• REGIOt.. C WATER PLANNING G:koUP Senate Bill One Second Round ofRegional Water Planning· Texas Water Development Board July 14, 2004 Mr. Jim Pierce Assistant Public Works Director
Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Subject: Water Conservation Strategies for Regional Water Planning Dear Mr. Pierce: The Region C Water Planning Group
is actively working on updating the 2001 Region C Water Plan. The updated Region C Water Plan will be completed by January 5, 2006. Water conservation is an important issue for regional
water planning, and the Texas Water Development Board rules require the Planning Group to consider recommending water conservation strategies for each water user group that has a projected
water need during the 50-year planning period. We are seeking your input regarding potentially feasible water conservation strategies. The attached pages Jist potentially feasible water
conservation strategies that the Planning Group is evalnating. Detailed information about these strategies is available from the Texas Water Development Board at the following online
locations: bttp:/Iwww.twdb.state.tx.usiassistanceiconscrvationtraskForceDocs/FeblDraftBMPs2-27-04.pdf bttp:/Iwww.twdb.state.tx.usiassistanceiconservationIDocumentsiDraftBMPs4-28·04Vol2.pdf
For each water conservation strategy that you have already implemented, please report the types of targeted water users, the degree of public participation, the amount of water that
has been saved, and your cost in implementing and operating the program (including overhead). If you have implemented conservation strategies that are not on the list, please add them
and report the above information. For each water conservation strategy that you have not implemented, please indicate whether you would consider pursning the strategy. If you are interested
in pursuing . conservation strategies that are not Qn 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠list, please add them. Please call Nina Jacobson of Alan .Plummer Associates, Inc. at 214-631-6 JOO with any questions,
comments,' or 'corrections you may have regarding this survey. Please return your completed survey to the address shown on the third page of the attached survey by July 31, 2004. We
greatly appreciate your attention and cooperation in responding to this survey, which will help the Planning Group evaluate water conservation strategies for Region C. Sincerely, 􀀶􀁾􀀧􀁍􀁾􀁾􀀠Jim
Parks Chairman Cc: Roy Eaton, Secretary Board Members James M. Parks. Chair Robert M. JOhMon. 􀁖􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁃􀁨􀁡􀁩􀁲􀀠Roy J. Eaton. Secretary Brad Barnes Jeny IV. Chapman Dale Fisseler
Russell Laughlin G. K. ,Uaenius Howard Martin Jim McCarter Elaine J. Petrus Dr. Paul Phillips Irvin M. Rice Robert O. Scott George Sha!l11On Connie Standridge Danny Vance Mary E, Vogelson
Paul Zweiacker cloNTMWD 505 E. Brown Street P. O. Box 2408 Wylie, Texas 75098·2408 9721442·5405 972i442-5405IFax jparks@ntrnwd.com www,regioncwarer.org 
Region C Water Planning Group Potentially Feasible Water Management Strategies for Water User Groups (WUGs) Please Return by July 31, 2004 Name of Water User Group: Town of Addison Contact
Person:,c-___________---,c:-: :-:---:___________ Telephone Number: FAX:___________ Email Address: __________________􀁾_____ Mailing Address:____________,______ 􀁾______ 1. Based on yonr
most recent system water audit, how much "unaccounted-for" water do you have? Please list quantity (million gallons and percent Qf.tota! use) and specify if adjustments were made for
line flushing, fire flows and other unmetered uses. How much do you estimate that you lost to leakage? How much raw water did you pump (million gallons)? How much treated water did you
purchase (million gallons)? 2. If applicable, what is your current cost for raw water? 3. Do you offer rebates, incentives, or retrofit kits for customers to conserve water? Please describe
your rebate/incentive/retrofit program. What is the value of the rebate/incentive/retrofit kit? How many rebates/incentives/retrofits have you paid out or distributed? How long has your
program been in place? Town of Addison Page 1 of5 
4. Do you have a program to educate the public and/or schoolchildren about water conservation? Please describe your program. Please attach any information on water conservation that
is distributed to the pUblic. 5. Do you have an ordinance that prohibits wakr waste? Ifso, please attach a copy of the ordinance. 6. Do you reuse treated wastewater effluent? If so,
please describe your reuse program (source, customers, uses, contracted water amounts, infrastruclure capacity, etc.) 7. Please provide a summary of your water rates. Please include
quantity and cost information for each rak tier. Town of Addison Page 2of5 
8. Please report information about the conservation strategies that you have already implemented. For strategies that you have not implemented, please indicate whether you would consider
pursuing these strategies. ---------------------------Strategy Name Have You Target Water Degree of hnplemented Users * Public This Strategy? (please circle) Partieipation! (please circle)
Interest •• (please circle) Yes No Public Information/School Education Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Water Conservation Pricing Y N R Iud C Inst H M L NA System Water Audil and Water Loss
Y N R Iud C lnst H M L NA Pressure Control and Leak Detection Y N RInd C Inst H M L NAr-----.. Water Waste Prohibition (Ordinance! y N RInd C Inst H M L NAEnforcement)'-Customer Indoor
Water Audit Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Showerhcad/Faucet Aerator Retrofit y N R Ind C Inst H M L NAProgram Toilet Replacement Program Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Clothes Washer Rebate Y N
RInd C Inst H M L NA Customer Irrigation Audit Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Landscape Irrigation Systems Rebate Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA """""""" 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Landscape Design and Conversion
y N R Iud C lust H M L NAProgram (including Xeriscaping) General Industrial, Commercial, and y N Rind C Inst H M L NAInstitutional (ICI) Conservation Rebate ICI Water Audit, Water Waste
Reduction, and Site-Specific Y N R Iud C lnst H M L NA Conservation Programs Reuse of Treated Wastewater Effluent Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA .. Amount of Water Saved Startup I Annual Would
You Per Year Cost Operating Consider ($) . Cost hnplementing ($/year) This Strategy? Quantity Units (please circle) Yes No Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N
UNo, Why Not? --􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠, *R=Residential, Ind=Industrial, C=Cornmercial, Inst=1nstitutional, **H=High, M=Medium, bLow, NA=Not applicable *** Note that the "Water Waste
Prohibition" is different from a Drought Contingency or Emergency Water Management Plan. See http://www .twdb.state.tx.usfassistancelconservationlTaskForceDocslFeblDraftBMPs2-27 -04.pdf
for examples of Water Waste Prohibition. Town of Addison Page 3 ofS 
9. Please report information about other conservation strategies that you have already implemented. Also, please indicate other conservation strategies that you are interested in pursuing.
Strategy Name Have You Implemented This Strategy? (please circle) Yes No y N Target Water Users * (please circle) RInd C Inst Degree of Public 􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁰􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁮􀀱􀀠Interest
(please circle) H M L NA Amount of Water Saved Per Year Quantity Units Startup Cost ($) Annual Operating Cost ($/year) Would You Consider Implementing This Strategy? (please circle)
Yes No Y N Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Y N Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Y N Y N RInd C Inst H M L NA Y N *R=Residential, Ind=Industrial, C=Commercial, Inst=Institutional .• H=High, M=Medium,
bLow, NA=Not applicable 10. What percentage of your retail residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers use automatic lITIgation systems? If possible, please report
the number of automatic irrigation systems (from permits or other sources) and your total number of connections. Town of Addison Page 4 of5 
1 L Please use this space to provide any other information or comments on your water conservation efforts. Use additional sheets if needed. Please return by July 31, 2004, to: Nina Jacobson
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. 1349 Empire Central, Suite 702 Dallas, Texas 75247-4006 214-631-6109 (fax) Town of Addison Page 5 of5 
Region C Water Planning Group Confirmation of Water Needs Projections and Proposed Water Management Strategies of Water User Groups (WUGs) Please Return by April 30, 2004 􀀽􀀽􀁕􀁾􀁾􀁦􀀻􀁩􀁾t
:n.-Y-9"-2.8"!7TeleJ?honeNUmber:?jt=-; FAX: Bmad Address: M • ell S tDl • t.I $' Mailing Address: :sAlII'\e M le.tk... 1. Do you agree with the projected water demands? Ifnot, what changes
would you suggest? What is the basis for your suggested changes? (Note: The demands have been approved by the TWDS and cannot be changed at this time. However, we can plan for additional
supplies to meet any demands that you believe are significantly underestimated. ) 􀁵􀁊􀁾􀀠􀁡􀀮􀁾􀁦􀀱􀀡􀀡􀁴􀀮􀀠!.VI#. tL-fnj 􀁴􀀴􀀮􀀮􀀫􀁥􀁾􀀠<t1J--tr 􀁤􀀭􀁥􀁾􀁾􀀠2. Do you agree with
the list ofavailable water supply sources? Ifnot, what changes are needed? (Note: Surface water supplies have been adjusted to reflect availability as determined from the state Water
Availability Models. Groundwater supplies have not been updated from the 2001 Region C Water Plan.) We... tt.jree. I)..J ri{..j..kt. CUf"'1't('\t-lj av41 1....1tJ1-<.. vJa.:h!V' 􀁾􀁲􀀧/1
􀁾􀀠OS • Town ofAddison Page! of2 
3. Do you agree with the proposed water management strategies listed in the 2002 State Water Plan and those being considered for this update. Ifnot, what strategies are you considering?
What strategies are you NOT considering? I;J.L 􀁣􀁴􀁾􀀨􀀭􀁥􀀮􀀮􀁴􀀮􀀮􀀠􀁷􀁩􀁾-rk. fro 􀁰􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀱􀁩􀀴􀁾􀁴􀀱􀁉􀁥􀁖􀁴􀀧􀁦􀀠􀁓􀀫􀁜􀀢􀁁􀀮􀀫􀁾􀀣􀀧􀁉􀁉􀀡􀁳􀀮􀀠1U't. h4.V'-e. Ilnp I... tMr\4-e,,(
t1Wl r'e taojNS';" eo c..M.UrsJ4;f-ri.,. yn-eu.u.res. We. kAve \M1'I-ett\"r'If",J. 􀁾􀀠WA.+er rA,+e st...IwJ.....l-L. 􀁾􀁴􀀢􀀮􀁦􀁁􀁉􀀮􀁶􀁊􀀧􀀵􀀧􀀠4 􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁶􀁵􀁾􀀫􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠WcJ.-t....
c.tJVIs...er"v'A.:bciv\. \J..... 􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁥􀀾􀁯􀁫􀀮􀁭􀁾􀀠j",4+k 􀁲􀀼􀀾􀀫􀀮􀀱􀀢􀀫􀁾􀁻􀀠-&.... 􀁾􀁾S1-of"Aje. 􀀴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀮􀁬􀀧􀀢􀁪􀀧􀀠4. Please give any other comments you have on these
data. Use the back (or other sheets) ifneeded. I.JL. A,fe., 􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁵􀁊􀀠􀁾+I-.t.. CMrt \\ Pn:>j ....􀁾Tc..fztl 􀁾􀁴􀁎􀁮􀁊􀀠oJs &V'V'-M+lj Avai t...bl-t-Sl.#fr 'j 􀁾􀀠-n... GM.rf 􀁓􀁾􀁃􀀨􀀯􀀡􀀾􀀠uJ-L
􀁷􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁬􀀠􀁾n<4.lf"f 􀁥􀁖􀁌􀁾􀀠WeJ-..U-'Wl ?oOID, iSv-i-wlJ'tVf-etvA'd 􀀢􀀬􀁢􀁢􀁬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁰h..;e. h.L i'nc.r«.1.e.JL b., aD tQ ? '1k 􀁾􀁲􀁰􀁥􀁬se. e>+-+t,.'ts dv.r+ ls n..+ OlecLr. Please
return by April 30, 2004, to: Richard Shalfer Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. 1820 Regal Row, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75235 214-589-6905 􀁾0 ) 2f'l 􀀢􀀧􀀿􀁾􀀠-372-5To'Ml ofAddison Page 20f2

,--------------.-..􀁾.. --..-----. TOWN OF ADDISoN PUBLIC WORKS To: 'RIchm./SIz ..*r From: Jim Pierce, P.E. CI () .L {V Asst. Public WI<s. Dir. Company: {I Ian]!, r ...... if /trilj
Pbone: 9721450·2879 :;r. "5 --;!> FAX #: . 901't 'ffl 6q 􀁾5' FAX: 972/4S0-2837 _ _ _ jpftrtt@ci.addbou.tl..U5 Date: 'f-2..ft-0 <.f 16801 Westgrove P.O.Box 9010 # of pages (including
CQver):-2-Addison, TX 75001·9010 Re: J?e{jli5f! C Cmfirhl!fhm ;;{. AJUdS i 􀁢􀁊􀁴􀁤􀀭􀁾r f:i;rf; o Original in mail o FYI o Call me l!:O vO.l0 t::e:i.£9£9vlZ6 puos Wd Z5'£O aL/vo Wd
􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁅􀁏􀀠􀁴􀁏􀁏􀁚􀁉􀀸􀁚􀀯􀁾􀁯􀀠t.nt OS11 US UOEq:PP1i JO wo.OJ, 
2146383723; 04/28/04 13:08; #572; Page 1/2Sent by: Cniang,Patel,&Yerby,Inc. CB.YJ Portnel'1 for 0 8eHer Quvlily of Ufe FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL TO: Jim Pierce FROM: Frank Pugsley Fax No:
972 450·2837 Fax No.: 214·638·3723 Company: City of Addison Cr&Y Project No.: 􀀮􀀡􀀻􀁆􀁎􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁬􀀡􀀰􀀲􀀽􀀺􀀻􀀳􀁾􀁏____ Subject Region CWater Planning Date: 04/28/04 No. Pages lincluding
cover}: .:,2,--_ IFYOU DIP NOT RECEIVE All PAGES. PLEASE NOTIFY US AT (214)6J8.0500 MESSAGE: Jim, Here is the chart I was able to locate regarding the DWU projected supply and demand.
