25,753 1,309 33.25 0.45 33.71 24.96 9

06020004 30,169 112 2.36 1.03 3.39 0.62 3

06030001 145,766 10,969 1,592.06 6.83 1,598.89 1,585.32 14 06030002 505,179 4,730 2,374.82 14.87 2,389.69 2,259.60 130 06030003 71,769 1,261 59.88 30.60 90.49 48.25 42 06030004 46,328 348 12.98 3.12 16.10 2.27 14 06030005 198,508 7,206 1,422.52 7.87 1,430.40 1,378.51 52 06030006 40,750 197 5.84 2.19 8.03 1.63 6

06040001 77,951 124 5.45 4.19 9.64 22.87

-13 06040002 99,674 286 26.36 2.11 28.47 9.63 19 06040003 115,264 39 4.36 0.09 4.45 8.94

-4 06040004 22,681 130 1.20 1.75 2.94 1.33 2

06040005 66,943 19,782 1,289.19 35.07 1,324.26 1,274.45 50 06040006 86,427 407 21.32 13.84 35.16 0.01 35 Watershed total 4,505,623 2,710 11,996 215 12,211 11,562 649

20 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 3. Total offstream water use by county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Withdrawal State Surface Ground Total Total return Net water County water water water flow demand Alabama Colbert 1,317.44 1.54 1,318.98 1,303.09 15.89 Cullman 1.15 1.15 1.15 Dekalb 7.20 2.48 9.68 5.73 3.95 Franklin 3.02 1.13 4.16 1.61 2.54 Jackson 1,565.74 1.01 1,566.75 1,570.19

-3.44 Lauderdale 14.75 0.85 15.60 10.80 4.81 Lawrence 67.43 67.43 49.90 17.54 Limestone 2,139.65 7.78 2,147.43 2,119.34 28.09 Madison 36.36 27.27 63.63 36.39 27.23 Marion 2.50 2.50 2.50 Marshall 17.30 3.31 20.61 8.60 12.01 Morgan 203.40 8.16 211.56 122.17 89.39 Winston 0.31 0.16 0.47 0.47 State total 5,376.25 53.69 5,429.94 5,227.82 202.12 Georgia Catoosa 1.24 8.18 9.42 2.39 7.03 Dade 1.79 0.47 2.26 0.28 1.98 Fannin 1.29 0.02 1.31 0.33 0.98 Rabun 1.63 1.63 1.40 0.23 Towns 0.81 0.81 0.27 0.54 Union 0.60 0.55 1.15 0.24 0.91 Walker 3.93 6.64 10.57 10.02 0.55 State total 11.29 15.86 27.15 14.93 12.22 Kentucky Calloway 4.90 4.90 4.90 Graves 0.05 0.05 0.05 Livingston 20.10 2.44 22.54 0.22 22.32 Lyon 0.00 0.01

-0.01 Marshall 12.97 6.08 19.05 0.04 19.01 McCracken 0.78 0.78 0.78 State total 33.07 14.26 47.33 0.27 47.07 Mississippi Tishomingo

.02 4.36 4.38 0.34 4.04 State total

.02 4.36 4.38 0.34 4.04 North Carolina Avery 0.20 1.42 1.62 1.56 0.06 Buncombe 32.01 1.63 33.64 15.71 17.93 Cherokee 1.71 0.00 1.71 0.00 1.71 Clay 0.04 0.18 0.22 0.10 0.12 Graham 0.94 0.94 0.94 Haywood 34.62 0.20 34.82 25.91 8.91 Henderson 8.54 0.25 8.79 3.08 5.71 Jackson 0.88 0.85 1.73 0.89 0.84 Macon 1.53 0.26 1.79 0.77 1.02 Madison 0.26 0.24 0.50 0.19 0.31 Mitchell 1.38 3.59 4.96 0.61 4.35 Swain 0.34 0.02 0.36 0.31 0.05

Water Use 21 Table 3. Total offstream water use by county in 2000Continued Withdrawal State Surface Ground Total Total return Net water County water water water flow demand North CarolinaContinued Transylvania 2.19 0.58 2.77 0.95 1.82 Watauga 1.15 0.28 1.43 0.60 0.83 Yancey 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.31 0.26 State total 86.35 9.50 95.85 50.99 44.86 Tennessee Anderson 489.82 0.97 490.79 476.63 14.17 Bedford 5.70 0.83 6.53 3.36 3.18 Benton 4.28 19.36 23.64 1.59 22.05 Bledsoe 0.20 0.39 0.59 0.14 0.45 Blount 14.57 0.26 14.84 7.18 7.65 Bradley 12.01 1.38 13.39 9.93 3.46 Campbell 2.57 0.52 3.09 1.19 1.90 Carroll 0.69 0.69 0.14 0.54 Carter 0.05 7.53 7.59 2.44 5.14 Claiborne 2.60 0.23 2.83 0.42 2.41 Cocke 5.09 0.46 5.54 1.40 4.14 Coffee 60.60 0.06 60.66 41.33 19.33 Cumberland 5.02 0.21 5.23 2.22 3.01 Decatur 1.29 0.23 1.52 0.49 1.02 Dickson 1.53 1.53 1.53 Franklin 2.42 2.02 4.43 0.98 3.45 Giles 3.64 0.21 3.85 2.27 1.58 Grainger 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.14

-0.03 Greene 11.86 0.01 11.87 6.96 4.91 Grundy 0.75 0.75 0.26 0.49 Hamblen 9.25 1.05 10.30 4.09 6.21 Hamilton 1,608.78 14.18 1,622.97 1,585.72 37.24 Hancock 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.20 Hardin 24.53 2.41 26.94 20.92 6.03 Hawkins 624.46 1.15 625.61 622.39 3.22 Henderson 3.59 0.37 3.96 1.15 2.80 Henry 0.02 3.06 3.08 2.07 1.01 Hickman 2.33 0.00 2.33 0.44 1.89 Houston 0.16 0.16 0.16 Humphreys 1,273.53 11.37 1,284.90 1,270.71 14.19 Jefferson 2.79 12.17 14.97 3.36 11.61 Johnson 1.24 0.99 2.23 0.69 1.54 Knox 62.38 1.16 63.55 50.43 13.12 Lawrence 1.90 2.41 4.31 2.07 2.24 Lewis 0.10 1.59 1.69 0.78 0.92 Lincoln 1.65 2.17 3.81 1.18 2.63 Loudoun 13.87 1.20 15.07 8.30 6.77 Marion 2.64 0.71 3.36 0.80 2.55 Marshall 2.76 0.14 2.90 4.20

-1.29 Maury 12.30 1.10 13.40 8.18 5.22 McMinn 67.79 2.36 70.15 68.47 1.68 McNairy 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.26 0.73 Meigs 0.32 0.58 0.90 0.22 0.68 Monroe 5.08 0.57 5.65 2.66 2.99 Moore 1.02 0.75 1.77 0.61 1.17

22 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 3. Total offstream water use by county in 2000Continued Withdrawal State Surface Ground Total Total return Net water County water water water flow demand TennesseeContinued Morgan 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.64 0.41 Perry 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.25 0.51 Polk 32.12 0.44 32.56 24.67 7.89 Rhea 176.59 0.80 177.38 159.55 17.83 Roane 1,351.06 0.20 1,351.25 1,348.77 2.48 Sequatchie 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.47 0.19 Sevier 7.66 0.24 7.90 5.28 2.61 Stewart 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Sullivan 521.83 0.38 522.21 485.05 37.17 Unicoi 0.09 5.93 6.02 1.46 4.55 Union 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.38 0.19 Washington 13.27 0.41 13.68 11.40 2.28 Wayne 0.87 0.20 1.07 0.35 0.73 Williamson 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 State total 6,452.71 107.31 6,560.02 6,257.22 302.8 Virginia Lee 0.78 0.58 1.36 0.00 1.36 Russell 13.59 0.48 14.07 0.00 14.07 Scott 1.05 0.01 1.06 0.00 1.06 Smyth 2.93 4.09 7.03 0.00 7.03 Tazewell 2.43 0.57 3.00 6.02

-3.02 Washington 8.43 3.26 11.69 2.33 9.36 Wise 7.42 0.89 8.32 2.54 5.78 State total 36.64 9.88 46.52 10.89 35.63 Watershed total 11,996 215 12,211 11,562 649

Water Use 23 Table 4. Total water use by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, water-use tabulation area]

Thermoelectric power Public supply Water-use tabulation Cooling Waste-area water Industrial water Irrigation Total Reservoir catchment Water return Water Return Water return Water Water Return area withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal withdrawal flow Cherokee Watauga 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.47 21.04 2.38 0.12 21.80 2.85 South Holston 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.47 26.25 1.86 2.23 29.31 2.33 Boone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 3.72 23.58 0.00 3.72 23.62 Fort Patrick Henry 0.00 0.00 496.70 0.00 16.40 0.00 0.00 513.10 0.00 Cherokee 621.00 621.00 10.72 467.53 20.22 15.13 0.28 652.22 1,103.66 WUTA total 621.00 621.00 508.89 468.51 87.63 42.95 2.63 1,220.15 1,132.46 Douglas Douglas 4.97 0.00 42.28 28.49 73.07 29.01 2.44 122.76 57.50 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 0.00 0.00 5.02 1.37 72.42 55.03 1.68 79.12 56.39 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 0.00 0.00 1.94 1.36 3.83 2.01 0.00 5.76 3.37 Santeetlah 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 Tellico 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.68 1.09 0.05 4.73 1.09 WUTA total 0.00 0.00 1.94 1.36 8.94 3.10 0.05 10.93 4.46 Norris Norris 9.24 0.00 6.24 0.21 17.56 10.48 0.26 33.30 10.69 Melton Hill 469.00 469.00 1.48 0.90 31.40 9.43 0.05 501.94 479.33 WUTA total 478.24 469 7.72 1.11 48.97 19.91

.31 535.24 490.02 Hiwassee-Ocoee Chatuge 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.88 0.27 0.00 1.91 0.27 Nottely 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.15 1.15 0.24 Hiwassee 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.75 0.10 0.11 0.93 0.10 Apalachia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.89 0.00 0.05 2.94 0.00 Blue Ridge 0.00 0.00 31.77 0.00 1.47 0.33 0.07 33.30 0.33 Ocoee 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.37 1.11 0.26 0.01 1.12 24.63 WUTA total 0.00 0.00 31.88 24.37 9.09 1.20 0.39 41.36 25.57 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 1,484.10 1,345.00 0.03 0.24 9.53 21.34 2.12 1,495.77 1,366.58 Chickamauga 1,571.40 1,693.50 68.36 68.14 47.39 13.92 3.97 1,691.12 1,775.56 WUTA total 3,055.50 3,038.50 68.38 68.37 56.91 35.26 6.09 3,186.89 3,142.13 Nickajack Nickajack 0.00 0.00 23.66 15.30 48.78 45.19 0.35 72.80 60.49 Guntersville Guntersville 1,546.00 1,546.00 10.97 19.49 42.43 20.45 2.88 1,602.28 1,585.93

24 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 4. Total water use by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000Continued Thermoelectric power Public supply Water-use tabulation Cooling Waste-area water Industrial water Irrigation Total Reservoir catchment Water return Water Return Water return Water Water Return area withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal withdrawal flow Tims Ford Tims Ford 0.00 0.00 56.26 35.93 4.86 4.57 0.26 61.37 40.50 Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 2,108.00 2,107.00 229.62 147.86 110.82 73.27 46.39 2,494.84 2,328.13 Wilson 0.00 0.00 30.01 21.01 23.16 6.80 3.96 57.13 27.81 WUTA total 2,108.00 2,107.00 259.63 168.87 133.98 80.07 50.35 2,551.96 2,355.94 Pickwick Pickwick 1,251.00 1,251.00 53.61 26.66 8.92 13.89 0.11 1,313.64 1,291.56 Cedar Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.13 0.00 0.00 4.13 0.00 Upper Bear Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.97 0.00 0.00 2.97 0.00 WUTA total 1,251.00 1,251.00 53.61 26.66 16.02 13.89 0.11 1,320.74 1,291.56 Normandy Normandy 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 26.26 2.19 0.69 28.41 2.19 Kentucky Kentucky 1,211.00 1,211.00 133.17 82.55 32.35 23.74 0.65 1,377.17 1,317.30 Watershed total 10,276 10,244 1,205 942 662 377 68.9 12,211 11,562

Water Use 25 Table 5. Total water use by category and hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Thermoelectric power Public supply Cooling Waste-Hydrologic water Industrial water Irrigation Total unit Water return Water Return Water return Water Water Return code withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal withdrawal flow 06010101 621.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.00 622.61 0.00 06010102 0.00 0.00 497.53 465.70 42.64 22.87 2.23 542.40 488.56 06010103 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 21.04 13.42 0.12 21.21 13.46 06010104 0.00 621.00 10.72 2.94 18.62 8.58 0.28 29.62 632.52 06010105 4.97 0.00 4.48 2.25 40.34 17.68 0.00 49.79 19.93 06010106 0.00 0.00 29.00 22.63 6.27 4.68 0.83 36.10 27.31 06010107 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.72 11.83 5.06 0.48 13.92 5.78 06010108 0.00 0.00 7.78 4.08 18.10 7.32 1.13 27.01 11.39 06010201 139.10 0.00 5.02 0.24 73.80 58.84 1.98 219.90 59.07 06010202 0.00 0.00 2.16 1.36 2.05 0.81 0.00 4.21 2.17 06010203 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 2.03 1.20 0.00 2.10 1.20 06010204 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.11 1.09 0.05 5.17 1.09 06010205 9.24 0.00 6.24 0.21 12.23 9.69 0.01 27.71 9.90 06010206 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.42 0.00 5.33 0.42 06010207 1,814.00 469.00 1.51 0.90 32.26 16.83 0.13 1,847.90 486.73 06010208 0.00 1,345.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 2.86 1.98 9.27 1,347.86 06020001 1,571.40 1,693.50 24.33 15.30 83.89 48.80 4.10 1,683.71 1,757.61 06020002 0.00 0.00 67.52 68.14 19.53 10.91 0.54 87.59 79.05 06020003 0.00 0.00 31.77 24.37 1.85 0.59 0.09 33.71 24.96 06020004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.23 0.62 0.16 3.39 0.62 06030001 1,546.00 1,546.00 10.97 19.49 39.21 19.83 2.72 1,598.89 1,585.32 06030002 2,108.00 2,107.00 169.45 99.20 67.33 53.41 44.91 2,389.69 2,259.60 06030003 0.00 0.00 56.26 37.34 33.98 10.92 0.26 90.49 48.25 06030004 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.07 14.38 2.20 1.40 16.10 2.27 06030005 1,251.00 1,251.00 143.47 94.93 31.91 32.58 4.02 1,430.40 1,378.51 06030006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 1.63 0.03 8.03 1.63 06040001 0.00 0.00 0.07 19.89 9.26 2.98 0.32 9.64 22.87 06040002 0.00 0.00 1.45 2.05 26.26 7.57 0.75 28.47 9.63 06040003 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 4.31 6.49 0.14 4.45 8.94 06040004 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 2.83 1.33 0.03 2.94 1.33 06040005 1,211.00 1,211.00 105.19 58.09 7.89 5.35 0.18 1,324.26 1,274.45 06040006 0.00 0.00 27.82 0.00 7.33 0.01 0.00 35.16 0.01 Watershed total 10,276 10,244 1,205 942 662 377 68.9 12,211 11,562

