Oklahoma comprehensive water plan executive report

              Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Executive Report
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Final
Approved October 17, 2011Acknowledgements
OWRB Members
Linda P. Lambert, Chairman
F. Ford Drummond, Vice Chairman
Joseph E. Taron, Secretary
Tom Buchanan
Marilyn Feaver
Ed Fite
Rudy Herrmann
Kenneth K. Knowles
Richard C. Sevenoaks
Executive Director
J.D. StrongContents
Foreword. . .. . .1
Executive Summary. . . 3
Overview of Technical Results and Findings. . . 4
Policy Recommendations and Implementation. . 7
Priority Recommendations. . . 9
Water Project & Infrastructure Funding. . . 9
Regional Planning Groups. . . 10
Excess & Surplus Water. . .. .11
Instream/Environmental Flows. . . 12
State/Tribal Water Consultation and Resolution. . 13
Water Conservation, Efficiency, Recycling & Reuse. . 14
Water Supply Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Water Quality & Quantity Monitoring . 16
Supporting Recommendations & Initiatives. . .. . .17
Nonpoint Source Pollution. . .. .17
Maximizing & Developing Reservoir Storage. . .. . .17
Water Management & Administration. . . 18
Dam Safety & Floodplain Management. . . 18
Water Quality Management. . . 19
Navigation. . 19
Interstate Water Issues. . . 19
Source Water Protection. . .. .20
Water Emergency/Drought Planning. . .. .20
Water Supply Augmentation. . .. . .20
Water-Related Research. . 21
Agricultural Water Research. . 21
Climate & Weather Impacts on Water Management . .. . .22
Water Resources Planning in Oklahoma . . 23
Plan Organization. . . 23
Water Management in Oklahoma . .. .25
Overview of Water Use and Rights Administration . .. .25
Stream Water Law. . . 27
Groundwater Law. . 31
Diffused Surface Water, Flooding and Floodplain Management. . . 33
Interstate Stream Water Compacts. . .. . .34
Federal Rights. . .. . .34
Water Quality and Pollution Control . 35
State Water Agencies . . 36
Federal Water Agencies . 37
Statewide Overview . . 39
Surface Water Resources. . . 39
Red River and Tributaries. . 39
Red River. . . 39
North Fork of the Red River. . 39
Cache Creek. . . 39
Beaver Creek. . .. .40
Washita River. . .. . .40
Blue River. . .. .40
Muddy Boggy Creek. . .. . .40
Kiamichi River. . . 41
Little River. . 41
Mountain Fork River. . . 41
Arkansas River and Tributaries. . .. . .42
Arkansas River. . .. .42
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River. . .. .42
Cimarron River. . .. . .42
Beaver/North Canadian River. . .. . .43
Canadian River. . .. . .43
Deep Fork of the North Canadian River. . .. . .44
Illinois River. . .. . .44
Poteau River. . .. . .44
Verdigris River. . .. .45
Grand (Neosho) River. . .. . .45
Groundwater Resources. . 51
Alluvial Aquifers. . . 51
Major Bedrock Aquifers. . .. .54
Antlers. . .. .54
Arbuckle-Simpson. . .. . .54
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills. . .. .54
Blaine. . 55
Elk City. . 55
Garber-Wellington (Central Oklahoma). . . 55
Ogallala (High Plains). . 58
Roubidoux (Ozark). . 58
Rush Springs. . .. .59
Vamoosa-Ada . .. . .59
Statewide Water Assessment. . 61
Water Demand Projections. . . 61
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Demand. . 61
County-Level M&I Demand. . . 61
Provider-Level M&I Demand. . .. . .62
Self-Supplied Residential Demand. . .. . .62
Self-Supplied Industrial Demand. . .. .62
Thermoelectric Power Demand. . . 63
Agriculture Demand. . . 63
Livestock Demand. . . 63
Crop Irrigation Demand. . 63
Oil and Gas Demand. . . 63
Total Statewide Demand. . .. . .64
Basin- and Region-Level Demand. . .. . .64
Basin-Level Demand . .. .64
Water Availability . . 73
Physical Supply Availability . . 73
Physical Water Supply Availability Analysis. . 73
Baseline Scenario. . 76
Physical Water Supply Availability Results. . 76
Limitations in the Analyses. . 78
Permit Availability . . 78
Surface Water Permit Availability. . . 79
Interstate Stream Compacts. . 81
Groundwater Permit Availability. . 83
Water Quality. . .. . .84
Climate Change Implications on Supply and Demand. . .. . .84
Potential Effects on Temperature, Precipitation, and
Water Supply. . .. .86
Potential Effects on Water Demand. . . 88
M&I Demand. . .. .89
Crop Irrigation Demand. . .. .89
Implications for Water Supply Shortages. . .. .89Water Supply Limitations Analysis. . .. . .92
Excess & Surplus Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Regional/Statewide Opportunities & Solutions. . .. . .99
Water Supply Options. . .. .99
Primary Options. . .. . .99
Demand Management . .. . .99
Out-of-Basin Supplies . . 100
Reservoir Use . . 100
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 101
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater. . 101
Expanded Options . . 101
Expanded Conservation Measures . 101
Potential Reservoir Development . .. . .104
Marginal Quality Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Artificial Aquifer Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Statewide Water Conveyance System. . .. . .115
Hot Spot Evaluation. . .. . .117
Hot Spot Identification Methodology. . .. . .117
Surface Water. . .. . .117
Groundwater. . .. . .117
Results of Hot Spot Identification. . .. .118
Potential Supply Options for the Hot Spot Basins . . 120
Basin 22. . 120
Basin 26. . 122
Basin 34. . 123
Basin 36. . 125
Basin 38. . 126
Basins 40 & 41. . . 128
Basin 42 . . 129
Basin 51. . .. . .131
Basin 54 . . 132
Basins 55 & 66. . . 134
Tools Developed During the OCWP Process. . . 136
OCWP Planning Tools . . 136
Infrastructure Decision Tools. . . 136
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Programs and Needs. . . 137
OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Methodology. . . 137
Regional and Statewide Drinking Water Cost Estimates. . . 139
Wastewater Infrastructure Needs . . 141
Regional and Statewide Wastewater Cost Estimates. . 142
Appendix (See list of Tables). . .. . .144
List of Maps
Major Surface Water Resources. . .. . .46
Major and Minor Alluvial Aquifers. . .. .52
Major and Minor Bedrock Aquifers. . .. . .56
2060 Municipal & Industrial Water Demand by Region. . .. . .64
2060 Self-Supplied Residential Water Demand by Region. . .. . .64
2060 Self-Supplied Industrial Water Demand by Region. . .. .65
2060 Thermoelectric Power Water Demand by Region. . .. . .65
2060 Crop Irrigation Water Demand by Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2060 Livestock Water Demand. . .. .66
2060 Oil & Gas Water Demand. . .. . .66
2060 Total Regional Water Demand & Water Sector
Demand Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2060 Basin Water Demand Density. . .. .68
2010-2060 Growth in Total Basin Water Demand. . .. .68
2060 Predominant Water Supply Source by Basin. . . 73
Estimated Average Annual Streamflow in 2060. . .. . .74
Estimated Minimum Annual Streamflow in 2060. . .. . .74
2060 Maximum Surface Water Supply Gaps by Basin. . 75
Probability of Surface Water Gaps, 2060 Baseline Scenario. . 76
2060 Maximum Alluvial Groundwater Supply Depletions by Basin. . . 77
Probability of Alluvial Groundwater Storage
Depletions, 2060 Baseline Scenario. . . 77
2060 Bedrock Groundwater Supply Depletions by Basin. . . 78
Estimated Available Surface Water for New Permits in 2060 by Basin. . . 79
Surface Water Permit Availability Assessment. . .. .80
Oklahoma’s Interstate Stream Water Compacts. . . 81
Current Equal Proportionate Share of Oklahoma Groundwater Basins. . .. . .82
Estimated Available Groundwater for New Permits in 2060 by Basin. . .. .82
Surface Water Quality Assessment. . . 83
Potential Change in Annual Streamflow in 2060,
Q1 Hot/Dry Scenario. . .. . .85
Potential Change in Annual Streamflow in 2060,
Q4 Warm/Wet Scenario. . .. . .85
Potential Change in Municipal/Industrial Demand with
Climate Change, Q4 Warm/Wet Scenario. . .. .87
Potential Change in Municipal/Industrial Demand with Climate Change,
Q1 Hot/Dry Scenario. . .. . .86
Potential Change in Crop Irrigation Demand with Climate
Change, Q1 Hot/Dry Scenario. . .. . .87
Potential Change in Crop Irrigation Demand with Climate
Change, Q4 Warm/Wet Scenario. . .. . .88
Increase in 2060 Surface Water Gap Magnitudes,
Q1 Hot/Dry Scenario. . .. . .90
Increase in Probability of 2060 Maximum Surface
Water Gaps, Q1Hot/Dry Scenario. . .. . .90
Change in 2060 Surface Water Gap Magnitudes,
Q4 Warm/Wet Scenario. . . 91
Reduction in Probability of 2060 Maximum Surface Water Gaps,
Q4 Warm/Wet Scenario. . . 91
Basin Surface Water Limitations. . .. .92
Basin Alluvial Groundwater Supply Limitations. . . 93
Basin Bedrock Groundwater Supply Limitations. . 93
Basin Water Supply Options, Demand Management. . .. .99
Basin Water Supply Options, Out-of-Basin Supplies. . .. . .99
Basin Water Supply Options, Reservoir Use. . . 100
Basin Water Supply Options, Increasing Reliance on Surface Water. . . 100
Basin Water Supply Options, Increasing Reliance on Groundwater. . . 100
Impact of Conservation Activities on Gaps and Storage Depletions. . .. .104
Potentially Viable Reservoir Sites. . . 105
Treated Wastewater for M&I Use. . 109
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . 109
Stormwater Runoff for M&I Use. . . 109
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . 109
Waters With Elevated Levels of Key Constituents for M&I Use. . . 109
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . 109
Treated Wastewater for Crop Irrigation Use. . 110
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . 110
Waters With Elevated Levels of Key Constituents for
Crop Irrigation Use. . . 110
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . 110
Treated Wastewater for Self-Supplied Industrial Use. . . 110
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . 110List of Charts
Statewide Population Projections. . 61
Total Statewide Water Demand by Sector (AFY). . . 63
2060 Total Water Demand by Sector and Region. . .. . .66
Estimated Surface Water Surplus in 2060 :
Beaver-Cache Region. . .. . .96
Central Region. . .. . .96
Lower Arkansas Region. . .. . .96
Blue-Boggy Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Eufaula Region. . .. . .96
Lower Washita Region. . .. . .96
Middle Arkansas Region. . 97
Southeast Region. . . 97
Upper Arkansas Region. . . 97
Panhandle Region. . . 97
Southwest Region. . . 97
West Central Region. . . 97
Estimated Statewide Water Savings by Program and Scenario. . . 102
Approach for Assessing Uses of MQW. . . 106
Feasibility of MQW Sources to Meet Water Demands. . . 108
Artificial Recharge Site Screening Process. . .. .112
OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs Methodology. . 137
Water Supply Providers Project List Development. . . 138
List of Tables
Major Municipal and Private Reservoirs. . .. . .47
Major State & Federal Reservoirs. . .. .49
Major and Minor Alluvial Aquifers. . .. .53
Major and Minor Bedrock Aquifers. . .. . .56
Statewide Water Demand by Sector. . .. . .64
Total Water Demand by Sector:
Beaver-Cache Region. . .. . .69
Blue-Boggy Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Central Region. . .. . .69
Eufaula Region. . .. . .69
Grand Region. . . 70
Lower Arkansas Region. . . 70
Lower Washita Region. . . 70
Middle Arkansas Region. . 70
Panhandle Region. . .. . .71
Southeast Region. . .. . .71
Southwest Region. . .. . .71
Upper Arkansas Region. . . 72