I apologize for not having more informatioll for you. Frank Pugsley Chiang, Patel & Yerby,lnc. 1820 Ragal Row, Sts. 200 Dallas. TX 75235 (214) 638·0600 (hiany, Patel & Yerby, Inc. J"
IB20 Reg,1 Row, S.iI. 200. Dallas, Tlilxas 752:JS 214.638.0000· fI2.2633960 m.lto. 214.tr.lB.3723IDX \MNw.c:py!.eom 
Page 2/204128/04 13:08; H572;2146383723;Sent by: chiang,patel,&Yerby,Inc. -1:'" .t: '" () 2:.. 􀁾􀀠'" ::> ::> 􀁾􀀠._---_... _-0 'D ..,. rt11 c:> c '" III e !! 􀁾􀀠CI)' ra 0 .!I'" 􀁾􀀠D.
!;l u :::J '" <II t/) 􀁾􀀮1/1 􀁾􀀠;; :::>.. 0 B '" c:> '"10 􀁾􀀠rI) J!! "ii C 0 1; '" '--" ....-_._. -., 􀁾􀀠'" 
REGION C WATER PLANNING GROUP Senale Bill One Second Round ofRegional Waler Planning -Texas Waler Development Board Board Members James M. Parks, Chair Robert M JcImJon, Vice-Chair Roy
J. Enton, Secre/(H}! BradJJames Je1TJl W. Chapman Dale Fisseler Rrusell LaugItlin G. K. Mowta Howard Amrri" Jim McCarter Elaine J. Petrus Dr. Paul Phillip3 Irvin M. I?iu Raben O. &:ott
George Shan!t.on Connie Standridge DamryV"""" Mary E. Vogelson PaulZweiacker cJoNTMWD 50S E. Brown Street P. O. Box2408 Wylie, Texas 75098-2408 9721442.5405 9721442·S4051F.. jparu@ntmm.com
www.regioncwater.org April 12,2004 Mr. Mike MUIphy Director ofPublic Works Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove Addison, TX 75001 Subject: Water Management Strategies for Regional Water Planning
Dear Mr. MUIphy: The Region C Water Planning Group is actively working on the update to the 2001 Region C Water Plan. The updated Region C Water Plan is to be completed by January 5,
2006. In September 2002 and again in January 2003, we surveyed you regarding projected population and water demands for the Town of Addison. With your input, the population and water
demand projections have been updsted and have been approved by the Region C Water Planning Group and the Texas Water Development Board. The Planning Group is now evaluating available
water supplies and proposed water management strategies. We are again seeking your input On your available water supplies and proposed water management strategies. We have attached summaries
ofthe following .information for the Town ofAddison: • population projections • water demand projections • currently available water supplies • recommended water management strategies
from 2001 Region C Water Plan • potential water management strategies for 2006 Region C Water Plan We are asking that you review this information and provide any comments or corrections
needed to accurately reflect our water. needs andproposeci"pmjeets for additiogaJ, water supplfes. Please cal Ri S a er f Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. at 214-638-0500 with any questions,
comm corrections you may have regarding this survey. Please return your completed survey to e address shown on the second page of the attached survey by April 30, 2004. We eatly appreciate
your attention and cooperation in reviewing this information, which M'ilI provide the basis for long-range water supply planning in Region C. Sincerely, 􀀶􀀭􀀢􀀧􀁜􀀾􀁾􀀠Jim Parks Chairman
Cc: Roy Eaton, Secretary 
Region C Water Planning Group Confirmation ofWater Needs Projections and Proposed Water Management Strategies ofWater User Groups (WUGs) Please Return by April 30, 2004 Name ofWater
User Group: Town ofAddison Contact Person::-___________-=:-=-___________ Telephone Number:_... FAX:__________ Email Address: ______________________ Mailing Address: __________________---I.
Do you agree with the projected water demands? Ifnot, what changes would you suggest? What is the basis for your suggested changes? (Note: The demands have been approved by the TWDB
and cannot be changed at this time. However, we can plan for additional supplies to meet any demands that you believe are significantly underestimated.) 2. Do you agree with the list
of available water supply sources? Ifnot, what changes are needed? (Note: Surface water supplies have been adjusted to reflect availability as determined from the state Water Availability
Models. Groundwater supplies have not been updated from the 2001 Regioll C Water Plall.) Town ofAddison Page lof2 
4. Please give any other comments you have on these data. Use the back (or other sheets) ifneeded. Please return by April 30, 2004, to: Richard Shaffer Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. 1820
Regal Row, Suite 200 DaUas, Texas 75235 214-589-6905 (fax) Town of Addison Page 2 of2 
----ac..re-ft 􀁾􀀠'3 -:1-<::1 􀀧􀀶􀀧􀀵􀀱􀁾􀀠)< 􀀲􀀯􀀸􀀧􀁾􀁊􀁬􀁏􀁏􀀩􀁏􀁏􀁏􀀠􀁾􀁬􀁴􀁊􀁮􀀴􀀯􀀨􀁦􀁌􀀠/J..c·f+ ;: 􀁾􀀲􀀧􀁦􀀠7, '+1 I 􀁾􀁤􀁾􀁶􀁬􀀩􀀠2000 􀁾􀁪􀁾􀁾Population 14,166 Proje<t<d
Municipal W_Demand (...ftlyr) '6,998 Ptoje<t<d Wholesale W_DemaIId (ac-flIyr) : 0 2010 2626 2030 2040 2050 2MO 17,919 26,534 22,358 23,629 24,515 25,133 8,852 10,074: 􀀢􀀬􀁉􀀬􀁏􀀡􀁾􀁬􀀹􀀠11,514
ll,918 12,218 0 01 0 0 0 0 Tollll ProJe<t<d W...r Demand (III)-ftlyr) 6,998 Population 30,000 ,-------------, 25,000 ,; 20,000 􀁾􀀠15,000 110,000 5,000 . -􀁏􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁊􀁾􀁾􀀠2000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Y.., Currentl Available Water Su lies lIIoo DWU Sources 􀁾􀀠DWU 6,998 TOTAL 6,998 8,852 10,074 10,919 1l,514 1l,918 12,218 Munieipal Water Demand 16,000
,------------, 'i:' 14.000 ---------􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁣􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭fi 12,000 ------------------Q 10.000 ----of!! :; 8.000 --"L :; 6,000 a 4,000.!! 2,000 -􀁯􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁌􀁌􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁌􀁌􀁾􀁾􀀠2000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Yeor 􀁉􀀮􀁾Current Projection 􀁾Previous Projection i 2010 20lll 6,507 6,345 6,254 6,060 5,613 4,987 6,507 6,345 6,254 6,060 5,613 4,987 Proje<ted Total
Demand .., Currently A ••ilable Supply 14,000 ,--------------------------, 'E 12,000 <: 10,000! 8,000 ,-4,000 2,000 2000 2010 2O.lO 2040 2050 2060 Year _ ....ended Water Man.........t
Renew DWU contract C<Jotinue pun;basin. water--:Cfro1lJ--::D"'WU= from 2001 Region C WateT!'Ian Pwntia1 Water Man...m••t Strat<2i .. for 2000 Region C Water Piau Renew DWU contract eo.tin""
-purobasiug water ftom DWU Water conservation 
􀁾􀁉􀁅􀁃􀁉􀁅􀁾􀂥􀁉􀁅􀁛􀁄􀀠APR 0 5 ZOOI REGION C WATER PLANNING GROUP MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL Senate Bill One Second Round ofRegional Water Planning -Texas Water Development Board Board Members
James M Parks. Chair Robert M Johnson. Vice-Chair RoyJ. Eaton, Secretary Brad Barnes Jerry W. Chapman Dale Fisseler Russell Laughlin G. K. Maenius Howard Martin Jim McCarter Elaine J.
Petrus Dr. Paul Phillips IrvinM Rice Robert O. Scott George Shannon Connie Standridge Danny Vance Mary E. Voge/son Paul Zweiack£r c/oNlMWD 505 E. Brovm Street P. O. Box 2408 Wylie, Texas
75098-2408 972/442-5405 972/442-5405IFax jparks@ntmwd.com www.regioncwater.org TO: Mayors, County Judges FROM: James M. Parks, Chainnan, RCWPG DATE: April 1, 2004 SUBJECT: Notice of
Intent to Apply for Supplemental Funding PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Region C Water Planning Group (RCWPG) is applying for supplemental grant funding from the Texas
Water Development Board's (TWDB) Research and Planning Fund to be used for preparation of the 2006 2006 Regional Water Plan. The application is being filed with the Executive Administrator
of the Texas Water Development Board on or before April 1,2004. The RCWPG consists of the following counties: Collin, Cooke, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Fannin, Freestone, Grayson, Henderson
(portion of county within Trinity Basin), Jack, Kaufinarl, Navarro, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. The North Texas Municipal Water District serves as the designated political subdivision
for the RCWPG and will be filing the application on behalf of the RCWPG. The applicant, North Texas Municipal Water District, is represented by James M. Parks, Executive Director, and
can be reached at the address listed below. The purpose of the proposed supplemental planning tasks is to assist in the development of the 2006 Regional Water Plan as described in 31
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Section 357. Any comments regarding this grant application must be filed with the TWDB and RCWPG within thirty (30) days of the date of this Notice at
the the following addresses: Mr. J. Kevin Ward Mr. James M. Parks Executive Adininistrator Administrator/Chainnan Texas Water Development Board Region C Water Planning Group P. O. Box
13231, Capitol Station c/oNTMWD Austin, Texas 78711-3231 P. O. Box 2408 Wylie, Texas 75098 For further questions or additional information, please contact James M. Parks at the NTMWD
office at 9721442-5405. 
Sent by: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 B3S 3723; 10/04/02 ?:27PM;#145; page 2 REGION C WATER Pl.ANNING GROUP l'Olmi 􀁍􀁥􀁭􀁢􀁾􀁮􀀠I crmn' W, Sh'I>'1lI1, Clllur hl'ft!,;f M l'(/r1;.", Vin'
(1mI' G/1.V J. t:lIlml• 􀀮􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁉􀀧f fIrm; JlllfJIr-.\ l..:rl'.'< ,1'\ Ii;url, }"'if'l W. ('lIfl/>l!1I1f1 IJnk FI1,II'/j" IItthltlrtl lrIu,',ill .Ii,,,M'·{"j,'I,.,· nW/IJ'1. I't'fm_
Of. l)rluf I'JuNip.l /'-Yill M. 􀁦􀀨􀁩􀁦􀁾􀀠HI''',,''I (J ,\"/,,, U(rJtsr Slltsnfljl!f ( 'orlili/' ."1rtmtJtirl.f;< 0(1111/)' V{uwt' .lUI/kit Jim. 􀁖􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁬􀁬􀀨􀀢􀁦􀀬􀁾􀁲􀁤􀀡􀀠 MfII'y
k V",!;d.wJI J'tluT /.wtlflf'ft'f CT., N'fMW I) 􀁾􀁯􀁾􀀠Ii, IIIIIWII SIII.:\;1 r·,O. ltv" 􀁊􀀴􀀰􀁾􀀠WyH(, 'h:.!!ws 􀀱􀀡􀁩􀀨􀁬􀀢􀀩􀁈􀂷􀀲􀀴􀀰􀁾􀀠􀀧􀀱􀀷􀀱􀁊􀀮􀁵􀁬􀂷􀀬􀁾􀀴􀁮􀀮􀁾􀀠1)7.::!1,Ml·
$.,O;J/Fa* 􀁎􀀧􀁲􀁍􀁗􀁉􀀩􀀨􀁾􀁁􀀮􀁩􀁴􀁉􀁈􀀴􀁩􀁴􀁉􀀧􀁈􀁥􀀧􀀠October", 2002 Mr. Mike Murphy Towll of Addisoll P. 0, ilox 90W Dallas, TX 75001·90I 0 Suhjecl: Popululion 􀀢􀀧􀁭􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁬􀁩􀀨􀁭􀀮􀁾􀀠and
Data Survey -Please respond by Seplemher 􀁾􀀨􀁉􀀬􀀠2002 De,II' Mr. Murphy: Senmc ilill One. passed by the Lcgislumrc in June 1997. requires thllt Regional Wliler Planning Gmurs ul'o.ne
IINwoved WaleI' 􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠al least every five years. The effort to update (lur 􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀧􀁾􀀠plan 􀁨􀁡􀁾􀀠hogU!! and we are seeking your input in Ihe planning pm!:ess. Your dty
is localed in Region C and the Board Members of the Region C Water Planning nmup are listed on this leller. The enclosed hmenure ,hows " map or Region C and gives more information ahOUI
I.he regional planning UpdlllC process now underway. n,e Region C Waler Planning Gronp has selcclell II team or cOIl,ullants led by Freese and Nichols. Inc .. to heip with lhe lIpllate
nl' the regional wItter piau. Other members of the consulling tcum include. Alan Plummer Associotes, Cooksey Communications. ami Chiang, Palel & Yerhy. As instructed by the legislature.
the Texus Water Development Board (TWDB) has fnr111ul,lIed reglliation., g(lve11ling Ille preparalion of regional plans. These regulations require thul regiIllWI water plans Ire Irased
on pnlJectiolls or rOpUlali(lIls and Waler need, developed hy the TW])B, unless Ihe regional waler planning group can provide cunvinclng eviuence thlll Ihu,e prnjeclion, 􀁾􀁨􀁯􀁵􀁬􀁤􀀠he
mouified. With this letter, we lire Illiaehing II survey seeking inrnrmillinn from you til 􀁨􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀧􀀠us determine whether the TWill! IlIlpulution 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁣􀁴􀀺􀁴􀁩􀀢􀁮􀁾􀀠arc IIllprupriatll
for yllur city or whether they should be revised. We arc 􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁯􀀠sceking OIher iilformatioll impol1alll fllr planning. The TWDB is scheduled III provide initial waler needs projections
by Ihe end of Septemher. When we receive this information, we will provide it 10 you "nd 􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁫􀀠)'UUI' in[lu(, Please fill (lui the :llwched Wfvey and return it 10 Ed Motley or Chial1g.