26 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 6. Total water use by category and county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Thermoelectric power Public supply Cooling Waste-water Industrial water Irrigation Total State Water return Water Return Water return Water Water Return County withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal withdrawal flow Alabama Colbert 1,251.00 1,251.00 60.02 47.45 7.96 4.64 1,318.98 1,303.09 Cullman 1.15 1.15 0.00 Dekalb 1.11 0.88 8.57 4.85 9.68 5.73 Franklin 4.13 1.61 0.03 4.16 1.61 Jackson 1,546.00 1,546.00 9.20 18.09 8.95 6.10 2.60 1,566.75 1,570.19 Lauderdale 13.74 10.80 1.86 15.60 10.80 Lawrence 59.85 47.26 2.19 2.64 5.39 67.43 49.90 Limestone 2,108.00 2,107.00 11.01 12.34 28.42 2,147.43 2,119.34 Madison 1.34 1.03 49.86 35.36 12.43 63.63 36.39 Marion 2.50 2.50 0.00 Marshall 0.66 0.52 19.82 8.08 0.13 20.61 8.60 Morgan 166.96 99.20 42.90 22.97 1.70 211.56 122.17 Winston 0.47 0.47 0.00 State total 4,905.00 4,904.00 300.29 214.42 172.10 109.40 52.55 5,429.94 5,227.82 Georgia Catoosa 8.53 2.39 0.89 9.42 2.39 Dade 1.70 0.28 0.56 2.26 0.28 Fannin 1.22 0.33 0.09 1.31 0.33 Rabun 1.63 1.36 0.04 1.63 1.40 Towns 0.81 0.27 0.81 0.27 Union 1.00 0.24 0.15 1.15 0.24 Walker 2.35 2.31 7.63 7.72 0.59 10.57 10.02 State total 0.00 0.00 3.98 3.67 20.89 11.26 2.28 27.15 14.93 Kentucky Calloway 1.59 3.31 4.90 0.00 Graves 0.05 0.05 0.00 Livingston 22.29 0.25 0.22 22.54 0.22 Lyon 0.01 0.00 0.01 Marshall 15.45 3.61 0.04 19.05 0.04 McCracken 0.78 0.78 0.00 State total 0.00 0.00 39.33 0.01 8.01 0.26 0.00 47.33 0.27 Mississippi Tishomingo 4.36 0.34 0.02 4.38 0.34 State total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.36 0.34 0.02 4.38 0.34 North Carolina Avery 0.59 0.47 1.03 1.09 1.62 1.56 Buncombe 4.97 2.48 1.38 26.19 14.33 33.64 15.71 Cherokee 0.08 1.64 0.00 1.71 0.00 Clay 0.04 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.10 Graham 0.94 0.94 0.00 Haywood 28.55 22.53 6.27 3.38 34.82 25.91 Henderson 0.97 0.87 7.82 2.21 8.79 3.08 Jackson 0.07 1.66 0.89 1.73 0.89 Macon 0.24 1.55 0.77 1.79 0.77 Madison 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.19 Mitchell 3.84 0.00 1.13 0.61 4.96 0.61 Swain 0.36 0.31 0.36 0.31

Water Use 27 Table 6. Total water use by category and county in 2000Continued Thermoelectric power Public supply Cooling Waste-water Industrial water Irrigation Total State Water return Water Return Water return Water Water Return County withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal withdrawal flow North CarolinaContinued Transylvania 1.03 0.00 1.74 0.95 2.77 0.95 Watauga 1.43 0.60 1.43 0.60 Yancey 0.00 0.57 0.31 0.57 0.31 State total 4.97 0.00 37.88 25.25 53.00 25.74 0.00 95.85 50.99 Tennessee Anderson 469.00 469.00 1.48 0.90 20.23 6.73 0.08 490.79 476.63 Bedford 0.06 6.52 3.29 0.01 6.53 3.36 Benton 22.10 1.54 1.59 0.00 23.64 1.59 Bledsoe 0.39 0.14 0.20 0.59 0.14 Blount 14.29 7.18 0.55 14.84 7.18 Bradley 2.50 2.41 10.66 7.52 0.23 13.39 9.93 Campbell 2.84 1.19 0.25 3.09 1.19 Carroll 0.56 0.14 0.13 0.69 0.14 Carter 0.04 7.53 2.40 0.05 7.59 2.44 Claiborne 2.82 0.42 0.01 2.83 0.42 Cocke 0.45 0.10 4.09 1.30 1.00 5.54 1.40 Coffee 55.04 35.93 5.21 5.41 0.42 60.66 41.33 Cumberland 3.25 2.22 1.98 5.23 2.22 Decatur 0.07 1.38 0.49 0.06 1.52 0.49 Dickson 1.53 1.53 0.00 Franklin 4.31 0.98 0.13 4.44 0.98 Giles 0.32 0.07 3.30 2.20 0.23 3.85 2.27 Grainger 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.14 Greene 3.35 3.49 8.11 3.48 0.41 11.87 6.96 Grundy 0.75 0.26 0.75 0.26 Hamblen 10.29 4.09 0.02 10.30 4.09 Hamilton 1,537.00 1,536.00 22.27 13.00 62.38 36.73 1.32 1,622.97 1,585.72 Hancock 0.34 0.15 0.00 0.34 0.15 Hardin 23.60 19.89 3.11 1.02 0.23 26.94 20.92 Hawkins 621.00 621.00 0.56 0.53 4.00 0.86 0.04 625.61 622.39 Henderson 3.91 1.15 0.05 3.96 1.15 Henry 3.05 2.07 0.03 3.08 2.07 Hickman 0.08 2.29 0.35 0.04 2.33 0.44 Houston 0.16 0.16 0.00 Humphreys 1,211.00 1,211.00 71.59 58.08 2.31 1.63 1,284.90 1,270.71 Jefferson 11.64 2.31 3.23 1.05 0.10 14.97 3.36 Johnson 0.01 2.18 0.69 0.04 2.23 0.69 Knox 0.21 0.18 62.04 50.25 1.29 63.55 50.43 Lawrence 0.23 4.29 1.84 0.03 4.31 2.07 Lewis 0.09 1.51 0.78 0.10 1.69 0.78 Lincoln 3.48 1.18 0.34 3.81 1.18 Loudoun 4.95 0.12 10.09 8.18 0.04 15.07 8.30 Marion 3.35 0.80 0.00 3.36 0.80 Marshall 1.99 2.90 2.21 2.90 4.20 Maury 1.44 2.36 11.63 5.82 0.33 13.40 8.18 McMinn 64.90 65.73 5.24 2.74 0.00 70.15 68.47 McNairy 0.97 0.26 0.02 0.99 0.26 Meigs 0.58 0.22 0.32 0.90 0.22 Monroe 0.12 5.58 2.54 0.07 5.65 2.66

28 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 6. Total water use by category and county in 2000Continued Thermoelectric power Public supply Cooling Waste-water Industrial water Irrigation Total State Water return Water Return Water return Water Water Return County withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal flow withdrawal withdrawal flow TennesseeContinued Moore 1.23 0.38 0.55 0.23 1.78 0.61 Morgan 1.05 0.64 1.05 0.64 Perry 0.75 0.25 0.01 0.76 0.25 Polk 31.77 24.37 0.63 0.31 0.17 32.56 24.67 Rhea 173.50 157.50 3.46 2.05 0.42 177.38 159.55 Roane 1,345.00 1,345.00 6.25 3.77 0.00 1,351.25 1,348.77 Sequatchie 0.65 0.47 0.02 0.67 0.47 Sevier 0.01 0.65 7.51 4.64 0.37 7.90 5.28 Stewart 0.02 0.02 0.00 Sullivan 496.70 465.23 25.43 19.82 0.08 522.21 485.05 Unicoi 0.04 0.10 5.93 1.36 0.05 6.02 1.46 Union 0.58 0.38 0.00 0.58 0.38 Washington 0.02 13.16 11.38 0.52 13.68 11.40 Wayne 1.03 0.35 0.04 1.07 0.35 Williamson 0.05 0.05 0.00 State total 5,356.50 5,339.50 816.33 698.35 375.31 219.36 11.87 6,560.02 6257.22 Virginia Lee 0.00 1.36 1.36 0.00 Russell 9.24 0.00 3.79 1.03 0.01 14.07 0.00 Scott 1.06 1.06 0.00 Smyth 0.00 4.88 2.15 7.03 0.00 Tazewell 0.28 0.21 2.72 5.81 3.00 6.02 Washington 0.83 0.47 10.86 1.86 11.69 2.33 Wise 2.17 6.15 2.54 8.32 2.54 State total 9.24 0.00 7.06 0.68 28.06 10.21 2.15 46.52 10.89 Watershed total 10,276 10,244 1,205 942 662 377 68.9 12,211 11,562

Water Use 29 Table 7. Surface-water withdrawal by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, Water-use tabulation area]

Water-use tabulation area Total water Reservoir catchment area Thermoelectric power Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Cherokee Watauga 0.24 12.07 0.10 12.40 South Holston 0.24 18.85 2.20 21.30 Boone 0.00 Fort Patrick Henry 496.70 16.40 513.10 Cherokee 621.00 0.60 17.38 0.24 639.22 WUTA total 621.00 497.78 64.70 2.55 1,186.02 Douglas Douglas 4.97 36.09 67.73 1.98 110.78 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 5.00 71.18 1.33 77.52 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 1.91 2.73 4.64 Santeetlah 0.44 0.44 Tellico 4.11 0.05 4.16 WUTA total 0.00 1.91 7.28 0.05 9.24 Norris Norris 9.24 5.28 15.10 0.26 29.88 Melton Hill 469.00 1.48 29.83 0.05 500.36 WUTA total 478.24 6.76 44.93 0.31 530.25 Hiwassee-Ocoee Chatuge 0.04 1.70 1.73 Nottely 0.45 0.15 0.60 Hiwassee 0.08 0.75 0.11 0.93 Apalachia 2.89 0.05 2.94 Blue Ridge 31.77 1.41 0.07 33.25 Ocoee 0.01 0.01 WUTA total 0.00 31.88 7.20 0.38 39.46 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 1,484.10 0.03 8.67 1.87 1,494.66 Chickamauga 1,571.40 68.24 24.55 2.91 1,667.10 WUTA total 3,055.50 68.27 33.22 4.78 3,161.76 Nickajack Nickajack 18.74 44.00 0.20 62.94 Guntersville Guntersville 1,546.00 9.18 36.37 2.88 1,594.42 Tims Ford Tims Ford 55.48 2.90 0.20 58.57

30 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 7. Surface-water withdrawal by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000Continued Water-use tabulation area Total water Reservoir catchment area Thermoelectric power Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 2,108.00 221.46 78.08 41.48 2,449.02 Wilson 29.48 20.33 3.96 53.77 WUTA total 2,108.00 250.94 98.41 45.43 2,502.79 Pickwick Pickwick 1,251.00 53.08 4.04 0.11 1,308.23 Cedar Creek 3.00 3.00 Upper Bear Creek 2.81 2.81 WUTA total 1,251.00 53.08 9.85 0.11 1,314.04 Normandy Normandy 1.44 24.25 0.61 26.30 Kentucky Kentucky 1,211.00 97.20 13.60 0.44 1,322.24 Watershed total 10,276 1,134 526 61.3 11,996

Water Use 31 Table 8. Surface-water withdrawal by category and hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Hydrologic unit Total water code Thermoelectric power Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal 06010101 621.00 0.00 0.91 621.90 06010102 496.94 35.25 2.20 534.40 06010103 0.04 12.07 0.10 12.20 06010104 0.60 16.47 0.24 17.32 06010105 4.97 4.00 38.12 47.09 06010106 28.41 6.21 0.83 35.45 06010107 11.18 0.44 11.62 06010108 3.89 11.97 0.72 16.57 06010201 139.10 5.00 72.57 1.61 218.28 06010202 2.13 1.82 3.95 06010203 0.07 1.15 1.22 06010204 4.55 0.05 4.60 06010205 9.24 5.28 10.60 0.01 25.13 06010206 0.00 4.50 0.00 4.50 06010207 1,814.00 1.51 29.83 0.12 1,845.46 06010208 7.29 1.77 9.06 06020001 1,571.40 19.29 59.22 2.94 1,652.85 06020002 67.51 15.12 0.49 83.11 06020003 31.77 1.41 0.07 33.25 06020004 2.20 0.16 2.36 06030001 1,546.00 9.18 34.17 2.72 1,592.06 06030002 2,108.00 161.29 65.49 40.04 2,374.82 06030003 55.48 4.21 0.20 59.88 06030004 0.32 11.28 1.38 12.98 06030005 1,251.00 142.41 25.11 4.02 1,422.54 06030006 5.81 0.03 5.84 06040001 0.07 5.13 0.26 5.45 06040002 1.44 24.25 0.67 26.36 06040003 4.22 0.14 4.36 06040004 1.17 0.03 1.20 06040005 1,211.00 75.81 2.34 0.04 1,289.19 06040006 21.32 21.32 Watershed total 10,276 1,134 526 61.3 11,996

