Impact of Drought on U.S. Steam 

Electric Power Plant Cooling Water 

Intakes and Related Water 

Resource Management Issues 

April 2009 

DOE/NETL-2009/1364 
Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, 

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned 

rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The 

views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the 

United States Government or any agency thereof.
Impact of Drought on U.S. Steam Electric Power Plant 

Cooling Water Intakes and 

Related Water Resource Management Issues 

DOE/NETL-2009/1364 

April 2009 

NETL Contact: Barbara Carney 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

www.netl.doe.gov 
This page intentionally left blank 
iii

Table of Contents 

IMPACT OF DROUGHT ON U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANT 

COOLING WATER INTAKES AND 

RELATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 

Extent of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 1

Meeting Cooling Water Demands in a Water-Constrained Environment ......................... 2 

Purpose and Structure of the Report .................................................................................. 3 

Chapter 2 – Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes......................................... 5 

Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 5 

Data Analysis and Filtering ............................................................................................... 6 

Database Description ......................................................................................................... 7 

Database Assumptions....................................................................................................... 8 

Chapter 3 – Database Evaluation............................................................................................. 11

Evaluation of Intake Distance from Shore......................................................................... 11 

Evaluation of Intake Depth from Surface .......................................................................... 15 

Case Examples for Multiple Plants on the Same Water Body........................................... 19 

Chapter 4 – Legal Issues and Agreements Affecting Water Availability................................ 23 

 Overview............................................................................................................................ 23 

Water Commissions and Compacts ................................................................................... 24 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.................................................... 26 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission ....................................................................... 27 

Delaware River Basin Commission............................................................................. 30 

Tennessee Valley Authority......................................................................................... 31 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission....................................................... 33 

Great Lakes Basin Compact......................................................................................... 34 

Columbia River Gorge Commission............................................................................ 35 

Colorado River Authorities.......................................................................................... 37 

Western Water Rights Overview ........................................................................................ 39 

Federal and State Programs ................................................................................................ 40 

Federal Programs ......................................................................................................... 40 

State Programs ............................................................................................................. 40 

Chapter 5 – Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................... 47 

Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes....................................................... 47 
iv

Distance for Power Plant Intakes....................................................................................... 47 

Depth of Power Plant Intakes ............................................................................................ 48 

Commissions, Compacts, and Federal/State Programs ..................................................... 49 

References and Organizations Contacted ................................................................................ 51 

Appendix A – Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes (Selected Fields)......... A-1 

Appendix B – Database of Power Plants Filtered Out (Selected Fields)................................ B-1 

List of Figures 

1 Recent National Report from the U.S. Drought Monitor .................................................. 1 

2 Distribution of Power Plants Included in Project Database Nationwide ........................... 7 

3 Page 11 from the 2005 EIA-767 Form .............................................................................. 9 

4 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for All Power Plants.......... 12 

5 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Coal-Fired 

Power Plants....................................................................................................................... 13 

6 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Natural GasFired Power Plants ............................................................................................................. 13 

7 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants 

Located on Rivers and Creeks ........................................................................................... 14 

8 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants 

 Located on Lakes and Reservoirs ...................................................................................... 14 

9 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for All Power Plants ........... 17 

10 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Coal-Fired 

and Oil-Fired Power Plants................................................................................................ 17 

11 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Natural GasFired Power Plants ............................................................................................................. 18 

12 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Nuclear Power Plants.... 18 

13 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants 

Located on Rivers and Creeks ........................................................................................... 19 
v

List of Figures (Cont.) 

14 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants 

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs ...................................................................................... 19 

15 Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface Water Allocation ........................................ 24 

16 Potomac River Basin showing Current Reservoir Sites .................................................... 26 

17 Susquehanna River Basin and Subbasins .......................................................................... 28 

18 Delaware River Basin Showing Major Tributaries............................................................ 30 

19 Tennessee Valley Authority Jurisdiction........................................................................... 32 

20 Ohio River Basin................................................................................................................ 33 

21 Great Lakes Basin Map...................................................................................................... 34 

22 Columbia River Basin........................................................................................................ 36 

23 Lower Colorado Region..................................................................................................... 38 

24 Upper Colorado Region ..................................................................................................... 38 

25 Status of State Program Drought Planning ........................................................................ 41 

List of Tables 

1 Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Intake Distance from Shore 

for All Categories............................................................................................................... 15 

2 Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Intake Depth from Surface 

for All Categories............................................................................................................... 20 
vi

This page intentionally left blank 
vii

Prepared by: 

Todd A. Kimmell 

Argonne National Laboratory 

John A. Veil 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357 
viii

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) Existing Plants research program for entrusting Argonne 

National Laboratory with the responsibility for conducting the scope of work for this project in a 

thorough and unbiased manner. 

In addition, Argonne would like to thank the numerous organizations contacted for information 

as input to the report, and offer special thanks to the individuals within these organizations for 

their thoughtful insights and the informative documentation provided. These include the 

following: 

Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

Columbia River Gorge Commission 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

Edison Electric Institute 

Electric Power Research Institute 

Great Lakes Basin Compact 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 

Interstate Council on Water Policy 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Upper Colorado River Commission 

Utility Water Act Group 

Washington State Conservation Commission 

Western States Water Council 
1

Chapter 1 – Introduction 

Extent of the Problem 

This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) Existing Plants Research Program, which has an energy-water 

research effort that focuses on water use at power plants. This study complements their overall 

research effort by evaluating water availability at power plants under drought conditions. 

According to the National Drought Policy Commission, which was established in July 1998 

when the 105th Congress enacted the National Drought Policy Act (Public Law 105-199), 

drought will occur at some time every year in the United States and can and does extend over 

long periods of time and across large geographical areas (NDPC 2000). Drought can also be 

more localized in nature, affecting smaller areas over shorter periods of time. Examination of 

the U.S. Drought Monitor archive, a program funded by several federal agencies and operated by 

the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (http://drought.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.HTML), confirms 

this. Examination of historical records within the archives of the Drought Monitor reveals that 

there really is no time when some area within the United States is not experiencing at least some 

level of drought. Figure 1 shows the drought conditions across the United States as of January 6, 

2008. 

Figure 1 – Recent National Report from the U.S. Drought Monitor 

(Source: http://drought.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.HTML) 
2

During the summer and fall of 2007, a serious drought affected the southeastern United States. 

As shown in Figure 1, a part of this area of the country is still experiencing extreme drought. In 

2007, river flows in the southeast decreased, and water levels in lakes and reservoirs dropped. In 

some cases, water levels were so low that power production at some power plants had to be 

stopped or reduced. The problem for power plants becomes acute when river, lake, or reservoir 

water levels fall near or below the level of the water intakes used for drawing water for cooling. 

A related problem occurs when the temperature of the surface water increases to the point where 

the water can no longer be used for cooling. In this case, the concern is with discharge of heated 

water used for cooling back into waterways that are just too warm to keep temperatures at levels 

required to meet state water quality standards. Permits issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program limit power plants from 

discharging overly heated water. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Gallatin 

Fossil Plant is not permitted to discharge water used for cooling back into the Cumberland River 

that is higher than 90oF (WSMV Nashville 2007). 

The southeast experienced particularly acute drought conditions in August 2007. As a result, 

nuclear and coal-fired plants within the TVA system were forced to shut down some reactors 

(e.g., the Browns Ferry facility in August 2007) and curtail operations at others. This problem 

has not been limited to the 2007 drought in the southeastern United States. A similar situation 

occurred in August 2006 along the Mississippi River (Exelon Quad Cities Illinois plant). Other 

plants in Illinois and some in Minnesota were also affected (Union of Concerned Scientists 

2007). Given the current prolonged drought being experienced in the western United States 

(see also Figure 1), and also the scarcity of water resources in this region in general, many 

western utilities and power authorities are also beginning to examine the issue. The problem has 

also been experienced in Europe as well. During a serious drought in 2003, France was forced to 

reduce operations at many of its nuclear power plants (Union of Concerned Scientists 2007). 

Meeting Cooling Water Demands in a Water-Constrained Environment 

Situations of extreme drought, in addition to being associated with prolonged lower precipitation, 

are often accompanied by excessively high temperatures. Demand for power during these times, 

for example, for use in air conditioning, is very high. If power plants reduce or close down 

operations, electricity can usually be obtained from other generators through the grid; however, 

the cost of power in this situation will also increase. During the summer of 2007, TVA could not 

generate as much power as was needed, so additional electricity was purchased on the market, at 

higher cost than could be generated within the TVA system. These costs were passed on to 

consumers (WSMV Nashville 2007). 

In addition to the utilities and power plants, there are a number of other competing users for 

water. Cities and municipalities draw water for use by the general population. For example, 

about 15 million people use water from the Delaware River Basin for household and industrial 

purposes. In addition to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area, about seven million people from 

New York and northern New Jersey also rely on the Delaware River Basin for drinking water. 

New York City itself draws about half of its water from three of the large reservoirs located 

within the Delaware River Basin (DRBC 2007). 
3

The Delaware River also is used for industrial water supply and irrigation. An additional 

concern, especially during drought conditions, is that enough water be maintained in water 

systems to support the local water system ecology. Recreational water use for boaters and 

fishermen has also entered into the equation, as has uses of the primary river systems in the 

United States for commercial navigation. One of the most long-standing disputes involving 

these issues has involved the Klamath River Basin in southern Oregon and northern California. 

The ongoing drought in this area has aggravated the problems of “too many users for too little 

water,” causing tensions between farmers, fishermen, and Indian tribes over water in the 

Klamath Basin of southern Oregon for a number of years. Many news stories and Internet 

articles can be found on this subject. The National Academies of Science National Research 

Council (NRC) has also published a number of reports on this subject (NRC 2008). 

It is likely that in coming years competing water demands will increase across the United States. 

It is also possible, considering global warming, that climatic conditions will become warmer or 

at least more variable, thereby exacerbating future droughts and additional conflicts over 

competing uses. This is one of the primary themes outlined in a recent report of the Interstate 

Council of Water Policy (ICWP) (ICWP 2006), and in similar reports, such as one issued by the 

U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. Government Accountability Office) (GAO) in 

2003 (GAO 2003). 

Purpose and Structure of the Report 

While there are a number of competing demands on water uses, particularly during drought 

conditions, this report focuses solely on impacts to the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet. 

Included are both fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants. One plant examined also uses biomass as 

a fuel. 

The purpose of this project is to estimate the impact on generation capacity of a drop in water 

level at U.S. steam electric power plants due to climatic or other conditions. While, as indicated 

above, the temperature of the water can impact decisions to halt or curtail power plant 

operations, this report specifically examines impacts as a result of a drop in water levels below 

power plant submerged cooling water intakes. Impacts due to the combined effects of excessive 

temperatures of the returned cooling water and elevated temperatures of receiving waters (due to 

high ambient temperatures associated with drought) may be examined in a subsequent study. 

For this study, the sources of cooling water used by the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet 

were examined. This effort entailed development of a database of power plants and cooling 

water intake locations and depths for those plants that use surface water as a source of cooling 

water. Development of the database and its general characteristics are described in Chapter 2 of 

this report. Examination of the database gives an indication of how low water levels can drop 

before cooling water intakes cease to function. Water level drops are evaluated against a number 

of different power plant characteristics, such as the nature of the water source (river vs. lake or 

reservoir) and type of plant (nuclear vs. fossil fuel). This is accomplished in Chapter 3. 

In Chapter 4, the nature of any compacts or agreements that give priority to users (i.e., which 

users must stop withdrawing water first) is examined. This is examined on a regional or 
4

watershed basis, specifically for western water rights, and also as a function of federal and state 

water management programs. 

Chapter 5 presents the findings and conclusions of this study. 

In addition to the above, a related intent of this study is to conduct preliminary modeling of how 

lowered surface water levels could affect generating capacity and other factors at different 

regional power plants. If utility managers are forced to take some units out of service or reduce 

plant outputs, the fuel mix at the remaining plants and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions 

may change. Electricity costs and other factors may also be impacted. Argonne has conducted 

some modeling based on the information presented in the database described in Chapter 2 of this 

report. A separate report of the modeling effort has been prepared (Poch et al. 2009). In 

addition to the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet, this modeling also includes an evaluation of 

power production of hydroelectric facilities. The focus of this modeling is on those power plants 

located in the western United States. 
5

Chapter 2 – Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes 

In order to conduct the above analyses, one of the most important pieces of information that was 

needed was identification of the various plants nationwide that make up the U.S. steam electric 

power plant fleet, including both those that use fossil fuels and those that employ nuclear power. 

Many other data inputs were also critical data to the analysis. The key data needed were as 

follows: 

• Plant name 

• Plant state 

• Plant location (latitude/longitude) 

• Utility name 

• Nameplate rating (e.g., generating capacity, preferably in megawatts) 

• Plant status (e.g., operating, out-of-service, standby) 

• Fuel type (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, nuclear) 

• Cooling identification (intake) 

• Cooling type (e.g., once through, closed cycle, combination) 

• Rate of withdrawal (from the cooling intake) 

• Rate of discharge (to the receiving water body) 

• Rate of consumption (water used during the process) 

• Cooling water source (e.g., river, reservoir) 

• Intake depth below surface (from normal flow or pool) 

• Intake distance from shoreline (at normal flow or pool) 

• Intake rate (at 100% generation) 

Data Sources 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) is one source of 

much of this information. EIA has been collecting the type of information referred to above 

annually since 1949 and accumulating it in a database commonly referred to as “the 767 

database.” The EIA-767 form was used by the EIA to collect the information annually through 

2005 from all U.S. plants with a total existing or planned organic-fueled or combustible 

renewable steam-electric unit that has a generator nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or larger 

(EIA 2005a). The EIA-767 form was replaced in 2007 by two new forms (EIA-860 and EIA923). 

At the time this report was prepared, the most recent year of available EIA data was 2005; this 

was used to develop the project database. The 2005 EIA-767 form does not include information 

on nuclear plants. The last year in which that form contained nuclear plant data was 2000. 

Therefore, for the nuclear plants, data were obtained from the 2000 EIA-767 form data collection 

effort (EIA 2000). 

The EIA-767 data are used for economic analyses conducted by DOE. The data collected on this 

form are used to monitor the current status and trends in the electric power industry and to 
6

evaluate the future of the industry. The data are also used in preparing the Electric Power 

Annual (EIA, prepared annually) and the Annual Energy Review (EIA, prepared annually).

Following data analysis and filtering (see below), the EIA data were provided to the Edison 

Electric Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Utility Water Act Group in an 

attempt to identify any errors and to update the information. Several adjustments were made to 

the database as a result of the above contacts. In addition, as part of the effort to examine legal 

issues and agreements affecting water availability during droughts (Chapter 4), a number of 

different types of water authorities (compacts, commissions, councils, and state programs) 

representing different regions and watersheds nationwide were contacted for information. 

Several of these contacts led to additional refinement of the database. For example, in one case, 

a power plant that had been decommissioned between 2005 and the present was removed from 

further consideration. 

Data Analysis and Filtering 

The data collected through EIA’s 767 form are maintained in a series of database files that focus 

on specific data elements, such as general plant information, boiler generator, and boiler cooling 

intakes. Each file is organized differently, but the common identifier in each file is a utility and 

plant code. These codes were used to extract needed data elements from each file and then 

combine them all into a project database, created using Microsoft Excel®, containing all of the 

data elements needed for this study. 

Many of the power plants employ multiple boilers and multiple cooling water intakes. Typically, 

there is an intake for each boiler. The project database included a separate row for each boiler 

and for each cooling intake, which then needed to be combined so that each cooling water intake 

was paired with the correct boiler. This data compilation was conducted for every power plant 

included in the 767 system, including both the fossil fuel/biomass systems (2005) and the nuclear 

systems (2000). The resulting project database therefore often included multiple entries for each 

power plant. Including multiple boilers and cooling intakes for each power plant, the initial 

project database included 1,338 entries (rows). 

In order to make the database more representative and useful for the purpose of the study, it was 

necessary to apply several types of filtering to remove incomplete or non-applicable data. For 

example, in the process of extracting the needed information from each file and creating the 

project database, it became apparent that each utility, and sometimes each power plant within 

each utility, entered information into the EIA data submittal differently. Interpretation of the 

entered data was frequently necessary. In many cases, data were missing, and, in some cases, it 

was difficult to determine an exact match between cooling intakes and the boiler. Where the 

validity of the data entry was in question, we chose to exclude the power plant (or, in some 

cases, just one or more cooling intake/boiler from the power plant) from further analysis. 

In addition, the project database was further refined by removing those plants that draw cooling 

water from non-surface water supplies (e.g., wastewater systems, ground water), since the focus 

of the study was on drought and surface waters. Although droughts can affect ground water 

elevation levels, we were not able to take that into account; therefore, the project database was 
7

limited to just those plants that withdraw surface waters for cooling. In addition, the database 

was further refined by removing those plants that draw their cooling water from tidal zones 

(saline water). During drought, the levels of tidal waters are unaffected or minimally affected. 

In addition, considering the affects of global warming, melting of glaciers and ice caps will 

likely result in an increase of water level. The increase in water level in tidal areas associated 

with global warming presents a different type of problem for power plants located in coastal 

areas; however, this issue is not further evaluated in this report. 

Finally, the most critical data needed for the study were the depths of the submerged water 

intakes. If this data was missing for a particular intake, the database was further revised by 

removing the intake (and sometimes an entire power plant). 