Palel lind Yerhy hy no later Ihan Septemncr 30. 2002. Tn maimain our $chcdulc. information 􀁭􀁵􀁾􀀱􀀠he provided hy the due <lule 10 be. included in the updated Regional Water Plan.
To holl> you fill (lut Ihe survey. auached is some information (>n hiswl'ical 􀁾􀁉􀀩􀁤􀀠pro,jeCled populations in Regtnn C. Page 1 tlI'1 
Sent by: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 638 3723; 10/04/02 2:27PM;#145j Page 3/8 Table of Historical and 􀁬􀀾􀁲􀁾􀁩􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠Population for Your City. This Illhle preselllS the hisl{)lical
und pmjccted population [or your city developed by the TWDS. The projections arc for values within your elly limils. Table of llistarical aud Prajeeted Population fllr Your County. This
lahle presems Ihe TWDB historical :lIld PI''\lcclCd pupulullon for Iho cities in counly(ies) in which you arc lo.;aled. If you have any queslions M need additional infol'll1i1tioll 1(\
c(lmplete the survey, please COillUct Mr. Ed Motley, Projee\ Engineer at Chiang, Patel & Yerby, at (214) 638·0500. Thank you in auvance for y(\ur I.imely complelion of the survey us
Ihis inf()rmal;,m wiH provioi: Ihe bllSis for uponting tho waleI' plan for Regie)n C. Yours very truly. Terrace Slewlul Chair, Region C Water Planning Grtlilp C: Jim Park$, Vice Chair
Roy Ealon, Secrelary AIl:lc!1menrs: Popularion 􀁐􀁲􀁾􀁩􀁥􀁣􀀡􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠Survey Ilislurical and Projecred Population Tuhles 8rochure • 
:ent hy: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 636 3723; 10/04/02 􀁾􀀺􀀲􀀷􀁐􀁍􀀻􀀣􀀱􀀴􀀵􀀻􀀠Page 4/6 Regie," e Water PIIIDnilll: (:roup Population Projection 􀁾􀁵􀁲􀁶􀁥􀁹􀀠or Cities Please Return
by September 􀁾􀁾􀁏􀀬􀀠2002 CHy: IowN Of: "APOIS,OA! 􀁃􀁻􀀩􀁭􀁡􀁾􀀱􀀠Person: M,Lt;" ...MUfl.Pt+Y Telephone Numbe!':i:t.t::.!ff(r 1.9"18 F,\X: 97"'2. -4-20-"Z.e''37 .. Email Addrcss:----.!!!L!!1....7!
J.r 􀀺􀁣􀀭􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁳􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀠Malhng Addfess:-1!t..SJ2..i. ttt£_T 􀀬􀀬􀁾__ ,A_____7X. 1'?e>()1 I. Arc. the TWDB pro.ltlCliolls of l'opulUlio" for your city reasonahle? If nO!, what changes
would you suggest') Whar is the b'lSIS f()r YUtlr suggeSted chan lies? Please provide llllY llVllilahle sUPl'tming dara. Examples of Slll)I)011ing daHl include: • Oocllmcnlalion of undCrCtlunl
in 2000 census. • Docllmenlation "I higher mignlli()11 inlo county over pas! several yeMs lhan experienced betlVeen 1990 and 200[). • Chunge$ ii' city hOUl1(lilries, including annexiltion.
}f;:;.I P!WJ Gt..􀀺􀀱􀀱􀀰􀁁􀁬􀁾􀀠Arue. pG 􀁾􀁁􀁊􀁁􀁾􀀡􀁇. 􀁾􀀠 􀁐􀁬􀁥􀁵􀁾􀁥􀀠give yuur comments on the TWDS population projeclion$ ror your county(ies}. 3. We have a copy of your dty's
droughl CO.\li,lgcncy pliln daled August 24. 1999. If YOll Jwve more recent conservation lind drought cOlllingency plan(s) for your city. please provide il copy(ies). (Se:€F' ArrJ!l.C-H
fF D ) 4. What conservatiml measures docs your city usc') Are these measures effeclive? Whal is Ihe cost of each wale. cl)J)Scrvalion mi:lIsurc your city employs'! "1UI, WI2/l.5NT 7'&'4
'1'1£ rflU)q 􀀱􀀱􀁈􀀬􀀮􀀯􀁾􀁉􀁈􀁉􀀡􀁎􀁲􀁅􀁏􀁁􀀠􀁾"G<:ttw'S" ....f5! 􀁰􀁖􀁉􀀯􀁉􀁊􀀯􀀨􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁉􀀯􀁉􀁁􀁎􀁉􀀮􀀮􀁆􀁊􀁾􀁳􀁲􀀠,---.'. C","M.I'''''&'-I. :t:1'lt.IUDlwtr M,I.,I O\h-s-􀁾t.it4N'-£7I.!:.t:..A',
_ TO,ler -r.....e!> -ME""'"",a 􀀮􀀤􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀠7'0 8r;; "e'A.r ftFJ:.E;errve. -rf,Jt:: 􀁖􀀾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀭w"" "8600. :J4.-s d tffIc-Ld+-h 􀁩􀁙􀁬􀁾􀁲􀀭􀁌􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁦􀀫􀁥􀁣􀀭􀀫􀀬􀁵􀁥􀁉􀀧􀁗􀁪􀁓􀀮􀀠5.
Whm source(s) or Willer supply 􀁤􀀨􀁉􀁾􀁓􀀠YOUI' ciry clirrently liS I'? If YOll have a .:ommet for W!Ilel' supply, is 1I1ere a contractual limil'/Is there an oplion tn increase the
contractu,,1 am()unrl Please ,,1$0 note if you aTC having any 􀁰􀁔􀀡􀁬􀁨􀁬􀁾􀁬􀀱􀀱􀁳􀀠􀁷􀁩􀁬􀁾􀀠water <.juantilY Dr water 􀁾􀁵􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁹􀀮􀀠
;ent by: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 63B 3723j 10/04/02 2:27PMj#145j Page 5/6 6. If groundwuter is pan or all of your water supply, ple"se lisl: • The 11 limber of waleI' wells ill opcralion,
• The number of usuhle water wells not currelltly in nperalion. • The aquif'er(s) heing used. • Their locatilln (cnunly and ilasin), • Their depth. • The produclion '''Ipacity lIf cach
well, Please "I,,) nOle if you are Ilaving any problems Wilh currenl well prodllclion, eilher 'luul1lily or yualily, NA-. g, Is your Cily planning In oevel(lp addiliol1(l1 source(s)
of waler 􀁾􀁵􀁰􀁰􀁬􀁹􀀠in Ihe fUlure" If so, please proviue yuanlity in 􀁥􀁾􀁣􀁨􀀠sOllrce and loeallon of each 􀁾􀁮􀁵􀁲􀁣􀁥􀀮􀀠If your cilY is not planning Lo dcvelop uudiLional waleI'
supply, would you plcase Lell us why not') IQG" /JOE /oott-./Ir 'NTO .At;(JlFEfL 􀀢􀀷􀁯􀁾􀀠JUlO GDDu,,/f)r.{/4-7€L 􀁐􀁾􀁖􀁅􀀯􀁾􀁴􀀵􀀱􀀯􀁔􀀮􀀠9, Please provide 11 copy of lIny waler supply
pl"n(s) develol)eti for your cilY, "'if>. II). Do you currenlly provide raw walCr Or Ireuled waleI' III any O1h"I' waler suppliers? Pleuse Iisl olher suppliers for which you provide
waler and Ihe amounl ynu provided III each "r lhem in 2000. Please nOle if you arc providing n1W or lrealed waLeI' nexL III cuch customer. 􀁐􀁬􀁥􀁡􀁾􀁥􀀠include Cllnlntc!ual amounts
lind conLraCI expiraLion dales, ir any. ror these cwaomers. Page 2 of] 
sent by: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 638 3723; 10104102 <:28PM;#145j Page 618 II Do you cXltcct In di"corHmuc providing w"ler 10 any !If Ihese suppilers? Ir so, what changes un you expect'!
12. Do you expeci to begin providing wtllCr to any auditioolll suppliers? 'fs(}, please 􀁉􀁩􀁾􀁴􀀠those cn!Hies you plan 10 supply, Ih.: IImounl of waleI' Y(lU plan In supply, and the
expiration dale of the, W,IIC!" 'Llpply conlracl, if ap[llicuhle. What changes do you 􀁃􀁘􀁰􀁾􀁣􀁬􀀧􀀡􀀠13. If yllu treat your own potable water, what ;5 the current capaCity of w!\ter
trC·UlmCO! philll(S)'! Whllllire yow' phtns for plant exp!ttlsion'l 14. Does your city cUlTently use or seilirealed WilMeWaler rnr reuse') If sn. how much nn .m annual hasis and for
whal purposes?15. Does your city have plans to begin using or to increase Ihe amotlOi of r\luse applied in tile fulure'! If so, whal increases do you expeclto See nod whal is the eXllecled timing
of these 􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁣􀀬􀀮􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁥􀁾􀀿􀀠ror wh;u 􀁐􀁜􀁬􀁲􀁰􀀨􀁬􀁳􀁥􀀮􀁾􀀠will the reuse WIlier be used? /'--/0 flAN'!:> ,''' /lie-A 1l. For-cleF· 16. Please give allY other comments you have
nn the regiolluJ Willer planning process. lise the back (01' other sheet,;) il' needed. I'lease retlll"l1 by September 30. 2002, 10: Ed Motley Chiang, I'"lel amI Yerhy, Inc. 18Z0 Reglll
Row, Suite 200 1).1I1as, TX 75235 IfAX, (214) 6311-3723 
Sent by: CHIANG PATEL &YERBY 214 638 3723; 10104102 2:28PM;#145; Page 718 
Sent by: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 63B 3723j 10104102 2:2BPMj#145j Page BIB Dollins COI.ol'\!y Acronym FuJI Nllrm ws WaWlt SysI9m UD 􀁕􀁬􀁬􀁨􀁬􀁾􀀠ll,sWCI SliD Sror.illl U111Jlr 􀁄􀁉􀁾􀀡􀁦􀁉􀁃􀁉􀀠
wSC WUlllr SUpplV Cr,I'P MUD MunlClpilI UUIIt-; 􀁄􀁉􀁾􀁬􀁴􀁦􀁣􀁬􀀠 WCID WI!ItJ( Conuol 􀁾􀀠h'l'lpfO.... llmElnl 􀁄􀁉􀁾􀁬􀁲􀁬􀁣􀁬􀀠MWO M,llLh:ifl.1' WIJlfM 􀁏􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁦􀁉􀁲􀀺􀁉􀀠FwSD 􀁆􀀨􀀦􀁾􀁨􀀠WlIlOf
S\rpply 􀁄􀁪􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁪􀁾􀀱􀀠'NO WarBr D,wICI MWSD MunlDp.li WEII'II( suppr., Q'&lncl 
72 HP LaserJet 3200se TOALASERJET 3200 9724502837 OCT-10-2002 10:49AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time 10110/2002 10:47:28AM invent Type Identification Duration Pages Result Send 92146383723
2:00 8 OK fA<llMJtHRAHSMITTAt 􀁾􀀧. 􀀮􀀡􀁦􀁴􀀡􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠hKN4: '''1'11,) om -'Uirt 􀁃􀁾􀀡􀁉􀁜􀀧􀀨􀀮􀀺􀁃􀀢􀀧􀁬􀀧􀀢􀀠AM!'''''' 􀁓􀁵􀁢􀁪􀀬􀁥􀁾􀀠MESSAGE: 
Sent by: CHIANG PATEL & YERBY 214 638 3723; 10/04/02 2:27PMjHI45; Pege 1 CB.Y). Portnerllor 0 Beller Quolily of life FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀠T'b\ 􀁾!-<\ ; 􀁜􀁾􀀠fV\. "V' ehvO f'fttl'I!1r:
R"'llc..,,', 􀁾􀀠F;, \<,-vd 0.:. Y\. Fax No: \ 9:f2.) >1-5£.i -<-\1,3"7: Fax No,; 214-638·3723 Gompany: C. 􀀫􀁾􀀠D'\ AduJ..,::'<.,,-, CP&Y Project No,: 'LN']: {) 'I-􀁾􀁾􀀠D Subject:
___________ Date: \ 􀁾􀀠I 􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀠No, Pages (including cover): 8 IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE NtHifY US AT 11141 m·05OO MESSAGE: Cniong, Pole! &Yerby, In(, ) Ib20 fl;;:"ol
How, S:.IiIB 200. 0,11", Tex" 75235 214.638,0000. g11.26l,lOGO 11\#,,0,214.638.3123 t.,. \oVWw,tpyl.oom· 
Board Members Terrace W. Stewart. Chair lames M. Parks, 􀁖􀀻􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁃􀁨􀁡􀁩􀁲􀀠Roy I. Eaton. Secretary Brad Barnes Leroy A.. BUTCh Jerry W. Chapml1ll Dale FUseier Howard Martin Jim McCarter
Elaine J. 1'.Dr. PaulPhilJips Irvin M. Rice Robert O. Scon George SJuuuwn Connie SraJldridge DonnyV= Judge Tom VOIIIiergritf Mary E. Vogeuon Pmd Zweiocker c10NTMWD 505 E. Brown Street
P. O. Box 2408 Wylie, Texas 75098·2408 9721442·5405 9721442-5405IFax NTMWD@airmail.net REGION C WATER PLANNING GROUP Senate Bill 1 • Texas Waler Development Board Mayors, County Judges,
Water Districts, Water Suppliers, and Water Rights Holders FROM: Jim Parks, Vice Chairman, RCWPG DATE: June 7,2001 SUBJECT: Public Meeting Notice PUBLIC NOTICE The Region C Water Planning
Group will hold a public meeting to gather suggestions and recommendations from the public as to issues that should be addressed or provisions that should be included in the Region C
Water Plan 2001 -2005 Planning Cycle or State Water Plan. The meeting will be held as follows: July 10, 2001 1:30 P.M. Trinity River Authority Central Wastewater Treatment Plant 6500
W. Singleton Boulevard Grand Prairie, Texas The Region C water planning area contains sixteen counties including Collin, Cooke, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Fannin, Freestone, Grayson, Henderson,
Jack, Kaufman, Navarro, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. Question.> relating 10 the meeting should be referred to Terrace Stewart, Chairman, RCWPG, 214/670-3144, or Jim Parks, Vice-Chairman,
9721442-5405. Written comments may be sent prior to July 10, 2001, to: TERRACE STEWART JIM PARKS Chairman Vice-Chairman Region C Water Planning Group Region C Water Planning Group clo
City of Dallas, Water Utilities clo North Texas Municipal Water District 1500 Marilla, Room 4AN P. 0, Box 2408 Dallas, Texas 75201 Wylie, Texas 75098 
. (972) 454).2871 .. ® Post Office Box 9010 Addison. Texas 􀀷􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀨􀀩􀁬􀁏􀀠 16801 Westgrove MEMORANDUM DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2001 TO: RON WIllTEHEAD FROM: JIMPlERCE SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE REGION C WATER PLAN This memo is to briefly speak to your concern that has been expressed about the adequacy of our future water supply in the
mce ofstrong population growth for our Region. . The Region C Water Plan, completed in January 2001, which is an outgrowth ofSenate Bill One, addresses this issue. (Copy ofExecutive
Summary Attached). Briefly: • Region C covers 16 counties in North Central Texas. • Dallas County population is expected to increase from 2.0 million to 3.26 million in 2050. • The Region
C population is expected to increase from 4.8 million to 9.5 million in 2050. (Most ofthis increase is expected in the next 25 years). • Current water sources are: 34 water reservoirs
in Region C plus others outside the Region. These reservoirs supply 90% ofthe current water demand. • Groundwater is an important source, especially in rural areas. However, in many
areas, groundwater is being withdrawn at rates exceeding replenishment. • Reuse oftreated wastewater will become an important source ofwater in the future. • Additional water supplies
must be developed before 2050. Projected water use in 2050 is more than double the 1996 use. • By 2030, projected water demand will exceed current total supply. The principal recommended
strategy is the development ofMarvin Nichols I Lake in the Sulfur River Basin (out ofRegion C, in Region D) in northeast Texas. Cost is estimated at $1.6 billion. 