32 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 9. Surface-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

State Total water County Thermoelectric power Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Alabama Colbert 1,251.00 58.96 7.48 1,317.44 Cullman 1.15 1.15 Dekalb 7.20 7.20 Franklin 3.00 0.03 3.02 Jackson 1,546.00 9.18 7.96 2.60 1,565.74 Lauderdale 12.89 1.86 14.75 Lawrence 59.85 2.19 5.39 67.43 Limestone 2,108.00 8.10 23.55 2,139.65 Madison 1.34 22.59 12.43 36.36 Marion 2.50 2.50 Marshall 17.17 0.13 17.30 Morgan 158.80 42.90 1.70 203.40 Winston 0.31 0.31 State total 4,905.00 289.28 134.29 47.68 5,376.25 Georgia Catoosa 0.65 0.59 1.24 Dade 1.70 0.09 1.79 Fannin 1.22 0.07 1.29 Rabun 1.63 1.63 Towns 0.81 0.81 Union 0.45 0.15 0.60 Walker 0.84 2.50 0.59 3.93 State total 0.00 2.47 7.33 1.49 11.29 Kentucky Livingston 19.85 0.25 20.10 Marshall 12.97 12.97 State total 0.00 32.82 0.25 0.00 33.07 Mississippi Tishomingo 0.02

.02 State total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

.02 North Carolina Avery 0.20 0.20 Buncombe 4.97 2.02 25.01 32.01 Cherokee 0.08 1.64 1.71 Clay 0.04 0.04 Graham 0.94 0.94 Haywood 28.41 6.21 34.62 Henderson 0.97 7.57 8.54 Jackson 0.07 0.81 0.88 Macon 0.21 1.32 1.53 Madison 0.26 0.26 Mitchell 0.34 1.04 1.38 Swain 0.34 0.34 Transylvania 1.00 1.19 2.19 Watauga 1.15 1.15 Yancey 0.57 0.57 State total 4.97 33.33 48.05 0.00 86.35

Water Use 33 Table 9. Surface-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000Continued State Total water County Thermoelectric power Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Tennessee Anderson 469.00 1.48 19.27 0.07 489.82 Bedford 5.69 0.01 5.70 Benton 2.90 1.38 4.28 Bledsoe 0.20 0.20 Blount 14.27 0.30 14.57 Bradley 2.50 9.33 0.18 12.01 Campbell 2.32 0.25 2.57 Carter 0.05 0.05 Claiborne 2.59 0.01 2.60 Cocke 4.09 1.00 5.09 Coffee 55.00 5.20 0.40 60.60 Cumberland 3.25 1.77 5.02 Decatur 0.07 1.17 0.05 1.29 Dickson 1.53 1.53 Franklin 2.35 0.06 2.42 Giles 0.32 3.09 0.23 3.64 Grainger 0.06 0.06 Greene 3.35 8.11 0.41 11.86 Grundy 0.75 0.75 Hamblen 9.25 0.00 9.25 Hamilton 1,537.00 18.74 52.11 0.93 1,608.78 Hancock 0.34 0.00 0.34 Hardin 23.60 0.74 0.20 24.53 Hawkins 621.00 0.56 2.86 0.04 624.46 Henderson 3.54 0.05 3.59 Henry 0.02 0.02 Hickman 2.29 0.04 2.33 Humphreys 1,211.00 61.41 1.12 1,273.53 Jefferson 0.04 2.70 0.05 2.79 Johnson 0.00 1.22 0.02 1.24 Knox 0.08 61.12 1.19 62.38 Lawrence 1.90 0.00 1.90 Lewis 0.10 0.10 Lincoln 1.31 0.34 1.65 Loudoun 4.95 8.88 0.04 13.87 Marion 2.64 0.00 2.64 Marshall 2.76 2.76 Maury 1.44 10.60 0.26 12.30 McMinn 64.90 2.89 0.00 67.79 McNairy 0.01 0.01 Meigs 0.32 0.32 Monroe 5.01 0.07 5.08 Moore 0.47 0.55 1.02 Morgan 1.05 1.05 Perry 0.75 0.01 0.76 Polk 31.77 0.19 0.16 32.12 Rhea 173.50 2.71 0.38 176.59 Roane 1,345.00 6.06 0.00 1,351.06 Sequatchie 0.65 0.02 0.67 Sevier 7.29 0.37 7.66 Sullivan 496.70 25.08 0.05 521.83 Unicoi 0.04 0.05 0.09

34 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 9. Surface-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000Continued State Total water County Thermoelectric power Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal TennesseeContinued Washington 13.16 0.11 13.27 Wayne 0.83 0.03 0.87 State total 5,356.50 770.33 315.97 9.92 6,452.71 Virginia Lee 0.78 0.78 Russell 9.24 3.79 0.55 0.01 13.59 Scott 1.05 1.05 Smyth 0.78 2.15 2.93 Tazewell 0.00 2.43 2.43 Washington 0.24 8.19 8.43 Wise 1.49 5.93 7.42 State total 9.24 5.52 19.72 2.15 36.64 Watershed total 10,276 1,134 526 61.3 11,996

Water Use 35 Table 10. Ground-water withdrawal by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, water-use tabulation area]

Water-use tabulation area Total water Reservoir catchment area Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Cherokee Watauga 0.40 8.98 0.02 9.40 South Holston 0.59 7.39 0.03 8.01 Boone 0.00 3.72 3.72 Fort Patrick Henry 0.00 Cherokee 10.12 2.85 0.03 13.00 WUTA total 11.11 22.94 0.08 34.13 Douglas Douglas 6.19 5.34 0.45 11.98 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 0.02 1.24 0.34 1.60 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 0.03 1.09 1.13 Santeetlah 0.00 Tellico 0.57 0.57 WUTA total 0.03 1.66 0.00 1.70 Norris Norris 0.95 2.46 0.00 3.42 Melton Hill 1.58 1.58 WUTA total 0.95 4.04 0.00 4.99 Hiwassee-Ocoee Chatuge 0.00 0.18 0.18 Nottely 0.55 0.55 Hiwassee 0.00 0.00 Apalachia 0.00 0.00 Blue Ridge 0.05 0.05 Ocoee 1.11 1.11 WUTA total 0.00 1.90 0.00 1.90 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 0.85 0.25 1.11 Chickamauga 0.12 22.84 1.06 24.02 WUTA total 0.12 23.69 1.32 25.13 Nickajack Nickajack 4.92 4.78 0.15 9.86 Guntersville Guntersville 1.79 6.07 7.86

36 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 10. Ground-water withdrawal by category and water-use tabulation area in 2000Continued Water-use tabulation area Total water Reservoir catchment area Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Tims Ford Tims Ford 0.78 1.96 0.06 2.80 Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 8.16 32.74 4.92 45.82 Wilson 0.53 2.83 3.36 WUTA total 8.69 35.57 4.92 49.18 Pickwick Pickwick 0.53 4.88 5.41 Cedar Creek 1.13 1.13 Upper Bear Creek 0.16 0.16 WUTA total 0.53 6.17 0.00 6.70 Normandy Normandy 0.01 2.01 0.09 2.11 Kentucky Kentucky 35.97 18.76 0.21 54.94 Watershed total 71.1 136 7.62 215

Water Use 37 Table 11. Ground-water withdrawal by category and hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Hydrologic unit Total water code Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal 06010101 0.00 0.71 0.71 06010102 0.59 7.38 0.03 8.00 06010103 0.01 8.98 0.02 9.01 06010104 10.12 2.15 0.03 12.30 06010105 0.48 2.22 2.70 06010106 0.59 0.06 0.65 06010107 1.61 0.65 0.04 2.31 06010108 3.89 6.13 0.41 10.43 06010201 0.02 1.23 0.37 1.62 06010202 0.03 0.22 0.26 06010203 0.00 0.88 0.88 06010204 0.57 0.57 06010205 0.95 1.63 0.00 2.59 06010206 0.00 0.83 0.83 06010207 2.43 0.01 2.44 06010208 0.21 0.21 06020001 5.04 24.67 1.16 30.87 06020002 0.01 4.41 0.05 4.48 06020003 0.43 0.02 0.45 06020004 1.03 1.03 06030001 1.79 5.04 6.83 06030002 8.16 1.84 4.87 14.87 06030003 0.78 29.76 0.06 30.60 06030004 3.10 0.02 3.12 06030005 1.06 6.81 7.87 06030006 2.19 2.19 06040001 4.13 0.06 4.19 06040002 0.01 2.01 0.09 2.11 06040003 0.09 0.00 0.09 06040004 0.09 1.66 0.00 1.75 06040005 29.38 5.55 0.15 35.07 06040006 6.50 7.33 13.84 Watershed total 71.1 136 7.62 215

38 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 12. Ground-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

State Total water County Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Alabama Colbert 1.06 0.48 1.54 Dekalb 1.11 1.37 2.48 Franklin 1.13 1.13 Jackson 0.02 0.99 1.01 Lauderdale 0.85 0.85 Limestone 2.91 4.87 7.78 Madison 27.27 27.27 Marshall 0.66 2.65 3.31 Morgan 8.16 8.16 Winston 0.16 0.16 State total 11.01 37.81 4.87 53.69 Georgia Catoosa 7.88 0.30 8.18 Dade 0.47 0.47 Fannin 0.02 0.02 Union 0.55 0.55 Walker 1.51 5.13 6.64 State total 1.51 13.56 0.79 15.86 Kentucky Calloway 1.59 3.31 4.90 Graves 0.05 0.05 Livingston 2.44 2.44 Marshall 2.47 3.61 6.08 McCracken 0.78 0.78 State total 6.50 7.75 0.00 14.26 Mississippi Tishomingo 4.36 4.36 State total 0.00 4.36 0.00 4.36 North Carolina Avery 0.39 1.03 1.42 Buncombe 0.45 1.18 1.63 Cherokee 0.00 0.00 Clay 0.00 0.18 0.18 Haywood 0.14 0.06 0.20 Henderson 0.00 0.25 0.25 Jackson 0.00 0.85 0.85 Macon 0.03 0.22 0.26 Madison 0.24 0.24 Mitchell 3.50 0.09 3.59 Swain 0.02 0.02 Transylvania 0.03 0.55 0.58 Watauga 0.28 0.28 Yancey 0.00 0.00 State total 4.55 4.95 0.00 9.50

Water Use 39 Table 12. Ground-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000Continued State Total water County Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal Tennessee Anderson 0.96 0.01 0.97 Bedford 0.83 0.00 0.83 Benton 19.20 0.16 0.00 19.36 Bledsoe 0.39 0.39 Blount 0.02 0.24 0.26 Bradley 1.33 0.05 1.38 Campbell 0.52 0.52 Carroll 0.56 0.13 0.69 Carter 7.53 7.53 Claiborne 0.23 0.23 Cocke 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.46 Coffee 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.06 Cumberland 0.21 0.21 Decatur 0.21 0.02 0.23 Franklin 1.96 0.06 2.02 Giles 0.21 0.21 Grainger 0.03 0.02 0.05 Greene 0.00 0.01 0.01 Hamblen 1.04 0.01 1.05 Hamilton 3.53 10.27 0.38 14.18 Hardin 2.38 0.03 2.41 Hawkins 1.15 0.00 1.15 Henderson 0.36 0.00 0.37 Henry 3.05 0.01 3.06 Hickman 0.00 0.00 Houston 0.16 0.16 Humphreys 10.18 1.19 11.37 Jefferson 11.60 0.53 0.04 12.17 Johnson 0.01 0.96 0.02 0.99 Knox 0.13 0.93 0.10 1.16 Lawrence 2.39 0.02 2.41 Lewis 0.09 1.51 0.00 1.59 Lincoln 2.17 2.17 Loudoun 1.20 1.20 Marion 0.71 0.71 Marshall 0.14 0.14 Maury 1.03 0.07 1.10 McMinn 0.00 2.35 2.36 McNairy 0.97 0.00 0.98 Meigs 0.58 0.58 Monroe 0.57 0.57 Moore 0.75 0.75 Perry 0.00 0.00 Polk 0.43 0.00 0.44 Rhea 0.76 0.04 0.80 Roane 0.20 0.20 Sevier 0.01 0.23 0.24 Stewart 0.02 0.02

40 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 12. Ground-water withdrawal by category and county in 2000Continued State Total water County Industrial Public supply Irrigation withdrawal TennesseeContinued Sullivan 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.38 Unicoi 0.00 5.93 0.00 5.93 Union 0.58 0.00 0.58 Washington 0.41 0.41 Wayne 0.20 0.00 0.20 Williamson 0.05 0.05 State total 46.00 59.35 1.96 107.31 Virginia Lee 0.00 0.58 0.58 Russell 0.00 0.48 0.48 Scott 0.01 0.01 Smyth 0.00 4.09 4.09 Tazewell 0.28 0.29 0.57 Washington 0.59 2.67 3.26 Wise 0.68 0.22 0.89 State total 1.54 8.34 0.00 9.88 Watershed total 71.1 136 7.62 215

Water Use 41 Thermoelectric Power The total quantity of water withdrawn for use by thermoelectric power plants during 2000 was an esti-mated 10,276 Mgal/d, which is more than all of the other offstream categories combined and an increase of 28 percent since 1995 (tables 13, 14, 15, and 26).

The increase in withdrawals reflects the operation of additional generating units at the power plants since 1995. Surface water is the sole source of supply.

Nearly all of the surface water used at these facilities was returned to the river. Return flow was 10,244 Mgal/d. For this report, return flow is limited to cooling-water discharge and excludes stormwater runoff. Approximately 0.3 percent, or 32.2 Mgal/d, was consumptively used as a result of once-through cooling, cooling tower, or pond cooling (table 13; fig. 13).