Database Description 

After the filtering described above, the final project database, still containing individual data for 

each intake/boiler combination, was reduced to a total of 829 entries (rows). After combining 

intake/boiler information from each power plant into one data entry (row) for each power plant 

in the project database, the database covered 423 power plants. Figure 2 shows the approximate 

location of each power plant using latitude/longitude information and a geographic information 

system (GIS) program. 

Figure 2 – Distribution of Power Plants Included in Project Database Nationwide
8

Overall, the database consists of the following: 

• 423 total power plants 

• Power plants in 44 states 

• 293 power plants that draw cooling water from rivers (including creeks and canals) 

• 130 power plants that draw cooling water from lakes or reservoirs (includes some cooling 

ponds) 

• 257 coal-fired power plants 

• 105 natural gas-fired power plants 

• 46 nuclear power plants 

• 9 fuel oil-fired power plants 

• 1 combination fuel oil/natural gas power plant 

• 1 biomass power plant 

• 4 power plants where the fuel was unspecified 

The resulting database of the 423 power plants, showing selected fields, is presented as 

Appendix A to this report. Appendix B provides a list of power plants filtered out, showing the 

reason for excluding each power plant. In total, 193 plants were removed. 

Database Assumptions

As indicated above under “Data Sources,” the 767 database was populated by individual utilities 

and power plants. Many times, data were entered differently by each utility and power plant, 

often requiring some interpretation. Also as indicated above, the project database created for the 

purpose of this study was provided to select industrial and utility associates for review, and in the 

process of doing this, a number of errors in the database were identified and corrected. On the 

positive side, few errors overall were found, and many of the errors dealt with utility and power 

plant names and owners. The most critical data for this analysis is the depth of the submerged 

intakes and distance from the shoreline, and there was only one instance where a power plant 

identified an error in intake depth. 

One very important caveat to the data used in our project database is that we have no way to 

verify if the original data were entered correctly into the EIA-767 form. The EIA-767 form 

contains only minimal guidance for supplying data (see Figure 3 below, specifically line 19 on 

page 11 of the actual 2005 form — the only advice provided was to enter the data as feet). 

Overall, the separate instructions provided by EIA to those persons or companies completing the 

EIA-767 form were not particularly helpful for most of the cooling water data fields. For 

example, the only instructions given for the most relevant piece of data, the depth of the intake, 

are included in the following: 

For lines 18 through 21, if the cooling system is a zero discharge type (RC, RF, RI, RN), 

do not complete column (b). The intake and the outlet are the points where the cooling 

system meets the source of cooling water found on line 4. For all longitude and latitude 

coordinates, please provide degrees, minutes, and seconds. 
9

Figure 3 – Page 11 from the 2005 EIA-767 Form (Source: EIA 2005b) 

In addition, nothing in the 767 form instructions is mentioned about how to select the surface 

water elevation baseline from which the depth of the intake is measured. For example, a plant 

located on a large river could use the elevation of the surface water resulting from long-term 

average flow, or could take a maximum or minimum elevation. A second source of variation is 

where on the intake structure the depth of the intake is measured. Most power plants have very 

large intake structures or pipes that typically are several feet in diameter. In order to express the 

depth of the intake below the surface, a utility respondent could select the top of the intake, the 

bottom of the intake, or a midpoint value. Similarly, no guidance is provided in the form on how 

to determine distance from shore. For example, distance could be measured from the intake to 

the shoreline, from the intake to the power plant property line, or even to the point where the 

cooling water enters the power plant. 

No space is allocated on the form for providing comments on how data were derived. Without 

detailed guidance from EIA, a range of baseline elevations and distance from shore is possible. 

We have no way of determining which points of reference were used to measure the entered 

values. Therefore, we must rely on the actual numbers entered in the database as our only source 

of information addressing intake depth and distance from shore. We make no assumption 

regarding the basis for the measurements and must accept the values as provided. 

The database for fossil fuels represents data collected in 2005, and the database for nuclear plants 

represents data collected in 2000. An additional assumption has to be that the data collected in 
10

2005 (for fossil fuel plants) and in 2000 (for nuclear plants) are still relevant in 2009. Since few 

changes in power plant operation and design have taken place in the last few years, the 

assumption that the data collected are reflective of conditions today is believed to be valid. 

An additional consideration regarding the above assumptions is that, in general, the intent of this 

report is not to identify concerns for individual power plants or even power plants in regional 

locations. The intent, rather, is to identify trends in intake depth below the water surface and 

intake distance from the shoreline, and to determine whether there may be a concern regarding a 

reduction in electrical generation capacity during droughts. Our assumption is that the project 

database is adequate for this purpose. 
11

Chapter 3 – Database Evaluation 

In this chapter, the database is examined to give an indication of how low water levels can drop 

before a cooling water intakes cease to function. Distance of the intake from the shoreline is also 

evaluated because of the inferred relationship between that metric and intake water quality and 

temperature. We assume the closer the intake is to the shoreline the greater the potential for 

degraded water quality and impaired cooling capability. Although a water level decline may not 

result in the water falling below the level of the intake, a water decline can result in the shoreline 

being much closer to the intake, causing higher intake temperatures and suspended solids 

content, which may impact the ability of the power plant to use the water effectively for cooling. 

The distance of the intakes from the shoreline and intake depth are evaluated separately below. 

Distance and depth are evaluated against a number of different power plant characteristics, such 

as the nature of the water source (i.e., river vs. lake or reservoir) and the type of plant (nuclear 

vs. fossil fuel). Case examples are then discussed that examine issues for a water body that 

supports multiple power plants. 

It should be noted that many river and reservoir systems can be operated by effective use of 

dams so as to maximize certain uses, such as maintaining navigation channels, preserving 

ecosystem health, and enabling continued power plant operations – even during drought. 

Priority uses of water during drought are evaluated in Chapter 4. Given the time and budget 

constraints for this study, we were not able to evaluate whether water levels are actively 

managed on a water body by water body basis. Therefore, our assumption for the analyses 

below is that water levels are not managed so as to enable continued power plant operations. 

Evaluation of Intake Distance from Shore 

While the project database contained many data points for each power plant on the depth of the 

intakes from the water surface, there were far fewer data presented for intake distance from the 

shoreline. Of the total of nine oil-fired plants, data on intake distance from shore were presented 

for only four of the plants (1, 25, 660, and 850 feet). For the one oil/gas combination plant in the 

database, no data were provided for intake distance from shore. In addition, there were four 

plants in the project database that did not show the fuel source; for these plants, only one data 

point was provided for intake distance from shore (20 feet). For the remaining plants, less than 

half provided data on intake distance from shore. 

The data provided regarding intake distance from shore are examined in this report in five data 

ranges, as follows: 

• 0 ft 

• 1 to 10 ft 

• 11 to 100 ft 

• 101 to 1,000 ft 

• Greater than 1,000 ft 
12

These data ranges were determined as being the best manner of presentation from a visual 

examination of the data across all plants. 

Many plants provided data on intake distance from shore as “0” feet. It is unknown whether the 

intakes were literally located at the shoreline, or whether the data were entered into the original 

EIA-767 database incorrectly. In addition, there were two instances where data on intake 

distance from shore showed distances greater than a mile (e.g., 7,920 and 8,000 ft). One possible 

explanation for power plants having intakes located far from shore may be the desire to draw 

water from locations where the water may be deeper and/or cooler than it would be if it were 

drawn from locations closer to shore. The reason for locating cooling intakes far from shore, 

however, was not examined as part of this study. The data are presented as provided and are 

assumed to be accurate. 

Figures 4–8 below show the distribution of intake distance from shore for the above ranges in 

various categories. Figure 4 shows the distribution of intake distance from shore for all of the 

power plants where these data were provided. Figure 5 shows the distribution only for coal-fired 

power plants. Figure 6 shows the distribution for natural gas-fired plants. Figure 7 shows the 

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)

No. of Intakes in Distance 

Range

Figure 4 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for All Power 

Plants 
13

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore: 

Coal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)

No. of Intahes in 

Distance Range

Figure 5 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Coal-Fired 

Power Pants 

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore: 

Natural Gas

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)

No. of In takes in 

Distance Range

Figure 6 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Natural GasFired Power Pants 
14

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore: Rivers 

and Creeks

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)

No of Intakes in 

Distance Range

Figure 7 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants 

Located on Rivers and Creeks 

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore: 

Lakes and Reservoirs

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)

No. of Intakes in 

Distance Range

Figure 8 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants 

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs 

distribution for plants located on rivers and creeks. Figure 8 shows the distribution for plants 

located on lakes and reservoirs. Table 1 provides simple statistical information (range, mean, 

median, and standard deviation) for each of the above categories. 
15

Table 1: Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Intake Distance from Shore 

for All Categories (ft) 

Power Plant 

Category Data Range Mean Median Standard Deviation 

All 0 to 8,000 486 50 1,254 

Coal 0 to 7,920 530 60 1,246 

Gas 0 to 8,000 399 28 1,349 

Rivers and 

Creeks 0 to 7,920 396 44 1,154 

Lakes and 

Reservoirs 0 to 8,000 791 95 1,522 

As indicated above, and as shown in the above figures, many power plants reported that their 

intakes were located right at the shoreline (0 feet). Most of the power plants that reported this 

information, however, show that their intakes are located quite a distance from the shoreline. 

More than half showed a distance of 50 ft or greater. Perhaps the most interesting trend, 

however, is that there does not seem to be a significant difference in inlet distance from shore 

among the power plants as a function of fuel source or water body type. 

It is also interesting to examine means and medians for the data categories (Table 1). In every 

case, the mean is much higher than the median value, suggesting a highly skewed distribution, 

with most of the intake distances reported as being relatively close to shore. With a substantial 

number of intake distances reported at greater than 1,000 feet, and two reported at far greater 

than a mile, the average would be much higher than the median, as shown. The standard 

deviation also shows a high degree of variability in the data. In these circumstances, the median 

value is a much better representation of the “average” condition than the mean. 

Evaluation of Intake Depth from Surface 

The project database contained extensive information on the depth of the intakes from the water 

surface — overall, 423 power plants reported this information. The available data provide a 

representative picture of the various plants and the location of their intakes as a function of depth 

from the water surface. 

The data provided regarding intake depth from the surface are examined in this report in thirteen 

data ranges, as follows: 

• 0 ft 

• 1 to 5 ft 

• 6 to 10 ft 

• 11 to 15 ft 

• 16 to 20 ft 

• 21 to 25 ft 

• 26 to 30 ft 
16

• 31 to 35 ft 

• 36 to 40 ft 

• 41 to 45 ft 

• 46 to 50 ft 

• 51 to 100 ft (note the difference in range for this category) 

• Greater than 100 ft 

These data ranges were determined as being the best manner of presentation from a visual 

examination of the data across all plants. In addition, since water level drops of even several feet 

can cause significant issues for some power plants, it was appropriate to present the data in 

tighter ranges than were presented for the data above on the distance from shore. 

As shown in Figures 9–14, many plants provided data on intake depth as “0” feet. It is unknown 

whether the intakes were literally at the water surface for these plants, or whether the data were 

entered into the original EIA-767 database incorrectly. In addition, there are a number of 

instances where power plants reported intake depth in round numbers (e.g., 10 feet). In fact, the 

most commonly reported value for depth in every data category examined was 10 feet. It may be 

that there are many intakes where the depth is truly 10 feet, or there may be a number of cases 

where data were rounded or estimated as they were entered into the original EIA-767 database. 

The reason why many depths were reported as “0” and “10” feet was not examined as part of this 

study. The data are presented as provided and are assumed to be accurate for the purposes of this 

study. 

Figure 9 below shows the distribution of intake depth from surface for all of the power plants 

where these data were provided. Figure 10 shows the distribution only for coal-fired and oilfired power plants. Figure 11 shows the distribution for natural gas-fired plants. Figure 12 

shows the distribution for nuclear plants. Figure 13 shows the distribution for plants located on 

rivers and creeks. Figure 14 shows the distribution for plants located on lakes and reservoirs. 

Table 2, following these figures, provides simple statistical information (range, mean, median, 

and standard deviation) for each of the above categories. 
17

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 1 to 5 6 to

10

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25

26 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

40

41 to

45

46 to

50

51 to

100

> 100

Depth from Surface (ft)

No. of Intakes in Depth 

Range

Figure 9 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for All Power Plants 

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface: 

Coal and Oil

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1 to 5 6 to

10

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25

26 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

40

41 to

45

46 to

50

51 to

100

> 100

Depth from Surface (ft)

No. of Intakes in Depth 

Range

Figure 10 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Coal-Fired and 

Oil-Fired Power Plants 
18

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface: 

Natural Gas

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 to 5 6 to

10

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25

26 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

40

41 to

45

46 to

50

51 to

100

> 100

Depth of Intake to Surface (ft)

No. of Intakes in Depth 

Range

Figure 11 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Natural GasFired Power Plants 

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface: 

Nuclear

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 to 5 6 to

10

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25

26 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

40

41 to

45

46 to

50

51 to

100

> 100

Intake Depth from Surface (ft)

No. of Intakes in Depth 

Range

Figure 12 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Nuclear Power 

Plants 
19

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface: 

Rivers and Creeks

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 to 5 6 to

10

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25

26 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

40

41 to

45

46 to

50

51 to

100

> 100

Depth of Intake to Surface (ft)

No. of Intakes in Depth 

Range

Figure 13 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants 

Located on Rivers and Creeks

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface: 

Lakes and Reservoirs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 to 5 6 to

10

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25

26 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

40

41 to

45

46 to

50

51 to

100

> 100

Depath of Intake to Surface (ft)

No of Intakes in Depth 

Range

Figure 14 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants 

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs
20

Table 2: Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Intake Depth from Surface for 

All Categories (ft) 

Power Plant 

Category Data Range Mean Median Standard Deviation 

All 0 to 220 15.8 12 16.7 

Coal and Oil 0 to 220 16.1 12 19.1 

Gas 0 to 40 14.4 12 9.0 

Nuclear 0 to 95 16.8 13.5 15.5 

Rivers and 

Creeks 0 to 95 13.2 10 9.9 

Lakes and 

Reservoirs 0 to 220 21.6 17 25.2 

Evaluation of the above graphical distributions and the data in Table 2 reveals some interesting 

trends. Most interesting, as referred to above, is the number of power plants reporting 10 feet as 

their intake depth. In most cases, the differences in statistics for most of the categories are 

minor. There are only isolated cases where there may be a significant difference in trend. For 

example, the mean and median intake depth for lakes and reservoirs seems significantly deeper 

than for rivers and creeks. There is also significantly more variation for lakes and reservoirs as 

compared to rivers and creeks. 

Examination of the median vs. the mean for the various categories, as well as the above graphics, 

suggests a highly skewed distribution, with the majority of power plant intakes being relatively 

shallow. What is strikingly significant for this study is the fact that there are a substantial 

number of power plants where the intakes are on the shallow side, with many located at a depth 

of 5 feet or less and many more located at a depth of 10 feet or less. Approximately 43% of the 

power plants overall have intakes at a depth of 10 feet or less, and 65% have intake depths at 15 

feet or less. There are nevertheless a significant number of power plants, approximately 26%, 

with intake depths greater than 20 feet. 

Case Examples for Multiple Plants on the Same Water Body 

In this section, two example situations are examined with multiple power plants located on the 

same water body. As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, we assumed that water levels are 

not actively managed so as to enable preferred uses, such as continued power plant operations. 

The Arkansas River supports five power plants (two coal and three natural gas). The power 

plants are operated in two states by three different utilities. The depth to surface for the intakes 

for these plants are 2 feet for one plant and 3 feet for another plant — the intakes for the other 

three plants are deeper than 20 feet. In this situation, the two plants with shallow intakes would 

be affected first by drought conditions; the remaining plants would be affected only by severe 

drought. 
21

Another example can be found in the Delaware River, which supports five coal-fired power 

plants located in two states. The five plants are operated by five different utilities. The intake 

depths for the five plants are 6, 10, 11, 13, and 15 feet. All of these plants would be affected by 

a moderate to severe drought. With different utilities operating each plant, determinations of 

water withdrawal during droughts for cooling could become quite contentious. 

Both of these examples assume that the drought conditions would affect surface water body 

levels equally throughout the portions of the basin in which the power plants are located. For a 

larger or longer water body, it is less likely that this assumption will be valid. 

Clearly, the situation during drought and decisions regarding water withdrawal for cooling can 

become very difficult. In both of the above situations, it is necessary to also consider the other 

primary water users, including municipalities (drinking water), farmers (irrigation), navigation 

and industry. It is also necessary to consider projections for increasing demand into the future 

within these and other sectors. Water consumption for energy production itself (e.g., oil, gas, 

coal, and biofuels) is expected to increase dramatically over the next 25 years (Elcock 2008). 

In addition, the ecological ramifications of lowered water levels and increasing withdrawals 

should be factored in. All of these issues can create a potential for the same types of water wars 

as witnessed for the Klamath River Basin. Competing uses on a regional and watershed basis are 

examined in the next chapter. 
22

This page intentionally left blank 
23

Chapter 4 – Legal Issues and Agreements Affecting Water 

Availability 

 Overview 

In July 2003, the GAO released a report describing issues on fresh water supply, where the focus 

was on identifying the views of the states on how the federal government could help them meet 

the challenges of expected water shortages (GAO 2003). As background for its report, the GAO 

found, through the results of a survey, that 36 states anticipated having to deal with issues 

relating to water shortages even under normal water conditions. This number increased to 

46 states under drought conditions. 