-25 February 2001 Estimated costs to the Region's water providers for all recommended water management strategies are as shown below: WATER PROVIDER ESTIMATED COST (BILLIONS) Dallas
Water Utilities $1.492 Tarrant Regional Water District $1.167 N. TX Municipal Water District $1.435 Fort Worth $0.221 Trinity River Authority $0.166 All Others in the Region $1.674 Total
$6.158 Please let me know ifyou have any questions, or would like more information about this issue. Cc: Chris Terry Mike Murphy 
----.--..-jJ :!< 􀁾. . 􀀬􀁾􀀮" ", 􀀮􀁾'J;a4' 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀧􀀬􀀠-
REGION C WATER PLAN January 2001 Executive Summary This report presents the Senate Bill One regional water plan developed in the year 2000 for Region C. Region C covers all or part of
16 counties in North Central Texas, as shown in Figure ES-!. The Region C water plan was developed under the direction of the 19-member Region C Water Planning Group. The planning process
included the following steps, which are presented in this executive summary and described in greater detail in the main report and the appendices: • Description ofRegion C • Population
and Water Demand Projections • Analysis of Water Supply Currently Available to Region C • Comparison of Water Supply and Projected Water Demand • Evaluation and Selection of Water Management
Strategies • Regulatory, Administrative, Legislative, and Other Recommendations . • Plan Approval Process and Public Participation ES-1 Description ofRegion C As of 1998, the estimated
population of Region C was 4,779,210 -24.4 percent of Texas' total population. The two most populous counties in Region C, Dallas and Tarrant, have 70.6 percent of the region's population.
There are 38 cities in Region C with an estimated 1998 population of more than 20,000. These cities include 80.5 percent of the 1998 population ofthe region. Economic Activity in Region
C Region C includes most of the Dallas and Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan statistical areas, which have experienced strong economic growth in the 1990s. Payroll and employment in
ES-! 
Region C are concentrated in the central urban counties of Dallas and Tarrant. The largest business sectors in Region C in tenns of payroll are services and manufacturing. Water-Related
Physical Features in Region C Most of Region C is in the upper portion of the Trinity Basin, with smaller parts in the Red, Brazos, Sulphur, and Sabine Basins. Figure ES-l shows the
major streams in Region C. Precipitation increases west to east in Region C from slightly more than 30 inches per year in western Jack County to more than 44 inches per year in the northeast
comer of Fannin County. The average armual runoff in the region also increases from the west to the east. Evaporation is higher in the western part of Region C. The patterns of rainfall,
runoff, and evaporation result in more abundant water supplies in the eastern part of Region C than in the west. There are 34 reservoirs in Region C with conservation storage over 5,000
acre-feet, all of which are shown in Figure ES-L These reservoirs and others outside of Region C provide most of the region's water supply. Reservoirs are necessary to provide a reliable
surface water supply in this part of the state because of the wide variations in natural streamflow. Reservoir storage serves to capture high flows when they are available and save ihem
for use during times of nonnal or low flow. The Trinity aquifer supplies most of the groundwater used in Region C. Other aquifers in the region include the Carrizo, Wilcox, the Woodbine,
the Nacatoch, and the Queen City. Current Water Uses and Demand Centers in Region C Water use in Region C has increased significantly since 1980, primarily in response to increasing
population and municipal demand. The historical record shows years of high use, including 1988, 1996, and 1998. High use years are associated with dry weather, which causes higher municipal
demands due to increased outdoor water use. It is interesting to note that Region C, with 24.4 percent of Texas' population, had only 7.2 percent ofthe state's water use in 1997. This
is primarily because Region C has very limited water use for irrigation. About 85 percent of the current water use in Region C is for municipal supply, followed by manufacturing use
as the second largest category, then by steam electric power generation. Irrigation, mining, and livestock are relatively minor uses ofwater in Region C. ES-2 
Current Sources of Water Supply Total water use in Region C has increased significantly since 1980, but grolllldwater use has actually decreased in that period. Since 1990, over 90 percent
of the water use in Region C has been supplied by surface water, but grolllldwater is still an important source of supply, especially in some rural areas. Most ofthe surface water supply
in Region C comes from major reservoirs. Another significant water source for Region C is surface water imported from other regions. The Trinity aquifer is by far the largest source
of grolllldwater in Region C, with the Woodbine, Carrizo-Wilcox and other minor aquifers also used. Current use of grolllldwater exceeds the reliable long-term supply available in many
parts ofRegion C. Over half of the water used for municipal supply in Region C is discharged as treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants, making wastewater reclamation and reuse
a potentially significant source of additional water supply for the region. At present, only only a fraction of the region's treated wastewater is actually reclaimed and reused in the
region. Many of the region's water suppliers are considering reuse projects, and it is clear that reuse of treated wastewater will be a significant part offuture water planning for Region
C. Water Providers in Region C Water providers in Region C include regional wholesale suppliers (river authorities and water districts) and retail suppliers (cities and towns, water
supply corporations, special utility districts, and private water companies). Cities and towns provide most of the retail water service in Region C. Table ES-! shows some basic data
on sales to others by the five major water providers in Region C, which are the only water suppliers in the region with over 20,000 acrefeet per year in wholesale sales. Agricultural
and Natural Resources in Region C Agricultural and natural resources in Region C are dependent on the region'.s water resources. Wetlands often rely on water from streama and reservoirs.
Wetlands provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife, water quality improvement, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, and grolllldwater excbange, in addition to opportunities
for human recreation, education, and research. Threatened or endangered species can depend on habitat associated with rivers and streams. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has
identified several Region C stream segments as having significant natural resources based on their high water quality, exceptional ES-3 
Table ES-l Major Water Providers in Region C Major Water Provider 1997 Wholesale Sales (Acre-Feet) Number of Wholesale Customers Raw Treated Total Cities Water Suppliers Others Tarrant
Regional WD 258,448 0 258,448 12 11 16 North Texas MWD 0 168,247 168,247 23 14 1 Dallas 13,324 148,281 161,605 17 4 2 Fort Worth 427 39,521 39,948 28 2 4 Trinity River Authority 15,220
22,217 37,437 8 2 1 aquatic life, high aesthetic value, fisheries, spawning areas, unique state holdings, endangered or threatened species, priority bottomland hardwood habitat, wetlands,
springs, and pristine areas. Region C includes almost 6,000,000 acres in fanns and over 2,500,000 acres of cropland. Less than 1 percent of the cropland in Region C is irrigated, but
there are localized areas of irrigation. The market value of agriculture products is significant in all Region C counties, with a total value for 1997 of almost $500,000,000. For the
region as a whole, the market value of livestock is almost twice that of crops. There are large areas classified as prime fannland by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Cooke,
Denton, Collin, Tarrant, Dallas, and Ellis Counties. Oil and natural gas fields are significant natural resources in portions of Region C. There is a high density of oil wells in Jack,
Wise, Cooke, and Grayson Counties, with a lesser density in Denton, Parker, Navarro, Henderson, and Kaufinan Counties. There is a high density of producing natural glS wells in Freestone,
Parker, Jack, and Wise Counties, with a lesser density in Navarro, Henderson, Denton, Cooke, and Grayson Counties. There are some lignite coal resources in Region C. The most significant
current lignite production in Region C is in Freestone County to supply TXU Electric's Big Brown Steam Electric Station on Lake Fairfield. ES-4 
Summary ofThreats and Constraints to Water Supply in Region C The most significant potential threats to existing water supplies in Region C are surface water quality concerns, groundwater
drawdown, and groundwater quality. Constraints on the development of new supplies include the availability of sites and unappropriated water for new water supply reservoirs and the challenges
imposed by environmental concerns an:! permitting. Most ofthe water suppliers in Region C will have to develop additional supplies before 2050. The major water suppliers have supplies
well in excess of current needs, but they will require additional water to meet projected growth. Some smaller water suppliers face a more urgent need for water. Surface water quality
concerns that might affect Region C water supplies include the following: • Detection of atrazine at low levels in some water supply reservoirs • Nutrient levels in water supply reservoirs
• Total organic carbon (fOC) levels in source waters • Elevated levels ofdissolved solids in some reservoirs and stream reaches • Trace levels ofarsenic in some waters. In general, these
concerns can be addressed by standard water treatment methods and do not pose a significant threat to water supplies in the region. Drawdown of aquifers poses a threat to small water
suppliers and to household water use in rural areas. As water levels decline, the cost of pumping water grows and water quality generally suffers. Water level declines have been reported
in localized areas in each of the aquifers in Region C. In particular, the region-wide pumping from the Trinity and Nacatoch aquifers is estimated to be greater than the recharge. Concern
about groundwater drawdown is likely to prevent any substantial increase in groundwater use in Region C and may require conversion to surface water in some areas. Groundwater quality
in Region C aquifers is generally acceptable for most municipal and industrial purposes. However, natural concentrations of arsenic, fluoride, nitrate, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate,
and total dissolved solids in excess of either primary or secondary drinking water standards occur in some areas. ES-5 
Water-Related Threats to Agricultural and Natural Resources in Region C Water-related threats to agricultural and natural resources in Region C include changes to natural flow conditions,
water quality concerns, and inundation of land due to reservoir development. In general, there are few significant water-related threats to agricultural resources in Region C due to
the limited use of water for agriCUltural purposes. Water-related threats to natural resources are more significant. ES-2 Population and Water Demand Projections Methodology for Projections
of Population and Water Demand The Texas Water Development Board's Senate Bill One planning guidelines require the use of TWDB's population and water demand projections from the 1997
Texas Water Plan uuless revisions are approved by TWOB based on changed conditions or new information. The TWOB projects water demand separately for municipal, manufacturing, steam electric
power generation, mining, irrigation, and livestock uses. Municipal demand is developed for each community with a population of over 500 and includes commercial, institutional, and residential
water uses but does not include manufacturing use. A "county other" group for each county covers municipal use in rural areas and communities with less than 500 people. All demand categories
except municipal are developed on a countywide basis. To develop the population and water demand projections for Region C, the Region C water planning group went through the following
steps: • Assembled historical data and previous TWOB projections and d:veloped tables and figures that could be reviewed by counties, cities, water suppliers, industries, and other interested
entities. • Sent the TWDB data and a questionnaire to all Region C counties, cities with a population over 1,000, regional water suppliers, retail water suppliers (supplying over 0.2
mgd), and large industries. • Gathered population data from the State Data Center and the North Central Texas Council of Governments. • Reviewed the previous TWOB population projections
for each county and recommended changes to projections where current populations deviate significantly from the previous projections. • Adjusted city population projections based on
historical trends and knowledge of expected future development using the county population projections as controls. : ' ES-6 
• Compared TWDB's projections of per capita municipal water demand from the 1997 Texas Water Planwith actual per capita water demand in the 1990s from TWDB data. • Developed data on
1998 per capita water use for Region C water providers. • Adjusted previous TWDB projections in per capita water demand to reflect actual use in the 1990s, trends in water use, water
conservation, reasonable minimum demands for water, knowledge of future development that might affect per capita needs, and other mctors. • Developed tables and graphs for each city
in the region to assist in the review of the recommended projections. • Revised projections of water demand for steam electric power generation based on input from TXU Electric. • Checked
previous TWDB projections for manufacturing, mining, irrigation, and livestock use and left them unchanged after comparison with recent historical data. • Formed a Technical Review Committee
consisting of experienced water resource planners to review the recommendations of the consultants on population and water use and report to the planning group. • Held a public meeting
to receive input on the water demand projections. • Made a number of additional changes as a result of TWDB review and input. • Submitted the revised projections to the TWJ)B board,
which approved the revised projections in December of 1999. Population Projections Table ES-2 presents the adopted population projections by county for Region C. Figure ES-2 shows the
historical and projected population for the region. All counties are projected to increase in population between now and 2050, and the projected 2050 population for Region C is 9,481,157.