Table 13. Thermoelectric power water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, Water-use tabulation area]

Water-use tabulation area Surface-water Cooling water Net water Power generated, Reservoir catchment area withdrawal return flow demand in million kilowatt hours Cherokee Cherokee 621.00 621.00 0.00 5,193 Douglas Douglas 4.97 4.97 2,561 Norris Norris 9.24 0.00 9.24 3,323 Melton Hill 469.00 469.00 0.00 5,968 WUTA total 478.24 469.00 9.24 9,291 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 1,484.10 1,345.00 139.10 18,855 Chickamauga 1,571.40 1,693.50

-122.10 16,777 WUTA total 3,055.50 3,038.50 17.00 35,632 Guntersville Guntersville 1,546.00 1,546.00 0.00 9,595 Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 2,108.00 2,107.00 1.00 18,807 Pickwick Pickwick 1,251.00 1,251.00 0.00 7,201 Kentucky Kentucky 1,211.00 1,211.00 0.00 8,064 Watershed total 10,276 10,244 32.2 96,344

42 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 K E N T U C K Y T E N N E S S E E G E O R G I A A L A B A M A S O U T H C A R O L I N A N O R T H C A R O L I N A 0

50 75 100 KILOMETERS 25 0

50 75 100 MILES 25 86° 84° 82° 35° 36° EXPLANATION THERMOELECTRIC POWER PLANT AND NAME Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:2,000,000 digital line graph Tennessee River watershed boundary Johnsonville Colbert Colbert Browns Ferry Bellefonte Widows Creek Sequoyah Watts Bar Kingston Bull Run Asheville John Sevier Clinch River Figure 14. Distribution of thermoelectric power plants in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.

88° Study area V I R G I N I A M I S S I S S I P P I Thermoelectric power plants in the Tennessee River watershed are primarily powered by coal and nuclear energy, with small amounts of oil and natural gas burned in combustion turbine units. Water is used for condenser and reactor cooling and to replenish the boilers to produce steam. Nine fossil-fueled and three nuclear-fueled plants are located in the watershed.

These 12 plants generated about 96,344 gigawatt-hours in 2000 compared to 76,600 gigawatt hours in 1995 (Solley and others, 1998). The thermoelectric plants are primarily located along the main stem of the Tennessee River (fig. 14). The Kingston fossil-fueled and the Watts Bar and Sequoyah nuclear-fueled power plants in the Watts Bar-Chickamauga WUTA (3,056 Mgal/d of water), the Browns Ferry nuclear-fueled power plant in the Wheeler-Wilson WUTA (2,108 Mgal/d), and the Widows Creek fossil-fueled power plant in the Guntersville WUTA (1,546 Mgal/d) account for about 65 percent of the water withdrawals for thermoelectric power (table 13). The spatial distri-bution by HUC of thermoelectric power water with-drawals as a total is shown in figure 15.

The relation between water availability, water use, and demographic and socioeconomic indicators over time has important implications for water use and management (Case and Alward, 1997), particularly for the thermoelectric power and industrial sectors. The electricity generated using water from the Tennessee River watershed, either for generating hydropower or for cooling water, accounted for about 67 percent of all the electricity generated by the TVA in 2000. The importance of the electricity generated, however, is much greater than the income from power sales. The electricity serves as a base for the economy of the region, which was valued in 2000 at about $246 billion for all goods and services (James H. Eblen, Tennessee Valley Authority, written commun., June 2002).

Water Use 43 Table 14. Thermoelectric power water use by hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. Water-use transactions in million gallons per day]

Hydrologic unit Surface-water Cooling water Net water Power generated, in code withdrawal return flow demand million kilowatt-hours 06010101 621.00 621.00 5,193 06010104 621.00

-621.00 06010105 4.97 4.97 2,561 06010201 139.10 139.10 9,076 06010205 9.24 0.00 9.24 3,323 06010207 1,814.00 469.00 1,345.00 15,746 06010208 1,345.00

-1,345.00 06020001 1,571.40 1,693.50

-122.10 16,777 06030001 1,546.00 1,546.00 0.00 9,595 06030002 2,108.00 2,107.00 1.00 18,807 06030005 1,251.00 1,251.00 0.00 7,201 06040005 1,211.00 1,211.00 0.00 8,064 Watershed total 10,276 10,244 32.2 96,343 Table 15. Thermoelectric power water use by county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. Water-use transactions in million gallons per day]

State Surface-water Cooling water Net water Power generated, in County withdrawal return flow demand million kilowatt-hours Alabama Colbert 1,251.00 1,251.00 0.00 7,201 Jackson 1,546.00 1,546.00 0.00 9,595 Limestone 2,108.00 2,107.00 1.00 18,807 State total 4,905.00 4,904.00 1.00 35,603 North Carolina Buncombe 4.97 4.97 2,561 State total 4.97 0.00 4.97 2,561 Tennessee Anderson 469.00 469.00 0.00 5,968 Hamilton 1,537.00 1,536.00 1.00 16,777 Hawkins 621.00 621.00 0.00 5,193 Humphreys 1,211.00 1,211.00 0.00 8,064 Rhea 173.50 157.50 16.00 9,076 Roane 1,345.00 1,345.00 0.00 9,778 State total 5,356.50 5,339.50 17.00 54,858 Virginia Russell 9.24 0.00 9.24 3,323 State total 9.24 0.00 9.24 3,323 Watershed total 10,276 10,244 32.2 96,343

44 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030

Water Use 45 Industrial Water withdrawals for industrial use during 2000 were estimated to be 1,205 Mgal/d, which is an increase of 17 percent since 1995 (tables 16, 17, 18, and 26). Water withdrawals for industry account for about 10 percent of the total water withdrawals and for 62 percent of the nonpower water withdrawals. Return flows were estimated to be 942 Mgal/d and consump-tive use to be 263 Mgal/d (table 16). Surface water supplied 94 percent of the water, 1,134 Mgal/d, for industrial purposes and ground water supplied the remaining 6 percent, 71.1 Mgal/d (fig. 16). The con-sumptive use of freshwater for industrial purposes was 22 percent and return flow was 78 percent of the dis-position of the water.

Industrial water use includes water for such pur-poses as processing, washing, and cooling in facilities that manufacture products and for mining. Estimates of industrial and mining withdrawals were obtained from State agencies that issue permits or from the water-use inventory conducted in conjunction with this investigation. In the Tennessee River watershed, the major water-using industries are chemical and allied products, paper and allied products, and primary metals and account for about 79 percent (950 Mgal/d) of the industrial water withdrawals in 2000.

In 2000, mining water use was estimated to be 51 Mgal/d. Mining water use is for the extraction of minerals and other uses associated with quarrying, milling (crushing, screening, washing, and flotation),

and other preparations done at a mine site. Dewatering is not considered as a mining water use unless the water is put to a beneficial use, such as washing or dust control. Water used in mining is difficult to quantify. Except for some washing and milling, water used at mining sites tends to be an impediment to or a byproduct of the extraction process. Unless water is needed for the mining operation, little attention is paid to quantities withdrawn.

Industrial return flow is water disposed from use in sanitary, process, or cooling activities and excludes stormwater runoff. Return-flow data for industry and mining were obtained from the USEPA, PCS database.

A strict site-specific accounting of industrial with-drawals and return flows is difficult because of the dif-ferent ways in which water is obtained and disposed.

For example, industries that purchase water from a public supplier may discharge to a stream, and bypass the wastewater-treatment plant; or self-supplied indus-tries may release water to a wastewater-treatment plant rather than to a stream. Uncertainty about the amount of return flow also may result from an industry includ-ing estimates of stormwater runoff in the sanitary, pro-cess, or cooling water return-flow volumes. Meter registration errors also may occur.

Industrial water withdrawals in the Cherokee and Wheeler-Wilson WUTAs were 509 and 260 Mgal/d, respectively, and account for the 64 per-cent of the industrial water withdrawals (table 16). The spatial distribution of industrial water withdrawals by HUC as a total and by source is shown in figure 17.

46 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 SURFACE-WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY EXPLANATION NO WITHDRAWALS 0.04 - 1 1 - 10 19 - 100 140 - 200 497 GROUND-WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY EXPLANATION NO WITHDRAWALS 0.01 - 1 1 - 2 4 - 7 8 - 10 29.4 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY EXPLANATION NO WITHDRAWALS 0.05 - 5 5 - 30 55 - 105 145 - 170 498 Figure 17. Industrial water withdrawals by source and by hydrologic unit in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000.

Tennessee River watershed boundary

Water Use 47 Many industries that depend on large amounts of water also are industries that provide relatively high earnings and are important to the economy of local communities. This link is evident in the Tennessee River watershed, where high water use in the chemical and paper industry involves the use of process water and large amounts of cooling water. The five counties in the watershed in which chemical or paper industries use large amounts of water, Lawrence and Morgan Counties in Alabama, and Humphreys, McMinn, and Sullivan Counties in Tennessee (fig. 5), directly gener-ated about $1.0 billion of earnings in 1999 with an estimated total impact on the local economies between 2.0 and 2.5 billion dollars (U.S. Department of Com-merce, 2001). The distribution of industrial water withdrawals by county is shown on figure 18.

48 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 16. Industrial water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, water-use tabulation area]

Withdrawal Water-use tabulation area Ground Surface Total Return Net water Reservoir catchment area water water water flow demand Cherokee Watauga 0.40 0.24 0.64 0.47 0.17 South Holston 0.59 0.24 0.83 0.47 0.36 Boone 0.00 0.00 0.04

-0.04 Fort Patrick Henry 496.70 496.70 496.70 Cherokee 10.12 0.60 10.72 467.53

-456.81 WUTA total 11.11 497.78 508.89 468.51 40.38 Douglas Douglas 6.19 36.09 42.28 28.49 13.80 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 0.02 5.00 5.02 1.37 3.66 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 0.03 1.91 1.94 1.36 0.58 Santeetlah 0.00 0.00 Tellico 0.00 0.00 WUTA total 0.03 1.91 1.94 1.36 0.58 Norris Norris 0.95 5.28 6.23 0.21 6.02 Melton Hill 1.48 1.48 0.90 0.58 WUTA total 0.95 6.76 7.72 1.11 6.61 Hiwassee-Ocoee Chatuge 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 Nottely 0.00 0.00 Hiwassee 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 Apalachia 0.00 0.00 Blue Ridge 31.77 31.77 31.77 Ocoee 0.00 24.37

-24.37 WUTA total 0.00 31.88 31.88 24.37 7.51 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 0.03 0.03 0.24

-0.21 Chickamauga 0.12 68.24 68.36 68.14 0.22 WUTA total 0.12 68.27 68.38 68.37 0.01 Nickajack Nickajack 4.92 18.74 23.67 15.30 8.36 Guntersville Guntersville 1.79 9.18 10.97 19.49

-8.52 Tims Ford 0.78 55.48 56.26 35.93 20.33

Water Use 49 Table 16. Industrial water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000Continued Withdrawal Water-use tabulation area Ground Surface Total Return Net water Reservoir catchment area water water water flow demand Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 8.16 221.46 229.62 147.86 81.76 Wilson 0.53 29.48 30.01 21.01 9.00 WUTA total 8.69 250.94 259.63 168.87 90.76 Pickwick Pickwick 0.53 53.08 53.61 26.66 26.95 Cedar Creek 0.00 0.00 Upper Bear Creek 0.00 0.00 WUTA total 0.53 53.08 53.61 26.66 26.95 Normandy Normandy 0.01 1.44 1.45 1.45 Kentucky Kentucky 35.97 97.20 133.17 82.55 50.61 Watershed total 71.1 1,134 1,205 942 263

50 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 17. Industrial water use by hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Hydrologic Withdrawal unit Ground Surface Total Return Net water code water water water flow demand 06010101 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 06010102 0.59 496.94 497.53 465.70 31.83 06010103 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.01 06010104 10.12 0.60 10.72 2.94 7.78 06010105 0.48 4.00 4.48 2.25 2.23 06010106 0.59 28.41 29.00 22.63 6.37 06010107 1.61 1.61 0.72 0.89 06010108 3.89 3.89 7.78 4.08 3.70 06010201 0.02 5.00 5.02 0.24 4.79 06010202 0.03 2.13 2.16 1.36 0.80 06010203 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 06010205 0.95 5.28 6.23 0.21 6.02 06010206 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 06010207 1.51 1.51 0.90 0.61 06020001 5.04 19.29 24.33 15.30 9.02 06020002 0.01 67.51 67.52 68.14

-0.62 06020003 31.77 31.77 24.37 7.40 06030001 1.79 9.18 10.97 19.49

-8.52 06030002 8.16 161.29 169.45 99.20 70.25 06030003 0.78 55.48 56.26 37.34 18.92 06030004 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.25 06030005 1.06 142.41 143.47 94.93 48.54 06040001 0.07 0.07 19.89

-19.82 06040002 0.01 1.44 1.45 2.05

-0.60 06040003 0.00 2.45

-2.45 06040004 0.09 0.09 0.09 06040005 29.38 75.81 105.19 58.09 47.10 06040006 6.50 21.32 27.82 27.82 Watershed total 71.1 1,134 1,205 942 263

Water Use 51 Table 18. Industrial water use by county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Withdrawal State Ground Surface Total Return Net water County water water water flow demand Alabama Colbert 1.06 58.96 60.02 47.45 12.57 Cullman 1.15 1.15 1.15 Dekalb 1.11 1.11 0.88 0.23 Jackson 0.02 9.18 9.20 18.09

-8.89 Lawrence 59.85 59.85 47.26 12.59 Madison 1.34 1.34 1.03 0.31 Marshall 0.66 0.66 0.52 0.14 Morgan 8.16 158.80 166.96 99.20 67.76 State total 11.01 289.28 300.29 214.42 85.87 Georgia Rabun 1.63 1.63 1.36 0.27 Walker 1.51 0.84 2.35 2.31 0.04 State total 1.51 2.47 3.98 3.67 0.31 Kentucky Calloway 1.59 1.59 1.59 Livingston 2.44 19.85 22.29 22.29 Lyon 0.00 0.01