The GAO report found that the federal government has a limited role in dealing with water use, 

indicating that, in large part, the states are “primarily responsible for managing the allocation and 

use of freshwater supplies.” The report described a “complex web” of both federal and state 

laws, regulations, and contractual obligations regarding the allocation and use of freshwater. The 

report indicated that state law regarding water uses and withdrawals are different for each state in 

many respects. However, the report referenced two general doctrines for water allocation among 

the states, referred to as “riparian” and “prior appropriation.” These doctrines are summarized 

as follows: 

• Riparian can be described as a “common law” doctrine. Under the riparian doctrine, 

water rights are linked to land ownership — owners of land bordering a waterway have 

an equal right to use the water that flows past the land for any reasonable purpose, even if 

they have never used the water before — and historical use has no bearing on future use. 

• Prior appropriation is more of a regulated (e.g., through a state-issued permit) system. 

Under the prior appropriation doctrine, water rights are not based on land ownership, but 

rather are linked to priority policy and agreements, as well as determinations of beneficial 

water use. Even so, users that first obtained water rights generally have seniority, but 

water rights are predicated on the water being used for “beneficial” purposes. The GAO 

report describes this policy as “first in time, first in right” and “use it or lose it.” 

Under drought conditions, users operating under the riparian doctrine “share the shortage in 

proportion to their rights”; under the prior appropriation doctrine, water shortages under drought 

conditions would first affect “those who last obtained a legal right to use the water” (GAO 

2003). This includes power plants in the steam electric power generating fleet addressed in this 

report. 

The GAO report identified a third category as “other doctrine,” which in many cases is a 

combination of riparian and prior appropriation, and also indicated that some states do not 

regulate water use and withdrawals at all. The GAO report indicated that all states vary in their 

water laws, but that eastern states generally held to the riparian doctrine and western states 

generally followed the prior appropriation doctrine. Figure 15, taken from the GAO report, 
24

Figure 15 – Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface Water Allocation 

(Source: GAO 2003)

shows state preferences regarding water doctrine based on a survey taken specifically for use in 

the report. 

Irrespective of the above, compacts and commissions or watershed managers have been 

established to govern or at least coordinate water use and withdrawals on specific watersheds 

throughout the United States. These are examined further below. 

Water Commissions and Compacts 

A number of water commissions, compacts, or similar organizations have been established 

throughout the United States that have specific responsibilities regarding the management or 

oversight of the waters within specific geographical areas, basins, or watersheds. These 

commissions or compacts are in many cases independent of state programs and in other cases are 

part of state programs. Many include members from multiple states wherein the watershed lies 

and/or that use waters from the watershed for municipal or other purposes. Other members of 

many of the commissions or compacts include elements within the federal government, such as 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Some also include 
25

representatives of one or more Indian tribes. Some programs are federally mandated and 

operated, including, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

These commissions and compacts were identified nationwide, and a number of them were 

selected for in-depth evaluation. Commissions or compacts were selected for specific 

examination with the general intent of providing a representative view of these types of 

organizations throughout the United States. Those selected for more in-depth study include the 

following: 

• Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 

• Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) 

• Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) 

• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

• Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) 

• Great Lakes Basin Compact (GLBC) 

• Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) 

• Colorado River Authorities 

In addition, conversations with the Columbia River Gorge Commission led to further research 

with the Washington State Conservation Commission (WSCC) and the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (NPCC). 

Results of research with each of the above commissions or compacts are presented below. For 

each of these organizations, the primary research focus was to explore the nature of any 

compacts or agreements that give priority to certain users under drought conditions, for example, 

to determine which users (e.g., municipalities, farmers, power plants) must stop or reduce 

withdrawing water first. Initial research began with the Internet, as it was anticipated that each 

organization would maintain an Internet website. This was true in all cases but one. The 

websites of these organizations are provided under “Other Organizations or Organization 

Websites Contacted,” included within the reference section of this report. 

The websites provided varying degrees of information; few specifically addressed compacts or 

agreements that give priority to certain users under drought conditions. The next step was to 

follow up the Internet research with a phone call to each organization as a means of obtaining 

more information or more accurate information. In most cases, individuals within the 

commissions and compacts were very willing to provide additional information, while, in other 

cases, individuals were reluctant to divulge any information at all. The Argonne research team 

that collected the information and discussed the issues with the commission or compact members 

is very grateful for the help provided by those compacts or commissions that were willing to 

provide information. 

In addition to the above commissions and compacts, the Argonne research team also contacted 

associations and similar organizations that represented the common interests of multiple 

commissions or compacts. These included the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) and 

the Western States Water Council (WSWC). The websites of these organizations are also 

provided in the reference section of this report. In addition to examination of the websites of 
26

these organizations, the Argonne research team also followed up with a phone call and email 

exchanges and obtained additional information. The Argonne research team is very grateful for 

the help provided by these associations. 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 

According the ICPRB website, the ICPRB was “established by Congress in 1940 to help the 

Potomac basin states and the federal government to enhance, protect, and conserve the water and 

associated land resources of the Potomac River Basin through regional and interstate 

cooperation.” The commission is directed by appointed commissioners from its member states, 

including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. It also includes representatives 

from the District of Columbia and the federal government. 

The drainage area of the Potomac includes over 14,000 square miles in the above-named four 

states (ICPRB website). Four major reservoirs located within the basin may be used to enhance 

flow during conditions of low flow (i.e., drought). A graphic of the Potomac basin showing the 

four reservoirs is presented in Figure 16, excerpted from an ICPRB’s report, published in 2000, 

that forecasted water demand and availability for a 20-year period (ICPRB 2000). 

Figure 16 – Potomac River Basin Showing Current Reservoir Sites (Source: ICPRB 2000)

Only two of the above reservoirs are located above the Potomac River tidal zone and can be used 

to enhance flow when needed over the non-tidal Potomac. These include the Jennings Randolph 

and Little Seneca reservoirs. Releases from these reservoirs can be executed when consumptive 

demand, including that required to maintain environmental flow requirements, is predicted to 

exceed availability (ICPRB 2000) (i.e., during emergency drought conditions). Consumptive 

demand, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1998), is “that part of water withdrawn 

that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or 
27

livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment.” Consumptive use 

upstream would reduce availability downstream by water utilities within the Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area. 

Management of drought and releases from the reservoirs within the Potomac basin is described 

in the ICPRB’s drought operations manual (ICPRB 1988), which amends the original Potomac 

Water Supply Coordination Agreement established for the Potomac basin in 1982 (ICPRB 

1982). To date, there has been only one instance, during the 1999 drought, when releases from 

one of the Potomac reservoirs (Little Seneca) was necessary to augment Potomac non-tidal flow 

(ICPRB 2000). The ICPRB reported that “cooperative operations...ran smoothly and the 

augmented flow of the Potomac provided all the water required by utilities” (ICPRB 2000). The 

report concluded that “the current system of resources is adequate to meet the most likely and 

high growth estimates of 2020 demands even if the worst drought of record was to be repeated” 

(ICPRB 2000). 

In addition to defining conditions for release of reservoir reserves to augment flow to the 

Potomac, the ICPRB’s Drought Operations Manual (ICPRB 1988) further outlines requirements 

for “suppliers” to report use for the previous day and a projection of demand for the coming day. 

“Suppliers,” though undefined in the Drought Operations Manual, is presumed to be the 

reservoir operators. In addition, the manual (ICPRB 1988) provides the means to set restricted 

withdrawal rates whenever the Water Supply Coordination Agreement (ICPRB 1982), initiated 

during emergency low-flow events, is in effect. However, major users of the waters of the 

Potomac (other than water utilities) are not defined in either the Drought Operations Manual 

(ICPRB 1988) or in the agreement (ICPRB 1982). 

Our conclusion is that, within the Potomac River Basin, the authority to restrict consumptive use 

during drought conditions exists, even though users (other than water utilities) are not 

specifically identified. In addition, no priority is established as to which users would be required 

to reduce or stop withdrawals first. Presumably, because the Drought Operations Manual 

(ICPRB 1988) and the original Agreement (ICPRB 1982) focus on water replenishment by 

reservoirs and water withdrawal by water utilities, the utilities would receive priority during 

drought conditions. 

It is interesting to note also for the Potomac basin that the ICPRB oversees an annual drought 

emergency exercise that is designed to simulate emergency conditions and the associated 

coordinated response (ICPRB 2007). This is the only instance within all of the research 

conducted to prepare this report that a commission or compact operated an annual emergency 

response exercise. This is highly commendable. Emergency exercises of this sort, however, 

might be more useful if they were to include upstream users, such as power plants. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

The SRBC website indicates that the SRBC operates under the Susquehanna River Basin 

Compact. The compact was established by the U.S. Congress in 1970 and adopted by the SRBC 

member states: Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland. The 1970 compact contains the basic 

provisions by which the water resources within the Susquehanna basin are managed. 
28

The basin itself drains an area of more than 27,000 square miles in the three states noted above 

and drains eventually in the Chesapeake Bay (SRBC 2006) at Havre de Grace, Maryland. 

Figure 17 provides an overview of the basin and its various subbasins (SRBC 2008a). The 

Susquehanna is described as one of the most flood-prone areas in the United States, experiencing 

a major flood on average every 14 years (SRBC 2006). 

Figure 17 – Susquehanna River Basin and Subbasins (Source: SRBC 2008a)

While, as indicated above, the Susquehanna is declared to be one of the most flood-prone river 

systems in the nation, the historical frequency of droughts indicates that it is also highly prone to 

drought, with droughts occurring throughout the 1990s and several times thus far this decade 

(SRBC 2007a). 

 

Regulation of specific projects within the Susquehanna basin is established within the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 18, Parts 801, 806, 807, and 808 (SRBC 2007b). 

Section 801.3 is particularly relevant to this study, and is repeated in its entirety below (SRBC 

2006): 
29

(4) In the matter of drought, disasters or catastrophes, natural or manmade, which cause 

actual and immediate shortage of available and usable water supply, determine and 

delineate the area of shortage and by unanimous vote declare a state of water supply 

emergency therein, and impose direct controls on any and all allocations, diversions and 

uses of water to meet the emergency condition. 

During drought emergencies, SRBC acts to avoid depleting water resources, protect public health 

and safety, and support essential and high-priority water uses (SRBC 2007b). While highpriority water uses are not specifically defined, SRBC has the authority, among other actions, to 

reduce diversions and water allocations and coordinate reservoir operations within the basin as 

needed to preserve public health and protect the environment (SRBC 2007b). SRBC has direct 

authority to require drought restrictions among all the member states and is specifically 

authorized to review and approve water diversions and regulate consumptive use (SRBC 2007b) 

(see definition of “consumptive use” in USGS 1998). 

According to SRBC Policy No. 2003-1 (SRBC 2002), “the commission utilizes passby flows, 

conservation releases, and consumptive use compensation to help protect aquatic resources, 

competing users, and in-stream flow uses downstream from the point of withdrawal.” Further, 

“passby flow is a prescribed quantity of flow that must be allowed to pass a prescribed point 

downstream from a water supply intake at any time during which a withdrawal is occurring. 

When the natural flow is equal to, or less than, the prescribed passby flow, no water may be 

withdrawn from the water source, and the entire natural flow shall be allowed to pass the point of 

withdrawal....A conservation release is a prescribed quantity of flow from an impoundment 

structure that must be continuously maintained downstream from the impoundment structure. 

Conservation releases are intended to help protect aquatic resources and downstream uses. 

Additionally, conservation releases are intended to prevent water quality degradation and adverse 

lowering of stream flow levels downstream from the impoundment. Conservation releases 

achieve these purposes through flow augmentation from storage, not only during periods of low 

flow, but throughout the life of the reservoir, including periods when the reservoir is replenishing 

its storage during refilling.” 

Reservoir operation within the Susquehanna basin is described in two informational sheets 

published by the SRBC, one for operation of Cowanesque Lake (SRBC 2005a) and the other for 

operation of the Curwensville Project (SRBC 2005b). As described within the Cowanesque 

Lake informational sheet (SRBC 2005a), SRBC regulations on consumptive water uses 

(SRBC 2002) require large water users, consuming water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day 

over a 30-day average, to compensate for their water uses during low flows. For instance, just 

one electric generating plant in the Susquehanna River Basin consumptively uses an estimated 

40 million gallons of water each day (SRBC 2005a). By requiring large water users to 

compensate for their water use, SRBC insures that fresh water will be available for downstream 

users, habitat preservation, and for maintaining flow to the Chesapeake Bay. Compensation in 

this case refers to fees consumptive users must pay when water is released from the Susquehanna 

reservoirs to compensate for low flows (SRBC 2005a,b). 

To summarize, the SRBC is one of the few watershed commissions that have direct control, 

through regulation, to control consumptive use during drought conditions, and consumptive 
30

users, including power plants, are required to compensate the SRBC for releases from lakes and 

reservoirs needed to replenish flows to maintain the river system. There seems to be no priority 

established within the SRBC program as to which users would be required to reduce use first; the 

program seems to apply equally to all large-volume consumptive users (consuming water in 

excess of 20,000 gallons per day over a 30-day average). 

Pertinent to this study, the depth of the water intake seems not to be an issue for power plants 

within the Susquehanna system. In fact, an email from one member of the SRBC (SRBC 2008b) 

indicated that there was only one instance where a power plant within the Susquehanna system 

was required to reduce operations. This was not because of the depth of the intake, however, but 

rather was due to the temperature of the water being too warm to be able to achieve the cooling 

needed to run the plant at full capacity. 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

The website for the DRBC indicates that the Delaware is the longest river east of the Mississippi 

with no dams. It extends 330 miles, with the watershed covering more than 13,000 square miles, 

draining areas within Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. The Delaware 

watershed is shown in Figure 18. 

Figure 18 – Delaware River Basin Showing Major Tributaries (Source: DRBC 2004) 
31

The DRBC operates much like the SRBC. The DRBC was created in 1961 when President 

Kennedy and the governors of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York co-signed 

legislation creating the Delaware River Basin Compact. The DRBC was created as a regional 

body with regulatory authority to manage and oversee the resources of the Delaware without 

regard to political boundaries. Like the SRBC, the DRBC is guided by appointed members of 

the representative states, with federal representation, as well. DRBC programs include water 

quality, water supply allocation, regulatory review and permitting, water conservation, watershed 

planning, drought and flood management, and recreation (DRBC 20007). 

According to DRBC’s Water Resources Program, the dominant users of water on the basin 

include thermoelectric power generation, public water supply, and industrial use, with the rising 

demand for thermoelectric power generation posing the potential for “significant additional 

future demand on water supplies” (DRBC 2008). DRBC’s role includes regulation and 

arbitration of conflicts regarding withdrawals and diversions, as well as water allocation, among 

other functions (DRBC 2008). DRBC’s objective for the allocation of water during drought 

includes allocation decisions and use restrictions, and maintaining the ecological integrity of the 

overall ecosystem (DRBC 2004). 

To summarize, the DRBC operates much like the SRBC, with the authority to exercise direct 

control, through regulation, to control consumptive use during drought conditions. However, 

once again, there seems to be no priority established within the DRBC program as to which users 

would be required to reduce use first. 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

The TVA was established as one of the many New Deal programs to help bring the nation out of 

the Great Depression. The TVA, as envisioned by President Roosevelt, is “a corporation clothed 

with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private 

enterprise”. Created by Congress in 1933 as the TVA Act, the TVA’s many programs included 

dam construction, power production, navigation, flood control, erosion control, and reforestation. 

TVA’s purview includes the Tennessee River System, a system with drainage through parts of 

Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi 

(http://www.tva.gov). Figure 19 shows the TVA drainage area and power service area, as well 

as the location of its many fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. 

In accordance with a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Record of Decision 

(ROD) released in 2004 (TVA 2004), the TVA has adopted a new approach for managing the 

Tennessee River and reservoir system. This new approach resulted from a reservoir operations 

study conducted to examine the impacts and benefits of various approaches for optimizing 

reservoir operations and flows along the river system. The approach selected, referred to as the 

“preferred alternative,” is “designed to provide increased recreation opportunities while avoiding 

or reducing adverse impacts on other operating objectives and resource areas” (TVA 2004). 

These other operating objectives include flood control, power production (both hydroelectric and 

steam-electric), improving water quality, and navigation. The PEIS ROD does not speak 

specifically to managing flows during drought conditions. Therefore, the goal of providing 

increased recreational opportunities while avoiding or reducing adverse impacts on other 
32

Figure 19 – Tennessee Valley Authority Jurisdiction 

(Source: https://maps.tva.com/) 

operating objectives and resource areas remains the same. However, during drought, concerns 

about maintaining navigation channels (i.e., sufficient depth to accommodate commercial and 

recreational use) are very important (TVA 2009). 

The TVA area was especially impacted by the 2006/2007 drought and is still experiencing the 

effects of the drought today. TVA serves as a host and facilitator for the Tennessee Valley 

Water Partnership, a group established in 2005 to improve regional cooperation in water resource 

management. The group includes representatives from all TVA states, as well as from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USGS. Its basis is not regulatory, but rather to 

coordinate issues recognizing state interests, laws, and regulations (TVA 2007a). The group has 

reviewed drought management plans developed by some of the member states, and TVA has 

drafted a Drought Management Plan for the Tennessee Valley Water Partnership Drought 

Committee (TVA 2007b). 