Once the county population projections were completed, city population projections were adjusted based on historical trends and kmwledge of expected future development. The county populations
served as controls in this process, and all population not assigned to a particular city was included as county other. Water Demand Projections Table ES-3 shows the adopted water demand
projections for Region C by county. Table ES4 and Figure ES-3 show the projected water demand for the region by type ofuse. The projected 2050 water demand for Region Cis 2,536,902 acre-reet
per year, which is more than double the 1996 use in the region. Most ofthe change from previous TWDB projections is in municipal ES-7 
Table ES-2 Adopted County Population Projections for Region C Historical iCounty 1996 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Collin 373,095 443,000 635,455 923,309 1,150,001 1,351,000 1,501,395
Cooke 33,196 34,209 36,967 38,816 40,000 41,250 42,500 Dallas 1,999,926 2,104,858 2,326,828 2,556,793 2,784,704 3,045,931 3,259,995 Denton 349,566 423,327 591,350 802,461 1,033,731 1,200,000
1,349,999. Ellis 94,097 103,070 123,854 144,054 162,273 175,403 185,364 . Fannin 27,435 30,000 33,601 37,000 39,501 40,499 41,001 i Freestone 17,757 18,167 18,800 19,300 19,600 20,000
20,300 Grayson 100,611 106,119 110,226 114,702 117,865 22,000 Henderson (partial) 45,761 46,562 51,261 55,515 57,704 58,690 60,476 Jack 7,435 7,819 6 8,934 9,175 9,353 Kaufman 61,646
68,368 8 I 129,359 147,108 162,417 Navarro 42,875 45,191 4 , II 57,015 59,200 61,000 Parker 73,897 80,436 9 , 118,287 139,094 156,023 171,216 Rockwall 34,287 41,175 61,392 88,136 122,000
160,588 203,529 Tarrant 1,306,457 1,415,759 1,594,218 1,798,894 1,915,375 2,1ll,193 2,205,610 Wise 41,019 44,800 54,674 64,363 73,641 81,000 85,002 RegionC Total 4,609,060 5,012,860
5,882,173 6,931,543 7,850,797 8,778,041 9,481,157 demands, with a smaller change in steam electric power demands. No changes were made to TWDB's previous projections for manufacturing,
mining, irrigation, or livestock demands. One ofthe most important reasons for the increase in projected per capita demand for Region C is the high water use recorded for many Region
C water suppliers in 1996 and 1998. This high water use occurred despite significant water conservation efforts in the region and despite the impact of low flow plumbing fixtures. There
are several factors that tend to increase per capita municipal water use in the region: • In many communities, new development is large houses with large lots, sprinkler systems, swimming
pools, and other water-using amenities. • The number of people per household is decreasing in most of Region C. This tends to cause an increase in per capita use because household uses
are spread over fewer people. • Many Region C communities are experiencing rapid commercial development, which increases per capita water usc. ES-8 
FigureES-2 Historical and Projected Population for Region C 10,000,000 9,000,000 6,000,000 E1-..:: .! §. 􀁾􀀠2,000,000 ) ,000,000 o 8,000,000 +1--------------------'------7,000,000 +-----------------
-----, 5,000,000 􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠4,000,000 +-----------------3,000,000 +---------------! 900 ! 91 0 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 􀁖􀁐􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾�
�::J • Historical • Adopted Proj:ction 
Table ES-3 Adopted County Water Demand Projections for Region C -Values in Acre-Feet per Year-County Collin :Cooke Pallas Denton Ellis Fannin Freestone Grayson Henderson (partial) ack
Kaufman Navarro Parker Rockwall Tarrant Wise Region C Total Projected Water Demand Historical 1996 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 89,230 129,015 199,964: 262,520 312,307 363,821 8,429 9,054
9,133 9,238 9,304 9,581 505,423 594,937 683,097 751,767 810,356 883,850 65,075 90,209 135,740 185,725 230,286 257,410 19,721 24,372 43,204 46,03C 49,309 53,991 17,515 12,100 13,330 14,500
15,597 16,572 20,608 20,074 31,058 33,00C 33,036 37,260 29,152 29,060 29,7601 30,242 31,347 32,508 10,785 12,697 13,169 13,478 13,697 13,737 3,337 2,644 2,589 2,574 2,591 2,615 10,653
21,219 24,401 27,392 32,361 34,832 10,558 10,301 10,845 ll,21e 11,850 12,303 12,372 14,120 24, 52 1 28,455 37,697 42,853 6,566 9,160 􀀴􀁾􀀳􀀬􀀵􀀷􀀠26,027 33,061 41,320 291,406 379,205
468,728 490,960 527,716 25,688 18,206 31,460 34,007 36,067 37,819 1,126,518 1,376,373 1,695,661 1,944,893 2,149,826 2,368,188 TableES-4 Adopted Water Demand Projections for Region C
by Type or Use -Values in Acre-Feet per Year2050 401,007' 9,879 940,289 281,9891 55,575 17,515 37,2901 33,688 13,908 2,652 42,017 12,735 45,725 50,249 553,302 39,082 2,536,902 Use Municipal
Historical Projected Water Demand 1996 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 946,454 1,162,093 1,401,197 1,625,412 1,808,337 1,988,513 Manufacturing '71,366 117,577 135,114 148,798 162,714 183,188
Steam Electric Power 52,103 59,800 122,300 132,700 139,700 156,192 Mining 22,576 13,046 13,231 14,190 15,294 16,515 Irrigation 9,689 5,382 5,344 5,318 5,306 5,305 1 Livestock 24,330
18,475 18,475 18,475 18,475 18,475 Total 1,126,518 1,376,373 1,695,661 1,944,893 2,149,826 2,368,188 2050 2,125,330. 207,637 162,192 17,950 5,318 18,475 2,536,902 ES-9 
FigureES-3 Adopted Projections for Water Use by Category in Region C 3,000,000 "-------------------------------, 􀁾􀀠~ ~ IE Livestock f iii Mining'" IE lnigation􀁾􀀠IE Steam Electric
􀁾􀀠iii Manufacturing iii Municipal .. 􀁾􀀠1,000,000 500,000 o 2,500,000 +1----------------------2,000,000 +1-------------1.500,000 +------1 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year 
ES-3 Analysis of Water Supply Currently Available to Region C Total water use in Region C in 1996 was over 1,100,000 acre-feet. About 74 percent of the region's 1996 water use came from
in-region reservoirs. The projected total reliable water supply available to Region C in 2050 from current sources will be about 2,023,000 acre-feet per year. (This figure does not consider
supply limitations due to the capacities of current raw water transmission facilities and wells.) Figure ES-4 shows the projected total water availability for Region C. The sources of
supply for Reiion C in 2050 include: • 1,138,000 acre-feet per year (56%) from in-region reservoirs • 181,000 acre-feet per year (9%) from groundwater • 70,000 acre-feet per year (3%)
from local supplies • . 82,000 acre-feet per year (4%) from reuse • 552,000 acre-feet per year (28"/0) from imports from other regions The projected supply available to Region C from
existing sources in 2050 is significantly less than the projected 2050 water use. ('2 i ;;:; t... Iq02. tt<. -.f;.) Ifthe supply limitations due to the capacities of current raw water
transmission fucilities and wells are considered, the available supply for Region C is reduced significantly. Most water user groups will have to make improvements to water transmission
facilities or wells to provide for their projected needs. Several major Region C water supplies will require additional raw water transmission facilities before they can be utilized
fully. Current 1J0undwater use in parts of Region C exceeds the projected long-tenn water supply availability. Supplies from other sources will be needed in these areas so that groundwater
use can be reduced. Counties and aquifers where current use exceeds long-tenn supplies include the following: • Trinity aquifer in Cooke County • Trinity and Woodbine aquifers in Denton
County 􀁾􀀠:";• Woodbine aquifer in Ellis County • Trinity and Woodbine aquifers in Grayson County • Nacatoch aquifer in Kaufman County • Trinity aquifer in Parker County • Trinity aquifer
in in Tarrant County. ES-IO 
Figure ES-4 Overall Water Supply Availability in Region C by Source 2,500,000 ,---------------------------______--, .... 2,000,000 +1------c. 1,500,000 +-------􀁾􀁉􀁭􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁳os 􀁾􀀠iii
Reuse .... '" o Livestock Local IS Mining Local 􀁾􀀠j 1lEI Irrigation Local iii Groundwater.9 I ,000,000 􀁾􀀠iii Reservoirs §:: = '" 500,000 o 1996 Use 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year 
Some of the total supply shown as availahle to Region C will probably not be utilized fully during theperiod covered by this plan. Ibis includes over 90,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater shown to be available in the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer in Freestone County. The five major water
providers in Region C (City of Dallas, Tarrant Regional Water District, North Texas Municipal Water District, City of Fort Worth, and Trinity River Authority) provided over 903,000 acre-feet
of water in 1996 (80% ofthe total provided in the region). They have 74% ofthe 2050 water supply currently available to the region. The recent dry sununers of 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000
have caused very high water use for many Region C water suppliers. These droughts have put stress on some of the region'S major reservoirs, which are designed for a 5 to 7 year drought
like that of the 1950's. The high demands also exposed supply limitations for many smaller suppliers (especially those dependent on groundwater) and exposed treatment and distribution
limitations for other suppliers. ES-4 Comparison ofCurrent Water Supply and Projected Water Demand Comparison of Supply and Demand Figure ES-5 shows the comparison of total supply with
demand for Region C, including supplies that require additional water transmission facilities before they are available to the region. By 2030, the projected demand for Region C exceeds
the total supply, even if all of the supplies available to the region are used in full. Considering only currently connected supplies (those ,vith transmission systems already in place),
the following facts emerge for Region C: • In 2000, three Region C counties (Cooke, Dallas, and Parker) show a net need for inunediate additional supplies when all demands and all connected
supplies are totaled. • Significant additional supplies need to be connected before 2010 in Region C. (Several major projects to connect existing supplies are already underway.) • By
2050, 11 out of the 16 Region C counties show a need for the connection or development of additional supplies to meet projected demands. • By 2050, 193 out of281 Region C water user
groups show a need for the connection or development of additional supplies to meet projected demands. • Current plans call for the connection of significant additional supplies for
Region Cover the next few years, including the following: o Irving and Upper Trinity Regional Water District's Lake Chapman pipeline is scheduled for completion by 2003 and will connect
65,700 acre-feet per year. ES-l1 
Figure ES-S Comparison of Total Connected and Unconnected Supply with Demand for Region C 3,000,000 2,500,'000 +------------------------__::::::;;;;'iiI""....----j 􀁾􀀠 "';<< .•= 'ia1,5'00,0'00
... 􀁾􀀠't:l 01= i 1,'000,'000 c. Jl 5'00,000 ° 2,0'00,00'0 +------I 1996 Use 2'00'0 2'01'0 202'0 203'0 2'040 2050 Year o IiiiiiiIImpons IiiiiIReuse = Livestock Local CE:::!i31 Mining
Local I!imillllrrigation Local IiiiiIGroundwater IiiiiIReservoirs --Demand 
o Dallas Water Utilities Lake Fork pipeline is scheduled for completion by 2004 and will connect 120,000 acre-feet per year. o Tarrant Regional Water District is planning additional
capacity for its pipeline to Richland-Chambers Lake that '\\ill connect an additional 110,000 acre-feet per year by 2005. • Many Region C water suppliers depend on the region's major
water providers (Dallas Water Utilities, Tarrant Regional Water District, North Texas Municipal Water District, Fort Worth, and Trinity River Authority) for all or part of their supplies.
Each of those major water providers will need additional supplies by 2050. Socio-Economic Impacts of Not Meeting Projected Water Needs If no additional water supplies are developed,
Region C will face substantial shortages in water supply over the next 50 years. The Texas Water Development Board provided technical assistance to regional water planning groups in
the development of information on the socioec.onomic impacts of failing to meet projected water needs. TWDB's findings for Region C can be summarized as follows: • The currently connected
supplies in Region C would meet only 52.5 percent of the projected 2050 demand. • Without any additional supplies, the region's projected 2050 population would be limited to 6,078,289,
instead of9,481,157, a reduction of35.9 percent. • Without any additional supplies, the region'S projected 2050 employment would be limited to 2,605,111, instead of 4,425,184, a reduction
of 41.1 percent. • Without any additional supplies, the region's projected 2050 income would be limited to $109,505,000,000, instead of$I71,199,000,000, a reduction of 36.3 percent.
ES·5 Evaluation and Selection ofWater Management Strategies The regional water planning group went through several steps in the evaluation and selection of water management strategies
for Region C: • Review of previous plans for water supply in Region C, including locally developed plans and the most recent state water plan . • Development of goals, issues, and concerns
for the planning process • General consideration of the types of water management strategies required by Senate Bill One regional planning guidelines • Development ofevaluation criteria
for management strategies • Evaluation ofindividual strategies ES-12 .. 