-0.01 Marshall 2.47 12.97 15.45 15.45 State total 6.50 32.82 39.33 0.01 39.32 North Carolina Avery 0.39 0.20 0.59 0.47 0.12 Buncombe 0.45 2.02 2.48 1.38 1.10 Cherokee 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 Clay 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 Haywood 0.14 28.41 28.55 22.53 6.02 Henderson 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.10 Jackson 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 Macon 0.03 0.21 0.24 0.24 Mitchell 3.50 0.34 3.84 0.00 3.84 Transylvania 0.03 1.00 1.03 0.00 1.03 Yancey 0.00 0.00 0.00 State total 4.55 33.33 37.88 25.25 12.63 Tennessee Anderson 1.48 1.48 0.90 0.58 Bedford 0.00 0.06

-0.06 Benton 19.20 2.90 22.10 22.10 Bradley 2.50 2.50 2.41 0.09 Carter 0.00 0.04

-0.04 Cocke 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.35 Coffee 0.04 55.00 55.04 35.93 19.11 Decatur 0.07 0.07 0.07 Giles 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.25 Greene 0.00 3.35 3.35 3.49

-0.13 Hamilton 3.53 18.74 22.27 13.00 9.27 Hardin 23.60 23.60 19.89 3.71 Hawkins 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.03

52 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 18. Industrial water use by county in 2000Continued Withdrawal State Ground Surface Total Return Net water County water water water flow demand TennesseeContinued Hickman 0.00 0.08

-0.08 Humphreys 10.18 61.41 71.59 58.08 13.51 Jefferson 11.60 0.04 11.64 2.31 9.34 Johnson 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Knox 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.18 0.03 Lawrence 0.00 0.23

-0.23 Lewis 0.09 0.09 0.09 Loudoun 4.95 4.95 0.12 4.83 Marshall 0.00 1.99

-1.99 Maury 1.44 1.44 2.36

-0.92 McMinn 0.00 64.90 64.90 65.73

-0.82 Monroe 0.00 0.12

-0.12 Moore 0.75 0.47 1.23 0.38 0.85 Polk 31.77 31.77 24.37 7.40 Sevier 0.01 0.01 0.65

-0.63 Sullivan 0.00 496.70 496.70 465.23 31.47 Unicoi 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.10

-0.07 Washington 0.00 0.02

-0.02 State total 46.00 770.33 816.33 698.37 117.98 Virginia Lee 0.00 0.00 0.00 Russell 0.00 3.79 3.79 3.79 Smyth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tazewell 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.21 0.07 Washington 0.59 0.24 0.83 0.47 0.36 Wise 0.68 1.49 2.17 2.17 State total 1.54 5.52 7.06 0.68 6.38 Watershed total 71.1 1,134 1,205 942 263

Water Use 53 Public Supply The quantity of water withdrawn for public sup-ply during 2000 was estimated to be 662 Mgal/d, which is an increase of 15 percent from 1995 (tables 19, 20, 21, and 26). During the period from 1995 to 2000, population in the Tennessee River watershed increased 7 percent, from 4.20 to 4.51 mil-lion (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001). In 1995, pub-lic suppliers served water to 77 percent of the population or 3.25 million people. Although population-served numbers were not collected at the county level by the USGS for 2000, the percentage of the population served by public water-supply systems in 2000 is assumed to be the same or higher than in 1995. Applying the 1995 value of 77 percent to the 2000 population estimate, the population served is estimated as 3.47 million people. Water withdrawals for public supply account for about 5 percent of the total water use and 34 percent of the nonpower water use in the watershed. Surface water was the source for 79 percent, or 526 Mgal/d, of the water withdrawal (fig. 19). The remaining 21 percent, or 136 Mgal/d, of the water is from springs and wells. About 57 percent, or 377 Mgal/d, of the water was returned to the river.

Consumptive use accounted for the remaining 43 percent, or 285 Mgal/d.

Public-supply withdrawals and wastewater releases may only indirectly relate to each other. In part, the sewer infrastructure is not as extensive as the water distribution infrastructure, particularly in rural communities where septic tanks are more common.

Water released to a septic tank is not readily available for reuse and is classified as a consumptive use. The balance between public-supply withdrawals and wastewater releases also may be affected by how industrial water is disposed. For example, water that is released from a self-supplied industrial facility may be conveyed to a POTW instead of discharging directly to a stream.

The completeness of the public-supply with-drawal and wastewater release data varies. Informa-tion on public supply generally is available from the State office responsible for implementing the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act or for permitting water with-drawals within that State. Data for public-supply with-drawals usually are accurate because local and State agencies maintain nearly complete information. The public-supply systems included in this report mostly are systems serving at least 25 people, or a minimum of 15 connections. A few smaller water systems reporting pumpage to State permitting programs also are included in the total. These smaller systems are supplied by ground water and include motels, restau-rants, schools, churches, or campgrounds. The munici-pal wastewater release data used in this study are from USEPA, PCS files; this dataset can be less complete than the corresponding States database.

The large public-supply withdrawals, for the most part, correspond to the population centers. The Wheeler-Wilson WUTA provides water to the cities of Huntsville and Decatur, Alabama; the Cherokee WUTA to Kingsport and Johnson City, Tennessee; the Douglas WUTA to Jonesborough and Greeneville, Tennessee; the Fort Loudoun WUTA to Knoxville, Tennessee; and the Nickajack WUTA to Chattanooga, Tennessee. Public-supply withdrawals in the above mentioned WUTAs account for 63 percent of the total public-supply withdrawals (table 19). The spatial dis-tribution of public-supply water withdrawals by HUC as a total and by source is shown in figure 20.

The proximity of the multi-county population centers such as Atlanta, Birmingham, and northeastern Mississippi to the watershed divide and the growing water needs of the region raises questions about the potential of future interbasin transfers from the Ten-nessee River watershed. Water withdrawn from the Tennessee River watershed to supply these areas would reduce the amount of water remaining in the river for use downstream of the water transfer points.

Although the potential amounts of water that would be transferred are unknown, data presented in this report can be used to investigate the effects of future interba-sin transfers. The major population centers of the Ten-nessee River watershed and the surrounding areas are shown on figure 21.

54 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030

Water Use 55

56 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 19. Public-supply water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, water-use tabulation area]

Withdrawal Water-use tabulation area Ground Surface Total Wastewater Net water Reservoir catchment area water water water return flow demand Cherokee Watauga 8.98 12.07 21.04 2.38 18.66 South Holston 7.39 18.85 26.25 1.86 24.39 Boone 3.72 3.72 23.58

-19.86 Fort Patrick Henry 16.40 16.40 16.40 Cherokee 2.85 17.38 20.22 15.13 5.09 WUTA total 22.94 64.70 87.63 42.95 44.68 Douglas Douglas 5.34 67.73 73.07 29.01 44.06 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 1.24 71.18 72.42 55.03 17.39 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 1.09 2.73 3.83 2.01 1.82 Santeetlah 0.44 0.44 0.44 Tellico 0.57 4.11 4.68 1.09 3.59 WUTA total 1.66 7.28 8.94 3.10 5.84 Norris Norris 2.46 15.10 17.56 10.48 7.08 Melton Hill 1.58 29.83 31.40 9.43 21.97 WUTA total 4.04 44.93 48.97 19.91 29.06 Chatuge 0.18 1.70 1.88 0.27 1.60 Nottely 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.24 0.76 Hiwassee 0.75 0.75 0.10 0.65 Apalachia 2.89 2.89 2.89 Blue Ridge 0.05 1.41 1.47 0.33 1.14 Ocoee 1.11 1.11 0.26 0.85 WUTA total 1.90 7.20 9.09 1.20 7.90 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 0.85 8.67 9.53 21.34

-11.82 Chickamauga 22.84 24.55 47.39 13.92 33.47 WUTA total 23.69 33.22 56.91 35.26 21.65 Nickajack Nickajack 4.78 44.00 48.78 45.19 3.59 Guntersville Guntersville 6.07 36.37 42.43 20.45 21.99 Tims Ford Tims Ford 1.96 2.90 4.86 4.57 0.29

Water Use 57 Table 19. Public-supply water use by water-use tabulation area in 2000Continued Withdrawal Water-use tabulation area Ground Surface Total Wastewater Net water Reservoir catchment area water water water return flow demand Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 32.74 78.08 110.82 73.27 37.55 Wilson 2.83 20.33 23.16 6.80 16.36 WUTA total 35.57 98.41 133.98 80.07 53.91 Pickwick Pickwick 4.88 4.04 8.92 13.89

-4.98 Cedar Creek 1.13 3.00 4.13 4.13 Upper Bear Creek 0.16 2.81 2.97 2.97 WUTA total 6.17 9.85 16.02 13.89 2.12 Normandy Normandy 2.01 24.25 26.26 2.19 24.08 Kentucky Kentucky 18.76 13.60 32.36 23.74 8.61 Watershed total 136 526 662 377 285

58 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 20. Public-supply water use by hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Hydrologic Withdrawal unit Ground Surface Total Wastewater Net water code water water water return flow demand 06010101 0.71 0.91 1.61 1.61 06010102 7.38 35.25 42.64 22.87 19.77 06010103 8.98 12.07 21.04 13.42 7.62 06010104 2.15 16.47 18.62 8.58 10.05 06010105 2.22 38.12 40.34 17.68 22.66 06010106 0.06 6.21 6.27 4.68 1.59 06010107 0.65 11.18 11.83 5.06 6.77 06010108 6.13 11.97 18.10 7.32 10.78 06010201 1.23 72.57 73.80 58.84 14.96 06010202 0.22 1.82 2.05 0.81 1.24 06010203 0.88 1.15 2.03 1.20 0.83 06010204 0.57 4.55 5.11 1.09 4.02 06010205 1.63 10.60 12.23 9.69 2.54 06010206 0.83 4.50 5.33 0.42 4.91 06010207 2.43 29.83 32.26 16.83 15.43 06010208 7.29 7.29 2.86 4.42 06020001 24.67 59.22 83.89 48.80 35.08 06020002 4.41 15.12 19.53 10.91 8.62 06020003 0.43 1.41 1.85 0.59 1.25 06020004 1.03 2.20 3.23 0.62 2.61 06030001 5.04 34.17 39.21 19.83 19.37 06030002 1.84 65.49 67.33 53.41 13.92 06030003 29.76 4.21 33.98 10.92 23.06 06030004 3.10 11.28 14.38 2.20 12.18 06030005 6.81 25.11 31.91 32.58

-0.67 06030006 2.19 5.81 8.00 1.63 6.37 06040001 4.13 5.13 9.26 2.98 6.28 06040002 2.01 24.25 26.26 7.57 18.69 06040003 0.09 4.22 4.31 6.49

-2.18 06040004 1.66 1.17 2.83 1.33 1.50 06040005 5.55 2.34 7.89 5.35 2.54 06040006 7.33 7.33 0.01 7.32 Watershed total 136 526 662 377 285

Water Use 59 Table 21. Public-supply water use by county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Withdrawal State Ground Surface Total Wastewater Net water County water water water return flow demand Alabama Colbert 0.48 7.48 7.96 4.64 3.32 Dekalb 1.37 7.20 8.57 4.85 3.72 Franklin 1.13 3.00 4.13 1.61 2.52 Jackson 0.99 7.96 8.95 6.10 2.85 Lauderdale 0.85 12.89 13.74 10.80 2.94 Lawrence 2.19 2.19 2.64

-0.45 Limestone 2.91 8.10 11.01 12.34

-1.33 Madison 27.27 22.59 49.86 35.36 14.50 Marion 2.50 2.50 2.50 Marshall 2.65 17.17 19.82 8.08 11.74 Morgan 42.90 42.90 22.97 19.93 Winston 0.16 0.31 0.47 0.47 State total 37.81 134.29 172.10 109.40 62.70 Georgia Catoosa 7.88 0.65 8.53 2.39 6.14 Dade 1.70 1.70 0.28 1.42 Fannin 1.22 1.22 0.33 0.89 Rabun 0.00 0.04

-0.04 Towns 0.81 0.81 0.27 0.54 Union 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.24 0.76 Walker 5.13 2.50 7.63 7.72

-0.09 State total 13.56 7.33 20.89 11.26 9.63 Kentucky Calloway 3.31 3.31 3.31 Graves 0.05 0.05 0.05 Livingston 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.03 Marshall 3.61 3.61 0.04 3.57 McCracken 0.78 0.78 0.78 State total 7.75 0.25 8.01 0.26 7.75 Mississippi Tishomingo 4.36 4.36 0.34 4.02 State total 4.36 0.00 4.36 0.34 4.02 North Carolina Avery 1.03 1.03 1.09

-0.06 Buncombe 1.18 25.01 26.19 14.33 11.86 Cherokee 1.64 1.64 0.00 1.64 Clay 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.08 Graham 0.94 0.94 0.94 Haywood 0.06 6.21 6.27 3.38 2.89 Henderson 0.25 7.57 7.82 2.21 5.61 Jackson 0.85 0.81 1.66 0.89 0.77 Macon 0.22 1.32 1.55 0.77 0.78

60 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 21. Public-supply water use by county in 2000Continued Withdrawal State Ground Surface Total Wastewater Net water County water water water return flow demand North CarolinaContinued Madison 0.24 0.26 0.50 0.19 0.31 Mitchell 0.09 1.04 1.13 0.61 0.52 Swain 0.02 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.05 Transylvania 0.55 1.19 1.74 0.95 0.79 Watauga 0.28 1.15 1.43 0.60 0.83 Yancey 0.57 0.57 0.31 0.26 State total 4.95 48.05 53.00 25.74 27.26 Tennessee Anderson 0.96 19.27 20.23 6.73 13.50 Bedford 0.83 5.69 6.52 3.29 3.23 Benton 0.16 1.38 1.54 1.59

-0.05 Bledsoe 0.39 0.39 0.14 0.25 Blount 0.02 14.27 14.29 7.18 7.10 Bradley 1.33 9.33 10.66 7.52 3.14 Campbell 0.52 2.32 2.84 1.19 1.65 Carroll 0.56 0.56 0.14 0.41 Carter 7.53 7.53 2.40 5.13 Claiborne 0.23 2.59 2.82 0.42 2.40 Cocke 0.00 4.09 4.09 1.30 2.79 Coffee 0.01 5.20 5.21 5.41