The Drought Management Plan (TVA 2007b) provides the basis for coordinating actions through 

the Tennessee Valley Water Partnership Drought Committee. Response actions, however, are 

not specifically identified, nor is there a priority established for which types of uses must begin 

curtailing water withdrawals or stopping water withdrawals altogether. Decisions regarding 

response actions would be made collectively through the Drought Committee, considering the 

provisions of the TVA Act and the 2004 PEIS ROD. 

TVA (TVA 2008, 2009) has indicated that it has had to curtail operations at some of its operating 

nuclear plants due to the drought. However, these actions were not due to water levels falling 

below cooling water intakes, but rather due to the temperatures of the receiving water being too 
33

warm. As indicated above, the problem is the discharge of heated water used for cooling back 

into waterways that are just too warm to keep temperatures at levels required to meet state water 

quality standards. 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

The Ohio River runs a total of 981 miles, starting at the confluence of the Monongahela and 

Allegheny Rivers in Pennsylvania and ending when the Ohio intersects the Mississippi River at 

Cairo, Illinois. There are a series of 20 dams along the Ohio, with 49 hydroelectric power 

generating stations (http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/facts.asp). The dams and hydroelectric 

stations are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Figure 20 provides an overview of 

the Ohio River Basin and shows the locations of the various dams. 

Figure 20 – Ohio River Basin (Source: http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/basin/basin.asp) 

According to the ORSANCO website, ORSANCO was established as a compact in 1948. 

Member states include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. ORSANCO’s mission is to control and abate pollution in the Ohio River Basin. 

ORSANCO sets waste water discharge standards, performs biological assessments, monitors the 

river and its tributaries against chemical and biological makers, and conducts surveys and studies 

as needed. While ORSANCO does respond to spills and accidents within its purview, its 

mission does not include flood control or drought management. 

In a conversation with an ORSANCO official (ORSANCO 2008), the Ohio was described as 

being “rich in water” where droughts are not commonly experienced. Further, the official 

indicated that there were a number of coal-fired power plants along the river, and none of them 
34

have ever (in memory) experienced problems associated with droughts. While the official 

acknowledged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would control the dams in the event of a 

flood or drought, because of the water-rich environment, he was not aware of any compacts or 

agreements that give priorities to the users (i.e., which users must stop withdrawing water first). 

The individual did, however, suggest that state programs within the Ohio River system may have 

such stipulations. State programs are reviewed below under the section on federal and state 

programs.

Great Lakes Basin Compact 

The Great Lakes Basin Compact was adopted in 1955 by the eight states bordering the Great 

Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) 

and associate members from the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It resulted in the 

formation of the Great Lakes Commission (GLC), as shown in Figure 21. The GLC “carries out 

policy research, advocacy, coordination, and communication functions promoting the orderly, 

efficient, and balanced development use and conservation of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River 

System” (GLC 2007). 

Figure 21 – Great Lakes Basin Map (Source: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-

3313_3677-15926--,00.html) 

In the Great Lakes, drought management policy accepted by GLC membership is embodied 

within a regional policy statement developed by the Task Force on Drought Management and 

Great Lakes Water Levels, which was established in 1989 (GLC 2007). The Task Force 

published a draft report in 1989 (GLC 1989), which still serves today as a guide to drought 

planning, management, and water level changes in the Great Lakes. This 1989 report 

specifically addresses impacts of drought on electrical power generation. However, water levels 

falling below submerged intakes are not recognized as a problem within the Great Lakes. 
35

Rather, the problem in the Great Lakes seems to be more a function of the release of heated 

cooling water from power stations to waters where the ambient temperatures are too high to be 

able to accommodate the heated cooling water. Lower water levels and increased air 

temperatures result in elevated water temperatures within the lake system, and the addition of 

heated cooling water from the power plants reduces dissolved oxygen levels below levels needed 

for sustaining the local ecology (GLC 1989). 

Water rights and water laws in the Great Lakes states are also reviewed within the 1989 policy 

statement (GLC 1989). The policy statement indicates that the water rights system in the Great 

Lakes states and provinces follow the riparian doctrine. Hence, land owners have a right to 

reasonable beneficial use of the water, although what is accepted as reasonable during normal 

conditions may differ from what is accepted as reasonable during droughts. In addition, some 

but not all of the Great Lakes states require large water users to obtain water withdrawal permits. 

In addition, as of 1989, only Minnesota was known to have established a formal system defining 

water use priorities. In general, public water suppliers have priority over individual users to 

serve public needs (GLC 1989). It is unclear how this relates to electrical power generation 

facilities. 

With respect to the Great Lakes, it is also important to mention that drought and water policy 

positions are established through other government organizations as well as the GLC. The Great 

Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Management Regional Body, coordinated by the Council of 

Great Lakes Governors, was created through the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin 

Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (Council of Great Lakes Governors 2005). The 

Agreement details how the Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Québec will manage the Great Lakes 

Basin. Article 203 of the agreement specifically addresses decision making for water 

withdrawals and consumptive use (Council of Great Lakes Governors 2005). It does not, 

however, define priority uses during drought. 

Columbia River Gorge Commission 

According to the website of the Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) 

(http://www.gorgecommission.org/), the commission “was established in 1987 to develop and 

implement policies and programs that protect and enhance the scenic, natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources of the Gorge, while encouraging growth within existing urban areas of the 

Gorge and allowing development outside urban areas consistent with resource protection.” 

Examination of the commission website did not reveal any information regarding participation in 

programs relating to drought and power plant cooling water intakes. In a conversation with an 

official of the commission (CRGC 2008), it was revealed that the commission programs deal 

mainly with conservation and have little to do with power generation capacity unless 

hydroelectric operations impact the general ecology of the river system. 

The commission official explained first that the Columbia basin is “water rich” and rarely faces 

serious drought conditions. He also indicated that the Columbia basin itself is very large and 

controlled by many different government and quasi-government organizations. Figure 22 

presents an overview of the Columbia basin. 
36

Figure 22 – Columbia River Basin (Source: http://www.nwdwc.usace.army.mil/report/colmap.htm) 

The CRGC official suggested that policy and decision-making authority with respect to drought 

and power plant operations would probably be controlled by any one of a number of other 

authorities active in the Pacific Northwest. A few such organizations were identified, including 

the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Washington State Conservation Commission, the 

Washington Department of Ecology, the Upper Columbia River Water Compact, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Administration, and water authorities within each of 

the states within the Columbia drainage system. He indicated that water management in the 

Northwest is very complicated and that each of the above organizations would likely have at 

least some role in any decision regarding water levels and power management. 

Following this CRGC communication, the websites of several of the above organizations were 

visited, and for some of the organizations, follow-up phone calls were made, as well. An official 

within the Columbia River Program of the Washington Department of Ecology (Washington 

Department of Ecology 2009) indicated that water code in the Columbia system is based on 

“Western Water Law.” The premise is the “priority doctrine,” which was summarized as “first 

in time, first in right.” (Note that the priority doctrine referred to in the above quote is assumed 

to be the same as the prior appropriation doctrine mentioned previously). The official estimated 

that there were well over 300 holders of “interruptible water rights” in the Columbia basin and 
37

that at least one of these belonged to a power plant. They are interruptible because their water 

rights were issued after the state’s adopted in-stream flow right (Washington Administrative 

Code WAC 173-563). 

This same message regarding Western Water Law was reiterated in a conversation with an 

official from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) (NWPCC 2009). The 

NWPCC official referred to it as a system of “junior vs. senior” rights. 

An overview of western water rights is provided following the discussion on the Colorado River 

Authorities. 

Colorado River Authorities 

The following, from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lower Colorado River website, provides a 

summary of what has become know as the “Law of the River” (http://www.usbr.gov/lc/): 

The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court 

decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the "Law 

of the River.” This collection of documents apportions the water and regulates the use and 

management of the Colorado River among the seven basin states and Mexico. 

The primary compact governing management and operation of the Colorado River is the 

Colorado River Compact of 1922 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lower Colorado River website, 

(http://www.usbr.gov/lc/). The following is a synopsis of the compact: 

The cornerstone of the "Law of the River,” this Compact was negotiated by the seven 

Colorado River Basin states and the federal government in 1922. It defined the relationship 

between the upper basin states, where most of the river's water supply originates, and the 

lower basin states, where most of the water demands were developing. At the time, the upper 

basin states were concerned that plans for Hoover Dam and other water development 

projects in the lower basin would, under the Western water law doctrine of prior 

appropriation, deprive them of their ability to use the river's flows in the future. 

The states could not agree on how the waters of the Colorado River Basin should be 

allocated among them, so the Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover suggested the basin be 

divided into an upper and lower half, with each basin having the right to develop and use 

7.5 million acre-feet (maf) of river water annually. This approach reserved water for future 

upper basin development and allowed planning and development in the lower basin to 

proceed. 

There are many other laws, contracts, and documents that are part of the “Law of the River.” 

Several of these pertain to international treaties and similar agreements with Mexico. These can 

be reviewed by going to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lower Colorado River website 

(http://www.usbr.gov/lc/). In addition to these provisions, the federal Endangered Species Act 

and various Native American water claim settlements affect the extent to which water 

developments and diversions can be utilized in the Colorado River Basin. 
38

In general, and as an outgrowth of the Colorado River Compact of 1922, management of the 

Colorado and its tributaries has been split among the upper and lower Colorado states. Figure 23 

provides a map showing the areas included within the Lower Colorado Region. Figure 24 

provides a map showing the areas included within the Upper Colorado Region. 

Figure 23 – Lower Colorado Region (Source: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/)

Figure 24 – Upper Colorado Region (Source: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/)
39

As referred to above and in the discussion for the Columbia River Basin, the Western Water Law 

doctrine of prior appropriation generally governs use of the waters of the Colorado by individual 

users. Western water rights are reviewed below. Keep in mind as the discussion proceeds that 

many power plants in the West, and the vast majority of power plants in the Lower Colorado 

Region, draw their cooling water from ground water sources (Colorado River Commission of 

Nevada 2008). 

Western Water Rights Overview 

The website of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) provides a good 

introduction to the evolution of what has become known as “Western Water Law” 

(http://www.creda.org/Pages/Background.html): 

As the water supplies in the West became more intensively used in the early part of the 

twentieth century, the “water wars” began. As a result, western water law evolved 

through a series of legislative as well as court-related actions. Many of the issues were 

local in nature; however, they also evolved into interstate and eventually international 

issues. A great amount of attention focused on the Colorado River because it is one of the 

most heavily used rivers for multipurpose activities. 

Western Water Law developed due to the relative scarcity of water in the southwest states as 

compared to the rest of the United States. Water scarcity resulted in the evolution to a system of 

water rights that are different from the “water rich” regions of the country. In essence, water 

rights in the southwest are similar to those established for real property. These rights are 

somewhat independent of the land or shoreline from which the water is derived. The water 

rights, known generally as “prior appropriation,” are established by actual use of the water, and 

maintained by continued use and need. The premise behind prior appropriation is that the right 

to use water for beneficial purposes is not associated with ownership. No one person, company, 

or jurisdiction owns the water, but all have the right to use it for beneficial purposes. As 

indicated above in the Columbia River discussion, water use is based on the premise of “first in 

time, first in right.” 

As indicated above, an official from the NWPCC (NWPCC 2009) referred to Western Water 

Law as a system of “junior vs. senior” rights. The “senior” in this case is the first entity (person, 

jurisdiction, corporation) to use the water, while the “junior” refers to entities that later use the 

water for whatever purpose. The only requirement is that the use have some benefit. The 

resulting system, fraught with arguments as to who is senior and who is junior and what 

constitutes a beneficial use, among other things, has been the subject of local and state laws, 

policies, and numerous disagreements and lawsuits. 

For steam generating power plants that would use the water for cooling, the determination of 

which user would be required to begin curtailing use, or stopping use altogether, would fall on 

the determination of senior vs. junior, again the premise of “first in time, first in right.” 
40

In most of the western states, a state agency (e.g., department of water resources) or official is 

charged with the administration of all water rights within the state. In addition, each state may 

differ in the manner in which it administers the water program. An overview of some of the state 

programs, including those that apply the riparian doctrine as well as those that follow prior 

appropriation, is provided below, along with a brief discussion of federal programs. 

Federal and State Programs 

Federal Programs 

The primary agency within the federal government responsible for emergency management is the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). FEMA is in the process of producing a series of Comprehensive Program 

Guides (CPGs) that address many aspects of emergency management. The first guide, CPG 101 

“Producing Emergency Plans: A Guide for All-Hazard Operations Planning for State, Territorial, 

Local, and Tribal Governments (Interim),” was released for comment in August 2008 

(FEMA 2008). FEMA plans to release supplemental guides as well, including those pertaining 

to natural hazards such as drought. While any drought plan should serve as a guide for the 

development of mitigation and response strategies, it is unclear whether FEMA will recommend 

establishing priorities for essential and non-essential uses during drought. 

FEMA is not the only federal agency however, that has a role in drought response. Many other 

federal agencies are also involved in drought planning and mitigation. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have been mentioned previously. Many other 

federal agencies also have a role. 

The State of California Department of Water Resources, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, recently published the Urban Drought Guidebook (State of California Department 

of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2008). Among many other 

recommendations, the Guidebook recommends establishing priorities for essential and nonessential water uses during droughts. One such priority included “commercial, industrial, and 

institutional — maintain economic base, protect jobs.” Directly related to this priority is the need 

to include use of water for power plant operation. 

State Programs 

Many state programs also deal directly with drought management. The National Drought 

Mitigation Center, operated by University of Nebraska-Lincoln, includes a summary of the status 

of state drought programs (http://www.drought.unl.edu/mitigate/status.htm): 

Because water shortfalls are initially local and regional issues, and because of the lack 

of a cohesive U.S. water policy, states have emerged as important innovators in devising 

ways to reduce long-term vulnerability to drought. During the widespread U.S. drought 

of 1976–77, no state had a formal drought plan, and in 1982, only three states had 

drought plans. But as of October 2006, thirty-seven states had drought plans. 
41

Figure 25 below provides an overview of the status of state drought planning as of 2006. As of 

the time of this compilation, only nine states did not have formal drought plans. Some states 

such as Alabama (see below) have since established such programs. 

Figure 25 – Status of State Program Drought Planning 

(Source: http://www.drought.unl.edu/mitigate/status.htm) 

In addition to an examination of the water commissions and compacts, a number of the states 

were examined to determine the nature and extent of the drought measures put in place. The 

focus, as with the water commissions and compacts, was to explore the nature of any compacts 

or agreements that give priority to certain users under drought conditions, for example, to 

determine which users (e.g., municipalities, farmers, power plants) must stop or reduce 

withdrawing water first. 

The initial scope of this study did not envision examining federal or state programs at all. As we 

began looking at the compacts and commissions, and after talking with their staffs, however, it 

became apparent that some of the types of priority information that we were looking for might 

turn out to be associated with state programs. Hence, while research on state programs was 

initially unintended, it was conducted to ensure that we looked into what turned out to be a very 

pertinent source of information. Research, however, was limited to the Internet. Further, there 

were insufficient funds within the initial budget to look at all state programs. Therefore, the 

states were selected for examination with the general intent of providing a representative view of 

the states throughout the United States. 

As the effort began to look at state programs, it also became apparent that many of the states 

differed in how they assigned responsibility for drought mitigation and management. Some 

states assigned this responsibility to state emergency management organizations, and others to 
42

state water boards, others to state environmental departments. Many states also established 

working groups or task forces made up of representatives of these agencies, as well as others, 

such as agriculture and commerce. Hence, finding drought-related programs and documentation 

within state programs may be qualified as hit or miss. 

Alabama 

Alabama’s Drought Management Plan was developed by the Alabama Department of Economic 

and Community Affairs (Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs 2004). The 

Alabama plan did not establish any hard and fast priorities for certain users; however, it did 

promote conservation within various sectors. The industrial sector, for example, was: 

“...encouraged to coordinate water usage and constraints during drought conditions by: 

1. Establishing more direct drought communication between the industrial sector and 

state and local governments and the appropriate water systems; 

2. Conduct voluntary water audits for businesses that use water for a production or 

service, especially in an area that has a history of drought related water shortages; 

3. Encourage the development and implementation of water conservation and drought 

contingency plans to limit any unnecessary consumption and interbasin transfers, if 

applicable, during droughts; and 

4. Identify vulnerable water dependent industries and, as necessary and as funding is 

available, work to determine their impacts and provide assistance with procedures to 

curtail water use during droughts and/or identify alternative water sources for 

emergency use. 

5. Implement industrial water reduction opportunities previously identified 

(i.e., use less water in producing products and services during drought, and 

thereby reducing quantity of wastewater in stream). 