• Development ofcost infonnation for individual strategies • Selection of strategies. The development of a water plan covering fIfty years for a region as large and populous as Region
C is full of uncertainties. The implementation of the resulting plan must be flexible to alIo w for slower or faster than expected growth, unexpected obstacles in development of water
management strategies, and unexpected opportunities. SpecifIc points to remember include the following: • The order in which steps are taken and the exact amount of sq>ply available
from each source are subject to variation. • Water suppliers may need to turn to other alternatives if the recommended alternatives prove to be impractical. • Changes in one element
ofthe plan can affect other elements. • Given the uncertainty in developing future supplies, flexibility in plan implementation is essential to success. • The details ofthe plan will
probably change as implementation proceeds. Goals of the Planning Process The goals for the Region C water planning effort are as follows: • Provide sufficient water to meet realistic
estimates ofdemand in a timely manner. • Develop an effective continuing planning process to maintain reliable estimates of supply, maintain realistic estimates of demand, and identify
appropriate programs and facilities to meet the water supply needs ofRegion C. • Provide for the water supply needs of Region C in a manner that supports the continued economic strength
ofboth Region C and the state as a whole. • Develop a water supply plan that recognizes the economic, environmental, and cultural importance ofnatural resources and provides for the
maintenance ofthose resources. • Address the water supply needs of small cities and rural areas as well as large metropolitan areas. • Provide for sustainable groundwater use in areas
where groundwater is an essential component ofthe water supply plan. Types ofWater Management Strategies Considered As required by Senate Bill One guidelines, the Region C Water Planning
Group considered specifIc types ofwater management strategies as means ofdeveloping additional water supplies: ES-13 
• Water conservation and drought response planning • Reuse of wastewater • Expanded use or acquisition ofexisting supplies • Reallocation ofreservoir storage to new uses • Voluntary
redistribution ofwater resources • Voluntary subordination ofwater rights • Enhancement of yields of existing sources • Control ofnaturally occurring chlorides • Interbasin transfers
• New supply development • Water management strategies in the current state water plan • Brush control, precipitation enhancement, and desalination • Water right cancellation • Aquifer
storage and recovery • Other measures. Methodology for Evaluating Water Management Strategies The Region C Water Planning Group considered the following factors in the evaluation of
potential water management strategies: • Quantity ofwater made available • Reliability ofsupply • Unit cost ofdelivered and treated water • Difficulty of addres.sing environmental issues
o Instream flows o Bay and estuary flows o Wildlife habitat o Cultural resources o Wetlands o Water quality o Other • Impacts on water resources and other management strategies ES-14

• Impacts on agricultural and natural resources • Consistency with plans ofRegion C water suppliers • Consistency with other regions. Development of cost estimates for water management
strategies followed guidelines provided by the Texas Water Development Board. The costs include a 30 percent allowance for engineering and contingencies for pipelines and a 35 percent
engineering and contingency allowance for other projects. Costs are for development of new supplies and do not include costs for: • Facilities already in place • Replacement or upgrading
of aging facilities • Improvements to meet changing regulatory requirements '. Improvements for water distribution to retail customers. Recommended Water Management Strategies for Major
Water Providers A large part of the water supplied in Region C is provided by the five major water providers in the region: Dallas Water Utilities, Tarrant Regional Water District, North
Texas Municipal Water District, Fort Worth, and Trinity River Authority. These five entities will continue to provide the majority of the water supply for Region C through 2050, and
they will also develop most of the new supply developed in that time period. Recommended water mamgement strategies to meet the needs of these major water providers include the following:
• Marvin Nichols I Lake o Major new reservoir in the Sulphur River Basin in the North East Texas Region (Region D) o Cooperative effort of Region C and Region D water suppliers o Total
yield of 619,100 acre-feet per year • 123,800 acre-feet per year to Region D • 112,000 acre-feet per year to Dallas Water Utilities • 156,000 acre-feet per year to Tarrant Regional Water
District • 163,300 acre-feet per year to North Texas Municipal Water District • 25,000 acre-feet per year to Irving • 39,000 acre-feet per year to meet other Region C needs. ES-15 
o Estimated capital cost for Region C (including transmission to Region C but not including treatment) of $1,625,190,000. • Dallas Water Utilities o Figure ES-6 shows the overall comparison
of supply and demand for Dallas Water Utilities with recommended water management strategies. o Continue to use return flows above its lakes (50,000 acre-feet per year in 2000, decreasing
to 0 by 2050). o Temporarily overdraft its reservoirs in 2000 (22,000 acre-feet per year in 2000). o Extend the Elm Fork permit for wet weather diversions (10,000 acre-feet per year).
o Connect Lake Fork Reservoir to its system (120,000 acre-feet per year). o Connect Lake Palestine to its system (109,600 acre-feet per year). o Participate in the Marvin Nichols I project
(112,000 acre-feet per year). o Develop a reuse project (68,300 acre-feet per year). o Renew contracts with existing customers as they expire. o Develop additional water treatment capacity
as needed. o Other alternatives for Dallas Water Utilities include additional reuse and •development of yield from return flows in the watersheds of water supply reservOlfS. • Tarrant
Regional Water District o Figure ES-7 shows the overall comparison of supply and &mand for Tarrant Regional Water District with recommended water management strategies. o Add pumps and
a booster pump station to develop additional capacity in the pipeline from Richland-Chambers Lake to Tarrant County (110,000 acre-feet per year). o Develop the West Fork Connection to
allow water to be transferred among the parts of the water supply system. o Develop the proposed reuse project to pump water from the Trinity River into Cedar Creek Lake and Richland-Chambers
Lake to supplement yields (115,500 acre-feet per year). o Develop a water supply from existing water sources in Oklahoma (12,000 acrefeet per year) o Develop a third pipeline from Cedar
Creek Lake and Richland-Chambers Lake to Tarrant County. o Participate in the Marvin Nichols I project (156,000 acre-feet per year). o Other alternatives for Tarrant Regional Regional
Water District include the development of Lake Tehuacana and obtaining water from Lake Texoma. ES-16 􀁾􀀮􀀠. 
1,000,000 900,000 800,000 'i:' .. .. '" >< .. 700,000 .. '" .. 600,000"'" ..J. S '" 500,000 􀁾􀀠'" ;:I '" {fJ 400,000 "CI == "CI'" 300,000 e == os .. Q 200,000 100,000 ° 2000 Figure
ES-6 Dallas Water Utilities Supply and Demand 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year -Rellse -Marvin Nichols I -Lake Palestine Connection -Lake Fork Connection -Extend Elm Fk. Term Permit -Additional
Temporary Overdraft Iii!Ii!iI Return Flows above Lakes 􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀬􀁉􀀠Additional Dry-Year Suppy -TAV Industrial -Elm Fork Term Permit -Lake Grapntine '----' Elm Fork Channel Dams
c:::::J Lakes Ray Roberts/lEwisville -Lake Tawakoni I!ii!ii!I Lake Ray Hubbard -Estimated Demand Note: New supplies from water management strategies are in bold, Currently connected
supplies are in italics. • 
Figure ES-7 Tarrant Regional Water District Supply and Demand 900,000.------------------------, 800,000 +------------------------1 1:'!3 700,000 -t .._ .... >< t! 600,000 +---------...1500,000
+---b 􀁾􀀴􀀰􀀰􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰􀀠􀁾􀀠r.I':I '0 = 􀁾􀀠300,000 I:.. S 􀁾􀀠200,000 100,000 o 2000· 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year IiiiiiiII Marvin Nichols I Iiiiiiiil Oklahoma Water -Reuse from Trinity
River IiiiiiiII Cedar-Riehland Expansion r::::::::JCedar-Richland Connected r::::::::J Lake Benbrook ..Lake Bridgepm Local II!!!iI!I West Fork System -Projected Demand Note: New supplies
from water management strategies are in bold. Currently connected supplies are in italics. • 
• North Texas Municipal Water District o Figure ES-8 shows the overall comparison of supply and demand for North Texas Municipal Water District with recommended water management strategies.
o Develop additional water supplies in Lake Lavon from reuse (35,900 acre-feet per year). o DeVelop additional water supplies from Lake Texoma (10,000 acre-feet per year). o Develop
a water supply from existing water sources in Oklahoma (50,000 acrefeet per year). o Develop Lower Bois d'Arc Creek Reservoir on Bois d'Arc Creek (98,000 acrefeet per year). o Participate
in the Marvin Nichols I project (163,300 acre-feet per year). o Develop additional water treatment capacity and treated water transmission system improvements as needed. o Other alternatives
for North Texas Municipal Water District include obtaining a substantial additional supply from Lake Texoma and extending the existing Lake Texorna pipeline to minimize channel losses.
• City of Fort Worth o Continue to obtain essentially all of its raw water from Tarrant Regional Water District. o Renew contracts with its existing customers as they expire. o Develop
additional water treatment capacity as needed. • Trinity River Authority o Continue to obtain raw water:froiD. Tarrant Regional Water District for its Tarrant County water supply project.
o Expand Tarrant County water supply project raw water transmission, water treatment, and treated water transmission facilities as needed to meet growing demands. o Obtain raw water
from Tarrant Regional Water District to implement the Ellis County water supply project. o Develop raw and treated water transmission lines to implement the Ellis. County water supply
project. o Develop reuse projects: • Additional golf course and landscape irrigation in the Las Colinas area. • Golf course and landscape irrigation in Denton and Tarrant Counties. •
Stearn electric power supply in Dallas and Ellis Counties • Reuse for municipal supply in Dallas County through Joe Pool Lake and Lake Grapevine. ES-17 
Figure ES-8 North Texas Municipal Water District Supply and Demand 700,000 600,000 'I:' '" 􀁾􀀠.. ... .... '" 􀁾􀀠 '" 􀁾􀀠S -a: §' 300,000 {/'). "CI = '" "CI ; 200,000 5 􀁾􀀠100,000
o 500,000 +---------------400,000 +-----------1 J 2000 . 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year -Marvin Nichols I -Lower Bois d' Arc Creek Lake ",...I,..", Oklahoma Water -Additi!)nal Lake Texoma
-Addili!)nal Reuse c::::J Current Reuse c::::J Lake Chapnan -Lake Texoma I. , Lake Lavon -Estimated Demand=='-------Note: New supplies from water management strategies are in b!)ld.
Currently connected supplies are in italics. 
TableES-5 New Supply from Water Management Strategies and Estimated Capital Costs for Region C Major Water Providers Major Water Provider New Supply, 2000-2050 . (Acre-Feet per Year)
Estimated Capital Cost Dallas Water Utilities 419,900 $1,492,649,000 i Tarrant Regional Water District 393,500 $1,167,652,000 ! I North Texas Municipal Water District 357,200 $1,435,447,000
Fort Worth -(a) $221,475,000 Trinity River Authority 81,500(8) $166,081,000 Total 1,252,100 $4,483,304,000 .. .Note: (a) New supphes for Fort Worth and Tnmty River Authonty are Included
In the Tarrant Regional Water District total. Table ES-5 shows the total new supply from 2000 through 2050 and the estimated capital cost to develop the supply for the five major water
providers in Region C. Recommended Water Management Strategies by County The recommended strategies for each county in Region C are summarized below: • CoHin County o Most Collin County
water user groups will continue to obtain treated water from North Texas Municipal Water District. o Blue Ridge will develop new wells and continue to rely on the Woodbine aquifer. o
Celina will obtain treated water from the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. o Dallas Water Utilities will supply the part ofDallas in Collin County. o Prosper will purchase treated
water from North Texas Municipal Water District and Upper Trinity Regional Water District. o Water suppliers will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing surface supplies.
o Water for steam electric power will be provided by a direct reuse project. • Cooke County o Current groundwater use in Cooke County exceeds TWDB's estimated long-term reliable supply.
o Gainesville is currently developing transmission and treatment facilities to connect to its existing Moss Lake surface water supply. ES-18 
o Muenster is planning to develop a 500 acre-foot per year supply from the proposed Muenster Lake in the next few years. o The Cooke County water supply system will be developed using
raw water from Gainesville's Moss Lake to provide surface water supplies for water users in the county. o Water users will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing surface
supplies. o Water users in Cooke County might consider formation of a groundwater management district. o The Upper Trinity Regional Water District will supply treated water to Valley
View and a portion of Cooke County Other. • Dallas County o Most water user groups in Dallas County will continue to obtain treated water from Dallas Water Utilities and North Texas
Municipal Water District, renewing contracts as they expire. o Irving will complete facilities to bring its water supply from Lake Chapman to Lake Lewisville for treatment by Dallas
and use by Irving. o Irving will develop a supply from Marvin Nichols I Reservoir. ? o Grapevine will implement its authorized direct reuse project. 􀁾􀀠I o Dallas County Other demands
will be met from Dallas Water Utilities, Trinity River Authority reuse projects, and the proposed Marvin Nichols I project. o Water for steam electric power generation and mining will
come from Dallas Water Utilities and a Trinity River Authority reuse project. • Denton County o Current groundwater use in Denton County exceeds TWDB's estimated long-tenn reliable supply.
o Upper Trinity Regional Water District will continue to develop its surface water supply system. Most Denton County water suppliers will purchase raw or treated water from UTRWD. o
Upper Trinity Regional Water District will deliver raw water from Lake Chapman to Lewisville Lake through lines constructed by Irving. o Upper Trinity Regional Water District will develop
reuse of the water imported from Lake Chapman. o Upper Trinity Regional Water District, Denton, and Lewisville will continue to purchase raw water from Dallas Water Utilities. o Lewisville
will purchase raw water from Lake Chapman from UTRWD. ES-19 
o Dallas Water Utilities, North Texas Municipal Water District, and Fort Worth will continue to supply treated water to current customers in Denton County, renewing contracts as they
expire. o Water users will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing surface supplies. o Water userS in Denton County might consider formation of a groundwater management district.
o Trinity River Authority will develop a reuse project for golf course and landscape irrigation. o Additional mining supplies will be obtained from other local supplies. o Water for
steam electric power will be provided by a direct reuse project. • Ellis County o Current groundwater use in Ellis County exceeds TWOB's estimated long-term reliable supply. o The Trinity
River Authority and water suppliers in Ellis County will develop the Ellis County water supply system using raw water from Tarrant Regional Water District, treatment capacity from Waxahachie,
and transmission facilities developed for the project. o Dallas Water Utilities will continue to provide treated waterto Ellis County water suppliers, renewing contracts as they expire.
o Ennis, Mansfield, and Midlothian will obtain raw water from Tarrant Regional Water District. o Milford will continue to <:btain treated water from Files Valley Water Supply Corporation.