West Central Region. . . 72
Statewide M&I Demand Forecast Under Climate Change Scenarios. . .. . .89
Statewide Crop Irrigation Demand Forecast Under
Climate Change Scenarios. . .. . .89
Excess/Surplus Water Estimation. . .. . .94
Statewide Demand Projections and Water Savings for
M&I Conservation Scenarios. . 101
Summary of OCWP Conservation Scenarios. . 102
Statewide Water Savings from Reduced Water
Production/Wastewater Treatment in 2060. . . 103
Statewide Water/Energy Savings Derived from
Conservation Scenarios in 2060. . 103
Statewide Demand Projections and Water Savings for
Irrigation Conservation Scenarios. . .. . .104
Reduction in the Number of Basins with Gaps and/or
Storage Depletions. . .. . .104
Constraints on Using MQW Sources. . . 107
Scoring Guidelines for Detailed Ranking. . .. .113
Screening Levels and Criteria Weighting Factors. . .. . .113
Scoring Matrix (Sorted by Rank). . . 114
Construction Costs, Using USACE CWCCIS. . .. . .116
Annual Operation, Maintenance & Replacement
Using USACE CWCCIS. . 116
Drivers for Hot Spot Basins. . .. . .119
Summary of OCWP Conservation Scenarios. . 120
Supply Options for Basin 22. . .. . .121
Summary of NRCS Reservoirs in Basin 22. . 122
Supply Options for Basin 26. . . 122
Summary of NRCS Reservoirs in Basin 26. . 123
Supply Options for Basin 34. . . 124
Summary of NRCS Reservoirs in Basin 34. . 124
Supply Options for Basin 36. . . 125
Supply Options for Basin 38. . . 127
Summary of NRCS Reservoirs in Basin 38. . 127
Supply Options for Basins 40 & 41. . 129
Supply Options for Basin 42. . . 130
Supply Options for Basin 51. . .. .131
Supply Options for Basin 54. . . 133
Supply Options for Basins 55 & 66. . 135
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by Region. . .. . .140
Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
by Category. . .. .140
Drinking Water Total Infrastructure Need Forecast. . . 141
Drinking Water Total Infrastructure Need Forecast. . . 141
Costs by Region & Infrastructure Type. . 143
Statewide Wastewater Infrastructure Cost Summary by Category. . . 143
Wastewater Infrastructure Need. . . 143
Appendix:
Agriculture Use Demands - Combined Irrigation & Livestock. . .. .144
Annual Demands from Livestock. . 146
M&I Demands Including System Losses - Sum of Public Supply
Residential & Public Supply Nonresidential. . 148
Oil & Gas Drilling Water Demands. . 150
Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands. . . 152
Self-Supply Large Industry Water Demand Forecast. . . 154
Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation. . 155
Consumptive Use from Thermoelectric Power Generation. . . 155
Treated Wastewater for Thermoelectric Power Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . .. .111
Brackish Water for Thermoelectric Power Use. . .. .111
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . .. .111
Waters With Elevated Levels of Key Constituents for
Thermoelectric Power Use. . .. . .111
Basins With MQW Source and Demand. . .. .111
Depth to Base of Treatable Water, 10,000 mg/L TDS. . .. . .112
Recommended and Alternate Aquifer Recharge Sites. . .. . .115
Hot Spot Basins. . .. . .119
Projected Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
by Region (2007 Dollars). . 139
Projected Statewide Wastewater Infrastructure Cost
by Region (2010 Dollars). . .. . .142Executive Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Foreword
A Vision for Oklahoma’s Water Future
Recognizing Oklahoma’s hydrologic, economic, and environmental diversity, past and current laws and programs that have resulted in successful development of the state’s water resources, and the state’s potential (as identified in the 2012 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan) to maximize both current and future development through aggressive water management and conservation strategies, the State of Oklahoma must be vigilant, proactive, inclusive, and bold in addressing and resolving circumstances that could threaten the reliability and utilization of water for all users and needs.
Extensive public participation and detailed technical evaluations, the two pillars of this 2012 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, have resulted in a bold, strategic vision with four core elements critical to securing Oklahoma’s water future:
Infrastructure: Oklahoma must rise to the challenge of providing long-term, accessible funding—beyond what is 1. currently available—to construct and maintain water and sewer systems that furnish safe, clean and reliable water supplies for its citizens and communities. Failure to establish such funding for water and sewer projects threatens the state’s future viability and growth, especially with respect to the state’s smaller rural communities. Resolution of this looming problem demands the combined commitment and actions of citizens and elected officials who must identify creative financing solutions and take advantage of regional infrastructure opportunities and shared sources of supply.
Data: Recognizing that information is the foundation for sound decision-making related to the development and 2. protection of Oklahoma’s water supplies, the State of Oklahoma must not only reestablish its dwindling base of reliable water data but expand the network of stream gages, monitoring wells, and water quality monitoring sites, as well as the tools necessary to confidently quantify, manage, and allocate surface and groundwater resources. In light of the anticipated stress on water supplies, unless the declining trend is reversed through the combined efforts of elected officials and the agencies and entities associated with managing and protecting Oklahoma’s water, managers will lack the required information to justify extremely consequential and potentially costly decisions.
Management: While current water management programs have served the state well in developing, utilizing and 3. protecting water supplies, changing public priorities and additional stress on supplies suggest a more conservation-oriented approach in the future. The need for immediate changes to current policy has not yet been demonstrated, but it is clearly time to initiate proactive, systematic, and measured evaluation of existing water laws and procedures involving relevant agencies and appropriate stakeholders if we hope to maintain the stable and orderly utilization of water so critical to Oklahoma’s economic welfare and quality of life.
Regional Planning: Integral to OCWP implementation is due recognition of local issues and priorities identified by 4. citizens, users, and stakeholders. While statewide water planning has served Oklahoma well and oversight is still required at the state level, the time has come to encourage and formalize regional water planning as the new standard that empowers local citizens more in touch with their unique needs, challenges and potential solutions.
The compulsory strategy for accomplishing this vision is detailed in the OCWP’s priority and supporting recommendations and their respective implementation plans.2 Executive Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Executive Report 3
Executive Summary
Water, more than any other element or natural resource, has reached a crucial level of importance to Oklahomans. Water unites us—and occasionally divides us. But undeniably, water provides an integral societal benefit. It supplies municipal and rural residents alike. It drives the state’s agricultural industry through the irrigation of wheat, hay, corn, and other crops, and in sustaining cattle, sheep, chickens, hogs, horses, and aquaculture operations. It is integral to oil and gas production as well as more conventional industries and mining operations that rely upon withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources. Water is counted upon to generate power and support countless environmental and recreational uses. With less water or limited access to it, Oklahoma’s quality of life is threatened and its economy ceases to grow.
Although Oklahoma is blessed with an abundance of water, many citizens lack access to dependable water sources due to the distance to supplies, insufficient infrastructure or storage, water quality constraints, and many other limiting factors. In many areas, surface water supplies are subject to seasonal fluctuations. Often, supplies are at their lowest when demand is the highest. The ability to store water in reservoirs—integral to surface water availability—can do much to mitigate the impacts of drought episodes and other water emergencies. Groundwater supplies, particularly bedrock aquifers, are less susceptible to seasonal fluctuations, yet concentrated demands or prolonged periods of decreased recharge can temporarily reduce their ability to provide sufficient supply. Often, complex geologic factors impact a particular aquifer’s ability to supply water; the amount of storage, depth to water, and well yields can vary significantly. And in relatively shallow alluvial aquifers, both the aquifer and overlying stream are often hydrologically linked, each resource impacting the other.
It was the recognition of these factors, combined with yet another devastating drought in 2006, that provided the impetus for development of the 2012 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP), the most detailed and inclusive such effort in the state’s history. While the initial 1980 and subsequent 1995 plans were responsible for considerable improvements in how surface and groundwater supplies were managed, studied, and protected, the 2012 Update takes planning to the next necessary level in its extensive analysis of Oklahoma’s water past, present, and future.
Complimenting substantial technical studies, the 2012 OCWP Update recognizes that Oklahoma has experienced a clear and distinctive shift in the public��s desire to actively participate in state and local decisions concerning water issues. Citizens have demanded and assumed more responsibility for their surface and groundwaters and, as a result, they desire direct input into its management and protection. As a result, the OWRB and its planning partners facilitated more than four years of unprecedented public and stakeholder input, which was informed by results from at least two dozen technical and workgroup investigations.
The OCWP Water Demand Analysis, which considered all factors impacting Oklahoma’s water use throughout the next 50 years in 82 planning basins consolidated into 13 Watershed Planning Regions, predicts that future consumptive demands will put a strain on surface and groundwater supplies in most areas of the state, some much more than others. The OCWP evaluated the impacts of forecasted demands on the physical availability of Oklahoma’s surface and groundwater supplies through 2060. Utilizing a suite of planning tools, the OCWP predicted the amount, timing, and probability of potential water shortages. A number of planning basins showed significant surface water supply shortages (referred to as “gaps”) and moderate groundwater depletions (where use exceeds aquifer recharge) at various times over the planning horizon. As a result, selected options were evaluated as to their effectiveness in addressing gaps and depletions; a number were found to be potentially effective.