-0.20 Cumberland 3.25 3.25 2.22 1.03 Decatur 0.21 1.17 1.38 0.49 0.89 Dickson 1.53 1.53 1.53 Franklin 1.96 2.35 4.31 0.98 3.33 Giles 0.21 3.09 3.30 2.20 1.10 Grainger 0.03 0.03 0.14

-0.11 Greene 0.01 8.11 8.11 3.48 4.63 Grundy 0.75 0.75 0.26 0.49 Hamblen 1.04 9.25 10.29 4.09 6.19 Hamilton 10.27 52.11 62.38 36.73 25.66 Hancock 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.20 Hardin 2.38 0.74 3.11 1.02 2.09 Hawkins 1.15 2.86 4.00 0.86 3.14 Henderson 0.36 3.54 3.91 1.15 2.75 Henry 3.05 3.05 2.07 0.98 Hickman 2.29 2.29 0.35 1.93 Houston 0.16 0.16 0.16 Humphreys 1.19 1.12 2.31 1.63 0.68 Jefferson 0.53 2.70 3.23 1.05 2.18 Johnson 0.96 1.22 2.18 0.69 1.49 Knox 0.93 61.12 62.04 50.25 11.79 Lawrence 2.39 1.90 4.29 1.84 2.45 Lewis 1.51 1.51 0.78 0.73 Lincoln 2.17 1.31 3.48 1.18 2.29 Loudoun 1.20 8.88 10.09 8.18 1.90 Marion 0.71 2.64 3.35 0.80 2.55 Marshall 0.14 2.76 2.90 2.21 0.70 Maury 1.03 10.60 11.63 5.82 5.81

Water Use 61 Table 21. Public-supply water use by county in 2000Continued Withdrawal State Ground Surface Total Wastewater Net water County water water water return flow demand TennesseeContinued McMinn 2.35 2.89 5.24 2.74 2.50 McNairy 0.97 0.97 0.26 0.71 Meigs 0.58 0.58 0.22 0.36 Monroe 0.57 5.01 5.58 2.54 3.04 Moore 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.32 Morgan 1.05 1.05 0.64 0.41 Perry 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.50 Polk 0.43 0.19 0.63 0.31 0.32 Rhea 0.76 2.71 3.46 2.05 1.41 Roane 0.20 6.06 6.25 3.77 2.48 Sequatchie 0.65 0.65 0.47 0.17 Sevier 0.23 7.29 7.52 4.64 2.88 Stewart 0.02 0.02 0.02 Sullivan 0.35 25.08 25.43 19.82 5.61 Unicoi 5.93 5.93 1.36 4.57 Union 0.58 0.58 0.38 0.19 Washington 13.16 13.16 11.38 1.78 Wayne 0.20 0.83 1.03 0.35 0.69 Williamson 0.05 0.05 0.05 State total 59.35 315.97 375.31 219.36 155.95 Virginia Lee 0.58 0.78 1.36 1.36 Russell 0.48 0.55 1.03 1.03 Scott 0.01 1.05 1.06 1.06 Smyth 4.09 0.78 4.88 4.88 Tazewell 0.29 2.43 2.72 5.81

-3.09 Washington 2.67 8.19 10.86 1.86 9.00 Wise 0.22 5.93 6.15 2.54 3.61 State total 8.34 19.72 28.06 10.21 17.85 Watershed total 136 526 662 377 285

62 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Irrigation The quantity of water withdrawn for irrigation during 2000 was an estimated 68.9 Mgal/d (tables 22, 23, 24, and 26). Irrigation withdrawals during 2000 were 44 percent more than in 1995. The increase could be a result of more comprehensive data collection, a change in estimation techniques, a difference in tem-perature and precipitation, or an actual increase in irri-gated acreage. Irrigation represents 0.6 percent of the total water withdrawals and 4 percent of the nonpower water withdrawals in the Tennessee River watershed.

Surface water was the source of water for about 89 percent of the irrigation water withdrawals; ground water was the source of the remaining 11 percent (fig. 22). Irrigation water was primarily applied by sprinkler and microirrigation systems. The efficiency of the application was assumed to be 100 percent; that is, no runoff occurred at the sites. Consumptive use, therefore, is 100 percent, or 68.9 Mgal/d.

Irrigation water use includes all water artifi-cially applied to farm and horticultural crops, as well as water used to irrigate golf courses. In the Tennessee River watershed, irrigation is used to supplement natu-ral precipitation to increase the number of plantings per year, to increase the yield of crops, or to reduce the risk of crop failures during droughts.

Information about the number of acres irrigated and the quantity of water withdrawn is obtained from a variety of sources such as State agencies responsible for permitting, a States Cooperative Extension Ser-vice, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service (appendix A).

Methods for estimating withdrawals for irrigation vary. In some instances, water withdrawals are based on theoretical estimates of water required to raise a given crop in an area. In other instances, accurate records of water application rates are available.

Obtaining reliable estimates of consumptive use is difficult.

The most intensive irrigation in the watershed is in the Wheeler-Wilson WUTA, which accounts for 73 percent of the total, or 50.4 Mgal/d (table 22). The spatial distribution of irrigation water withdrawals by HUC as a total and by source is shown in figure 23 and table 23. Alabama is the leading irrigation state in the Tennessee River watershed, withdrawing 76 percent of the total irrigation water (table 24).

Water Use 63

64 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 22. Irrigation withdrawal by water-use tabulation area in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day; WUTA, water-use tabulation area]

Water-use tabulation area Ground-water Surface-water Total water Reservoir catchment area withdrawal withdrawal withdrawal Cherokee Watauga 0.02 0.10 0.12 South Holston 0.03 2.20 2.23 Boone 0.00 Fort Patrick Henry 0.00 Cherokee 0.03 0.24 0.28 WUTA total 0.08 2.55 2.63 Douglas Douglas 0.45 1.98 2.44 Fort Loudoun Fort Loudoun 0.34 1.33 1.68 Fontana-Tellico Fontana 0.00 Santeetlah 0.00 Tellico 0.05 0.05 WUTA total 0.00 0.05 0.05 Norris Norris 0.00 0.26 0.26 Melton Hill 0.05 0.05 WUTA total 0.00 0.31 0.31 Hiwassee-Ocoee Chatuge 0.00 Nottely 0.15 0.15 Hiwassee 0.11 0.11 Apalachia 0.00 0.05 0.05 Blue Ridge 0.07 0.07 Ocoee 0.01 0.01 WUTA total 0.00 0.38 0.39 Watts Bar-Chickamauga Watts Bar 0.25 1.87 2.12 Chickamauga 1.06 2.91 3.97 WUTA total 1.32 4.78 6.09 Nickajack Nickajack 0.15 0.20 0.35 Guntersville Guntersville 2.88 2.88 Tims Ford 0.06 0.20 0.26 Wheeler-Wilson Wheeler 4.92 41.48 46.39 Wilson 3.96 3.96 WUTA total 4.92 45.43 50.35 Pickwick Pickwick 0.11 0.11 Cedar Creek 0.00 Upper Bear Creek 0.00 WUTA total 0.00 0.11 0.11 Normandy Normandy 0.09 0.61 0.69 Kentucky Kentucky 0.21 0.44 0.65 Watershed total 7.62 61.3 68.9

Water Use 65 Table 23. Irrigation withdrawal by hydrologic unit in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values in million gallons per day]

Hydrologic unit Ground-water Surface-water Total water code withdrawal withdrawal withdrawal 06010102 0.03 2.20 2.23 06010103 0.02 0.10 0.12 06010104 0.03 0.24 0.28 06010106 0.00 0.83 0.83 06010107 0.04 0.44 0.48 06010108 0.41 0.72 1.13 06010201 0.37 1.61 1.98 06010204 0.00 0.05 0.05 06010205 0.00 0.01 0.01 06010206 0.00 0.00 0.00 06010207 0.01 0.12 0.13 06010208 0.21 1.77 1.98 06020001 1.16 2.94 4.10 06020002 0.05 0.49 0.54 06020003 0.02 0.07 0.09 06020004 0.00 0.16 0.16 06030001 0.00 2.72 2.72 06030002 4.87 40.04 44.91 06030003 0.06 0.20 0.26 06030004 0.02 1.38 1.40 06030005 0.00 4.02 4.02 06030006 0.00 0.03 0.03 06040001 0.06 0.26 0.32 06040002 0.09 0.67 0.75 06040003 0.00 0.14 0.14 06040004 0.00 0.03 0.03 06040005 0.15 0.04 0.18 Watershed total 7.62 61.3 68.9

66 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Table 24. Irrigation withdrawal by county in 2000

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. Water values in million gallons per day]

State Ground-water Surface-water Total water County withdrawal withdrawal withdrawal Alabama Franklin 0.03 0.03 Jackson 2.60 2.60 Lauderdale 1.86 1.86 Lawrence 5.39 5.39 Limestone 4.87 23.55 28.42 Madison 12.43 12.43 Marshall 0.13 0.13 Morgan 1.70 1.70 State total 4.87 47.68 52.55 Georgia Catoosa 0.30 0.59 0.89 Dade 0.47 0.09 0.56 Fannin 0.02 0.07 0.09 Union 0.15 0.15 Walker 0.59 0.59 State total 0.79 1.49 2.28 Mississippi Tishomingo 0.02 0.02 State total 0.00 0.02 0.02 Tennessee Anderson 0.01 0.07 0.08 Bedford 0.00 0.01 0.01 Benton 0.00 0.00 Bledsoe 0.20 0.20 Blount 0.24 0.30 0.55 Bradley 0.05 0.18 0.23 Campbell 0.25 0.25 Carroll 0.13 0.13 Carter 0.05 0.05 Claiborne 0.01 0.01 Cocke 0.00 1.00 1.00 Coffee 0.02 0.40 0.42 Cumberland 0.21 1.77 1.98 Decatur 0.02 0.05 0.06 Franklin 0.06 0.06 0.13 Giles 0.23 0.23 Grainger 0.02 0.06 0.08 Greene 0.41 0.41 Hamblen 0.01 0.00 0.02 Hamilton 0.38 0.93 1.32 Hancock 0.00 0.00 Hardin 0.03 0.20 0.23 Hawkins 0.00 0.04 0.04 Henderson 0.00 0.05 0.05 Henry 0.01 0.02 0.03 Hickman 0.00 0.04 0.04

Water Use 67 Table 24. Irrigation withdrawal by county in 2000Continued State Ground-water Surface-water Total water County withdrawal withdrawal withdrawal TennesseeContinued Jefferson 0.04 0.05 0.10 Johnson 0.02 0.02 0.04 Knox 0.10 1.19 1.29 Lawrence 0.02 0.00 0.03 Lewis 0.00 0.10 0.10 Lincoln 0.34 0.34 Loudoun 0.04 0.04 Marion 0.00 0.00 Maury 0.07 0.26 0.33 McMinn 0.00 0.00 McNairy 0.00 0.01 0.02 Meigs 0.32 0.32 Monroe 0.07 0.07 Perry 0.00 0.01 0.01 Polk 0.00 0.16 0.17 Rhea 0.04 0.38 0.42 Roane 0.00 0.00 Sequatchie 0.02 0.02 Sevier 0.37 0.37 Sullivan 0.03 0.05 0.08 Unicoi 0.00 0.05 0.05 Union 0.00 0.00 Washington 0.41 0.11 0.52 Wayne 0.00 0.03 0.04 State total 1.96 9.92 11.87 Virginia Russell 0.01 0.01 Smyth 2.15 2.15 State total 0.00 2.15 2.15 Watershed total 7.62 61.3 68.9

68 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 PROJECTIONS OF WATER USE From 2000 to 2030, total water withdrawals in the Tennessee River watershed are projected to increase from 12,211 to 13,990 Mgal/d, or about 15 percent (table 25). That projected increase in water withdrawals of 1,779 Mgal/d is as follows: thermo-electric power, 11 percent (1,152 Mgal/d); industry, 31 percent (368 Mgal/d); public supply, 35 percent (32 Mgal/d); and irrigation, 37 percent (25.2 Mgal/d)

(table 26). Total consumptive use is projected to increase 331 Mgal/d to 980 Mgal/d, or about 51 percent (table 25). Per capita use is estimated as 2,370 gal/d, or about 13 percent less than in 2000 (table 26).

Adding consumptive use at select WUTA junc-tures results in a cumulative consumptive use of 241 Mgal/d at Fort Loudoun for 2030 (fig. 24). Cumu-lative consumptive use at the Watts Bar-Chickamauga WUTA is 413 Mgal/d; Nickajack, 440 Mgal/d; Guntersville, 468 Mgal/d; Wheeler-Wilson, 804 Mgal/d; and Pickwick, 861 Mgal/d. As calculated at the terminus of the Kentucky WUTA at the Ken-tucky Dam, consumptive use is 980 Mgal/d. The pro-jected average daily volume is 800 Mgal/d through the Jamie Whitten lock on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and indicates a potential maximum long-term flow based on the USACE design criteria of the lock (S.E. Gibson, Manager, Water Supply Projects, Tennessee Valley Authority, written commun., 2002)

Table 25. Water-use projections for the Tennessee River watershed by water-use tabulation area in 2030

[Figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding. All values expressed as integers and in million gallons per day]

Water-use Total Cumulative tabulation water Net water consumptive area withdrawal demand use Cherokee 1,347 105 Douglas 156 94 Fort Loudoun 116 34 241 Fontana-Tellico 15 9

Norris 560 63 Hiwassee-Ocoee 56 24 Watts Bar-Chickamauga 3,253 76 413 Nickajack 100 27 441 Guntersville 1,626 28 468 Tims Ford 109 37 Wheeler-Wilson 3,806 300 804 Pickwick 1,353 57 861 Normandy 39 36 Kentucky 1,436 84 Watershed total 13,990 980

Projections of Water Use 69 (fig. 24). The average daily diversion of flow is pro-jected to be 4,524 Mgal/d for hydroelectric power gen-eration at Barkley Dam; the 4,524 Mgal/d at Barkley Canal for 2030 is based on an annual commitment to the USACE for hydroelectric power generation (H. Morgan Goranflo, Manager, Reservoir Operations, Tennessee Valley Authority, oral commun., 2002).