o Water users will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing surface supplies. o Water for steam electric power will be provided from Trinity River Authority and Ennis reuse
projects and TRA's Joe Pool Lake and Lake Bardwell. • Fannin County o Fannin County water user groups will develop a regional surface water supply system. o Until that system is developed,
Fannin County water suppliers will continue to rely on groundwater. • Freestone County o Fairfield will develop an additional well in the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. o Wortham will obtain
treated water from Mexia. o Water for steam electric power will be provided from TRWD's RichlandChambers Lake. ES-20 
• Grayson County o Current groundwater use in Grayson County exceeds TWDB's estimated longterm reliable supply. o Development of the Grayson County water supply system is proposed to
deliver water to users throughout the county. The system includes a raw water pipeline from Lake Texoma, a treatment and desalinamn plant, and treated water pipelines. o Water users
will temporarily overdraft groundwater While developing surface supplies. o Water users in Grayson County might consider formation of a groundwater management district. o Denison will
sell treated water to Pottsboro (using raw water rights obtained by Pottsboro). • Henderson County o Most Henderson County water user groups have an adequate supply to meet projected
water demands through 2050. o Malakoff will develop a surface water supply syStem using raw water from 1RWD's Cedar Creek Lake. • Jack County o All Jack County water user groups have
an adequate supply to meet projected water demands through 2050. • Kaufman County o Current groundwater use use in Kaufman County exceeds TWDB's estimate of longterm reliable supply.
o North Texas Municipal Water District, Terrell, and Dallas Water Utilities will continue to supply their current customers in Kaufinan County. o Treated wastewater from Garland will
be reused for steam electric power demand. o Water users will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing surface supplies. o TRWD will supply surfuce water for mining. o Additional
irrigation local supplies will be developed for irrigation demands. • Navarro County o Corsicana will continue to provide treated water fur most of the water stppliers in Navarro County,
and Corsicana has an adequate water supply. o A new well will be developed in the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer for mining use. ES-21 
• Parker County o Current groundwater use in Parker County exceeds TWDB's estimated long-tenn reliable supply. o Weatherford is constructing apump station and 36-inch pipeline to bring
water from Lake Benbrook to Lake Weatherford. That project is planned for completion in 2002. o Weatherford will treat raw water made available by Tarrant Regional Water District and
sell treated water to Aledo, Annetta, Hudson Oaks, and Willow Park, all of which currently use the Trinity aquifer for their water supply. o TRWD will provide additional water for Azle,
Briar, Reno (through Springtown), and Springtown. o Additional county other am manufacturing supplies will be developed from TRWD through Weatherford. o Water for steam electric power
will be provided by reuse of treated wastewater from Weatherford and by water from TRWD's Lake Benbrook. o Water for mining will be provided by increased local water supply diversions.
o Water users will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing surface supplies. o Water users in Parker County might consider formation of a groundwater management district.
• Rockwan County o Dallas Water Utilities will continue to supply the part of Dallas in Rockwall County. o Most water suppliers in Rockwall County will continue to obtain treated water
from North Texas Municipal Water District. o Water for steam electric power will be provided by reuse. • Tarrant County o Current groundwater use in Tarrant County exceeds TWDB estimate
of reliable long-tenn supply. o Tarrant Regional Water District will continue to provide raw water for most of the water suppliers in Tarrant County. o Fort Worth and the Trinity River
Authority's Tarrant County water supply project will continue to supply treated water to many Tarrant County water suppliers, renewing contracts as they expire. o Arlington, Benbrook,
Fort Worth, Mansfield and the Trinity River Authority Tarrant County water supply project \\<ill expand water treatment plants to keep pace with increasing demands. o Kennedale and Pantego
will obtain obtain treated water from Arlington and Fort Worth. ES-22 
o Dallas Water Utilities will provide supplies for Grand Prairie and Grapeviue, renewing contracts as they expire. o Grapeviue will develop its direct reuse project. o Water for steam
electric power and golf course and landscape irrigation will be provided from reuse. o Water users will temporarily overdraft groundwater while developing sur:tace supplies. • Wise County
o Walnut Creek Special Utility District will serve Aurora, Boyd, Newark, and Rhome with treated water, using water purchased from Tarrant Regional Water District. o Alvord will add an
additional well and continue to use the Trinity aquifer. o Briar, Bridgeport, and Decatur will obtain additional supplies from the Tarrant Regional Water District. o Upper Trinity Regional
Water District will supply a portion of county other needs through Bolivar WSC. o Steam electric power needs will be provided by sales from Tarrant Regional Water District. Table ES-6
summarizes the estimated capital costs of the recommended water management strategies for major water providers and (by county) for others. The estimated capital costs for all recommended
water management strategies in the Region C plan total $6,157,941,000. Livestock Demands In 13 of the 16 Region C counties, the estimated county-wide water supply for livestock purposes
can meet projected demands for the county as a whole. However, these overall countywide supply and demand figures do not show areas of shortages that exist within the counties under
drought conditions. The Region C Water Planning Group recommends several special measures to address localized livestock water shortages • Overdrafting of aquifers during droughts •
Local brush control projects • Maintaining existing stock ponds and adding new stock ponds • Improviug and maintaining existing NRCS dams • Survey on agricultural water use to gather
data for future planning. ES-23 
Table ES-6 Capital Costs for Region C Recommemed Water Management Strategies Major Water Provider/County Estimated Capital Cost Major Water Providers • Dallas Water Utilities $1,492,649,000
i Tarrant Regional Water District $1,167,652,000 I North Texas Mwricipal Water District $1,435,447,000 • Fort Worth $221,475,000 i · Trinity River Authority $166,081,000 I I Subtotal
for Ma.ior Water Providers $4,483,304,000 • Others (by County) Collin County $14,371,000 Cooke County $42,380,000 • Dallas County $553,801,000 . Denton County $581,277,000 I Ellis County
$15,232,000 • Fannin County $70,658,000: Freestone County $14,995,000 Grayson County $98,785,000 • Henderson CounJY $7,809,000 : Jack County $0 • Kaufman County $29,912,000 • I Navarro County $5,670,000 • Parker County $83,017,000
Rockwall County I $4,795,000 Tarrant County $83,452,000 Wise County $68,483,000 Subtotal for Others $1,674,637,000 TOTAL FOR REGION C $6,157,941,000 Consistency with the Regional Water
Plan In evaluating consistency with this regional water plan, TNRCC and TWDB should consider the following factors: • Willing buyer/willing seller transactions should be allowed. • Maximum
flexibility should be afforded to water suppliers. Changes in timing, order, amount of supply, and details ofproject development should be allowed. • Consistency requirements should
be waived, ifappropriate. • Small uses that do not affect water supplies should be regarded as consistent with this prnn. . ES-24 
• Projects to repair or replace existing facilities should be regarded as consistent with this plan. • Projects for internal distribution improvements and other projects that do not
involve development or connection of a new supply should be regarded as consistent with this plan. • Projects intended to improve water quality or meet regulatory requirements should
be regarded as consistent with this plan. • Projects that promote regional cooperation should receive state support and be regarded as consistent with this plan. • TWDB and rnRCC should
support fast-track efforts by water suppliers when such efforts are needed. ES·6 Regulatory, Administrative, Legislative, and Other Recommendations The Region C Water Planning Group
makes the following recommendations for regulatory, administrative, legislative, and other changes: • Recommendations related to the Senate Bill One planning process o Allow alternative
strategies for near and long term planning needs. o Encourage TWDB to exercise discretion in the consideration and approval of funding for alternatives not presented as part ofthe regional
water plan. o Encourage 1NRCC to exercise discretion in the consideration and approval of water right permit applications not part of the regional water plan. o Allow regional water
planning groups to assume that contracts for water supply will be renewed when they expire. o Provide clarification of the impact of designating a unique stream segment. • Recommendations
related to rnRCC policy and water rights o Make some water rights exempt from cancellation for ten years ofnon-use. o Reduce the regulatory and legislative obstacles to indirect reuse
of treated wastewater. o Remove barriers to interbasin transfers of water. • Recommendations for state and federal programs to address water supply issues o Increase funding for Texas
Water Development Board loans and the state participation program to assist with the development ofwater supply projects. o Accelerate studies of groundwater availability for the Trinity
aquifer. o Increase state participation in water conservation efforts. ES-25 
o Provide a program for education of board members of Water Supply Corporations, Special Utility Districts, and Municipal Utility Districts. o Increase state participation in watershed
protection planning. o Encourage federal funding for development, maintenance, and upgrading of NRCS structures. o Provide state aSsistance with maintenance and construction of stock
ponds. o Encourage the Texas Agricultural Statistics Service to include water supply questions on its survey offarmers and ranchers. • Recommendations for ecologically unique river and
stream segments o Provide clarification ofthe impacts ofdesignating a unique stream segment. • Recommendations for unique sites for reservoir construction o Marvin Nichols I o Lower
Bois d'Arc Creek o Muenster o Tehuacana ES·7 Plan Approval Process and Public Participation The Region C Water Planning Group made special efforts to inform and seek input from the general
public, water suppliers, and others with special interest in the planning process. Regional Water Planning Group The original legislation for Senate Bill One and the Texas Water Development
Board planning guidelines estab lish regional water planning groups to control the planning process. The Region C Water Planning Group held regular meetings open to the public during
development ofthe plan, including nine meetings in 1998,11 meetings in 1999, and 15 meetings in 2000. Outreach to Water Suppliers and Regional Planning Groups The Region C Water Planning
Group made special efforts to contact water suppliers in the region and obtain their input in the planning process. • The planning group sent out questionnaires early in the Region C
planning seeking information on population and water use projections and other water supply issues. • The planning group appointed a technical review committee composed of experienced
water resource planners to review population and water demand 􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀮􀀠ES-26 
• The planning group instructed its consultants to contact water suppliers as planning progressed. The Region C and Region D water planning groups formed the Sulphur River Task Group,
including members of both water planning groups, to coordinate water supply planning involving· the Sulphur River Basin. As a result of cooperative efforts, both planning groups support
the development of Marvin Nichols I Reservoir on the Sulphur River in Region D Outreach to the Public The Region C Water Planning Group outreach efforts for the public included the following:
• Publication of newsletters to inform the public. • Public awareness presentations to interested groups throughout the region. • Media outreach program to involve the news media. •
Publication ofthe draft ofthe Initially Prepareli Region C Water Plan on the Freese and Nichols web page, at http://www.freese.comlsenbillllregionc/index.htm Public Meetings and Public
Hearings The Region C Water Planning Group has held the following public meetings and hearings to bring the Region C Water Plan to the public: • Required initial meeting on the planning
process. • Public Hearing on population and water use • Five public meetings throughout the region on water needs and potential strategies • Five public meetings and a public hearing
on draft initially prepared plan in September of 2000. Implementation Strategies Section 7.2 of the report includes a discussion of implementation strategies for complex elements ofthe
water supply plan for Region C: • Conservation • Reuse ofreclaimed wastewater • Marvin Nichols I Reservoir • Water from Oklahoma. ES-27 
Texas Water Development Board City Historical and Projected Municipal Use and Population City Name: ADDISON 
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD HISTORICAL & PROJECTED POPULATION AND WATER USE DAlLAS COUNTY YEAR POPULATiON PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL USE iGPCOI MUNICIPAL USE (ACRE.f'EET) MANUFACTURING USE
iACRE-FEET) S.E, POWER USE (ACRE-FEET) MINING use (ACRE-FEET) IRRIGATION (ACRE-FEen LIVESTOCK USE (ACRE-FEET) TOTAL use (ACRE·FEET) 1!l60 1,556,390 207 360.G16 34,440 22,333 4,039 °
45' 421,283 1984 1,735,963 211 410,2:33 28,367 20,364 192 115 4.. 459,125 1985 "'" 1,781,722 1,841,000 21.... 431.737 422.167 28,451 29.m 21,955 15,1CS 642 157 2S<I 250 424 422 483,600
468,569 19B7 1,652,000 20. 42:6.003 25,495 18,998 2,426 250 42'3 473,595 "" 1.854.700 224 465,649 23,444 2.2.342 2,329 125 5" 514,423 1989 1,820,792 201 421,369 27.251 17,194 104 115
512 466,565 1990 1,852,610 210 436,35927,969 16,214 104 100 537 463,283 1991 1992 19'"' '''''.'99'1996 1,874,647 1,BM,SI24 1,938,116 1,962,911 1,979,640 1,9$9,926 19. 19. 2•• 16. 202
204 411,321 422,366 448,164 408,814 447,123 .56.... 24,137 26,152 26.426 26,619 26,169 27,843 11,013 10,710 12:,564 9.3'" 14,539 16,325 2.960 2,981 2,961 2.912 2.96. 2,986 00••1,317
1,196 1,198 1,317 54. "6 791 .62 51. 51' 450,134 453,009 492,243 449,483 <192.531 505,423 200. 2,074,658 233 541,154 33,506 18,000 3,867 100 716 597,945 2010 2,266,828 22fJ 684,935 38,926
20,000 4,376 100 71. 649,055 2020 2,556,793 220 e31,2'11 43.539 20,000 5,124 100 71. 700.128 2030 2.784.704 209 652,703 47,420 23,000 5,878 100 716 729,819 2040 :M4:5,931 210 115,390
56,142 23,000 6,638 100 71. 1302.988 2050 3,259,995 209 163,422 65.650 22,000 4,79:8 100 716 651,eaa 
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD UTILITY DATA TABLE HISTORICAL WATER USE CITY OF ADDISON 
096l 0 0 0 0 0 0 􀁾􀀯0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 I() 0 I() N N 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠uOIJelndod 
OSOZ Oval oral 0:: OWl0 u... ..W ..zmo::1 􀁾􀀠m-J_<011.0 OIOl 0< Z ::I :E aOOl 0661 0261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co .... co It) .... C\I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'"
"" lee::1-'''<>'' 
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD MUNICIPAL USE BY CITY AND RURAL COUNTY SUMMARY FOR DALLAS COUNTY City Name ,I 􀁩􀁏􀁬􀀰􀁾􀀠Use ", Use '''''''1 IBALCH 2315 ..eo 􀁾LL (P-C LL C) 91 LL 'ti02
, (P-C) 299680 EH 6774 3iD (P-GI IGLENN , (P-G 1403 : (P-C) 14829 􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾HL IRVING 469891 ,TER 􀁾􀀠, (P-C) 􀁾􀁌􀁁􀀠I I (P-C 19190 P-C) 1fi '(f C) 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠1 'PARK 59051 I 2.31 COUN'
2361 ' 1 t,.;UUNIY IUIAL >41/04 """ -,241; 11 98 1282 320090 8134 7356 10394 33751 lti"' 14967 21 35166, 419081 3883 􀁾􀀠178301 ,.., 2;441 5720 2>" 38933 """"3' Year Year ,􀀢􀀢􀁾􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠Use'
Use' 􀁾􀀠Use 7461 8495 2429 2095 121 ; 􀀱􀀰􀀹􀁾􀀱974 I' 71 41 105 90 991 9082 10609 􀀳􀀲􀁾321618 􀁾􀁉9286 742' 14081 10858 05001 5131 33320 335091 320341 1783 1852 20351 13037 13289
134651 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠2. 31 397: 144 1032 50257 51525 56576 ,.91 3709 􀁾292 316 23246 2591; 285881 811 83 911 179761 18768 200651 6'631 82,. 10233 􀀲􀀳􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀠2617 2879 2€1i 􀁾III' 5578 567,
59381 2>4 230 216 74093 9618' 130050 031241 6.UU, "6,9" 2050 􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀬􀀺􀁾􀁾'"'" Use 9U91 I 20121 105051 183631 3m 1091 169,0: 331648: i22361 i34781 􀀳􀁾􀀠ii 307E 304, 173: 6304 2061
1457501 753422 NOTES " COUNTY OTHER IS FOR RURAIJUNINCORPORATFDAREAS OR COMMUNITIES OF POPULATION OF LESS THAN 500, 2, (P-R) REPRESENTS A CITY THAT IS IN PARTIAUY TWO OR MORE RIVER BASINS.