Arizona 

The Arizona Division of Emergency Management established an Emergency Response and 

Recovery Plan (Arizona Division of Emergency Management 2006) with a very comprehensive 

annex dealing with drought. No priority system for essential or non-essential use was 

established within this plan. The Arizona Department of Water Resources, however, published a 

Drought Preparedness – Operational Drought Plan in 2004 (Arizona Department of Water 

Resources 2004). This plan also did not establish priorities or essential/non-essential uses per se, 

but it did establish a “response progress” that requires reductions in use in various “Work 

Group” categories. For example, the Municipal and Industrial Work Group may recommend 

state or locally imposed short-term emergency restrictions during a drought emergency, 

including water use restrictions on public facilities and industrial user conservation programs and 

partnerships. 
43

Colorado 

In Colorado, drought mitigation planning is the responsibility of the Colorado Water 

Conservation Board. The Board produced The Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan

in 2001 (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2001). No specific priority system for essential or 

non-essential uses was established; however, comprehensive treatment on preparedness and 

mitigation for all sectors was stressed, and the plan indicated that “competing interests could 

require suspension of [the] current water rights system.” 

Connecticut 

The State of Connecticut is developing the Connecticut Drought Management Plan

(http://www.drought.state.ct.us/mgmtplan.htm), although it is not yet available through the 

Internet. Connecticut does, however, have the Connecticut Drought Preparedness and Response 

Plan that defines non-essential uses of water during drought and authorizes the government to 

take a number of conservation actions during drought.

Idaho 

The Idaho Department of Water Resources developed the Idaho Drought Plan in 2001 (Idaho 

Department of Water Resources 2001). The Idaho plan establishes a number of coordinating 

committees, although no priorities for essential or non-essential uses are established. One of the 

coordinating committees deals with energy. The following regarding the Energy Subcommittee 

is excerpted from the plan: 

Energy Subcommittee 

1. Evaluate and monitor energy supplies; coordinate with other subcommittees. 

2. Coordinate with the state member of the Northwest Power Planning Council. 

3. Membership should include, Idaho Northwest Power Planning Council, Public 

Utilities Commission, Bonneville Power Administration, Idaho Power Co., IDWR, 

the Association of Commerce and Industry, COE, and BOR. 

Indiana 

The State of Indiana has the Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan developed in 1994 by a task force of 

the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The task force was composed of professionals 

representing public water supply utilities, agriculture, steam electric generating utilities, industry, 

municipalities, environmentalists, consumer advocates, economic development advocates, 

academia, and the public. The plan established a conservation program for a water shortage 

emergency and defined a number of non-essential uses geared mainly for industry and the public. 

The plan established specific provisions for electrical generating facilities, indicating that: 

The Department and the Utility Regulatory Commission will jointly consult with all 

major electric utilities in the region to ascertain the current status and projection of 

electric use demand, associated water requirements, and potential for energy and water 

conservation during the water shortage emergency. Consultations will consider the 

potential for: (a) shifting a portion of electric energy demand to generation from plants 
44

outside the area affected by the emergency (including increased wheeling of energy); (b) 

increasing energy production from plants with lower consumptive water use rates per 

unit of energy; and (c) adjustment of plant production and maintenance schedules within 

the system to reduce water use in the affected area. 

Maryland 

The Maryland Statewide Water Conservation Advisory Committee (2000) developed the 

Drought Monitoring and Response Plan in 2000. The plan provides the Governor with a series 

of responsibilities, including implementation of mandatory restrictions on non-essential water 

uses. In addition, business and industry are required to comply with water conservation plans to 

reduce water use by at least 10% and evaluate possible reduced hours of operation.

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts describes itself as a “water rich” state, but a 1999 drought caused activation of a 

Drought Management Task Force, which resulted in the Massachusetts Drought Management 

Plan, a working draft of which was released in 2001 (Massachusetts Drought Management Task 

Force 2001). The plan required municipalities and water suppliers to submit plans to establish 

priority among competing users, indicating that the government has the right under eminent 

domain authority to establish priorities among competing users: 

During a state of water emergency, DEP may issue orders, applicable within or outside 

the affected area of the water emergency, to: (1) establish priorities for the distribution of 

any water or quantity of water use; (2) permit any person engaged in the operation of a 

water supply system to reduce or increase by a specified amount or to cease the 

distribution of that water; to distribute a specified amount of water to certain users as 

specified by the department; or to share any water with other water supply systems; 

(3) direct any person to reduce, by a specified volume, the withdrawal or use of any 

water; or to cease the withdrawal or use of any water; (4) require the implementation of 

specific water conservation measures; and, (5) mandate the denial, for the duration of 

the state of water emergency, of all applications for withdrawal permits within the areas 

of the commonwealth to which the state of water emergency applies. 

Missouri

The Missouri State Emergency Management Agency’s Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan

(Missouri State Emergency Management Agency 2007) gives a great deal of attention to 

drought, but much of the discussion is academic and historical in nature. The Missouri Drought 

Plan, however, produced by the State Department of Natural Resources in 2006, established a 

priority system for allocation of water during drought (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources 2006). The priority system was divided into three classes, where Class 1 is designated 

“Essential Water Uses,” Class 2 is designated “Socially or Economically Important Uses of 

Water,” and Class 3 is designated “Non-Essential Uses of Water.” Use of water for electrical 

power generation was included within Class 1, right behind domestic use, health care facilities, 

fire-fighting, and waste-water management. 
45

Montana 

The Montana Department of Disaster and Emergency Services’ State of Montana Disaster and 

Emergency Plan (Montana Department of Disaster and Emergency Services 2006) includes 

Volume X, “Montana Drought Plan.” This plan establishes a drought advisory committee with 

many recommendations. The following is excerpted from Volume X: 

Managers of hydroelectric facilities develop annual operating plans based on energy 

demand and projected surface water supplies. Arrangements to accommodate 

downstream fisheries, flatwater recreation, and navigation needs are considered in the 

annual operating plan. In the Columbia River drainage, reservoir operating agencies 

work closely with the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) and agencies such as 

DFWP to balance instream flow and energy requirements. Changes to reservoir plans 

may be made each year to reflect changes in the water supply outlook. Final operating 

plans are formulated after comprehensive assessments are made. Public comment 

on reservoir operations is documented at open meetings and taken under advisement by 

managing agencies. Reservoir plans for the season are announced by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and Montana Power Company through press releases as summer 

approaches. 

In addition to the above, the state has The Montana Drought Response Plan developed by an 

Advisory Committee on Drought and published in 1995 (Montana Advisory Committee on 

Drought 1995). The plan is very detailed, but no priority system for essential and non-essential 

uses is established within the plan. 

North Carolina 

The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, operating under the North Carolina 

Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, established the State of North Carolina 

Emergency Operations Plan in 2002 (North Carolina Division of Emergency Management 

2002). Drought is addressed in Appendix 3 of this document. In accordance with the appendix, 

drought is addressed by five different task forces, one of which deals with energy loss. Among 

other responsibilities, the task force is required to produce assessments that include total energy 

loss attributable to drought and an evaluation of water shortage impacts on electrical power 

generation, as well as identification of other major potential problem areas.

Ohio 

The website of the Ohio Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Agency (OEMA) 

(http://ema.ohio.gov/index.aspx) contains the State of Ohio Emergency Operations Plan Drought 

Incident Annex (OEMA 2003). This annex, very similar to that of Missouri, as discussed above, 

established a priority system for allocation of water during drought. The priority system was 

divided into three classes, where Class 1 is designated “Essential Water Uses,” Class 2 is 

designated “Socially or Economically Important Uses of Water,” and Class 3 is designated 

“Non-Essential Uses of Water.” As with Missouri, use of water for electrical power generation 
46

was included within Class 1, right behind domestic use, health care facilities, fire-fighting, and 

waste-water management. 

South Carolina 

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources developed the South Carolina Drought 

Response Plan (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, undated). The plan appears 

geared for public use and is not very useful for determining priorities or essential/non-essential 

uses. Regulations prepared by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources are more 

detailed in this regard (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, DNR Chapter 121, 

undated). These regulations provide that: 

During severe or extreme drought conditions, the South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources may require mandatory reduction or curtailment of non-essential water use in 

affected drought management areas if recommended by the Drought Response Committee 

in accordance with R.121-11.6. The curtailment of water use may involve adjusting the 

quantity of water used; adjusting the quality of water to meet the water use; adjusting the 

time of water use; and/or utilizing different sources of water. 

Further, the Drought Response Committee is required to consider a number of factors, including, 

among other things, the purpose of the use, suitability of the use to the watercourse, lake, or 

aquifer, and the economic and social value of the use. 

Virginia

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has responsibility for drought 

management (http://www.deq.virginia.gov/waterresources/drought.php) and, through a Drought 

Response Technical Advisory Committee, developed the Drought Assessment and Response 

Plan (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2003). Many requirements are established 

during a drought emergency, including a number of mandatory use restrictions. For example, 

public waterworks and self-supplied water users who withdraw more than 10,000 gallons per day 

are required to initiate mandatory water conservation requirements contained in drought water 

conservation and contingency plans. Further, the Director of the Department of Environmental 

Quality is authorized to allocate ground water and surface water resources and to restrict any 

withdrawals based upon the adequacy of the resource to meet the necessary beneficial uses as set 

forth in §62.1-44.36 of the Code of Virginia. Such allocations may apply to any withdrawer and 

override any existing authorizations to use or withdraw surface water or ground water.
47

Chapter 5 – Findings and Conclusions 

The findings and conclusions are presented separately with respect to “Database of Power Plants 

and Cooling Water Intakes”; “Distance to Shore for Power Plant Intakes”; “Depth of Power Plant 

Intakes”; and “Commission, Compact, and Federal/State Programs.” While our findings and 

conclusions are limited to these areas, it should be recognized that the database developed to 

support this project can be used to examine many different aspects of the relationship between 

power plant intake distance and depth as a function of many other factors. 

Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes 

Findings 

• The project database of electric steam generation power plants, developed from the EIA-767 

form data collection effort, does not include all power plants nationwide. It includes data 

from 423 plants in 44 states. Data collected for fossil fuel plants were current as of 2005 and 

for nuclear plants, as of 2000. 

• The project database of electric steam generation power plants, developed from the EIA-767 

form data collection effort, includes a substantial amount of data on cooling water intake 

distance from shore and depth from surface. 

• The project database is subject to some uncertainty because the original data in the EIA-767 

database were entered by representatives of many different utilities and other power 

generators across the county. The database was provided to utility associations for a review 

of accuracy. Some errors in data entry were identified and corrected as part of this effort; 

however, additional errors are possible. 

Conclusion 

In spite of the uncertainty mentioned in the third bullet above, the project database is considered 

representative of power plants nationwide, at least as it relates to intake distance from shore and 

depth from surface, and is considered robust enough to enable drawing conclusions regarding the 

effect of drought on power plant operations as a function of intake cooling. 

Distance to Shore for Power Plant Intakes 

Findings 

• Data from the EIA 767 form database regarding intake distance from shore were not as 

complete as data regarding depth from surface. 

• There is a tremendous range in distance to shore for power plant intakes, ranging from 0 feet 

to well over a mile. 
48

• Many power plants reported that their intakes were located right at the shoreline (i.e., 0 feet 

from the shore). 

• More than half of the power plants showed an intake distance from shore of 50 ft or greater. 

• There does not seem to be a significant difference in intake distance from shore among the 

power plants as a function of fuel source or water body type. 

• The distribution of data on intake distance from shore shows a mean value that is much 

higher than the median value, suggesting a highly skewed, non-normal distribution, with 

most of the intake distances reported as being relatively close to shore. 

• There are nevertheless a substantial number of power plants with intake distances reported at 

greater than 1,000 feet, and two reported at far greater than a mile. 

• The standard deviation of the distribution of power plant intake distance from shore shows a 

high degree of variability. 

Conclusion 

The EIA-767 form data on intake distance from shore represent a wide range and high 

variability, with no clear pattern among the power plants as a function of fuel source or water 

body type. Distance from shore has far less bearing than inlet depth from surface during drought 

conditions, unless the reason why some intakes are located far from shore has to do with lower 

temperatures or other factors. 

Depth of Power Plant Intakes 

Findings 

• All power plants in all categories (fuel type, water body type) reported 10 feet most often as 

their intake depth. 

• In all cases but one, the differences in statistics for intake depth for most of the categories 

(fuel type, water body type) are minor. 

• The mean and median intake depth for lakes and reservoirs are substantially deeper than for 

rivers and creeks. 

• There is substantially more variation in intake depth for lakes and reservoirs as compared to 

rivers and creeks. 

• There are many power plants where the intakes are relatively shallow. Approximately 43% 

of the power plants overall have intakes at a depth of 10 feet or less, and 65% have intake 

depths at 15 feet or less. 
49

• There are, nevertheless, a substantial number of power plants, approximately 26%, with 

intake depths greater than 20 feet. 

Conclusion 

Because of shallow intake depth, some power plants nationwide may be at risk of having to 

curtail or shut down operations in case of moderate or severe drought. Elevated temperature of 

the intake water may cause disruptions, however, prior to the water falling below the level of the 

intake. Active management of water levels so as to enable preferred uses, such as continued 

power plant operations, may help to reduce risk. 

Commissions, Compacts, and Federal/State Programs 

Findings 

• There are many different federal, state, and local government and quasi-government 

organizations that would have a role in responding to droughts, including decisions 

pertaining to water use and withdrawal and prioritization among competing users. In some 

cases, task forces or working groups are established to facilitate agreement and coordinate 

implementation. 

• Some river basin/watershed commissions or compacts have established controls over basins 

and watersheds (e.g., use of reservoirs to supplement flow or a payment system to subsidize 

uses). Such systems may serve to avoid the need to have to control uses and withdrawals 

during drought. 

• No river basin/watershed commissions or compacts have established a system of priorities 

for essential and non-essential uses during drought. Some river basin/watershed 

commissions have indirect authority, subject to approval by different authorities (e.g., 

officials in multiple states), to manage water use during drought situations. Priorities, when 

they need to be set, would be established on a case-specific basis. 

• The federal government has a minor role, at best, for responding to drought; most of the 

authority rests with the states. 

• While most states prescribe to either the riparian or prior appropriation doctrine regarding 

water rights, each state program is different in at least some respects. Water systems 

(reservoirs, river basins) that span more than one state may be managed differently in each 

state during drought situations. The exception is when a commission or compact has been 

given direct regulatory authority to manage water use during drought situations, has been 

given a coordinating role, or where a task force or working group has been established to 

facilitate agreement and coordinate implementation. 

• Most states have developed provisions (e.g., drought plans) for responding to drought 

situations. Many such provisions have been developed by multi-organizational task forces or 

working groups. Some state programs would directly control water allocations in accordance 
50

with classifications of essential and non-essential uses established to address drought 

conditions. 

• Many states identify non-essential water uses that should be curtailed or stopped during 

drought, but have not identified or prioritized essential uses. Of the two state programs that 

have established a system of priorities for essential and non-essential uses during drought, 

power production is rated within the highest priority category. 

• Most reported cases where power plants have had to curtail or shut down operations were not 

due to shallow depth of the intake, but rather were due to the high temperature of the cooling 

water and the relatively high temperature of the receiving water, and the concern of 

protecting the ecosystem. 

Conclusions 

The system of water rights in the United States (riparian vs. prior appropriation) and water 

control (commission/compact vs. state) is very different in different parts of the nation. The 

prospect of drought is unlikely to force a change in this system. It seems that few authorities 

(i.e., commission/compact vs. state) have established priority systems of essential and nonessential uses during droughts. Where such priority has been established, power production is 

rated within the highest priority category. 

Also pertinent for this study, however, is the finding that most reported cases where power plants 

have had to curtail or shut down operations were not due to shallow depth of the intake, but 

rather were due to the high temperature of the cooling water and the relatively high temperature 

of the receiving water, and the concern of protecting the ecosystem. 
51

References and Organizations Contacted 

References 

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, 2004, Alabama Drought 

Management Plan, draft final, Montgomery, AL. Available at 

http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/Office%20of%20Water%20Resources/Document%20Library/20

040422_ALDroughtPlan_DraftFinal.pdf. 

Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2006, Emergency Response and Recovery Plan, 

Phoenix, AZ. Version 2003 available at http://www.dem.azdema.gov/preparedness/docs/

serrp.pdf.

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2004, Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan – 

Operational Drought Plan, Governor’s Drought Task Force, Phoenix, AZ, Oct. 8. Available at 

http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/drought/files/Arizona_Drought_Preparedness_PlanFINAL100804.p

df. 

California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2008, Urban 

Drought Guidebook, 2008 Updated Edition, Sacramento CA. Available at 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/UrbanDroughtGuide.pdf. 

Colorado River Commission of Nevada, 2008, personal communication, Mr. Jim Salo, Dec. 12. 

Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2001, The Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response 

Plan, Denver, CO. Available at http://dola.colorado.gov/dem/publications/droughtplan.402b.pdf.

Columbia River Gorge Commission, 2008, personal communication with Mr. Tom Asher, 

Dec. 16. 

Council of Great Lakes Governors, 2005, “Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable 

Water Resources Agreement,” Ann Arbor, MI. Available at http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/

docs/12-13-05/Great_Lakes-St_Lawrence_River_Basin_Sustainable_Water_Resources

Agreement.pdf. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission), 2008, Delaware River Basin Commission Water 

Resources Program, West Trenton, NJ. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/ 

DRBC, 2007, Delaware River Basin Commission 2006/2007 Report, West Trenton, NJ. 

Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/AnnualReport2006-07.pdf. 

DRBC, 2004 “Water Resources Plan for the Delaware River Basin,” West Trenton, NJ. 

Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/basinplan.htm. 
52

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2005a “Form 767 Database for Steam Electric Plant 

Operation and Design,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

EIA, 2005b, “Form 767 Instructions,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available 

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

EIA, 2000, “Form 767 Database for Nuclear Power Plant Operation and Design,” U.S. 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

EIA, prepared annually, Electric Power Annual, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

EIA, prepared annually, Annual Energy Review, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

Elcock, D., 2008, Baseline and Projected Water Demand Data for Energy and Competing Water 

Use Sectors, ANL/EVS/TM/08-8, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL. 

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2008, “Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 

101 - Producing Emergency Plans: A Guide for All-Hazard Operations Planning for State, 

Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments (Interim),” National Preparedness Directorate, 

Washington, DC. Available at (http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=45314. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), 2003, Freshwater Supply — States’ Views of How 

Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages, Washington, 

DC. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03514.pdf. 

GLC (Great Lakes Commission), 2007, “Great Lakes Commission Policy Positions,” Ann Arbor, 

MI. Available at http://glc.org/policy/index.html. 

GLC, 1989, Draft Guide to Drought Planning, Management and Water Level Changes in the 

Great Lakes, second draft, Great Lakes Commission Task Force on Drought Management and 

Great Lakes Water Levels, Ann Arbor, MI. Available at http://www.glc.org/policy/documents/

DroughtManagement-Nov1989.pdf. 

 

Idaho Department of Water Resources, 2001, Idaho Drought Plan, Boise, ID. Available at 

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/about/issues/Drought%20Plan.pdf. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1994, Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan, Indianapolis, 

IN. Available at http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/watshplan.pdf. 
53

ICPRB (Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin), 2007, 2006 Drought Exercise and 

Operations Guide, Rockville, MD. Available at http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/. 

ICPRB, 2000, Year 2000 Twenty-Year Water Demand Forecast and Resource Availability 

Analysis for the Washington Metropolitan Area, Rockville, MD. Available at 

http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/publicationspdf/ICPRB00-6.pdf. 

ICPRB, 1988, Drought-Related Operations Manual for the Washington Metropolitan Area 

Water Suppliers, attachment to the Water Supply Coordination Agreement, dated July 22, 1982, 

and updated June 13, 1988, Rockville, MD. 

ICPRB, 1982, “Water Supply Coordination Agreement,” Rockville, MD. 

ICWP (Interstate Council on Water Policy), 2006, Interstate Water Solutions for the New 

Millennium, Alexandria, VA. Executive Summary available at http://www.icwp.org/cms/ic/

InterstateReport_ExecSummFINAL.pdf. 

Maryland Statewide Water Conservation Advisory Committee, (2000), Drought Monitoring and 

Response Plan, Annapolis, MD. Available at http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/

drought/droughtreport.pdf. 

Massachusetts Drought Management Task Force, 2001, Working Draft Massachusetts Drought 

Management Plan, Boston, MA. Available at http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/wrc/

droughtplan.pdf. 

 

Missouri State Emergency Management Agency, 2007, Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 

Jefferson City, MO. Available at http://sema.dps.mo.gov/State%20HMP%20-

%20Enhanced.pdf. 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2006, Missouri Drought Plan, Rolla, MO. Available 

at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/WR69.pdf. 

Montana Department of Disaster and Emergency Services, 2006, State of Montana Disaster and 

Emergency Plan, Helena, MT. Available at http://dma.mt.gov/des/Library/SECP.ASP. 

Montana Advisory Committee on Drought, 1995, The Montana Drought Response Plan, Helena, 

MT. Available at http://nris.state.mt.us/drought/committee/DroughtP.pdf. 

NDPC (National Drought Policy Commission), 2000, Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/drought/finalreport/accesstoreports.htm. 
54

NRC (National Research Council), 2008, Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River 

Basin, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12072. Additional NRC reports dealing with competing uses for the 

Klamath River Basin may be found at http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/de.cgi?term=klamath

&GO.x=31&GO.y=19. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2009, personal communication with Mr. Jeff King, 

Jan. 8. 

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, 2002, State of North Carolina Emergency 

Operations Plan, November 2002, Raleigh, NC. Available at http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/

div/EM/documents/FinalEOP-Public-19May08.pdf. 

ORSANCO (Ohio River Water Sanitation Commission), 2008, personal communication with 

Mr. Jason Heath, Dec. 12. 

Poch, L., G. Conzelmann, and T.D. Veselka, 2009, An Analysis of the Effects of Drought 

Conditions on Western U.S. Electric Power Generation, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

IL. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, undated, “The South Carolina Drought 

Response Plan,” Columbia, SC. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/Drought/

drought_response_program.php. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, DNR Chapter 121, undated. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/Drought/drought_regulations.php.

OEMA (Ohio Emergency Management Agency), 2003, “State of Ohio Emergency Operations 

Plan Drought Incident Annex,” Columbus, OH. 

SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission), 2008a, “2008 Water Resources Program,” 

Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/. 

SRBC, 2008b, email from Andrew Dehoff, SRBC, Harrisburg, PA, to Todd Kimmell, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, Nov. 26. 

SRBC, 2007a, “Managing the Susquehanna Basin’s Water Resources during Droughts,” 

information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/hydrologic/docs/Drought

%20Management%20(5_07).PDF. 

SRBC, 2007b, “Susquehanna River Basin Commission Regulation of Projects: 18 CFR Part 

801.3,” Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/. 

SRBC, 2006, “Susquehanna Basin,” information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at 

http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/docs/Susq%20River%20Basin%20General%20(11_06).PDF. 
55

SRBC, 2005a, “Cowanesque Reservoir Water Storage Project: Storing Water for Low Flows,” 

information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/docs/

COWANESQ.pdf. 

SRBC, 2005b, “Curwensville Lake Water Storage Project: Storing Water for Low Flows,” 

information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/docs/

CURWENSV_2.pdf. 

SRBC, 2002, “Policy No. 2003-01, Guidelines for Using and Determining Passby Flows and 

Conservation Releases for Surface-Water and Ground-Water Withdrawals Approvals,” 

Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/policies/docs/Policy%202003_01.pdf. 

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), 2009, personal communication with Mr. Donald Dycus and 

Mr. Stephen Barnes, Feb. 3. 

TVA, 2008, personal communication with Mr. Donald Dycus, Dec. 17. 

TVA, 2007a, “Regional Approach Helps Deal with Drought,” Knoxville, TN. Available at 

http://www.tva.gov/river/neighbors/may07/regional.htm. 

TVA, 2007b, “Drought Management Plan,” Knoxville, TN. Available at 

http://www.tva.gov/rrsc/readingroom4/pdf/oct12_drought_management_plan.pdf. 

TVA, 2004, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Tennessee Valley Authority 

Reservoir Operations Study, Record of Decision, Knoxville, TN. Available at 

http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/ros_eis/ros_rod.pdf. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1998, “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995,” 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government 

Printing Office Washington, DC. 

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007, “Rising Temperatures Undermine Nuclear Power’s 

Promise,” Union of Concern Scientists backgrounder, Washington, DC, August 23. Available at 

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/ucsrisingtemps82307.pdf. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2003, Drought Assessment and Response Plan, 

Drought Response Technical Advisory Committee, Richmond, VA. Available at 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/waterresources/drought.php. 

Washington Department of Ecology, 2009, personal communication with Mr. Daniel Haller, 

Washington Department of Ecology Columbia River Program, Jan. 6. 

Washington Administrative Code 173-563, “Instream Resources Protection Program for the 

Main Stem Columbia River in Washington State.” Available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/

default.aspx?cite=173-563. 
56

WSMV Nashville, August 22, 2007, “Power Plants Affected by Drought, Temps,” Nashville, 

TN. Available at http://www.wsmv.com/money/13952333/detail.html. 
57

Other Organizations or Organization Websites Contacted 

Colorado River Board of California (CRBC) 

http://www.crb.ca.gov/

Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) 

http://crc.nv.gov/index.asp

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association 

http://www.creda.org/

Colorado Water Conservation Board 

http://cwcb.state.co.us/Conservation/DroughtPlanning/DroughtMitigationPlanning/

DroughtMitigationPlanning.htm

Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) 

http://www.gorgecommission.org/

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

http://www.eei.org/Pages/default.aspx

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?

Great Lakes Commission (GLC) 

http://www.glc.org/

Great Lakes Basin Compact (GLBC) 

http://www.glc.org/about/glbc.html

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 

http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/

Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) 

http://www.icwp.org/cms/

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/

Missouri State Emergency Management Agency 

http://sema.dps.mo.gov/
58

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/

Ohio Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Agency (OEMA) 

http://ema.ohio.gov/index.aspx

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) 

http://www.orsanco.org/

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) 

http://www.srbc.net/

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

http://www.tva.gov/

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, National Drought Mitigation Center 

http://www.drought.unl.edu/

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, U.S. Drought Monitor 

http://drought.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.HTML

Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC) 

No specific website identified 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region 

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Columbia Basin Water Management Division 

http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

No specific website identified 

Washington State Conservation Commission 

http://www.scc.wa.gov/

Western States Water Council (WSWC) 

http://www.westgov.org/wswc/
A-1

Appendix A – Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes 

(Selected Fields) 
A-2

This page intentionally left blank
A-3 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Charles R Lowman AL Alabama Electric Coop Inc Coal 1.5 River Barry AL Alabama Power Co Coal 0 Mobile River E C Gaston AL Alabama Power Co Coal 0.1 Coosa River Farley AL Alabama Power Co Nuclear NA Chattahoochee River Gadsden AL Alabama Power Co Coal 0.7 Coosa River Gorgas AL Alabama Power Co Coal 12.8 Warrior River Greene County AL Alabama Power Co Coal 0.9 Black Warrior James H Miller Jr AL Alabama Power Co Coal 12.74 Mulberry Fork Decatur Energy Center AL Calpine Construction Fin Co Lp Gas NA Tennessee River H Allen Franklin Combined Cycle AL Georgia Power Co Gas 1.24 Chattahoochee River E B Harris Electric Generating Plant AL Southern Co Gas 38.1 Alabama River Browns Ferry AL Tennessee Valley Authority Nuclear NA Wheeler Reservoir Colbert AL Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Tennessee River Widows Creek AL Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Tennessee River Carl Bailey AR Arkansas Electric Coop Corp Gas 0 White River Mcclellan AR Arkansas Electric Coop Corp Gas 0 Ouachita River Ashdown AR Domtar Industries Inc Gas 0 Millwater System Cecil Lynch AR Entergy Arkansas Inc Gas 0.03 Arkansas River Hamilton Moses AR Entergy Arkansas Inc Gas NA L'anquille River Independence AR Entergy Arkansas Inc Coal 10 River Lake Catherine AR Entergy Arkansas Inc Gas 0 Lake Catherine Robert E Ritchie AR Entergy Arkansas Inc Gas NA Mississippi River White Bluff AR Entergy Arkansas Inc Coal 10.4 Arkansas River Arkansas One AR Entergy Operations Inc Nuclear NA Lake Dardanelle Flint Creek AR Southwestern Electric Power Co Coal 0.1 Flint Creek Reservoir Kyrene AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Gas NA Canal Well Navajo AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Coal 10.9 Lake Powell South Point Energy Center AZ South Point Energy Center LLC Gas 2.7 Colorado River El Centro CA Imperial Irrigation District Gas 0.26 Dogwood Canal Hayden CO Public Service Co of Colorado Coal 3.9 Yampa River Valmont CO Public Service Co of Colorado Coal 5.1 South Boulder Creek 
A-4 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Craig CO Tri-State G & T Assn Inc Coal 6.6 Yampa River Nucla CO Tri-State G & T Assn Inc Coal 2.2 San Miguel River Middletown CT Nrg Middletown Operations Inc Oil 0 Connecticut River Putnam FL Florida Power & Light Co Gas 0 St Johns River Sanford FL Florida Power & Light Co Oil 0 St Johns River Indiantown Cogeneration Lp FL Indiantown Cogeneration Lp Gas 4.4 Taylor Creek Suwannee River FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Oil 0 Suwannee River Seminole FL Seminole Electric Coop Inc Coal 13.5 St Johns River Bowen GA Georgia Power Co Coal 10.2 Etowah River Hammond GA Georgia Power Co Coal 0 Coosa River Harllee Branch GA Georgia Power Co Coal 0 Lake Sinclair Hatch GA Georgia Power Co Nuclear NA Altamaha River Jack Mcdonough GA Georgia Power Co Coal 5 Chattahoochee River Mcintosh GA Georgia Power Co Coal 0 Savannah River Mitchell GA Georgia Power Co Coal 0 Flint River Scherer GA Georgia Power Co Coal 12.1 Lake Juliette Vogtle GA Georgia Power Co Nuclear NA Savannah River Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs GA Georgia-Pacific Corp Gas 29 Chattahoochee River Duane Arnold IA Ies Utilities Inc Nuclear NA Cedar River Burlington IA Interstate Power & Light Co Coal 8 Mississippi River Lansing IA Interstate Power & Light Co Coal 0 Mississippi River Milton L Kapp IA Interstate Power & Light Co Gas 0 Mississippi River Prairie Creek IA Interstate Power & Light Co Gas 0 Cedar River Ottumwa IA Interstate Power And Light Coal 5.1 Des Moines River Council Bluffs IA Midamerican Energy Co Coal 0 Missouri River George Neal North IA Midamerican Energy Co Coal 11.4 Missouri River George Neal South IA Midamerican Energy Co Coal 0 Missouri River Riverside IA Midamerican Energy Co Coal 0 Miss River Muscatine Plant #1 IA Muscatine City Of Coal 0 Mississippi River Potlatch Idaho Pulp Paper ID Potlatch Forest Products Corp Gas 1 Clearwater River Coffeen IL Ameren Energy Generating Co Coal 0 Mcdavid Branch 
A-5 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Hutsonville IL Ameren Energy Generating Co Coal 0 Wabash River Meredosia IL Ameren Energy Generating Co Coal 0 Illinois River Newton IL Ameren Energy Generating Co Coal 0 Laws Creek, Sandy CreeE D Edwards IL Ameren Energy Resources Generating Coal 0 Illinois River Braidwood IL Commonwealth Edison Co Nuclear NA Kankakee River Byron IL Commonwealth Edison Co Nuclear NA Rock River Dresden IL Commonwealth Edison Co Nuclear NA Kankakee River (I) Lasalle IL Commonwealth Edison Co Nuclear NA Illinois River Quad Cities IL Commonwealth Edison Co Nuclear NA Mississippi River Kincaid Generation LLC IL Dominion Energy Services Co Coal 0 Lake Sangchris Baldwin Energy Complex IL Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc Coal 0 Kaskaskia River Havana IL Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc Gas 0 Illinois River Hennepin Power Station IL Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc Gas 1.9 Illinois River Vermilion IL Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc Gas 3.1 Vermilion Reservoir Wood River IL Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc Gas 0 Mississippi River Joppa Steam IL Electric Energy Inc Coal 2.6 Ohio River Clinton IL Illinois Power Co Nuclear NA Clinton Lake Kendall County Generation Facility IL Ls Power Development LLC Gas 0.7 Illinois River Crawford IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 0 Chicago Sanitary And ShFisk Street IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 0 Chicago River- South Bra Joliet 29 IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 0 Desplaines River Joliet 9 IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 0 Desplaines River Powerton IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 20 Illinois River Waukegan IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 0 Lake Michigan Will County IL Midwest Generations Eme LLC Coal 0 Chicago Sanitary And ShMarion IL Southern Illinois Power Coop Coal 7.3 Lake Egypt Dallman IL Springfield City Of Coal 6.7 Lake Springfield Warrick IN Alcoa Power Generating Inc Coal 0 Ohio River Frank E Ratts IN Hoosier Energy R E C Inc Coal 0 White River Merom IN Hoosier Energy R E C Inc Coal 0 Turtle Creek Reservoir Rockport IN Indiana Michigan Power Co Coal 0 Ohio River 
A-6 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Tanners Creek IN Indiana Michigan Power Co Coal 0 Ohio River Clifty Creek IN Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp Coal 0 Ohio River Aes Petersburg IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co Coal 0.7 White River Eagle Valley IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co Coal 0 West Fork of White River Harding Street IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co Coal 17.2 West Fork of White River Burns Harbor Plant IN International Steel Group Gas 0 Lake Michigan Bailly IN Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co Coal 36.9 Lake Michigan Dean H Mitchell IN Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co Coal NA Lake Michigan Michigan City IN Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co Gas NA Lake Michigan R M Schahfer IN Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co Coal 0 Kankakee River Cayuga IN Psi Energy Inc Coal 0 Wabash River Edwardsport IN Psi Energy Inc Coal 0 West Fork White River Gibson IN Psi Energy Inc Coal 0 Wabash River R Gallagher IN Psi Energy Inc Coal 0 Ohio River Wabash River IN Psi Energy Inc Coal 0 Wabash River A B Brown IN Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co Coal 0 Ohio River F B Culley IN Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co Coal 0 Ohio River State Line Energy IN State Line Energy LLC Coal 0 Lake Michigan Gary Works IN United States Steel Corp Gas 0.96 Lake Michigan Kaw KS Kansas City City Of Coal NA Kaw River Nearman Creek KS Kansas City City Of Coal 0 Missouri River Quindaro KS Kansas City City Of Coal 0 Missouri River La Cygne KS Kansas City Power & Light Co Coal 0 La Cygne Reservoir Jeffrey Energy Center KS Westar Energy Coal 32.1 Kansas River Wolf Creek (Ks) KS Wolf Creek Nuc Oper Corp Nuclear NA John Redmond Reser (MEast Bend KY Duke Energy Kentucky Coal 0 Ohio River Cooper KY East Kentucky Power Coop Inc Coal 0 Cumberland River Dale KY East Kentucky Power Coop Inc Coal 0 Kentucky River Big Sandy KY Kentucky Power Co Coal 0 Big River Sandy E W Brown KY Kentucky Utilities Co Coal 2 Herrington Lake Ghent KY Kentucky Utilities Co Coal 19.4 Ohio River 
A-7 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Green River KY Kentucky Utilities Co Coal 0 Green River Tyrone KY Kentucky Utilities Co Coal NA Kentucky River Cane Run KY Louisville Gas & Electric Co Gas 0 Ohio River Mill Creek KY Louisville Gas & Electric Co Gas 0 Ohio River Trimble County KY Louisville Gas & Electric Co Coal 14.8 Ohio River Elmer Smith KY Owensboro City Of Coal 0 Ohio River Paradise KY Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Green River Shawnee KY Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Ohio River D B Wilson KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp Oil 0 Green River Hmp&L Station Two Henderson KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp Coal 17.7 Green River Kenneth C Coleman KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp Coal 0 Ohio River R D Green KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp Coal 5.4 Green River Evangeline Power Station LA Cleco Evangeline LLC Gas 0 Bayou Cocodrie Dolet Hills LA Cleco Power LLC Coal 794.05 Makeup Pond On ProperRodemacher LA Cleco Power LLC Gas 0 Rodemacher Lake Willow Glen LA Entergy Gulf States Inc Gas 0 Mississippi River Little Gypsy LA Entergy Louisiana Inc Gas 0 Mississippi River Monroe LA Entergy Louisiana Inc Gas NA Ouachita River Nine Mile Point LA Entergy Louisiana Inc Gas 0 Mississippi River Sterlington LA Entergy Louisiana Inc Gas 0 Ouachita River Waterford 1 & 2 LA Entergy Louisiana Inc Gas 0.2 Mississippi River River Bend LA Gulf States Utilities Nuclear NA Mississippi River Big Cajun 2 LA Louisiana Generating LLC Coal 8.9 Mississippi River Waterford LA Louisiana Power & Light Nuclear NA Mississippi River Ouachita Generating Plant LA Ouachita Operating Sevices LLC Gas 1.57 Quachita River Arsenal Hill LA Southwestern Electric Power Co Gas 0.48 Arsenal Hill Cooling Pond Lieberman LA Southwestern Electric Power Co Gas 0 Caddo Lake West Springfield MA Consolidated Edison E Ma Inc Oil 0 Connecticut River Mount Tom MA Northeast Generation Services Co Coal 0 Connecticut River R Paul Smith Power Station MD Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC Coal 0 Potomac River Dickerson MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Coal 0 Potomac River 
A-8 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