Water use was projected for industry, public supply, and irrigation using county-level demographic and economic data for 2030 developed by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. (2001) and TVA. Manufactur-ing and mining earnings were used to project indus-trial withdrawals and return flows; number of households, for public-supply withdrawals and waste-water releases; and farm earnings, for irrigation. The county-specific projection factor, or multiplier, was applied to each water-use record in the database to produce estimates for the 2030 water use. The records of estimated use for 2030 were then aggregated to the RCA and WUTA. Based on an analysis of the poten-tial need for additional water demand in parts of the watershed characterized by unregulated streamflow and for the purposes of the water-use projections, for some sites, the 2000 water-use transaction for a data record was assigned to one RCA and the additional future growth to another RCA. The projections of ther-moelectric power water withdrawals and return flows were provided by the TVA and added to 2030 esti-mates for a total (Charles E. Bohac, Water Supply, TVA, oral commun., 2002).

To identify locations of future potential water-supply problems at a broad spatial scale, information on the spatial distribution of the change in percentage and in volume of water withdrawals by RCA can be used along with hydrologic, demographic, and socio-economic data for the coinciding drainage areas. The RCAs showing the largest percentage of change are Fontana, Fort Loudoun, Wheeler, Nottely, Chatuge, and Normandy (fig. 25). The Wheeler RCA shows the largest volume increase in water withdrawals (fig. 26).

Standard deviation is a descriptive statistic that is a measure of the deviation of a data value to the mean for the data set. The distribution of percentage change from the mean for the RCAs for industry and public supply from 2000 to 2030 is shown on figure 26. For industry, the Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, and Watauga RCAs indicate a percentage increase greater than one standard deviation, and the Tims Ford RCA indicates a change greater than two standard deviations. For public supply, the Chickamauga, Fon-tana, Guntersville, Nottely, Watts Bar, and Wheeler RCAs indicate a percentage increase within one stan-dard deviation, and the Blue Ridge and Chatuge RCAs indicate a change greater than two standard deviations.

70 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030

Projections of Water Use 71

72 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030

Trends in Water Use 73 TRENDS IN WATER USE After continual increases in withdrawals in the Tennessee River watershed from 1965 to 1980, with-drawals decreased from 1980 to 1985, and remained steady from 1985 through 1995 (table 26; figs. 27 and 28). The 2000 estimate is nearly the same as the esti-mate for 1980, the highest year of record, with 12,260 Mgal/d. All categories of water use have increased since 1995. Self-supplied domestic and live-stock water withdrawals were not estimated for 2000.

Total water withdrawals for 2000 are estimated at 12,211 Mgal/d, an increase of 22 percent from 1995.

Per capita use for 2000 was 2,710 gal/d. Per capita use had declined from 3,200 gal/d in 1980 to 2,350 gal/d by 1990. The decline in per capita use is related to the decline in water withdrawals that occurred in the thermoelectric power and industrial sectors. New technologies in the industrial sector that require less water, improved plant efficiencies, increased water recycling, and changes in laws and regulations to reduce the discharge of pollutants resulted in decreased water use and less water being returned to the river. The same pattern appears in the national water-use data (Solley and others, 1998).

Water conservation can be an effective water-demand strategy that allows maximum benefits to be gained from the use of the watersheds resources.

The smallest ground-water withdrawals occurred in 1970 (170 Mgal/d) and the largest in 1990 (305 Mgal/d) (table 26). Total ground-water withdraw-als have varied between these two rates of use since 1970, and the change in ground-water demand is Table 26. Trends of estimated water use in the Tennessee River watershed, 1965 to 2030

[All values in million gallons per day; data for 1965-1995 adapted from MacKichan (1951, 1957), MacKichan and Kammerer (1961), Murray (1968), Murray and Reeves (1972, 1977), and Solley and others (1983, 1988, 1993, 1998). The water-use data are in million gallons per day and are rounded to two significant figures for 1960-1980, and three significant figures for 1985-1995; population is in thousands; per capita use is in gallons per day; percentage change is calculated from the unrounded numbers; *, not estimated in 2000; figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding]

a Estimated b Revised c Industrial and mining water use 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2030 Percent change 2000-2030 Population Population 3,107 3,234 3,319 3,677 3,848 3,911 4,198 4,506 5,903 31 Population served by public supply 1,730 2,080 2,370 2,680 2,940 3,030 3,250 a3,470 4,546 31 Per capita use 2,400 2,400 3,200 3,200 2,390 2,350 b2,382 2,710 2,370

-12 Offstream use Total withdrawals 7,400 7,870 10,270 12,260 9,193 9,205 b10,008 12,211 13,990 15 Thermoelectric power 5,900 6,100 8,700 9,300 6,810 7,070 b8,010 10,276 11,428 11 Industrialc 1,050 1,400 1,600 2,000 1,760 1,190 1,030 1,205 1,573 31 Public supply 250 300 330 410 469 511 574 662 895 35 Irrigation 8.8 6.6 8.1 6.8 10 30 48 68.9 94.1 37 Rural 100 83 79 102 121 257 269 Source of water Surface water 7,200 7,700 10,000 12,000 8,960 8,900 9,750 11,996 Ground water 200 170 270 260 233 305 258 215

74 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 largely influenced by changes in the industrial cate-gory. In 2000, most of the estimated 215 Mgal/d of ground water was used for public supply (136 Mgal/d), an increase of 9 percent from 1995 (Sol-ley and others, 1998).

More water continues to be withdrawn for ther-moelectric power generation than for any other cate-gory. Thermoelectric power withdrawals are large, exclusively from surface water, and, therefore, deter-mine the surface-water-use trends in the watershed.

The dates of the operating schedules of the generating units at the power plants can be compared to the corre-sponding 5-year data-collection cycle to explain changes in the thermoelectric power withdrawals. For example, Browns Ferry nuclear power plant began operation in 1974, closed for a review of procedures in 1985, and began generating power for one unit in 1991 and a second unit in 1996. Sequoyah nuclear power plant began generating power in 1981 and Watts Bar nuclear power plant began generating power in 1996 (Tennessee Valley Authority, 2002). More than 99 percent of the water withdrawn for thermoelectric power generation is returned to the watershed, which is important in considering the reuse potential of the river. In the industrial sector, withdrawals declined 48 percent from 1980 to 1995. Although withdrawals

Trends in Water Use 75 increased 17 percent from 1995 to 2000, the 2000 withdrawals are 40 percent less than in 1980.

The public-supply category shows continual increases from 1965 to 2000, largely because of growth in population and the extension of public-water supply pipelines to areas of counties that depended on private wells for drinking water. From 1990 to 2000, the rate of increase of public-supply withdrawals (30 percent) was twice that of the popula-tion (15 percent). However, that comparative rate of increase of withdrawals to population is unlikely to continue once the public-supply infrastructure has been fully developed. More importantly, the Tennessee River watershed is likely to continue to grow at a rate faster than the national average. The national average for population growth was 13 percent from 1990 to 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001).

Water withdrawals for irrigation have consis-tently increased from 1980 to 2000, from 6.8 to 68.9 Mgal/d. Periodic droughts in the watershed throughout the 1980s, changes in irrigation technol-ogy, affordable energy pricing, and increases in nurs-ery and sod-farm enterprises and irrigated golf courses likely explain this change (Moore and others, 1990).

This trend is likely to continue because of a combina-tion of favorable climate, the abundance of water, and a shift of population to the southeastern United States.

Water-use data compiled and published at 5-year intervals by the USGS from 1965 to 1995 were used to evaluate trends in water use. Over time, the scope of the USGS water-use compilation and the def-inition of the categories also changed (Solley and oth-ers, 1998). Initially, in 1950, the USGS combined the Cumberland River and Tennessee River watersheds as one water-resources region. In 1965, the Tennessee River watershed became a separate water-resources region and the Cumberland River watershed was added to the Ohio. To compare the data consistently over time, total surface-, total ground-water withdraw-als, and total withdrawals were compiled using the thermoelectric power, industrial, public supply, and irrigation category definitions from 1965 to 1995.

76 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030

SUMMARY

The data from this report that are aggregated to reservoir catchment area (RCA) are intended to be input to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reser-voir management models to evaluate alternative water-supply scenarios in the process of determining future multi-purpose reservoir management practices. Under-standing how water use varies categorically, spatially, and temporally is important to the overall analysis of water supply in the Tennessee River watershed. In combination, the water-use, water-availability, and water-quality data for the watershed can be used to determine if future offstream and instream demands can be met by using the current water-management strategies.

For the Tennessee River watershed, estimates indicate that after increases in water withdrawals from 1965 to 1980, withdrawals declined from 1980 to 1985 and remained steady from 1985 to 1995. Water with-drawals during 2000 were estimated to average 12,211 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of freshwater for offstream uses22 percent more than the 1995 estimate. The 2000 estimate is nearly the same as the estimate for 1980, the highest year of record, with 12,260 Mgal/d. Self-supplied domestic and livestock withdrawals were not estimated for 2000. Return flow was estimated as 11,562 Mgal/d, 95 percent, of the water withdrawn during 2000. Consumptive water use accounts for the other 5 percent, 649 Mgal/d.

Offstream water-use categories are classified in this report as thermoelectric power, industrial, public supply, and irrigation. During 2000, thermoelectric power withdrawals were an estimated 10,276 Mgal/d; industrial, 1,205 Mgal/d; public supply, 662 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 68.9 Mgal/d. Return flows were esti-mated as thermoelectric power, 10,244 Mgal/d; indus-trial, 942 Mgal/d; and public supply, 377 Mgal/d. For thermoelectric power, consumptive use was estimated as 32.2 Mgal/d; industrial, 263 Mgal/d; public supply, 285 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 68.9 Mgal/d. During 2000, water withdrawals for thermoelectric power increased by 28 percent more than 1995, industrial by 17 percent, public supply by 15 percent, and irrigation by 44 per-cent.

Estimates of water withdrawals by source indi-cate that during 2000, total surface-water withdrawals were 98 percent of the total or 11,996 Mgal/d 23 percent more than during 1995. Total ground-water withdrawals were 215 Mgal/d, or 17 percent less than during 1995. More water continues to be withdrawn for thermoelectric power generation than for any other category. Thermoelectric power withdrawals are large, exclusively from surface water, and therefore deter-mine the surface-water-use trends in the watershed. In 2000, most of the estimated 215 Mgal/d of ground water was used for public supply (136 Mgal/d), which is an increase of 9 percent from 1995.

Each category of use affects the reuse potential of the return flows differently. Besides water quality, reuse potential reflects the quantity of water available for subsequent uses. For water quantity, reuse potential is gaged by consumptive use, which is the difference between water withdrawals and return flow. Most of the water withdrawn from the Tennessee River is used for once-through cooling for thermoelectric power and industry, and therefore consumptive use is compara-tively small.

Average per capita use for all offstream uses was 2,710 gallons per day per person in 2000, compared to the record high of 3,200 in 1975 and 1980. The inten-sity of use for the Tennessee watershed as measured as a function of area was 298,489 gallons per day per square mile in 2000.

In 2030 water withdrawals are projected to increase about 15 percent to 13,990 Mgal/d. By cate-gory, water withdrawals are projected to increase as follows: thermoelectric power, 11 percent, 1,152 Mgal/d; industry, 31 percent, 368 Mgal/d; public supply, 35 percent, 232 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 37 percent, 25.2 Mgal/d. Total consumptive use is pro-jected to increase about 51 percent or 331 Mgal/d to 980 Mgal/d. For 2030, per capita use is calculated as 2,370 gallons per day, about 26 percent less than in 1980. Water transfers to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway for navigation lockages are estimated as 200 Mgal/d for 2000 and 800 Mgal/d for 2030. The 800 Mgal/d is the potential maximum long-term flow based on the design of the lock. Water transfers through Barkley Canal averaged 3,361 Mgal/d for 2000, and are estimated to be an average of 4,524 Mgal/d in 2030. The 4,524 Mgal/d at Barkley Canal for 2030 is based on an annual commitment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for hydroelectric power generation.

By RCA, the largest percentage increases from 2000 to 2030 as measured as the standard deviation from the mean are expected as follows. For industry, the Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, and Watauga RCAs indicate a percentage increase greater than one stan-dard deviation, and the Tims Ford RCA indicates a change greater than two standard deviations. For pub-lic supply, the Chickamauga, Fontana, Guntersville, Nottely, Watts Bar, and Wheeler RCAs indicate a per-centage increase within one standard deviation, and the Blue Ridge and Chatuge RCAs indicate a change greater than two standard deviations.

Selected References 77 SELECTED REFERENCES Case, P.J., and Alward, G.S., 1997, Patterns of demographic, economic, and value change in the western United States: Implications for water use and management:

Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, 35 p.

Hutson, S.S., Vines, C.A., and Keck, L.A., 1990, Tennessee:

Water supply and use, in National Water Summary 1987Hydrologic events and water supply and use:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350,

p. 467-474.

MacKichan, K.A., 1951, Estimated water use in the United States, 1950: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 115, 13 p.

MacKichan, K.A., 1957, Estimated water use in the United States, 1955: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 398, 18 p.

MacKichan, K.A., and Kammerer, J.C., 1961, Estimated use of water in the United States, 1960: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 456, 26 p.

March, P.A., and Fisher, R.K., 1999, Its not easy being green: Environmental technologies enhance conven-tional hydropowers role in sustainable development:

Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, v. 24,

p. 173-188.

Moore, M.R., Crosswhite, W.M., and Hostetler, J.E., 1990, Agricultural water use in the United States, 1950-85, in National Water Summary 1987: U.S. Geological Sur-vey Water-Supply Paper 2350, p.93-108.

Murray, C.R., 1968, Estimated use of water in the United States, 1965: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 556, 53 p.

Murray, C.R., and Reeves, E.B., 1972, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1970: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 676, 37 p.

Murray, C.R., and Reeves, E.B., 1977, Estimated use of water in the United States, 1975: U.S. Geological Sur-vey Circular 765, 39 p.

Office of Management and Budget, 1987, Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1987, 705 p.

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1984, State hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-708, 198 p.