Water quality, which varies considerably across the state, also has major implications for water users. Utilizing both current and historical data, including an analysis of water quality trends, the OCWP assessed surface water quality in all 82 basins. Increasing use, coupled with growth and development, will continue to pose water quality challenges, but OCWP information will provide enhanced confidence in the selection of future supply sources.
The availability of water for new permits is also an important consideration when evaluating the future impacts of increased demands. OCWP analyses indicated that limited availability of unpermitted surface water will prevent some basins from meeting forecasted demands. Conversely, groundwater available for permitting is not a concern in any planning basin, despite a general decline in some aquifer levels. The OCWP also evaluated several measures that could be implemented to improve the accuracy of water availability calculations and minimize future conflicts in the administration of water rights and permits.
The OCWP has concluded that providing reliable future water supplies to Oklahoma citizens will be seriously jeopardized without adequate funding to address the state’s burgeoning infrastructure requirements. The absence of adequate and compliant drinking water and wastewater systems—even in the presence of abundant, high quality water—can limit economic growth and community development, impact water quality, threaten human health, increase future costs, and result in the waste and inefficient use of water. The OCWP evaluated future drinking water and wastewater infrastructure costs as well as the financial investments and programmatic changes necessary to address the state’s associated future need.
The OCWP also analyzed a number of other variables that might impact the ability of state water supplies to meet future demands. A changing climate could affect both supply and demand, significantly altering the way in which Oklahoma will use its water resources. The future timing, magnitude and location of precipitation events could shift, directly affecting water availability, while temperature variations could impact demand patterns. 4 Executive Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
As a part of the water supply options analysis, the OCWP assessed opportunities to decrease demands through water conservation practices. Two scenarios were modeled to predict water savings associated with specific conservation measures in the state’s largest water use sectors: Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. This analysis revealed promise in alleviating water shortages in most basins throughout the state, as well as the potential to make more water available for both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses, save energy, delay the need for new infrastructure, and decrease costs to citizens. While conservation practices typically decrease demand or lead to more efficient use, a number of options exist to augment water supplies, where feasible, through largely unconventional measures. The OCWP evaluated two such options: artificial aquifer recharge and marginal quality water use. The OCWP identified five sites across the state where recharge demonstration projects could be most feasible. Concerning marginal sources, the OCWP concluded that, in particular, treated effluent showed great promise for a number of uses and could provide supplemental sources of supply to alleviate future shortages.
Recognizing the social and economic value of water used specifically for environmental and recreational purposes, the OCWP investigated a potential instream flow program for Oklahoma, which received considerable interest from the public throughout OCWP development. While questions remain about its feasibility in all areas of the state, instream flow generally describes the amount of water required and/or set aside in a stream or river to ensure that downstream environmental, social, and economic benefits are satisfied.
To provide additional input and recommendations on particularly important water matters and related economic development concerns, the OCWP commissioned stakeholder groups specifically representing agricultural, climatological, and water quality interests to assess and prioritize future water research, monitoring, and policy requirements. Additionally, those groups provided unique and invaluable expertise in identifying future state program and funding initiatives and priorities.
Overview of Technical Results
and Findings
Coupled with policy recommendations, presented in detail in the Executive Report, the results of OCWP technical evaluations provide the foundation for detailed local and statewide implementation of water strategies and initiatives:
Statewide, consumptive demand for water will increase by yy33% between 2010 and 2060, not considering the potential decreases in demand that might stem from more aggressive water conservation measures.
Crop Irrigation is forecasted to be the largest water yyuse, consuming 897,464 acre-feet per year (AFY), or approximately 36% of the total demand. (One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons.)
Crop Irrigation will be the largest growth sector in yythe Panhandle, West Central, and Southwest OCWP Watershed Planning Regions.
Thermoelectric Power will be the largest growth sector in yythe Upper Arkansas, Lower Arkansas, Southeast, and Blue-Boggy regions.
Municipal/Industrial will be the largest growth sector in yythe Middle Arkansas, Eufaula, Grand, Lower Washita, Beaver-Cache, and Central regions.
In 2060, Crop Irrigation will be the largest water use yyin the Panhandle, Southwest, West Central, and Blue-Boggy Regions. Municipal/Industrial will be the primary water use in the Middle Arkansas, Eufaula, Grand, Lower Washita, Beaver-Cache, and Central Regions. Thermoelectric Power will be the largest use in the Upper Arkansas, and Lower Arkansas Regions. Self-Supplied Industrial will be the largest use in the Southeast Region.
The Oil and Gas water use sector will experience the yylargest growth rate statewide, approaching 200%, with pronounced growth in the Southwest, West Central, Panhandle, Upper Arkansas, and Lower Arkansas Regions. (However, the Oil and Gas sector will comprise only five percent of the 2060 demand.)
The Panhandle Region will experience the largest 2060 yywater demand at 473,840 AFY. The Eufaula Region will have the lowest demand at 55,640 ac-ft/year.
Generally, indoor water use (per capita) is highest in west yyand northwest Oklahoma, with a decreasing trend toward the east.
Concerning the three recognized sources of water (surface yywater, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater) utilized in Oklahoma, bedrock groundwater is the primary source forecasted to supply 2060 demands in the Panhandle, Southwest, and Grand Regions. Alluvial groundwater will be the primary source in the West Central Region only. Surface water will be the primary supply source in all other regions.
Surface water gaps, which occur when the demand for water yyis projected to exceed available supply, are forecasted in 55 of the 82 OCWP basins by 2060. The 10 most severe physical water availability constraints—considering degree and probability of occurrence—are forecasted in Basin 22 (Lower Arkansas); Basins 77 and 78 (Middle Arkansas); Basins 51 and 56 (Central); Basins 24 and 26 (Beaver-Cache); Basins 34 and 42 (Southwest); and Basin 63 (Upper Arkansas).
The OCWP forecasted 22 basins to experience insufficient yysurface water permit availability to meet forecasted surface water demands in 2060. The 10 most severe permit availability constraints are forecasted in Basins 50 and 51 (Central); Basins 52, 53, 55, 65, and 66 (Panhandle); Basins 36 and 37 (Southwest); and Basin 20 (West Central).
Based upon current trends and attainment of standards yyfor beneficial uses, 27 basins are considered to exhibit poor surface water quality and thus may face particular challenges in their ability to provide adequate and reliable supply. Of the 10 most water quality-challenged basins, four are in the Beaver-Cache Region, two are in the West Central Region, and the rest are in the Middle Arkansas, Lower Washita, Southwest, and Upper Arkansas Regions.
Considering overall surface water availability constraints—yywhich is a collective assessment of physical, permit/legal and water quality characteristics—the 10 basins projected to have the most severe limitations in meeting 2060 demands are Basin 51 (Central); Basins 34, 40, and 42 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Executive Report 5
(Southwest); Basins 26 and 30 (Beaver-Cache); Basins 53, 65, and 66 (Panhandle); and Basin 22 (Lower Washita).
Alluvial groundwater depletions, while generally minor, yyare forecasted to occur in 64 planning basins between now and 2060. Considering the rates of depletion relative to the amount of groundwater in storage within the aquifer, the 10 basins projected to experience the most severe impacts are Basins 52 and 53 (Panhandle); Basins 34, 36, 38, and 42 (Southwest); Basin 47 (Lower Arkansas); Basins 51 and 56 (Central); and Basin 63 (Upper Arkansas).
Bedrock groundwater depletions, though generally minor, yywere forecasted to occur in 34 basins. The Panhandle Region, which obtains 98 percent of its water supply from the Ogallala aquifer and is projected to have the largest water demand of any region in 2060, contains the top four basins forecasted to have the largest bedrock groundwater depletions. The 10 basins projected to experience the most significant bedrock groundwater depletions are Basins 53, 54, 55, and 66 (Panhandle); Basins 38, 40, and 41 (Southwest); Basins 22 and 23 (Lower Washita); and Basin 15 (Lower Washita).
Projected groundwater depletions are generally minimal yycompared to the volume of water in aquifer storage. However, localized depletions may impact water quality, existing well production and yields, or cause other adverse impacts to groundwater users.
OCWP technical analyses identified 12 “Hot Spot” planning yybasins projected to have the greatest future water supply challenges: Basin 22 (Lower Washita); Basin 26 (Beaver-Cache); Basins 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, and 42 (Southwest); Basin 51 (Central); and Basins 54, 55, and 66 (Panhandle).
Projections indicate that seven basins statewide—Basin 2 yy(Southeast), Basin 7 (Blue-Boggy), Basin 27 (Beaver-Cache), Basin 35 (Southwest), Basin 70 (Upper Arkansas), Basin 81 (Grand), and Basin 82 (Lower Arkansas)—have no future anticipated water shortages through 2060.
Sufficient permit availability for groundwater use exists yystatewide. However, accessibility to groundwater supply could limit future localized use. (A characterization of groundwater quality was not a part of the assessment of potential limitations concerning future groundwater use due to the lack of comprehensive, long-term data. Such data will become even more important in light of future water demand forecasts indicating increased use and reliance on groundwater supplies.)
The OCWP Excess and Surplus Water Analysis determined yythat 52 basins have at least some amount of surplus water; 28 basins have none. No excess/surplus water exists in the Panhandle and West Central Watershed Planning Regions. (This analysis was not conducted for the two basins in the Grand Region.)
Even a moderate level of conservation could reduce surface yywater gaps statewide by 25% and reduce the number of basins with projected surface water gaps from 55 to 42; reduce alluvial groundwater depletions by 32% (64 basins reduced to 51); and reduce bedrock groundwater depletions by 15% (34 basins reduced to 26). In addition, this level of conservation could reduce statewide water consumption by 214,970 acre-feet/year by 2060 and result in cost-savings of $47.5 million per year (2010 dollars) associated with reduced need for drinking water and wastewater treatment.
Artificial recharge of groundwater is a viable option in yyaugmenting supplies to meet future demands in several areas of the state. Five specific sites were considered particularly promising.
The use of marginal quality water sources—such as yybrackish groundwater, treated wastewater effluent, production water from oil and gas operations, and stormwater runoff—have potential to augment supply in many areas of Oklahoma.