J H Campbell MI Consumers Energy Co Coal NA Lake Michigan Palisades (Mi) MI Consumers Power Co Nuclear NA Lake Michigan Mistersky MI Detroit City Of Gas 0.22 Detroit River Fermi MI Detroit Edison Co Nuclear NA Lake Erie Dc Cook MI Indiana Michigan Power Co Nuclear NA Lake Michigan Erickson Station MI Lansing City Of Coal 0.4 Grand River New Covert Generating Facility MI New Covert Generating Company LLC Gas 9.48 Lake Michigan Presque Isle MI Wisconsin Electric Power Co Coal 0 Lake Superior Clay Boswell MN Allete Inc Coal 0 North Blackwater Lake Syl Laskin MN Allete Inc Coal 1.2 Colby Lake Taconite Harbor Energy Center MN Allete Inc Coal 0.1 Lake Superior Silver Bay Power MN Cleveland Cliffs Inc Gas 4.9 Lake Superior Fox Lake MN Interstate Power & Light Co Gas 0 Fox Lake Allen S King MN Northern States Power Co Coal 1.3 Lake St. Croix Black Dog MN Northern States Power Co Coal 0 Minnesota River High Bridge MN Northern States Power Co Gas 0 River Monticello (Mn) MN Northern States Power Co Nuclear NA Mississippi River Prairie Island MN Northern States Power Co Nuclear NA Mississippi River Sherburne County MN Northern States Power Co Coal 24.7 Mississippi River Hoot Lake MN Otter Tail Power Co Oil 0 Otter Tail River Labadie MO Ameren UE Coal 0 Missouri River Meramec MO Ameren UE Coal 0 Mississippi River Rush Island MO Ameren UE Coal 0 Mississippi River Sioux MO Ameren UE Coal 0 Mississippi River Lake Road MO Aquila Inc Gas 0 Missouri River Sibley MO Aquila Inc Coal 0 Missouri River New Madrid MO Associated Electric Coop Inc Coal 6.1 Mississippi River Thomas Hill MO Associated Electric Coop Inc Coal 11.5 Thomas Hill Lake Hawthorn MO Kansas City Power & Light Co Coal 0 Missouri River Latan MO Kansas City Power & Light Co Coal 0 Missouri River Montrose MO Kansas City Power & Light Co Coal 0 Montrose Reservoir 
A-9 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

James River Power Station MO Springfield City Of Gas 9.2 Lake Springfield Callaway MO Union Electric Co Nuclear NA Missouri River Baxter Wilson MS Entergy Mississippi Inc Gas 0 Mississippi River Delta MS Entergy Mississippi Inc Gas 0.7 Sunflower River Gerald Andrus MS Entergy Mississippi Inc Gas NA Mississippi River Rex Brown MS Entergy Mississippi Inc Gas 0 Cooling Pond Grand Gulf MS Entergy Operations Inc Nuclear NA Mississippi River Batesville Generation Facility MS Lsp Energy Ltd Partnership Gas 1.63 Little Tallahtchie River Weyerhaeuser Columbus Ms MS Weyerhaeuser Co Coal 1.4 Tennessee-Tombigbee WColstrip MT Ppl Montana LLC Coal 15 Yellowstone River Hardin Generator Project MT Rocky Mountain Power Inc NA 0 Bighorn River Harris (Nc) NC Carolina Power & Light Co Nuclear NA Harris Lake Belews Creek NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 7.6 Belews Lake Buck NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 0.5 Yadkin River/High Rock Cliffside NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 0.4 Broad River Dan River NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 0.7 Dan River G G Allen NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 1.5 Lake Wylie Marshall NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 4.1 Lake Norman Mcguire NC Duke Energy Corp Nuclear NA Lake Norman Riverbend NC Duke Energy Corp Coal 0.7 Catawba River Asheville NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc Coal 1.1 Lake Julian Cape Fear NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc Coal 0.6 Cape Fear River Lee NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc Coal 13 H F Lee Lake Mayo NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc Coal 24 Mayo Lake Roxboro NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc Coal 0 Lake Hyco Antelope Valley ND Basin Electric Power Coop Coal 6.5 Lake Coal Creek ND Great River Energy Coal 18.69 Missouri River Stanton ND Great River Energy Coal 0.1 Missouri River R M Heskett ND Mdu Resources Group Inc Coal 0 Missouri River Milton R Young ND Minnkota Power Coop Inc Coal 0 Nelson Lake Coyote ND Otter Tail Power Co Coal 7.1 Missouri River 
A-10 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Canaday NE Nebraska Public Power District Oil/Gas 0 Tri-County Supply Canal Fort Calhoun NE Omaha Public Power Dist Nuclear NA Missouri River Nebraska City NE Omaha Public Power District Coal 0 Missouri River North Omaha NE Omaha Public Power District Coal 0 Missouri River Merrimack NH Public Service Co Of NH Coal 0 Merrimack River Chambers Cogeneration Lp NJ Chambers Cogeneration Lp Coal 4 Salem Canal Oyster Creek NJ Gpu Nuclear Corp Nuclear NA Forked River (I) Logan Generating Plant NJ Logan Generating Co Lp Coal 3.6 Delware River Pseg Mercer Generating Station NJ Pseg Fossil LLC Coal 4.8 Delaware River Four Corners NM Arizona Public Service Co Coal 34.3 San Juan River Tracy NV Sierra Pacific Power Co Gas 2.68 Truckee River Aes Cayuga NY Aes Cayuga LLC Coal 0.7 Cayuga Lake Aes Greenidge LLC NY Aes Greenidge LLC Coal 0 Seneca Lake Aes Somerset LLC NY Aes Somerset LLC Coal 0 Lake Ontario Dunkirk Generating Station NY Dunkirk Power LLC Coal 0 Lake Erie Danskammer Generating Station NY Dynegy Northeast Gen Inc Coal 0 Hudson River Roseton Generating Station NY Dynegy Northeast Gen Inc Gas 0 Hudson River Fitzpatrick NY New York Power Authority Nuclear NA Lake Ontario C R Huntley Generating Station NY Nrg Huntley Operations Inc Coal 0 Niagara River Oswego Harbor Power NY Nrg Oswego Power Operations Inc Oil 0 Lake Ontario Pseg Albany Generating Station NY Pseg Power New York Inc Gas 0 Hudson River Ginna NY Rochester Gas & Elec Corp Nuclear NA Lake Ontario Rochester 7 NY Rochester Gas & Electric Corp Coal 0 Lake Ontario Richard Gorsuch OH American Mun Power-Ohio Inc Coal 0 Ohio River Cardinal OH Cardinal Operating Co Coal 13.5 Ohio River Perry (Oh) OH Cleveland Elec Illum Co Nuclear NA Lake Erie Ashtabula OH Cleveland Electric Illum Co Coal 0 Lake Erie Eastlake OH Cleveland Electric Illum Co Coal 33 Lake Erie Lake Shore OH Cleveland Electric Illum Co Coal 0 Lake Erie Conesville OH Columbus Southern Power Co Coal 0 Muskingum River Picway OH Columbus Southern Power Co Coal 0 Scioto River 
A-11 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

J M Stuart OH Dayton Power & Light Co Coal 3.5 Ohio River Killen Station OH Dayton Power & Light Co Coal 12.5 Ohio River O H Hutchings OH Dayton Power & Light Co Gas 0 Great Miami River Hanging Rock Energy Facility OH Duke Energy Hanging Rock LLC Gas 2.17 Ohio River Miami Fort OH Duke Energy Kentucky Coal 0 Ohio River W H Zimmer OH Duke Energy Ohio Coal 0 Ohio River Walter C Beckjord OH Duke Energy Ohio Coal 0 Ohio River Hamilton OH Hamilton City Of Gas 0 Miami River R E Burger OH Ohio Edison Co Coal 0 Ohio River W H Sammis OH Ohio Edison Co Coal 0 Ohio River General James M Gavin OH Ohio Power Co Coal 0 Ohio River Muskingum River OH Ohio Power Co Coal 0 Muskingum River Kyger Creek OH Ohio Valley Electric Corp Coal 0 Ohio River Avon Lake OH Orion Power Midwest Lp Coal 0 Lake Erie Bay Shore OH Toledo Edison Co Coal 0 Lake Erie Davis Besse OH Toledo Edison Co Nuclear NA Lake Erie Aes Shady Point OK Aes Shady Point LLC Coal 4.32 Poteau River Grda OK Grand River Dam Authority Coal 7.35 Grand River Horseshoe Lake OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co Gas 0.8 Cooling Pond Muskogee OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co Gas NA Arkansas River Sooner OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co Coal 15.3 Arkansas River Northeastern OK Public Service Co of Oklahoma Gas 1.9 Verdigris River Southwestern OK Public Service Co of Oklahoma Gas 0.7 Ft. Cobb Tulsa OK Public Service Co of Oklahoma Gas 1.42 Arkansas Hugo OK Western Farmers Elec Coop Inc Coal 5.2 Kiamichi River Boardman OR Portland General Electric Co Coal 18 Columbia River Port Westward OR Portland General Electric Co NA NA Columbia River Aes Beaver Valley Partners Beaver Valley PA Aes Beaver Valley Coal 0 Ohio River Armstrong Power Station PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC Coal 0 Allegheny River Hatfields Ferry Power Station PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC Coal 6.5 Monongahela River Mitchell Power Station PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC Gas 12.6 Monongahela River 
A-12 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Fayette Energy Facility PA Duke Energy Fayette LLC Gas 0.4 Monongahela River Beaver Valley PA Duquesne Light Co Nuclear NA Ohio River Cromby Generating Station PA Exelon Generation Co LLC Coal 0 Schuylkill River Eddystone Generating Station PA Exelon Generation Co LLC Coal 0.6 Delaware River Schuylkill Generating Station PA Exelon Generation Co LLC Oil 0 Schuylkill River Three Mile Island PA Gpu Nuclear Corp Nuclear NA Susquehanna River Homer City Station PA Midwest Generation Coal 26 Two Lick Creek Brunot Island PA Orion Power Midwest Lp Gas 0.2 Ohio River Cheswick Power Plant PA Orion Power Midwest Lp Coal 0 Allegheny River Elrama Power Plant PA Orion Power Midwest Lp Coal 3.7 Monongahela River New Castle Plant PA Orion Power Midwest Lp Coal 0 Beaver River P H Glatfelter PA P H Glatfelter Co Coal 0 North Codorus Limerick PA Peco Energy Co Nuclear NA Schuylkill River (M) Peach Bottom PA Peco Energy Co Nuclear NA Susquehanna River Susquehanna PA Pennsylvania Power & Lt Nuclear NA Susquehanna River Bruce Mansfield PA Pennsylvania Power Co Coal 22.3 Ohio River Northampton Generating Company PA Pg&E National Energy Group Coal 1.7 Lehigh River Ppl Brunner Island PA Ppl Corp Coal 4.1 Susquehanna River Ppl Martins Creek PA Ppl Corp Coal 0 Delaware River Ppl Montour PA Ppl Corp Coal 14 Susquehanna River Seward PA Reliant Energy Inc Coal 5.7 Conemaugh River Portland PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Ph Coal 2 Delaware River Shawville PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Ph Coal 0 Susquehanna River Titus PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Ph Coal 2.1 Schuylkill River Wps Energy Servs Sunbury Gen PA Sunbury Generation LLC Coal 0 Susquehanna River Colver Power Project PA Tifd Viii-W Inc Coal 1.8 Vetera Reservoir G F Weaton Power Station PA Zinc Corp of America Gas 0 Ohio River Robinson SC Carolina Power & Light Co Nuclear NA Lake Robinson Catawba SC Duke Energy Corp Nuclear NA Lake Wylie Oconee SC Duke Energy Corp Nuclear NA Lake Keowee W S Lee SC Duke Energy Corp Coal 1.1 Saluda River 
A-13 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