Solley, W.B., Chase, E.B., and Mann, W.B., IV, 1983, Esti-mated use of water in the United States in 1980: U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1001, 56 p.

Solley, W.B., Merk, C.F., and Pierce, R.R., 1988, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1985: U.S. Geolog-ical Survey Circular 1004, 82 p.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1993, Esti-mated use of water in the United States in 1990: U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1081, 76 p.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, Esti-mated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1200, 71 p.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1990, Tennessee River and res-ervoir operation and planning review, Final Environ-mental Impact Statement, 198 p.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 2002, Reservoir Operations Study: accessed July 14, 2003 at http://www.tva.gov U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, United States Census 2000: accessed July 9, 2003 at http://www.cen-sus.gov/main/www/cen2000.html U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional economic data: accessed July 14, 2003 at http://www.bea.gov U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Adminis-tration, 2000a, Monthly Power Plant Report, EIA-906:

accessed July 14, 2003 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

cneaf/electricity/page/data.html U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2000b, Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report, EIA-767: accessed July 14, 2003 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/

data.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Permit Com-pliance System Water discharge permits: accessed July 14, 2003 at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National Pol-lution Elimination Discharge System (NPDES):

accessed July 14, 2003 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, Water use in the United States: accessed July 14, 2003 at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., 2001, Complete data-base, [machine-readable data files],

http://www.woodsandpoole.com

Glossary

Glossary 81 GLOSSARY Water-use terminology in this report is the same as that used in the series of USGS water-use Circulars which are cited in the Selected References section. The term water use as initially used in 1950 in the USGS water-use Circulars meant withdrawals of water; in the report for 1960, the term was redefined to include consumptive use of water as well as withdrawals. With the beginning of the USGS National Water-Use Information Program in 1978, the term was again redefined to include return flow and offstream and instream uses. In the water-use Circular for 1985, the term was redefined further to include withdrawals plus deliveries. In this report for 2000, water use is defined to include withdrawals, wastewater releases, return flow, and consumptive use for thermoelectric power, industrial, public supply, and irrigation.

TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT acre-footthe volume of water required to cover 1 acre of land (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1 foot.

aquifera geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs.

commercial water usewater for motels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, other commercial facilities, and institutions. The water may be obtained from a public supply or may be self supplied. See also public supply and self-supplied water.

consumptive usethat part of water withdrawn that is evaporated, transpired, incorpo-rated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment; also referred to as water con-sumed.

conveyance losswater that is lost in transit from a pipe, canal, conduit, or ditch by leak-age or evaporation. Generally, the water is not available for further use; however, leakage from an irrigation ditch, for example, may percolate to a ground-water source and be available for further use.

cooling waterwater used for cooling purposes, such as of condensers and nuclear reac-tors.

delivery/releasethe amount of water delivered to the point of use and the amount released after use; the difference between these amounts is usually the same as the consumptive use. See also consumptive use.

domestic water usewater for household purposes, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gar-dens. Also called residential water use. The water may be obtained from a public supply or may be self supplied. See also public supply and self-supplied water.

evaporationthe process by which water is changed from a liquid into a vapor. See also evapotranspiration and transpiration.

evapotranspirationa collective term that includes water discharged to the atmosphere as a result of evaporation from the soil and surface-water bodies and as a result of plant transpiration. See also evaporation and transpiration.

freshwaterwater that contains less than 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of dissolved solids; generally, more than 500 mg/L of dissolved solids is undesirable for drinking and many industrial uses.

ground watergenerally all subsurface water as distinct from surface water; specifically, that part of the subsurface water in the saturated zone (a zone in which all voids are filled with water) where the water is under pressure greater than atmospheric.

hydroelectric power water usethe use of water in the generation of electricity at plants where the turbine generators are driven by falling water. Hydroelectric water use is classified as an instream use in this report.

in-channel usesee instream use.

82 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 industrial water usewater used for industrial purposes such as fabrication, processing, washing, and cooling, and includes such industries as steel, chemical and allied products, paper and allied products, mining, and petroleum refining. The water may be obtained from a public supply or may be self supplied. See also public supply and self-supplied water.

instream usewater that is used, but not withdrawn, from a ground-or surface-water source for such purposes as hydroelectric power generation, navigation, water-quality improvement, fish propagation, and recreation; sometimes called nonwith-drawal use or in-channel use.

irrigation water useartificial application of water on lands to assist in the growing of crops and pastures or to maintain vegetative growth in recreational lands such as parks and golf courses.

kilowatt-hour (kWh)a unit of energy equivalent to one thousand watt-hours.

million gallons per daya rate of flow of water.

mining water usewater used for the extraction of minerals occurring naturally includ-ing solids, such as coal and ores; liquids, such as crude petroleum; and gases, such as natural gas. Also includes uses associated with quarrying, well operations (dewa-tering), milling (crushing, screening, washing, floatation, and so forth), and other preparations customarily done at the mine site or as part of a mining activity. Does not include water used in processing, such as smelting, refining petroleum, or slurry pipeline operations; these uses are included in industrial water use.

net water demandthe quantitative difference between water withdrawals and return flow. See also return flow, water-use transaction, withdrawal, wastewater-treatment return flow, or water transfer.

offstream usewater withdrawn or diverted from a ground-or surface-water source for public-water supply, industry, irrigation, livestock, thermoelectric power generation, and other uses. Sometimes called off-channel use or withdrawal.

per capita usethe average amount of water used per person during a standard time period, generally per day.

public supplywater withdrawn by public and private water suppliers and delivered to users. Public suppliers provide water for a variety of uses, such as domestic, com-mercial, thermoelectric power, industrial, and public water use. See also commercial water use, domestic water use, thermoelectric power water use, industrial water use, and public water use.

public-supply deliverieswater provided to users through a public-supply distribution system.

public water usewater supplied from a public-water supply and used for such purposes as firefighting, street washing, and municipal parks and swimming pools. See also public supply.

reclaimed wastewaterwastewater-treatment plant effluent that has been diverted for beneficial use before it reaches a natural waterway or aquifer.

recycled waterwater that is used more than one time before it passes back into the nat-ural hydrologic system.

residential water usesee domestic water use.

return flowthe water that reaches a ground-or surface-water source after release from the point of use and thus becomes available for further use.

reusesee recycled water.

self-supplied waterwater withdrawn from a surface-or ground-water source by a user rather than being obtained from a public supply.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codesfour-digit codes established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and used in the classification of establish-ments by type of activity in which they are engaged.

surface wateran open body of water, such as a stream or a lake.

Glossary 83 thermoelectric power water usewater used in the process of the generation of thermo-electric power. The water may be obtained from a public supply or may be self sup-plied. See also public supply and self-supplied water.

transpirationprocess by which water that is absorbed by plants, usually through the roots, is evaporated into the atmosphere from the plant surface. See also evaporation and evapotranspiration.

wastewaterwater that carries wastes from homes, businesses, and industries.

wastewater treatmentthe processing of wastewater for the removal or reduction of contained solids or other undesirable constituents.

wastewater-treatment return flowwater returned to the hydrologic system by wastewater-treatment facilities.

water-resources regiondesignated natural drainage basin or hydrologic area that con-tains either the drainage area of a major river or the combined drainage areas of two or more rivers; of 21 designated regions, 18 are in the conterminous United States, and one each is in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean.

water-resources subregionthe 21 designated water-resources regions of the United States are subdivided into 222 subregions. Each subregion includes that area drained by a river system, a reach of a river and its tributaries in that reach, a closed basin(s),

or a group of streams forming a coastal drainage system.

water transferartificial conveyance of water from one area to another.

water use(1) in a restrictive sense, the term refers to water that is actually used for a specific purpose, such as for domestic use, irrigation, or industrial processing; (2) broadly, water use pertains to human interaction with and influence on the hydro-logic cycle, and includes elements such as water withdrawal, delivery, consumptive use, wastewater release, reclaimed wastewater, return flow, and instream use. See also instream use and offstream use.

water-use tabulation areathe boundaries of a water-use tabulation area are determined by the natural drainage area to account for water availability and the water-use trans-actions that occur within that drainage area. For this report, the water-use tabulation area accounts for the complete site-specific water-use transactions between adjoin-ing reservoir catchment areas and is used to determine consumptive use at a large scale. See also consumptive use and net water demand.

water-use transactiona water-use activity that is a water withdrawal, water delivery, water release, return flow or water transfer. See also delivery/release, return flow, wastewater-treatment return flow, water transfer, or withdrawal.

watt-houran electrical energy unit of measure equal to one watt of power supplied to, or taken from, an electrical circuit steadily for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

withdrawalwater removed from the ground or diverted from a surface-water source for use. See also offstream use and self-supplied water.

Appendixes

Appendix A 87 Appendix A. Water-use data sources for the Tennessee River watershed in 2000

[Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA; Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, DOE, EIA; Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, ADECA; U.S. Geological Survey, Aggregated Water Use Data System, USGS, AWUDS; Water Resources Management Program, Environmental Protection Division, WRMP, EPD; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Permit Compliance System, USEPA, NPDES, PCS; North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, NCDEHNR; Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Supply, TDEC, DWS; University of Georgia, UGA; Mississippi State University, MSU; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, USDA, NRCS]

Water-use category Data sources Type of data Thermoelectric Tennessee River watershed TVA water-use survey; DOE, EIA electricity database Withdrawal Tennessee River watershed TVA water-use survey; DOE, EIA electricity database Return flow Industry Alabama ADECA; USGS AWUDS 1995 data, adjusted Withdrawal Georgia WRMP, EPD Withdrawal Kentucky Department of Water Withdrawal Mississippi Office of Land and Water Resources Withdrawal North Carolina TVA water-use survey Withdrawal Tennessee TVA water-use survey; USGS water-use program Withdrawal Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Withdrawal Tennessee River watershed TVA water-use survey; USEPA, NPDES, PCS Return flow Public supply Alabama ADECA; USGS, AWUDS 1995 data, adjusted Withdrawal Georgia WRMP, EPD Withdrawal Kentucky Department of Water Withdrawal Mississippi Office of Land and Water Resources Withdrawal North Carolina NCDEHNR; TVA water-use survey; USGS water-use survey Withdrawal Tennessee TDEC, DWS; USGS water-use program Withdrawal Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Withdrawal Wastewater releases Tennessee River watershed USEPA, NPDES, PCS; adjustments to USGS, AWUDS 1995 data Return flow Irrigation Alabama ADECA Withdrawal Georgia UGA Cooperative Extension Service Withdrawal Kentucky Department of Water; USGS water-use program Withdrawal Mississippi MSU Agricultural Extension Office Withdrawal North Carolina USGS water-use program Withdrawal Tennessee USDA, NRCS; USGS water-use program Withdrawal Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Withdrawal

88 Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030 Appendix B. Hydrologic unit codes and names

[The map boundaries for hydrologic units are hydrographically defined, and the units are often used as a geographical framework for detailed water-resources planning.

The hydrologic unit code (HUC) assigned to the hydrologic unit is an 8-digit number with each 2-digit number respectively indicating region, subregion, accounting unit, and cataloging unit. The Tennessee River watershed is designated by 06 and has 32 hydrologic units as mapped in figure 4 and listed in this table by code number and name.]

Hydrologic unit code Hydrologic unit name 06010101 North Fork Holston 06010102 South Fork Holston 06010103 Watauga 06010104 Holston 06010105 Upper French Broad 06010106 Pigeon 06010107 Lower French Broad 06010108 Nolichucky 06010201 Watts Bar Lake 06010202 Upper Little Tennessee 06010203 Tuckasegee 06010204 Lower Little Tennessee 06010205 Upper Clinch 06010206 Powell 06010207 Lower Clinch 06010208 Emory 06020001 Middle Tennessee - Chickamauga 06020002 Hiwassee 06020003 Ocoee 06020004 Sequatchie 06030001 Guntersville 06030002 Wheeler 06030003 Upper Elk 06030004 Lower Elk 06030005 Pickwick 06030006 Bear 06040001 Lower Tennessee - Beech 06040002 Upper Duck 06040003 Lower Duck 06040004 Buffalo 06040005 Kentucky Lake 06040006 Lower Tennessee

Appendix C 89 Appendix C. Improving Hydropower and Water Quality at the Tennessee Valley Authority Dams By Patrick A. March, Senior Manager, Resource Management, Tennessee Valley Authority The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is work-ing to increase the efficiency and capacity of its 30 hydroplants with the goal of ensuring a reliable power supply at a reasonable price without degrading water quality (March and Fisher, 1999). As part of that effort, TVA has undertaken an aggressive program to automate and modernize hydrogeneration operations and equipment. Thirty-eight units have been modern-ized to year 2002, adding 342 megawatt-hours of peaking capacity and boosting efficiency by more than 4 percent. By the time this effort is complete (about 2013), TVA will have added an additional 750 mega-watts of installed peaking capacity at a cost of 750 million dollars.

Where feasible, autoventing turbine technology is being implemented as TVA hydro units are modern-ized. Autoventing turbines or AVTs, induce air into the turbine releases using low-pressure areas identified in scale-model and numerical model tests. This technol-ogy was developed by TVA in cooperation with Voith Siemens Hydro and first implemented at TVAs Norris project near Knoxville, Tennessee. AVTs are the first turbines designed to aerate turbine releases while increasing the capacity and efficiency of the generat-ing units.

AVTs are one of a variety of technologies TVA has implemented, either singly or in combination, as part of its Reservoir Releases Improvements program.

This 5-year, 50 million dollar program, completed in 1996, addressed two major environmental problems faced by the hydropower industry: low levels of dis-solved oxygen and intermittent drying out of the river-bed in tailwater areas. In addition to AVTs, TVA uses surface-water pumps, oxygen injection systems, aerat-ing weirs, and air compressors and blowers to raise dissolved oxygen levels downstream from 16 of its hydropower dams. Turbine pulsing, weirs, and small hydropower units are used to maintain a minimum flow of water when hydro turbines are not operating at 13 dams. Together, these technologies have increased dissolved oxygen levels 1 to 5 milligrams per liter in more than 300 miles of river downstream from TVA dams and have improved water flows in 180 miles of rivers.