Sixty-eight previously studied reservoir projects in yyOklahoma are considered potentially viable sites for construction, depending upon local needs and the resolution of relevant economic, environmental, and other issues.
Regional water conveyance systems have potential to yyincrease water supply availability in several regions of the state, but the substantial expense of these systems will limit near-future implementation.
Oklahoma could be considerably impacted by a changing yyclimate—including reduced precipitation and higher temperatures—resulting in fundamental changes in water supplies, demand patterns, and availability.
Oklahoma faces severe challenges related to financing yywater and wastewater infrastructure improvements. Almost $38 billion (in 2007 dollars) is required for drinking water and almost $43 billion (in 2010 dollars) for wastewater projects within the next 50 years. The Central Region will have the greatest water infrastructure need. This problem is particularly acute with smaller systems (those serving less than 3,000 people), which account for 46% of the future drinking water infrastructure need and 24% of the future wastewater need. Current state financing programs were determined to be inadequate to address the projected infrastructure crisis.6 Executive Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Executive Report 7
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Policy Recommendations and Implementation
Recognizing that implementable policy decisions must be backed not only by sound science but broad public support, the OWRB in 2006 commissioned the Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute (OWRRI) to design, oversee and implement a robust and independent four-year public participation process as the cornerstone of the 2012 OCWP Update. From the outset, the OWRB (the state agency statutorily charged with comprehensive water planning for Oklahoma) focused foremost on an updated Water Plan that is “FIT” (Fair—Inclusive—Transparent). What resulted was an unprecedented level of openness, collaboration, and public involvement in statewide water planning, especially in the water policy development phase.
The OCWP process yielded numerous recommendations concerning the future use, management and protection of Oklahoma’s water resources. This process relied upon an iterative combination of policy analysis and policy deliberation based upon the National Research Council’s prescription, published in 1996. The process was enormously successful in engaging Oklahoma citizens who volunteered both their time and unique perspectives in developing a well-supported, grass-roots strategy for Oklahoma’s water future. Including the final round of public input gatherings, the OWRRI hosted about 100 local, regional, and statewide water planning meetings and engaged thousands of Oklahomans in the process. Collectively, participant volunteers invested over 30,000 hours of their time.
Specific citizen participants were solicited and vetted by the OWRRI and approved by the OCWP Planning Advisory Board, a separate body consisting of select OWRB Board members and cabinet officials. For the special Water Town Hall, held in May 2010, additional citizen participants were chosen by the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals.
The OCWP policy development and public input process featured five distinct phases, as follows.
In 2007, the OWRRI held 42 local input meetings (LIMs) throughout the state to solicit public input on what the OCWP should and should not address. In all, 2,300 citizens attended the LIMs. The OWRRI received about 2,500 comments from the public, including issues that the citizens of Oklahoma believe warranted consideration, concerns about these issues, suggestions on potential issue resolutions, and further questions. These comments constituted the public deliberation agenda for what was to follow.
In 2008, the OWRRI hosted 11 regional input meetings (RIMs) at which participants prioritized previously developed water policy issues for consideration. OWRRI grouped the LIM comments into 54 initial categories and asked the RIM participants to weight each issue according to its appropriateness and importance for consideration in the final OCWP. All LIM participants were invited to nominate others or themselves for participation in these RIM meetings. Almost 350 citizens were invited to participate in the RIMs, assuring that all interests and geographic regions were represented. From these meetings, 10 priority water issue themes were identified. To help prepare participants for the next stage of the planning process, the OWRRI and OWRB jointly held two 1.5-day seminars to inform RIM participants and other interested citizens on water resource management issues. The first of these addressed water policy, and the second addressed water science.
During the summer and fall of 2009, 30 planning workshops were convened in three sets of ten meetings (corresponding to the issue themes identified in the RIMs) held 10 weeks apart. Workshop participants were selected from among RIM participants based on their stated preferences for the issue groups in which they were interested. However, participants in each session were balanced according to stated interests and geographic distribution. In all, 240 citizens participated. Before the first session, participants were asked to review a summary of technical studies provided by CDM, the lead engineering consultant for the OCWP update. Participants were asked to formulate alternative water resource management strategies appropriate to their theme. Experts on relevant subjects participated in each workshop group to answer questions specific to the theme. Between the first and second session, these experts evaluated potential strategies for their technical practicability, economic efficiency, administrative feasibility for implementation, political feasibility and social acceptability. These reviews were presented to workshop participants at the beginning of the second workshop. Participants then revised the alternatives and added more detail. These revised alternatives were again evaluated between the second and third workshops. Final revisions to strategy provisions were generated during the third workshop. Altogether, the workshops produced 54 provisional OCWP strategies organized into 11 categories for further discussion.
In 2010, the OWRRI contracted with the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals to host a statewide Town Hall meeting at which 140 of the workshop participants and 32 additional Academy member participants met to reach consensus on eventual OCWP water policy recommendations. However, prior to the Town Hall, the OWRRI held a one-day water resource management strategy seminar to review workshop provisions, which helped participants prepare for the Town Hall meeting. The Town Hall meeting was conducted in six simultaneous panels consisting of about 30 citizens each. Professional facilitators led a discussion of all 11 discussion topics; each panel included an official recorder. The three-day meeting yielded 55 recommendations of which 34 received majority support among the panels; two received a split vote.
Following conclusion of the Town Hall, the OWRB and OWRRI carefully analyzed the resulting Oklahoma Academy report, including both the Final Report and Recommendations sections, and distilled that information with input and feedback received during the earlier public input process. The resulting draft recommendations—including those from workgroups, the OWRB and other water management agencies—were presented for final public consideration at thirteen feedback and implementation meetings (FIMs) held in April and May, 2011. These meetings, Executive Report 8
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
8 Executive Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
which represented the final round of statewide public input on the draft OCWP Update, were held in each of the 13 OCWP watershed planning regions.
Complementing the statewide input process, the OWRB also commissioned workgroups and specific state water management agencies to investigate and make recommendations on several unique or particularly sensitive policy and technical issues. Furthermore, the OWRB, as the state’s water management agency, contributed its own recommendations to improve and enhance water use administration, water data for decision-making, infrastructure financing, and water-related research, and address legal issues of importance.
Prioritization is essential to success of the OCWP and is required to focus limited resources on issues that require immediate attention. As a result, during regular meetings in June, July, August, and September, Water Board members identified eight recommendations and implementation strategies deserving the utmost priority for implementation. These Priority Recommendations (including their implementation plans, where applicable) reflect the incorporation of a number of water policy initiatives from the public, water management agencies, and
Priority Recommendations
Water Project & Infrastructure Funding
Regional Planning Groups
Excess & Surplus Water
Instream/Environmental Flows
State/Tribal Water Consultation & Resolution
Water Conservation, Efficiency, Recycling & Reuse
Water Supply Reliability
Water Quality & Quantity MonitoringOCWP workgroups. Broadly, they received a higher degree of public support throughout the input process, including a final round of public feedback meetings held throughout the state in the spring of 2011. Augmented by input from OWRB staff with long-standing experience in water management, their inclusion considered each recommendation’s urgency in solving Oklahoma’s most pressing near- and long-term water issues, its necessity in ensuring a reliable future water supply, recognition of the need to prioritize funding requests, findings of technical analyses, and direct input from the OWRB Board.
Supporting recommendations were also developed by OCWP public input participants, OCWP workgroups, partnering agencies, and OWRB staff. While they have not been included as Priority Recommendations, all are deemed prudent and necessary to the future use, management, and protection of Oklahoma’s water resources. Similar to the Priority Recommendations, the OWRB will work diligently with appropriate state and federal agencies, stakeholders, and institutions to implement these water-related initiatives, and the OWRB encourages the State Legislature to recognize the importance of programs, policies, and funding needs addressed in each. Full workgroup reports summarizing their efforts are available on the OWRB website.
Supporting Recommendations & Initiatives
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Maximizing & Developing Reservoir Storage
Water Management & Administration
Dam Safety & Floodplain Management
Water Quality Management
Navigation
Interstate Water Issues
Source Water Protection
Water Emergency/Drought Planning
Water Supply Augmentation
Water Related Research
Agricultural Water Research
Climate & Weather Impacts on Water ManagementExecutive Report 9
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Project & Infrastructure Funding
To address Oklahoma’s considerable drinking water and wastewater infrastructure need and the inability of current programs to meet that need, the OWRB should coordinate with a team of infrastructure financing professionals to investigate development of a more robust state funding program to meet the state’s projected water and wastewater infrastructure need between now and 2060. Any potential program(s) should include a specific mechanism to address the significant financing requirement of small communities in the state, as well as encourage regionalization of water/wastewater systems, where appropriate.
Addressing Oklahoma’s Burgeoning Water and Wastewater Project Need
Over the next 50 years the need for both drinking water and wastewater infrastructure (including nonpoint source pollution control projects) in Oklahoma will be significant, projected to be $37.9 billion for drinking water and $42.9 billion for wastewater projects based on 2007 and 2010 dollars, respectively. With most drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects designed to last approximately 30 years, it is entirely possible that all such infrastructure across the state will have to be replaced completely at least once within the OCWP’s 50-year planning horizon, let alone the needs for upgrades and improvements to meet increasingly stringent Federal standards and the demands of a growing population. Existing financing programs will lack the capacity to meet all—or even a significant portion—of that demand.
Regionalization of water supply providers generally refers to the consolidation of entities that share such things as a common water supply source, distribution infrastructure, treatment facilities and operation and maintenance. The opportunities for regionalization increase significantly when considering the many challenges facing smaller systems, especially in rural areas, and the proximity of small systems to large providers. Over half of the almost 800 primary public water supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update collectively serve less than five percent of the state’s total population. Such small systems, primarily because of a small ratepayer base, lack the financial ability to meet increasingly stringent federal drinking water standards or to adequately maintain their systems. Benefits of regionalization can include reduced operating and maintenance costs and, in-turn, reduced costs to ratepayers, more reliably maintained infrastructure, increased ability to meet regulatory standards and greater access to affordable financing.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Need
(in 2007 Dollars)*
Present to 2020
2021-2040
2041-2060
Total Period
$9,682,000,000
$10,688,000,000
$17,531,000,000
$37,901,000,000
*Over the next 10 years, based on current leveraging and subsidy levels, the average capital/equity investment reserve needed to meet 60% of the infrastructure demand is $185.6 million per year. From 2023 through 2040, no additional contributions are needed due to the revolving nature of the program. An additional $6.4 million is needed in years 2041 through 2060.