3, (P-C) REPRESENTS A CITY THAT IS IN PARTIALLY TWO OR MORE COUNTIES, 
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD POPULATION BY CITY AND RURAL COUNTY SUMMARY FOR DALLAS COUNTY I City Name 􀁹􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀲􀁾􀀠Year 2010 Year 2020 Year20aO Year 2040 Year 2050 I _TON (P-C) t
HILL (P-C) C( ,HILL : (P-C) )ALLAS (P-C) DE SOTe H , (P-C) Mel"M I " (P-C) : (P-C) • (P-C) 'PARK 􀁾􀁲􀀧􀀢􀀠: (P-C) ITE )VILLA (P-C) ON (P-C) , (P-C) , (P-C) COUNTY OTHER COUNTY TOTAL
219981 483871 272031 4057 504 23368 3557' 39323 25381 196391 5010 88257 99 8905 3085 24640 768 319 73526 24189 9'l82 12346 2666 22528 2665 61174 <w""", 1382 16128 c. 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀀸􀁾􀀵􀀲􀁾􀁾􀀲􀁾�
�􀀲􀀴􀁾􀁅􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀻􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾__--"'"56'51O:;:Z:227;+-__􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠37205 48309 􀁾􀀠79688 101196 4 53 4270 􀁾􀀠4070 3882 32 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀴􀀺􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀷􀀰􀁾􀀰􀀸􀀵􀀴􀀰􀀵􀀱􀀭􀁟􀀭􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀸􀀹􀀧􀀻􀀻911,31
878 1039119 1071352 1146878 45670 55264 63870 71902 80944 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁏􀀭􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁲􀁾􀀸􀁾􀀬􀀸􀀧􀀱􀀹􀀵􀀠213697 􀁾􀀥􀀯􀁕􀁏􀁾􀀠225185 "'''''0
5972 6889 776 8569 9459 95439 9E9ge 1 02741 110 122 13 146 156 907' 9497 10137 1, 11858 3594 2ge 5235 793e 2ru l10 22ii994 􀀲􀀵􀁾􀀠28184 3( r59 32146 314351 3074C 1021 1352 161' 1869
2168 366 76162 31309 15948 18938 3413 22797 2840 110613 424 483 532 81876 86364 9281 ' 􀀳􀁾􀀻􀀠􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀡􀀠􀁾􀀠!4, 2.16 25938 42921 5448 6843 23163 24008 25610 3027 3155 3059 405211 586
99739 􀁾􀀠277611 85951 273191 29661 NOTES 1. COUNTY OTHER IS FOR RURALJUNINCORPATED AREAS OR COMMUNITIES OF POPULATION OF LESS THAN 500, 2. (P-R) REPRESENTS A CITY THAT IS IN PARTIALLY
TWO OR MORE RIVER BASINS. 3. (P-C) REPRESENTS A CITY THAT IS IN PARTIALLY TWO OR MORE COUNTIES, 
TWDS Historical and Projected Population For Dallas County 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 c: 2,000,000 .9 1ii "S 1--POPULATiON] 0. o 0.. 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 o o a a a o a a a
􀁾gJ 8l 8 o g: gJ 􀁾􀀠:g 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'" '" '" '" '" '" Year 
TWDB Historical and Projected Water Use for Dallas County 1,000,000 􀁾􀀭􀁾-------------------------------, 900,000 +1------'-------------------------; ",0,000+-􀁾􀁾􀀠700,000 +-􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀁾􀀮---600,000 􀁾􀀠 􀀯􀁾 500,000 * f :£ 􀁾􀀠400,000 v 300,000 "-200,000 100,000 I o III 􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀭􀁾.. --_....._-• • • • • 0 '" '" 􀁾􀀠0 m Ol 􀁾􀀠0 0 0 '" 0 􀁾􀀠0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '"
<:) '" 0 .". 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" Year 􀁦􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀭􀁍􀁕􀁎􀁉􀁃􀁉􀁐􀁁􀁌􀀭􀁌􀁊􀁓􀁾􀀠__􀁍􀁁􀁎􀁕􀁆􀁁􀁃􀁔􀁕􀁾􀀺􀁇􀀠USE I S.E. POWER USE . __MINING USE __IRRIGATION __LIVESTOCK USE TOTAL USE

-.-.-'.. ... -.. "", ,..-. .: .", . -.-" ,' . . . :;..,:.', i All: l0i , I fler'-􀁲􀀦􀁾􀁾􀀨􀁊􀀠􀁾􀀺s . . ! ! i''6',,'>1" :t vJwlJ );Ii..< Ie􀀧􀀷􀁾􀀠IL-􀁲􀁾􀁹􀁾􀀠􀁢􀁾􀁫􀀬􀁌􀀭;1rob> 􀁾􀀠9L1:1-.-;...
'" . . _. .. . .;;': 􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀠-. ..' ... '---.--" .' , :, ..... ".:.-. 
REGION C WATER PLANNING GROUP Senate Bill 1 -Texas Water Development Board Board Me""'.,. Terrace W. Stewart, Chair James M. Parks, Vice-Cllair Ray J. Eaton, Secretary BradBamcs fArcy
A. Burch Jerry W. Chapman Howard Martin Jim McCarter William W. Meadows Elaine I, PetnlS Dr. Paul Plriilips Irvin M, Rice Robert O. Scott George Shannon Connie Sramiridge Danny Vance
Judge Tom Vandergriff Mary E. VQgelson Paul Zweiacker clo NTMWD 505 E. Brown Street P. O. Box 2408 Wylie, Texas 75098-2408 9721442-5405 9721442·540SlFax N'rMWD@airmail.net March 23,
1999 TO: WATER PLANNING REGION C CITIES AND TOWNS Subject: Population and Water Use Projections for Regional Water Planning In 1997, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 to address
water supply issues. Among other provisions, Senate Bill 1 initiated regional water planning efforts across the state. The bill called for the fonnation of regional water planning groups
to take the lead in the regional planning efforts. Your city is in Region C, and the members of the the regional water planning group are listed on this letter. The enclosed brochure
shows a map of Region C and gives more information about the regional water planning process which is now under way. The Region C Water Planning Group has selected a team of consultants
led by Freese and Nichols, Inc., to help with the development of a regional water plan. Other members of the consulting team include Alan Plummer Associates, Chiang, Patel and Yerby,
and Cooksey-McGill Communications. As instructed by the legislature, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has fonnulated regulations governing the preparation of regional water supply
plans through' the year 2050. These regulations require that regional water plans be based on projections of population and water use developed by the TWDB in 1996 for use in the 1997
Texas Water Plan, unless the regional water planning group can provide convincing evidence that those projections shOUld be updated. With this letter, we are attaching a survey seeking
infonnation from you to help us determine whether the previous TWDB projections are appropriate for your city or whether they should be revised. This infonnation is very important because
the projections of water use will be the basis for all of our water planning efforts. The TWDB has provided guidance for changing projections of population and water use, and we can
send you a copy upon request. The TWDB will make changes to population and water use projections only if the Regional Planning Groups recommend the new infonnation. To help you fill
out the survey, we are providing some information on historical and projected water use in your city: 
Table of Historical Water Use for Your City. The data in this table were provided by the TWDB based on your city's annual reports of water use. Perhaps the key column is the "municipal
result", which represents non-industrial water use by your customers. It is computed as the total water intake (self-supplied water plus purchases) minus wholesale sales to other suppliers,
minus sales to major industries, minus sales to power plants, minus any other sales of raw water. The "municipal result" is hased on water pumping rather than on metered water sales
and thus includes system losses. Table of Projected PopUlation and Municipal Water Use for Your City. This table presents the projections ofpopulation and municipal water use for your
city developed by the TWDB for the 1997 water plan. The projections are for values within your city limits, and the municipal water use is for a dry (high-use) year. The municipal water
use is comparable to the "municipal result" column in the table of historical water use. It does not include wholesale sales to other suppliers, sales to industries, etc. Note that the
table includes TWDB projections of dry-year per capita water use. These are generally declining because TWDB believes that water conservation will significantly reduce per capita demands
across the state. Table of Historical and Projected Total PopUlation and Water Use for Your County. This table presents the TWDB projections of population and water use by category for
your county. Graph of Historical and Projected Population for Your City. This graph shows TWDB historical and projected population for your city. Graph of Historical and Projected Municipal
Water Use for Your City. This graph shows TWDB historical and projected munidpal water use for your city. As with the tables, the municipal water use does not include wholesale sales
to other suppliers, sales to industries, etc. Ifyou have any questions or want additional information as you review these data and fill out the questionnaire, please call Larry D. Rivers,
P.E., of Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc., at 817540-4220. Your assistance in returning the questionnaire by April 23, 1999 is needed. We very much appreciate your attention and cooperation
in reviewing these data, which will provide the basis for long range water supply planning in your region. Yours very tmly, 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠Terrace Stewart, P.E. Chairman Region C Water Planning
Group 
-------------------------------------------------------________________________________________________________ __ Region C Water Planning Group Population and Water Use Projections
Survey of Cities RETURN BY APRIL 23, 1999 City: 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁭􀁣􀁴􀁐􀁥􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀺􀀠Telephone Number: _____________ FAX: _____.E-Mail,_____ Address: ________________Date Completed'---_______ 1.
Are the TWDB projections of population for your city reasonable? If not, what quantimtive projections would you suggest? What is the basis for your suggested changes? 2. Are the TWDB
projections of municipal water use for your city reasonable? If not, what quantimtive projections would you suggest? What is the basis for your suggested changes? 3. Please give your
comments on the TWDB projections for county population and water use. 4. What source(s) of water supply does your city use currently? 5. Is your city planning to develop additional source(s)
of water supply in the future? Ifso, please provide quantity in each source and location? 6. Do you you currently provide raw water or treated water to any other water suppliers? Please
list other 􀁳􀁵􀁰􀁰􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠for which you provide raw water and the amount you provided to each of them in 1998. Please list other 􀁳􀁵􀁰􀁰􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠for which you provide treated water
and the amount you provided to each of them in 1998. 
7. Do you expect to discontinue providing water to any of these suppliers or to begin providing water to any additional suppliers'! Ifso, what changes do you expect'! 8. Please provide
copies of any water supply plans your city bas prepared which you would like to have considered in the development of a regional water supply plan. 9. Does your city have a conservation
and drought contingency plan? If so, please provide a copy. 10. Please give any other comments you have on the regional water planning process. Use the hack (or other sheets) ifneeded.
Please return to: Larry D. Rivers, P.E. Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. 4100 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 104 Ft. Worth, Texas 76155 TEL: (817) 540-4220 FAX: (817) 354-4935 
Shimek. Jacobs & Finklea Dallas Water Utilities has projected the following delivery rate to the Town: 􀀮􀁾􀀠-yf 7.63 2010 8.98 2020 9.87 2030 10.48 2040 10.89 2050 11.16 I)..c.. rz.G
-fr-􀀧􀁢􀁊􀀺􀁦􀁱􀁾􀀠-:; 11-#1 10(1Jft/p 􀀺􀀻􀁌􀀱􀀬􀁾􀁲􀀻􀀻"'11067 (?/).2-tb'" ;..:;. .Ji-,It? 11,11g --33,41 1:2-,2-0 7 .::; 5£(1-4 1'1_/3/0 The delivery rate required for this system
is the maximum daily demand rate which is 9.75 MGD at Buildout. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The analysis and design of the water distribution system has been based on the total water demand
anticipated, as well as, the geographical distribution of this demand. The existing line sizes were reviewed and the proposed lines sized to deliver the maximum hourly demand in the
system of 16.42 MGD and to refill the existing elevated storage tank during the minimum hourly demand. The analysis was based on the ultimate development ofAddison. All existing lines
are adequate to convey the maximum hourly demands. 1) Surveyor Pump Station and Ground Storage Reservoir This facility is located on Surveyor Drive just north of Belt Line Road. Three
high service pumps are located at this site along with one 2 million gallon prestressed concrete ground storage reservoir. Each pump is identical and have a rated capacity of approximately
5.5 MGD. This station is schematically shown in Figure 5. This station has a single supply from Dallas Water Utilities Transmission Line between their Elm Fork Treatment Plant and their
Beltwood Station. 1996 Water Distribution System Report Page 5