International Paper Eastover Facility SC International Paper Co-Eastovr Biomass 0 Wateree River H B Robinson SC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc Coal 0 Lake Robinson Summer SC South Carolina Elec & Gas Nuclear NA Monticello Reservoir Canadys Steam SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co Coal 4.75 Edisto River Cope SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co Coal 5.5 South Fork/Edisto River Mcmeekin SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co Coal 0 Lake Murray Urquhart SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co Coal 0 Savannah River Wateree SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co Coal 0 Wateree River Dolphus M Grainger SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Coal 0 Waccamaw River Stone Container Florence Mill SC Stone Container Corp Oil 0 Great Pee Dee River Big Stone SD Otter Tail Power Co Coal 6 Big Stone Lake Tennessee Eastman Operations TN Eastman Chemical Co-Tn Ops Coal 0 South Fork - Holston RiveSequoyah TN Tennessee Valley Auth Nuclear NA Chickamauga Reservoir Allen Steam Plant TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Mississippi River Bull Run TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Clinch River Cumberland TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Cumberland Gallatin TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Cumberland John Sevier TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Holston River Johnsonville TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Tennessee River Kingston TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal 0 Emory River Watts Bar Fossil TN Tennessee Valley Authority Coal NA Tennessee River Sandow Station TX Alcoa Inc Coal NA Alcoa Lake Treatment SyDecker Creek TX Austin City Of Gas 0 Lake Long Sand Hill TX Austin City Of Gas 0 Lower Colorado River R W Miller TX Brazos Electric Power Coop Inc Gas 1 Lake Palo Pinto Brazos Valley Generating Facility TX Brazos Valley Energy Gas 4.1 Brazos River Dansby TX Bryan City Of Gas 0 Lake J K Spruce TX City Public Service of San Antonio Coal 13.1 Calaveras Lake J T Deely TX City Public Service of San Antonio Coal 9 Calaveras Lake Make-Up O W Sommers TX City Public Service of San Antonio Gas 1.2 Calaveras Lake; Make-UV H Braunig TX City Public Service of San Antonio Gas 0.6 VH Braunig Laek; Make U
A-14 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Handley TX Extex Laporte LP Gas 4.7 Lake Arlington Mountain Creek TX Extex Laporte LP Gas 1.4 Mountian Creek Lake Ray Olinger TX Garland City Of Gas NA Lake Lavon Guadalupe Generating Station TX Guadalupe Power Partners Lp Gas 3.5 Lake Dunlap Cottonwood Energy Project TX Intergen Oper Co (Cottonwood) Gas 0 Sabine River Fayette Power Project TX Lower Colorado River Authority Coal 0 Fpp Lake Sim Gideon TX Lower Colorado River Authority Gas 0 Colorado River/Lk BastroThomas C Ferguson TX Lower Colorado River Authority Gas 1.1 Lake LBJ Limestone TX Nrg Coal 23.11 Lake Limestone W A Parish TX Nrg Gas 0 Brazos River Knox Lee TX Southwestern Electric Power Co Gas 0 Lake Cherokee Pirkey TX Southwestern Electric Power Co Gas 8 Brandy Branch Reservoir Welsh TX Southwestern Electric Power Co Coal 1.6 Swauano Creek ReservoWilkes TX Southwestern Electric Power Co Gas 0 Johnson Creek ReservoiGibbons Creek TX Texas Municipal Power Agency Coal 0 Gibbons Creek Comanche Peak TX Texas Utilities Elec Co Nuclear NA Squaw Creek Reservoir Coleto Creek TX Topaz Power Group LLC Coal 2 Coleto Creek Reservoir La Palma TX Topaz Power Group LLC Gas 1.18 Resaca De Las Palmas Victoria TX Topaz Power Group LLC Gas NA Guadalupe River Big Brown TX Txu Electric Co Coal 0 Fairfield Lake Decordova Steam Electric Station TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0.3 Lake Granbury Eagle Mountain TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0.2 Eagle Mountain ReservoGraham TX Txu Electric Co Gas 186 Lake Graham Lake Creek TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0.1 Lake Creek Lake Lake Hubbard TX Txu Electric Co Gas NA Lake Ray Hubbard Martin Lake TX Txu Electric Co Coal 0 Martin Lake Monticello TX Txu Electric Co Coal 0 Monticello Reservoir Morgan Creek TX Txu Electric Co Gas NA Lake Colorado City North Lake TX Txu Electric Co Gas NA North Lake Sandow No 4 TX Txu Electric Co Coal NA Lake Alcoa Stryker Creek TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0 Stryker Creek Reservoir 
A-15 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Tradinghouse TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0.6 Tradinghouse Creek ResTrinidad TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0 Trinidad Lake Valley TX Txu Electric Co Gas 0 Valley Lake Bonanza UT Deseret Generation & Tran Coop Coal 10.6 Green River Intermountain Power Project UT Los Angeles City Of Coal 13.9 Dmad Reservoir Carbon UT Pacificorp Coal 1.7 Price River Gadsby UT Pacificorp Gas 0.1 Jordan River Hunter UT Pacificorp Coal 8.4 Cottonwood Creek Huntington UT Pacificorp Coal 8.2 Huntington Creek Clinch River VA Appalachian Power Co Coal 0 Clinch River Glen Lyn VA Appalachian Power Co Coal 0 New River Birchwood Power VA Birchwood Power Partners Lp Coal 3.3 Rappahannock River Cogentrix Of Richmond VA Cogentrix Of Richmond Inc Coal 3.9 James River Mecklenburg Power Station VA Dps Mecklenburg LLC Coal 167.8 John H Kerr Reservoir North Anna VA Virginia Elec & Power Co Nuclear NA Lake Anna Clover VA Virginia Electric & Power Co Coal NA Roanoke River Vermont Yankee VT Vermont Yankee Nuc Power Nuclear NA Connecticut River Transalta Centralia Generation WA Transalta Centralia Gen LLC NA 0.4 Skookumchuk River Columbia WA Washington Pub Pwr Supply Nuclear NA Columbia River Alma WI Dairyland Power Coop Coal 0 Mississippi River Genoa WI Dairyland Power Coop Coal 0 Mississippi River John P Madgett WI Dairyland Power Coop Coal 0 Mississippi River Green Bay West Mill WI Fort James Operating Co Gas 17 Lower Fox River Blount Street WI Madison Gas & Electric Co Gas 0 Lake Monona Manitowoc WI Manitowoc Public Utilities Gas 0 Lake Michigan Point Beach WI Wisconsin Elec Power Co Nuclear NA Lake Michigan Elm Road Generating Station WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co NA NA Lake Michigan Pleasant Prairie WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co Coal 9.4 Lake Michigan South Oak Creek WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co Coal 0 Lake Michigan Edgewater WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co Coal 0 Lake Michigan Nelson Dewey WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co Coal 0 Mississippi River 
A-16 

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Fuel 

Type 

Average 

Consumption 

(cfs) Cooling Water Sou

Rock River WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co Gas 0.6 Rock River Kewaunee WI Wisconsin Public Service Nuclear NA Lake Michigan Pulliam WI Wisconsin Public Service Corp Coal 0 Green Bay Weston WI Wisconsin Public Service Corp Coal 0 Wisconsin River John E Amos WV Appalachian Power Co Coal 14.1 Kanawha River Kanawha River WV Appalachian Power Co Coal 0 Kanawha River Mountaineer WV Appalachian Power Co Coal NA Ohio River Philip Sporn WV Central Operating Co Coal 0 Ohio River Albright WV Monongahela Power Co Coal NA Cheat River Fort Martin Power Station WV Monongahela Power Co Coal 6.2 Monongahela River Harrison Power Station WV Monongahela Power Co Coal 12.67 West Fork River Pleasants Power Station WV Monongahela Power Co Coal 14.6 Ohio River Rivesville WV Monongahela Power Co Coal 0 Monongahela River Willow Island WV Monongahela Power Co Gas 0 Ohio River Kammer WV Ohio Power Co Coal 0 Ohio River Ppg Natrium Plant WV Ppg Industries Inc Gas 0 Ohio River Laramie River Station WY Basin Electric Power Coop Coal 8.3 Laramie River Dave Johnston WY Pacificorp Coal 0.9 North Platte River Jim Bridger WY Pacificorp Coal 7.7 Green River Naughton WY Pacificorp Coal 1.7 Hams Fork River 
B-1

Appendix B – Database of Power Plants Filtered Out 

 (Selected Fields) 
B-2

This page intentionally left blank 
B-3

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Reason for Deletion from 

Database 

Union Power Station AR Union Power Partners LP No depth data in EIA-767 

Hot Spring Power Project AR Hot Spring Power Co LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

KGen Hot Spring Generating Facility AR Cinergy Solutions O&M LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Santan AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Not surface water 

Desert Basin AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist No depth data in EIA-767 

AES Alamitos LLC CA AES Alamitos LLC Salt/tidal water 

Humboldt Bay CA Pacific Gas & Electric Co Salt/tidal water 

Morro Bay Power Plant CA Duke Energy North America LLC Salt/tidal water 

Moss Landing Power Plant CA Duke Energy North America LLC Salt/tidal water 

AES Huntington Beach LLC CA AES Huntington Beach LLC Salt/tidal water 

Encina CA Cabrillo Power I LLC Salt/tidal water 

Haynes CA Los Angeles City of Salt/tidal water 

AES Redondo Beach LLC CA AES Redondo Beach LLC Salt/tidal water 

Diablo Canyon CA Pacific Gas & Elec Co Salt/tidal water 

El Segundo Power CA El Segundo Power LLC Salt/tidal water 

Mandalay CA Reliant Energy Mandalay LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Ormond Beach CA Reliant Energy Ormond Bch LLC Salt/tidal water 

San Onofre CA Southern Calif Edison Co Salt/tidal water 

Pittsburg Power CA Mirant Delta LLC Salt/tidal water 

South Bay Power Plant CA Duke Energy North America LLC Salt/tidal water 

Hunters Point CA Pacific Gas & Electric Co Salt/tidal water 

Potrero Power CA Mirant Potrero LLC Salt/tidal water 

Contra Costa CA Mirant Delta LLC Salt/tidal water 

Scattergood CA Los Angeles City of Salt/tidal water 

Comanche CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767 

Arapahoe CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767 

Cherokee CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767 

Zuni CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767 

Fort St Vrain CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767 

Rocky Mountain Energy Center CO Rocky Mountain Energy Ctr LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Bridgeport Station CT PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Salt/tidal water 

Devon Station CT NRG Devon Operations Inc Salt/tidal water 

NRG Norwalk Harbor CT NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations Salt/tidal water 

New Haven Harbor CT PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Salt/tidal water 

Millstone CT Northeast Nuc Energy Co Salt/tidal water 

AES Thames CT AES Thames LLC Salt/tidal water 

Montville Station CT NRG Montville Operations Inc Salt/tidal water 

Benning DC Mirant Mid-Atlantic Serc LLC Salt/tidal water 

Edge Moor DE Conectiv Energy Supply Inc Salt/tidal water 

Delaware City Plant DE Motiva Enterprises LLC Salt/tidal water 

Indian River Generating Station DE Indian River Operations Inc Salt/tidal water 

Anclote FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Salt/tidal water 

St Lucie FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water 

Cutler FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water 

Turkey Point FL Florida Power & Light Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Crist FL Gulf Power Co Salt/tidal water 
B-4

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Reason for Deletion from 

Database 

Crystal River FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Salt/tidal water 

Big Bend FL Tampa Electric Co Salt/tidal water 

Cape Canaveral FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water 

Henry D King FL Fort Pierce Utilities Auth Salt/tidal water 

Indian River FL Reliant Energy Florida LLC Salt/tidal water 

Vero Beach Municipal Power Plant FL Vero Beach City of Salt/tidal water 

Port Everglades FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water 

Riviera FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water 

Manatee FL Florida Power & Light Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Lansing Smith FL Gulf Power Co Salt/tidal water 

St Johns River Power Park FL JEA No depth data in EIA-767 

Northside Generating Station FL JEA No depth data in EIA-767 

Martin FL Florida Power & Light Co No depth data in EIA-767 

P L Bartow FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Salt/tidal water 

Blue Heron Energy Center FL Calpine Eastern Corp No depth data in EIA-767 

Yates GA Georgia Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

McIntosh Combined Cycle Facility GA Savannah Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Kraft GA Savannah Electric & Power Co Salt/tidal water 

McManus GA Georgia Power Co Salt/tidal water 

Augusta Energy Center GA Augusta Energy Center LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Longleaf Energy Station GA Longleaf Energy Associates, LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Honolulu HI Hawaiian Electric Co Inc Salt/tidal water 

Kahe HI Hawaiian Electric Co Inc Salt/tidal water 

Waiau HI Hawaiian Electric Co Inc Salt/tidal water 

Duck Creek IL 

Ameren Energy Resources 

Generating Salt/tidal water 

Holland Energy Facility IL Holland Energy LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Prairie State Generating Station IL Prairie State Generating Co LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Prairie State Generatng Station IL Prairie State Generating Co LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Indeck Elwood Energy Center IL Indeck-Elwood LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Whiting Clean Energy IN Whiting Clean Energy Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Estill County Energy Partners LLC KY Estill County Energy Partners LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Kentucky Mountain Power LLC KY Kentucky Mountain Power LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

H L Spurlock KY East Kentucky Power Coop Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

J K Smith KY East Kentucky Power Coop Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Thoroughbred Generating Station KY Thoroughbred Generating Station Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Perryville Power Station LA Perryville Energy Partners No depth data in EIA-767 

Teche LA Cleco Power LLC Salt/tidal water 

A B Paterson LA Entergy New Orleans Inc Salt/tidal water 

Michoud LA Entergy New Orleans Inc Salt/tidal water 

R S Nelson LA Entergy Gulf States Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Salem Harbor MA U S Gen New England Inc Salt/tidal water 

New Boston Generating Station MA Exelon New England Holdings LLC Salt/tidal water 

Pilgrim MA Boston Edison Co Salt/tidal water 

Canal MA Mirant Canal LLC Salt/tidal water 

Brayton Point MA Dominion Energy New England Salt/tidal water 

Mystic Generating Station MA Boston Generating LLC Salt/tidal water 
B-5

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Reason for Deletion from 

Database 

Cleary Flood MA Taunton City of Salt/tidal water 

Somerset Station MA Somerset Power LLC Salt/tidal water 

Calvert Cliffs MD Baltimore Gas & Elec Co Salt/tidal water 

Vienna Operations MD Vienna Operations Inc Salt/tidal water 

Sparrows Point MD International Steel Group No depth data in EIA-767 

Brandon Shores MD Constellation Power Source Gen Salt/tidal water 

Herbert A Wagner MD Constellation Power Source Gen Salt/tidal water 

Chalk Point LLC MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Salt/tidal water 

Morgantown Generating Plant MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Salt/tidal water 

C P Crane MD Constellation Power Source Gen Salt/tidal water 

Rumford Cogeneration ME MeadWestvaco Corp No depth data in EIA-767 

William F Wyman ME FPL Energy Wyman LLC Salt/tidal water 

Somerset Plant ME S D Warren Co Salt/tidal water 

Conners Creek MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

River Rouge MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Eckert Station MI Lansing City of No depth data in EIA-767 

Harbor Beach MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

B C Cobb MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767 

J R Whiting MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Dan E Karn MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767 

J C Weadock MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Marysville MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

St Clair MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Belle River MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Midland Cogeneration Venture MI Midland Cogeneration Venture No depth data in EIA-767 

Trenton Channel MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Jack Watson MS Mississippi Power Co Salt/tidal water 

Caledonia MS Caledonia Operating Services LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Lone Oak Energy Center MS Calpine Construction No depth data in EIA-767 

J E Corette Plant MT PPL Montana LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Brunswick (Nc) NC Carolina Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water 

L V Sutton NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

W H Weatherspoon NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Leland Olds ND Basin Electric Power Coop No depth data in EIA-767 

Gerald Gentleman NE Nebraska Public Power District No depth data in EIA-767 

Seabrook NH North Atlantic Energy Salt/tidal water 

Newington NH Public Service Co of NH Salt/tidal water 

Schiller NH Public Service Co of NH Salt/tidal water 

PSEG Sewaren Generating Station NJ PSEG Fossil LLC Salt/tidal water 

Deepwater NJ Atlantic City Electric Co Salt/tidal water 

Hope Creek NJ Public Service Elec & Gas Salt/tidal water 

Salem (NJ) NJ Public Service Elec & Gas Salt/tidal water 

B L England NJ Atlantic City Electric Co No depth data in EIA-767 

PSEG Hudson Generating Station NJ PSEG Fossil LLC Salt/tidal water 

PSEG Kearny Generating Station NJ PSEG Fossil LLC Salt/tidal water 

San Juan NM Public Service Co of NM No depth data in EIA-767 
B-6

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Reason for Deletion from 

Database 

Reid Gardner NV Nevada Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

E F Barrett NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water 

Astoria Generating Station NY Astoria Generating Co LP Salt/tidal water 

Charles Poletti NY Power Authority of State of NY Salt/tidal water 

East River NY Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Salt/tidal water 

Ravenswood NY KeySpan-Ravenswood Inc Salt/tidal water 

Glenwood NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water 

Bowline Point NY Mirant Bowline LLC Salt/tidal water 

Indian Point NY Consolidated Edison Co Salt/tidal water 

Indian Point Three NY New York Power Authority Salt/tidal water 

Lovett NY Mirant New York Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Northport NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water 

Port Jefferson NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water 

Arthur Kill Generating Station NY Arthur Kill Power LLC Salt/tidal water 

Far Rockaway NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water 

AES Westover NY AES Westover LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Niles OH Orion Power Midwest LP No depth data in EIA-767 

AEP Waterford Facility OH Columbus Southern Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Muskogee Mill OK Fort James Operating Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Mustang OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Coyote Springs 2 OR Avista Corporation No depth data in EIA-767 

Conemaugh PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Keystone PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co No depth data in EIA-767 

River Hill Power Company LLC PA River Hill Power Company, LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Williams SC South Carolina Genertg Co Inc Salt/tidal water 

Cross SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth No depth data in EIA-767 

Jefferies SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth No depth data in EIA-767 

Winyah SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Salt/tidal water 

Haywood Energy Center LLC TN Haywood Energy Center LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Lon C Hill TX Topaz Power Group LLC No depth data in EIA-767 

Webster TX Texas Genco Salt/tidal water 

South Texas TX Houston Lighting & Power Salt/tidal water 

Corpus Christi Energy Center TX Corpus Christi Cogeneration LP Salt/tidal water 

Eastman Cogeneration Facility TX Eastman Cogeneration LP No depth data in EIA-767 

P H Robinson TX Texas Genco No depth data in EIA-767 

Sam Bertron TX Texas Genco No depth data in EIA-767 

Barney M Davis TX Topaz Power Group LLC Salt/tidal water 

Lewis Creek TX Entergy Gulf States Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Deer Park Energy Center TX Deer Park Energy Center No depth data in EIA-767 

Nueces Bay TX Topaz Power Group LLC Salt/tidal water 

Laredo TX Topaz Power Group LLC Salt/tidal water 

Sabine TX Entergy Gulf States Inc Salt/tidal water 

Cedar Bayou TX Texas Genco Salt/tidal water 

Arthur Von Rosenberg TX San Antonio Public Service Bd No depth data in EIA-767 

Currant Creek UT PacifiCorp No depth data in EIA-767 

Chesapeake VA Virginia Electric & Power Co Salt/tidal water 
B-7

Plant Name State Utility Name 

Reason for Deletion from 

Database 

Bremo Bluff VA Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Chesterfield VA Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Surry VA Virginia Elec & Power Co Salt/tidal water 

Possum Point VA Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Potomac River VA Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Salt/tidal water 

Yorktown VA Virginia Electric & Power Co Salt/tidal water 

Sumas Energy 2 Generation Fac WA Sumas Energy 2 Inc No depth data in EIA-767 

Port Washington Generating Station WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co No depth data in EIA-767 

Mt Storm WV Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767