Wastewater Infrastructure Need
(in 2010 Dollars)**
Present to 2020
2021-2040
2041-2060
Total Period
$12,380,000,000
$22,420,000,000
$8,130,000,000
$42,930,000,000
**Over the next 10 years, based on current leveraging and subsidy levels, the average capital/equity investment reserve needed to meet 60% of the infrastructure demand is $290 million per year. From 2023 through 2040, an additional $44 million per year is needed. No additional reserve is necessary in 2041 through 2060 due to the revolving nature of the program.
Priority Recommendations
Implementation Plan
Convene an advisory team of infrastructure financing yyprofessionals to investigate potential funding mechanisms to meet drinking water and wastewater project needs.
Present recommendations from the advisory team to OWRB yyBoard for consideration within six months of convening.
Present final recommendations to Oklahoma Legislature yyduring the legislative session following OWRB approval, which could occur before the 2012 Legislature adjourns.
OCWP technical analyses indicate that regional supply sources, through an evaluation of the effectiveness of out-of-basin supplies and viable reservoir sites, will be an effective option to meet future demands in many basins. Additionally, it was recommended as a viable option for identified “hot spots.” The extent to which regionalization should occur is largely a local decision dependent upon a variety of factors. Through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan program, the OWRB and Department of Environmental Quality have already begun to encourage consolidation and system cooperation through principal forgiveness incentives. However, a more comprehensive, aggressive, and well-funded program is required to encourage regionalization.
To ensure that publicly-owned water and wastewater systems have the financing opportunities necessary to secure clean and reliable water supplies for current and future generations, Oklahoma must consider at least the following options:
Additional State investments.1.
Creation of a state-backed credit reserve enhancement 2. program.
Creation of new or restructured FAP Loan Program.3.
Creation of a small issuer loan initiative.4.
Maintain Gross Production Tax revenue for water and 5. wastewater infrastructure.
Encourage maintaining or increasing Federal SRF funding.6.
Consider necessity of subsidy reduction.7.
Working with members of the team of infrastructure 8. financing professionals and the Funding Agency Coordinating Team, develop new methods to encourage regionalization of water and wastewater supply systems.
Working with the team of infrastructure financing 9. professionals, identify other state funding sources.
Working with the team of infrastructure financing 10. professionals, explore new alternative funding sources.Executive Report 10
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
10 Executive Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The OWRB should work with the State Legislature to develop and authorize the creation of at least thirteen Regional Planning Groups to assist in planning and implementing OCWP initiatives at the regional level. These regional groups should be non-regulatory and consist of local stakeholders, as well as appropriate agency representatives, charged with developing regional water plans in a manner consistent with the OCWP and its implementation priorities. Such plans would include the identification of specific projects, studies, programs, research and other evaluations designed to address the unique needs and issues identified by Regional Planning Group participants. The State Legislature should establish regular appropriations to the OWRB to coordinate the activities of these groups.
Implementation Plan
Convene an advisory group of stakeholders (including 1. water users and/or their representatives, state and federal agency staff and the OWRB) to develop a detailed framework for the Regional Planning Groups, including the most appropriate delineation of geographical boundaries, membership, organization, duties and responsibilities, funding mechanism(s), and extent of authority.
At the earliest opportunity following the development 2. of a consensus report by the advisory group, the OWRB will work with the Legislature to introduce legislation to create the Regional Planning Groups and to inform discussions regarding the passage of such legislation.
At the beginning of the first fiscal year (or as otherwise 3. directed in the legislation) following legislative formation of the Regional Planning Groups, the OWRB will begin full implementation of the Regional Planning Groups, as specified by the Legislature.
Costs
Based upon experiences of neighboring states, it is estimated that $95,100/year would be needed to coordinate Regional Planning Group meetings. Additional costs would be contingent upon the defined structure and duties of the groups.
Regional Planning Groups
Taking Statewide Water Planning to the Regional Level
There was widespread and strong support during the OCWP public input process for establishment of water planning and advisory groups organized according to the 13 OCWP Watershed Planning Regions. In addition to these regions, employed to facilitate data collection and technical analyses, communities and interest groups that rely upon the Arbuckle-Simpson (the state’s only sole source aquifer) and Ogallala aquifers, which underlie multiple OCWP Watershed Planning Regions, are extremely interested in forming separate groups to better organize and unify their unique interests. Regional Planning Groups provide an opportunity for local stakeholders to guide planning initiatives (including the development of regional water plans), collaborate on issues of mutual interest, and provide associated local and regional input directly to the OWRB and other water management agencies. Such groups facilitate recognition of the specific issues and perspectives unique to each region of the state and could provide invaluable stakeholder input on many of the priority and supporting recommendations offered by the OCWP.
In contemplating the establishment of Regional Planning Groups, concerns often arise regarding the potential level of regulatory authority that could replace or usurp the role of state environmental agencies in managing water for the benefit of all Oklahoma citizens. Consistent with its statutory authority related to water management and planning, it is recommended that the OWRB maintain statewide oversight regarding the functions and activities of such groups.Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Pursuant to its statutory mandate found at 82 O.S. 1086.2(1), the OWRB adopts the following definition and procedure for determining excess and surplus water for inclusion in the OCWP update:
‘Excess and surplus water’ means the projected surface water available for new permits in 2060, less an in-basin reserve amount, for each of the 80 basins as set forth in the 2012 OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports whose surface water is under OWRB jurisdiction (excepting the Grand Region); provided that nothing in this definition is intended to affect ownership rights to groundwater and that groundwater is not considered excess and surplus water.
The following procedure should be utilized to calculate excess and surplus water available for appropriation:
Each of the 80 OCWP watershed planning basins shall be considered an individual stream system wherein water 1. originates (i.e., area of origin) for purposes of appropriation and permitting.
The total annual amount of available stream water for new permits in 2060 is equal to the total Surface Water Permit 2. Availability amount as set forth in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports minus the amount of the annual Anticipated Surface Water Permits in 2060 also set forth in those reports. The in-basin reserve amount is equal to 10% of the total Surface Water Permit Availability amount plus 10% of the annual Anticipated Surface Water Permits in 2060.
In considering applications for permits to transport and use more than 500 acre-feet of stream water per year outside the 3. stream system wherein the water originates, the Board shall determine whether there is “unappropriated water available in the amount applied for” by considering only the remaining amount of excess and surplus water calculated for the stream system where the point of diversion is proposed, and for stream systems located downstream from this proposed point of diversion, provided this procedure shall not be used to reduce the amount authorized under existing permits and water rights.
The Board will also exclude from consideration for any permit for out-of-basin use:4.
a. the quantity of water adjudicated or agreed by cooperative agreement or compact to be reserved for Federal or Tribal rights, and
b. the quantity of water reserved for instream or recreational flow needs established pursuant to law.
Protecting Local Water Needs While Addressing Statewide Demands
Statutes require that the OCWP include a definition of “excess and surplus water of this state” and a recommended procedure for determining “excess and surplus water of this state… to ensure that the area of origin will never be made water deficient.” This definition and procedure is especially critical as the OWRB addresses potential intrastate and interstate out-of-basin transfers of water. A transparent framework for defining and determining excess and surplus water is imperative when calculating water available for appropriation for use outside the basin of origin. The results of the comprehensive OCWP technical analyses form the basis of this definition and calculation.
Excess & Surplus WaterExecutive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 12
As part of this OCWP update process, an Instream Flow Workgroup was commissioned to conduct an independent technical, legal, and policy analysis of potential instream flow implementation in Oklahoma. A summary of the Workgroup’s recommendations are as follows:
Address the legal and policy questions.1.
Study other mechanisms for protecting instream flows.2.
Develop a draft methodology for instream flow studies in 3. Oklahoma.
Conduct a study on the economic impacts of instream 4. flows in Oklahoma.
Perform an instream flow pilot study in a scenic river.5.
Preserve the Instream Flow Workgroup.6.
(The full report of the OCWP Instream Flow Workgroup is available on the OWRB’s website or by contacting the OWRB.)
Implementation Plan
Concurrent Activities/Timelines
Policy Research & Advisory Group Direction
Technical/Economic Research, Methodology Development & Pilot/Stream Studies
February 2012-July 2015
February 2012-April 2015
Total New Funding Requirement
$1,500,000 (Total)
~$350,000 (Annual/4 years)
The process developed by the OCWP Instream Flow Workgroup should be implemented and followed to ascertain the suitability and structure of an instream flow program for Oklahoma, with such process commencing in 2012 and concluding by 2015, as outlined by the Workgroup.
Instream/Environmental Flows
Recognizing Nonconsumptive Water Needs
and Supporting Recreational and Local Economic Interests
Instream (or environmental) flows are those necessary to provide for a healthy ecosystem and support water-related recreation (such as fishing, hunting, swimming and boating) as well as tourism. In 2006, 1.2 million residents and non-residents in Oklahoma participated in some form of fish and wildlife-related recreation—all directly or indirectly dependent upon water. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $1.3 billion in retail sales ($1.2 billion by residents and $125 million by nonresidents), creating $696 million in salaries and wages, and supporting 28,142 jobs. The total economic effect from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at $2.3 billion. In 2008, Oklahoma’s tourism industry generated more than $6.1 billion in direct traveler expenditures (up from $5.7 billion in 2007), making it Oklahoma’s third largest industry. In addition, annual tax revenues generated by travelers in the state contribute more than $953 million to federal, state and local economies. Each year, more than 12 million people visit state parks. Oklahoma’s tourism industry employs almost 76,000 citizens.
Instream flow uses are considered generally nonconsumptive in nature and may conflict with consumptive water needs (e.g., public water supply, irrigation, etc.). The State’s current appropriation system does not contemplate the issuance of water rights for instream/environmental flows, nor does it specifically consider ecological and/or recreational needs when determining water available for appropriation. Many western states, where water is typically scarce and conflicts are more acute, have developed instream flow protection measures in an attempt to resolve disputes between consumptive and nonconsumptive users. Conflicts will escalate in Oklahoma as demands for finite water resources continue to increase. OCWP technical analyses discovered that, due to forecasted increases in demands on surface water, the magnitude and probability of gaps (shortages) will increase in many basins across the state, greatly increasing the likelihood of periods of low to zero flow. As in many other western states that have grappled with instream flow protection, there remains no clear consensus in Oklahoma on the most appropriate way to balance consumptive and nonconsumptive needs for water. For this reason, stakeholder input and guidance from the recommended Regional Planning Groups could prove invaluable in striking an appropriate balance in each region’s unique water needs. Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Implementation Plan
Title 74 Oklahoma Statute, Section 1221 currently authorizes the Governor or named designee to negotiate and enter into cooperative agreements with Federally recognized Tribal Governments. Additionally, the statute gives the Legislature approval authority over such agreements. Therefore, it is appropriate for these entities to determine the most appropriate way to implement this recommendation.
To address uncertainties relating to the water rights claims by the Tribal Nations of Oklahoma and to effectively apply the prior appropriation doctrine in the fair apportionment of state waters, the Oklahoma Governor and State Legislature should establish a formal consultation process as outlined in the OCWP Report on Tribal Issues and Concerns.
State/Tribal Water Consultation & Resolution
Building Cooperation to Avoid Future Conflict
and Remove Uncertainties to Water Use
There has been long-standing uncertainty regarding Tribal claims to the waters within Oklahoma that are managed and protected by Oklahoma’s environmental agencies. Recommendations from OCWP participants and OWRB staff seek to remove this cloud of uncertainty through establishment of a formal consultation process to amicably resolve this issue and avoid potential costly, protracted litigation. Resolution of Indian water rights claims will assist in the proper implementation of Oklahoma’s appropriation doctrine and long-term water planning efforts.
The following recommendations from the OCWP Report on Tribal Issues and Concerns are the result of extensive discussions between Dr. Lindsay Robertson, University of Oklahoma Professor of Law, and representatives of several of Oklahoma’s Tribal Nations. This effort was commissioned by the OWRB to identify the state’s pertinent water-related tribal issues and offer appropriate recommendations concerning water rights claims and mutual water interests:
That the State determine who within State government has 1. the authority to approve a process for negotiation of water rights issues with Tribes, who within state government has the authority to conduct such negotiations, and what the approval process is once negotiations are complete.
That the State assemble a team fully authorized to meet 2. with Tribal representatives to devise a process for the discussion and resolution of Tribal water rights claims.
That upon the determination of process, the State appoint 3. a fully authorized negotiating team to begin discussions with Tribal representatives.
That upon the conclusion of negotiations (either 4. individual, group or otherwise, as determined by the process planners), the results be submitted for such State approval as is required by law.
That the State consider the implementation of regular 5. consultation protocols.
(The full Report on Tribal Issues and Concerns is available on the OWRB’s website or by contacting the OWRB.)Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 14
To address water shortages forecasted in the 2012 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, as well as avoid the costly development of new supplies and infrastructure, the OWRB and other relevant agencies should collaborate with various representatives of the state’s water use sectors—with particular emphasis on crop irrigation, municipal/industrial, and thermoelectric power—to incentivize voluntary initiatives that would collectively achieve an aggressive goal of maintaining statewide water use at current levels through 2060. In its associated evaluation of appropriate programs and policies, the State should identify the optimum financial incentives, as well as recognize the potential for lost water provider revenues resulting from improved conservation. In particular, the following should be considered:
Implementation of incentives (tax credits, zero-interest loans, cost-sharing initiatives, increasing block rate/tiered water • pricing mechanisms, etc.) to encourage improved irrigation and farming techniques, efficient (green) infrastructure, retrofitting of water-efficient infrastructure, use of water recycling/reuse systems in new buildings, promotion of “smart” irrigation techniques, control of invasive species, artificial recharge of aquifers, and use of marginal quality waters (including treated gray and wastewater).
Expanded support for education programs that modify and improve consumer water use habits.•
The applicability of existing or new financial assistance programs that encourage Oklahoma water systems to implement • leak detection and repair programs that result in reduced loss and waste of water.
Innovative Solutions to Forecasted Water Shortages
Water conservation is being recognized as an increasingly important tool in managing water resources. Benefits associated with the efficient use of water include increasing water availability for both consumptive and nonconsumptive (such as recreation and fishing) needs, reduced energy and infrastructure operation costs, proactive drought mitigation, expansion of water-efficient technology, and reduced need for inter-basin transfers of water. From a larger water management perspective, conservation can be implemented on both the demand and supply/distribution side.
Specific to the 2012 Update of the OCWP, increasing water efficiencies to help meet future demands was widely supported throughout the public input process. Furthermore, OCWP technical analyses specifically evaluated conservation potential in the state’s two largest demand sectors (municipal/industrial and crop irrigation) to quantify water demand reductions. The OCWP analyzed a suite of conservation activities, including a cost-benefit analysis to characterize associated energy and cost savings. For each water use sector, two scenarios were analyzed, one considering moderate levels of conservation (Scenario I), the other more substantial levels of conservation (Scenario II), both of which demonstrated the feasibility of achieving significant reductions in future demands for water. Various practices and recent trends in conservation were considered for the two sectors, including wider implementation of plumbing codes or more aggressive building code requirements, water use metering, tiered water rate structures, regional irrigation practices, improvements in water conveyance systems, acreages and types of irrigated crops, types of irrigation systems, seasonal rainfall variations, water availability, fuel and commodity prices, trends in irrigation efficiency, improvements in field application efficiency, increased use of micro irrigation technology, and shifting to less water demanding crops.
Water Conservation, Efficiency, Recycling & Reuse
The OCWP analysis indicates that full implementation of Scenario I would reduce 2060 water demands to levels approaching those forecasted for 2020. Additionally, full implementation of Scenario II, or at least some of its components, would result in facilitation of the ambitious goal set forth in the recommendation. In most basins, managing water demand through conservation activities was shown to be equally effective in reducing or eliminating gaps or storage depletions, particularly in alluvial aquifers. More specifically, a moderate level of conservation (Scenario I) could reduce surface water gaps statewide by 25% and reduce the number of basins with projected surface water gaps from 55 to 42; reduce alluvial groundwater depletions by 32% (from 63 basins to 51); and reduce bedrock groundwater depletions by 15% (from 34 basins to 26).
The OCWP Marginal Quality Water Workgroup studied the potential utilization of several categories of water sources—such as brackish groundwater, treated wastewater effluent, production water from oil and gas operations, and stormwater runoff—demonstrating marginal quality. It was concluded that certain sources could augment supply in some areas of Oklahoma. In particular, treated effluent showed promise in helping to meet future demand, particularly for municipal/industrial non-potable, crop irrigation, thermoelectric power and self-supplied industrial uses. However, local applicability and regulatory requirements must be considered. A second OCWP workgroup, the Artificial Aquifer Recharge Workgroup, determined that artificial recharge of groundwater is also a viable option in augmenting supplies to meet future demands in several areas of the state. Five sites were identified across the state where recharge demonstration projects could be most feasible.
(The full reports of the Marginal Quality Water and Artificial Aquifer Recharge Workgroups are available on the OWRB’s website or by contacting the OWRB.)Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15
To address projected increases in water demands and related decreases in availability, as well as to ensure the fair, reliable, and sustainable allocation of Oklahoma’s water supplies, the State Legislature should provide stable funding to the OWRB to implement the following recommendations:
Address by 2022 the growing backlog of statutorily-required maximum annual yield studies and overdue 20-year updates on • groundwater basins within the state, including validation of any interactions between surface and groundwater sources, to accurately determine water available for use.
Develop stream water allocation models on all stream systems within the state to assess water availability at specific locations, • manage junior/senior surface water rights under various drought scenarios, anticipate potential interference between users, and evaluate impacts of potential water transfers.
Utilize water use stakeholders (including input from the recommended Regional Planning Groups), researchers, and other • professionals to develop recommendations, where appropriate, regarding:
a. consideration of a seasonal (rather than annual) stream water allocation program to address seasonal surface water shortages and water rights interference;
b. consideration of a conjunctive management water allocation system to address the potential decline in surface water flows and reservoir yields resulting from forecasts of increased groundwater use in areas where these sources are hydrologically connected;
c. conditioning junior water use permit holders to discontinue their diversion of water during predetermined periods of shortage (i.e., “trigger” points) to enhance the availability of dependable yields in appropriate reservoirs and minimize interference between riparian users and users of reservoir storage; and
d. consideration of a more conservation-oriented approach in the calculation of groundwater basin yields and allocation of groundwater use permits, including the consideration of more sustainable use and development of groundwater supplies, allocation banking coupled with an accurate method of accounting, irrigation practice improvements, and adoption of new irrigation technology.
Implementation Plan
Hydrologic Studies (Phase I)
Unstudied and Overdue Groundwater Basin Updates Estimated Annual Cost
Stream Water Hydrologic Studies Estimated Annual Cost
Timeline
$1,045,000
$73,125
2012-2022
Hydrologic Studies (Phase II)
20-Year Groundwater Basin Updates Estimated Annual Cost
Stream Water Hydrologic Studies Estimated Annual Cost
Timeline
$342,134
$18,750
2023-2060
Total New Annual Funding Requirement
$1,118,125 (Phase I)
$360,884 (Phase II)
Ensuring Water Availability for Future Growth
The OCWP anticipates that statewide consumptive water demand will increase by 34% over the next 50 years, not accounting for implementation of water efficiency measures, yet forecasts vary regionally from 20 to 58 percent. Particularly in populated areas, growth will put an even greater stress on available water supplies. Factors associated with increased demand vary as well. Regardless, it is incumbent upon the OWRB, as the state’s water management agency, to ensure reliability for all state water users. OCWP technical analyses concluded that forecasted demands will increase the magnitude and probability of monthly surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions in the majority of basins, particularly during the summer months. For surface water it was found that, in many of those basins, water storage collected during periods of high flow could greatly reduce or even eliminate shortages.
Based upon recommendations from the public and OWRB staff, several aspects of the State’s current approach to water management require the evaluation of new or enhanced management schemes—including the possible implementation of new policy and clarifications to existing statutes and rules—that promote conservation to maximize existing water rights and create assurance that water resources will be available when and where required. Because future water management programs and decisions should consider regional variability, recommended Regional Planning Groups could lend important guidance to these efforts. Reviewing the approaches and experiences of neighboring states, such as Kansas, could prove valuable as well.
Water Supply Reliability
Additional concerns have been raised about protecting the yield of reservoirs, particularly by some appropriation right holders that authorize use of water from storage reservoirs constructed by federal agencies. During low flow or drought conditions, there is no good mechanism currently in place to notify junior upstream appropriators if interference is occurring or to enforce curtailment of ongoing diversions, thus reducing the dependability of many reservoirs in delivering water supply to users. Reservoirs are critical to water supply reliability in Oklahoma. Currently, 82 percent of public water supply systems obtain their water from reservoir storage.Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 16
The State Legislature should provide a dedicated source of funding to enable the State of Oklahoma to accurately assess the quality and quantity of its water resources, thereby ensuring improved water quality protection, accurate appropriation and allocation, and long-term collection of data to inform water management decisions. Such funding should be directed toward development and maintenance of a permanent statewide water quality and quantity monitoring program(s), specifically allowing for:
Integration of all state surface and groundwater quality monitoring programs into one holistic, coordinated effort.•
Stable and dedicated appropriations for critical statewide monitoring programs, such as Oklahoma’s Cooperative Stream • Gaging Program, Beneficial Use Monitoring Program and Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program, as well as other agency efforts to monitor point source, agriculture, mining, and oil and gas impacts.
Creation of an ambient groundwater quality monitoring program.•
Full implementation of a statewide program for the collection of biological data to provide a better indication of long-term • water quality trends in Oklahoma.
Better Data for Improved Decision-Making
Most contributors to the 2012 Update of the OCWP, including an overwhelming number of public participants, recognize the urgent need for more robust data gathering programs to enable informed decision-making. Several state and federal agencies—including the U.S. Geological Survey, Army Corps of Engineers, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Conservation Commission, and Department of Environmental Quality—administer programs in Oklahoma that provide invaluable data regarding the state’s water quality and quantity. However, funding for these programs has continued to dwindle. The most acute funding need is establishment of a holistic statewide surface water and groundwater monitoring program to accurately assess the quality and quantity of those resources.
Recognizing its significance to ensuring a reliable supply, OCWP technical analyses explicitly considered water quality among those critical factors limiting future use of surface water supplies. Unfortunately, such a comprehensive evaluation could not be performed for groundwater given the lack of statewide ambient groundwater quality data.
Implementation Plan
Surface Water Quality Monitoring
Current Annual Funding
Additional Estimated Annual Cost
Timeline
$800,000
$975,000
2012
Surface Water Quantity Monitoring
Current Annual Funding
Additional Estimated Annual Cost
Timeline
$120,000
$445,000
2012
Groundwater Quality/Quantity Monitoring
Current Annual Funding
Additional Annual Cost
Timeline
$0
$815,000
2012
Total New Annual Funding Requirement
$2,235,000
Water Quality & Quantity MonitoringExecutive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Supporting Recommendations & Initiatives
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Voluntary best management practices should be encouraged to curtail runoff from agricultural lands, urban storm water, and suburban developments. These voluntary management practices should include cost sharing or incentives funded through the appropriate state agency(s). Specifically, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) and other appropriate agencies should create or enhance programs that promote water quality improvements through land use management and the protection of wetlands and riparian zones. Additionally, the OCC should emphasize roadside erosion and resulting sediment as a major contributor to water quality degradation. The OCC or other appropriate agencies should work with county commissioners to improve or fund proper construction and maintenance of roads to reduce sediment contribution. Finally, the OCC should continue to support nonpoint source water quality monitoring programs that can evaluate the effectiveness of these conservation practices and ensure maximum efficiency of available funding.
While much progress has been made, nonpoint source pollution continues to be a significant contributor to water quality impairment in Oklahoma. Efforts to mitigate these impairments should be implemented within the watershed and receiving waters targeting the restoration of impaired beneficial uses. There are many excellent programs that exist currently that, with additional funding, could be even more effective in reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.
The OCC, working with the USDA, EPA and other state, federal and local partners, implements Farm Bill conservation programs, the CWA Section 319 program, a State-funded, locally-led cost share program, and a roadside erosion program to promote and demonstrate voluntary best management practices to improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, minimize pollution and protect surface and groundwater resources. With all of these programs and promotion of best management practices in both rural and urban environments, Oklahoma is working to maintain and protect water quality. These highly successful programs have documented success; however, funding limits widespread implementation. To adequately supplement USDA Farm Bill conservation programs and the CWA Section 319 program, the state should fund the Oklahoma Conservation Commission water quality cost share programs at a minimum level of $15 million annually.
Maximizing & Developing
Reservoir Storage
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Natural Resources Conservation Service and other appropriate agencies should work collaboratively to develop a cooperative process to maximize the flood control, water supply, recreation, ecological integrity, and related benefits of existing reservoir projects as well as identify the potential viability of those designated for construction in the state. Both state and federal funds should be used to improve existing lakes or build future projects.
Over the last 60 years, the USDA, in partnership with local project sponsors and the OCC, has constructed over 2,100 flood control structures (dams) within Oklahoma. Several of these structures are multi-purpose in nature providing for water supply and recreation, in addition to flood control. There are many excellent proposed sites and existing dams in need of rehabilitation that could provide additional multi-purpose benefits. For example, as a part of rehabilitation, existing structures could be converted to provide additional or new water supply yield. Adequate funding, essential to maintaining the important functions these dams have provided for the last 60 years, has been declining.Executive 18O Eklxaehcoumtivae CRoempoprrtehensive Water Plan Oklahoma Comprehensive Wa Rterp oPrlat n 18
Water Management & Administration
To ensure the efficient use and conservation of state1. water resources, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board should:
a. Provide for a suspension period from water rights cancellations due to non-use if the nonuse is a result of the water rights holder actions to employ prescribed conservation measures, such as irrigating crops which are more water-efficient or implementing water system leak detection or rationing programs.
b. Work with the State Legislature to establish stable funding necessary for the agency to increase field verifications that ensure compliance with surface and groundwater use permit requirements and investigate specific cases of water interference.
c. Institute an administrative fining system for unlawful or unpermitted use of water, willful failure to report water use, or falsification of water use report forms.
To prevent contamination of fresh groundwater sources, the 2. OWRB should:
a. Investigate potential methods to equitably regulate the use of moderately brackish groundwater sources in a manner that protects fresh water aquifer zones.
b. Work with the Oklahoma Groundwater Association and licensed well drillers to identify required funding levels and an appropriate funding mechanism to remediate tens of thousands of existing unplugged or improperly plugged abandoned water wells statewide.
c. Establish a workgroup to investigate the feasibility of establishing an intent-to-drill system in Oklahoma that would provide appropriate oversight of new water wells, including a mechanism for pre-drilling review and inspection.
Among its core water management responsibilities, the OWRB is charged with many water management and administration duties that protect the interests of water right holders, mitigate hazards, and protect water sources, life, and property. These include managing water rights in times of drought, ensuring water use permit compliance, inspecting water works and dams, responding to complaints of waste of water or interference between water users, and licensing and regulation of well drillers to prevent contamination of groundwaters. Although never fully funded, these activities are fundamental to the state’s water management and additional resources are required to accomplish these vitally important activities.
Dam Safety & Floodplain Management
To mitigate catastrophic flooding hazards and protect lives, property, and water supplies, the State should:
Continue to support local floodplain management efforts • through developing cooperative partnerships with local communities and federal agencies to fund technical studies and floodplain mapping, develop floodplain ordinances, and promote education activities, including the certification of floodplain administrators.
Investigate the potential for establishing a financial • assistance program for the State Dam Safety Program to make low-interest loans to dam owners to meet mandated changes to dams required through reclassification of the dam to a higher hazard-potential due to downstream development.
Provide $250,000 per year for ten years to the OWRB to • perform dam breach inundation mapping and emergency action planning, and education and outreach efforts that support the State Dam Safety Program for non-NRCS flood control dams, with a priority on high hazard-potential dams.
Provide $12 million in funding and support to the OCC to • perform dam breach inundation mapping, emergency action planning, and education and outreach efforts that supports dam safety for NRCS flood control dams.
Expand floodplain management authorities and floodplain • ordinances to include dam breach inundation areas and investigate establishment of potential disincentives or fee requirements for downstream development in the dam breach inundation area adequate to fund the cost of upgrading NRCS flood control dams to meet State dam safety criteria.
Identify a mechanism to remove liability for dam owners for • downstream development occurring after an NRCS flood control dam was constructed.
There are 4,446 state regulated dams under the Oklahoma Dam Safety Program, regulated by the OWRB, which also coordinates state hazard-prevention programs through the National Flood Insurance Program in cooperation with the Oklahoma Floodplain Managers Association. (Currently, 384 Oklahoma communities participate in the NFIP.) An estimated 360 dams classified as significant- and high-hazard potential have structural deficiencies requiring rehabilitation. In addition, an estimated 800 of the state’s dams currently classified as low hazard-potential should be reclassified due to significant downstream development, requiring costly upgrades, breach inundation mapping, and emergency action planning. An estimated $22 million is required to bring state flood control dams into compliance with legally binding federal operation and maintenance requirements. State-mandated requirements demand approximately $457 million to upgrade flood control dams to meet high-hazard criteria due to unregulated downstream development. Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Water Quality Management
Local, state and federal agencies and tribal governments should continue to work collaboratively towards continued protection and improvement of Oklahoma’s surface and groundwater quality. Programs, both regulatory and non-regulatory, that contribute to improvements and maintenance through point source and nonpoint source pollution control, monitoring and assessment, and impairment reduction should be adequately funded at both the state and federal level. In particular, Oklahoma must have a robust statewide surface water and groundwater quality monitoring network to ensure programs and policies are working effectively and funds are being used to the greatest benefit possible.
As it relates to a reliable water supply, the quality of the state’s waters is critically important. Water quality impacts the usability of the water for a variety of purposes, has environmental, recreational and aesthetic impacts, and has implications on the necessary infrastructure and costs associated therewith to provide adequate treatment. Primary elements of water quality protection and continued improvement include point and nonpoint source pollution control, monitoring and assessment, and programs and activities focused on impairment reduction. Over the last several decades, incredible strides have been made by various local, state and federal agencies and tribal governments to improve and maintain Oklahoma’s water quality; however much work remains. In Oklahoma, myriad state and federal agencies and tribal governments have a role in the management of the quality of the state’s water. Recognizing the critical nature of water quality and the number of entities involved in its management and protection, the OCWP commissioned a report by a working group of such entities to provide program information related to their organizations and agencies as well as collective recommendations to address Oklahoma’s most pressing water quality issues, including program requirements. (The full report, Water Quality Issues and Recommendations, is available on the OWRB’s website or by contacting the OWRB.)
Navigation
The OWRB should continue its active participation with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s Waterways Advisory Board and, through that group, proactively address issues of mutual interest concerning water management and availability. The OWRB and Advisory Board should work toward cooperative solutions that ensure the continued successful operation and growth of navigation in Oklahoma.
The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System is a major economic engine for the state. The Oklahoma portion alone includes an estimated 100 industries, 4,000 employees, and an annual payroll approaching $100 million. According to studies conducted by public and private stakeholders within the last two years, capital investment was reported at $3.9 billion, employment income of $142 billion, and operating expenditures of $1.4 billion from the capital investments that contribute to the creation of many secondary and tertiary jobs and industries.
Interstate Water Issues
The State should explore the creation of standing planning committees through existing interstate stream water compacts or other federal/state forums to work proactively with neighboring states on shared water resource management issues and thus limit potential interstate conflicts and litigation.
Recognizing that all streams in Oklahoma flow from other states and into others, it is important to collaborate on water management issues of mutual interest. Several existing forums or mechanisms—including four interstate stream compacts and state and federal participation in annual meetings of the Arkansas-White-Red Basin Inter-agency Committee—could be utilized to further address interstate conflicts over shared waters. Formalizing discussion of water planning issues and projects, both state and federal, could be beneficial to proactively avoid potential conflicts and litigation and to facilitate collaboration on mutually beneficial initiatives. Executive 20O Eklxaehcoumtivae CRoempoprrtehensive Water Plan Oklahoma Comprehensive Wa Rterp oPrlat n 20
Source Water Protection
The State—through the DEQ, OWRB and/or OCC—should provide technical assistance to public water systems for the development of source water and wellhead protection plans that reduce the threat of pollution to public water supplies.
Avoiding pollution to sources of water is much more cost-effective than mitigating resulting impacts. The OCC develops watershed protection and restoration plans to identify potential pollution sources in the watershed of water supply reservoirs and works with local landowners to minimize associated impacts. The DEQ currently works with water providers to assure upstream water quality protection, and it implements a wellhead protection program to protect groundwater. The OWRB applies lake management tools to public water supplies in order to minimize treatment/infrastructure costs and health risks associated with organic enrichment. The OWRB also protects water supplies through Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards (OWQS) by limiting new pollution sources or increased loads from existing sources upstream of Sensitive Water Supplies. The OWQS further identify aquifers with a high potential for contamination from surface sources to promote the proper site selection and management of potential surface contaminants. While these programs have been successful, they are currently unable to adequately address the issue statewide. A coordinated and well-funded effort is required.
Water Emergency/Drought Planning
The Oklahoma Drought Management Plan should be updated and expanded to specifically address water emergencies—including an assessment of causes, impacts and capabilities—as well as improved state, federal and local response to flooding, terrorism and water contamination. Additionally, the DEQ should include a water and wastewater emergency planning component in its municipal water system operator training program. The State should also evaluate risks associated with various types of water emergencies and encourage local entities to incorporate similar measures through incentives and technical assistance.
As a part of the OCWP process, the public voiced a very strong desire to enhance water providers’ ability to plan for, and respond swiftly and appropriately to, water related emergencies. Such emergencies include drought, flooding, water supply contamination and terrorism. Several programs exist to address such issues, however enhancements are needed. Specifically the Oklahoma Drought Management Plan, originally written in 1997, requires an update to reflect current lines of authority and responsibility that impact how water systems, cities, counties, and state and federal agencies respond to drought, including the latest procedures addressing state or federal assistance. The plan does not specifically address the causes, impacts and response to general water emergencies.
Additionally, the DEQ oversees an Operator Certification program that trains and licenses drinking water and wastewater facility workers to ensure they are trained to sufficiently treat and monitor by-products of the facilities. With adequate funding, such a program would provide an excellent training forum on water-related emergencies.
Water Supply Augmentation
A statewide process should be developed and implemented to evaluate the augmentation of water supplies through programs to manage invasive plant species, increase water filtration and reduce runoff.
Current programs to eliminate eastern red cedar, salt cedar and other invasive species may positively impact the water balance. Similar benefits could also be realized by increasing water filtration rates and reducing runoff through the addition of soil organic matter and land contouring. There is a need to further investigate these efforts and their potential to augment water supplies. Eventual widespread programs will require a coordinated approach involving private property owners, local communities, and county, state and federal partners. Tax incentives, cost-share programs and technical assistance will be vital to eventual success.Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Water-Related Research
The State should encourage the establishment of ••collaborative forums consisting of state, federal, local and tribal representatives to coordinate and prioritize ongoing water research activities at the state’s many universities. When appropriate, cross-institutional teams should be formed to compete for grant opportunities.
The State should establish regular appropriations to fund ••Oklahoma’s critically important university water research units, including the Corix Water Institute; Oklahoma Water Survey and Oklahoma Climatological Survey at the University of Oklahoma; and the Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute and Water Research and Extension Center within the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Oklahoma State University.
The State should focus resources on the pursuit of the ••following priority water-related research needs, consistent with citizen and workgroup input provided throughout development of the 2012 OCWP Update:
Maximize the use and efficiency of water used to xxsupport Oklahoma‘s vital agriculture industry.
Better understand and quantify the role played by water xxin support of the environment and related ecological and recreational benefits.
Develop practical, state-of-the-art predictive tools for xxuse by water managers and users that are imperative to decision-making and in mitigating the impacts of drought episodes, floods, and the state’s dynamic climate.
Increase knowledge related to the interaction between xxwaters in the state’s alluvial aquifer and stream systems.
Enhance the general knowledge base of Oklahoma’s xxclimate and explore measures to collaboratively apply that knowledge to a multitude of sectors.
Supplement knowledge of Oklahoma‘s groundwater xxresources. Establishment of a statewide groundwater quality and quantity program is imperative to this effort.
A significant understanding of Oklahoma’s water issues can be accomplished through frontiers of research and the practical application of that research for the benefit of the state’s citizens. Oklahoma’s universities have developed strong programs in a number of specific water related fields, and such expertise has proven critically important to such matters as water quality protection and improvement, water use, conservation and efficiency, land use practices and informing policy decisions. It is imperative that the state support the continued development and advancement of research programs to assist water users and managers in answering some of Oklahoma’s most pressing water issues, many of which have been highly informed as a result of the 2012 OCWP Update.
Agricultural Water Research
Recognizing Oklahoma’s successful and vital agriculture industry, the State and other local, federal and tribal agencies, should continue to work collaboratively with representatives of the agriculture industry. More specifically, the State should support research, education and extension activities to address the issues identified in the OCWP Agricultural Issues and Recommendations Report.
Recognizing that agriculture is Oklahoma’s largest industry and that water is vital to its continued success, the OCWP commissioned Oklahoma State University’s Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources to develop a report on agricultural water issues and make appropriate recommendations regarding research, education and extension opportunities.
As of 2008, the direct impact of the Oklahoma agriculture sector, including production and processing, was estimated to be approximately $20.1 billion; the total impact of the agriculture sector on the state’s overall economy was estimated at $28 billion. Water plays a pivotal role in the irrigation of cropland, in the watering of livestock and in the production of turfgrass. For example, irrigated cropland is about 27% more valuable than non-irrigated cropland, primarily because of increased productivity and reduced risk compared to rain-dependent agriculture. Livestock production, particularly beef cattle, and aquaculture account for about 12% of statewide water use; Oklahoma ranks third, behind only Texas and California, in freshwater withdrawals for cattle production. Turfgrass production, also heavily dependent upon water, is another major agriculture industry in Oklahoma with sales in excess of $40 million as of 2007. (The full report, Agricultural Water Issues and Recommendations, is available on the OWRB’s website or by contacting the OWRB.)Executive 22O Eklxaehcoumtivae CRoempoprrtehensive Water Plan Oklahoma Comprehensive Wa Rterp oPrlat n 22
Climate & Weather Impacts
on Water Management
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board and other appropriate local, state and federal agencies and tribal governments should continue to collaborate with and support the Oklahoma Climatological Survey to continue the advancement of a thorough understanding of Oklahoma’s climate and weather, as outlined in their recommendations, and the associated impacts on Oklahoma’s water users and citizens. Furthermore, the State Legislature should support the activities of the OCS to ensure that the agency can adequately address Oklahoma’s needs related to these matters into the 21st century.
For water users, managers and policy makers across the state, an understanding of Oklahoma’s climate and weather is critically important. The timing, frequency and magnitude of precipitation and variability in temperature directly affect water availability, drought, flooding and other weather phenomena. For over 30 years the Oklahoma Climatological Survey has been the lead agency for informing stakeholders about Oklahoma’s climate and weather and for providing data and tools to make this information understandable and usable for the benefits of the state’s citizens and water users. The OCS was established by the State Legislature in 1980 and maintains an extensive array of climatological information, operates the Oklahoma Mesonet, and hosts a wide variety of educational outreach and scientific research projects.
The Oklahoma Mesonet is a world-class network of environmental monitoring stations and was designed and implemented by scientists at the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The Mesonet consists of 120 automated stations covering Oklahoma. Mesonet stations report real-time weather and climate information every five minutes from every county in Oklahoma.
Understanding the important role climate and weather have in Oklahoma’s water future, and recognizing the legislative mandate and expertise of the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, the OCWP commissioned a report from the OCS to identify research and outreach needs critical for Oklahoma’s water future. (The full report, Climate Issues and Recommendations, is available on the OWRB’s website or by contacting the OWRB.)Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Water Resources Planning in Oklahoma
Long-range planning to protect and maximize the benefits of the State’s surface and groundwater resources has been a continuing mission of the State since the 1950s, as demonstrated through such planning milestones as the creation of the 1980 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP). Recognizing that water planning is a discipline that must provide for continuous change and periodic revision if it is to reflect dynamic social, political, economic, and environmental issues, the Oklahoma Legislature passed House Bill 2036 in 1992. The legislation directed the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) to prepare an update of the 1980 OCWP, resulting in the 1995 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan. HB 2036 also directed the OWRB to prepare decennial updates thereafter, thus mandating for the first time regular submittals of an updated water plan in addition to implementing a continual planning process. The 2012 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan responds to this mandate.
Plan Organization
With the primary objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users through the next 50 years and beyond, the 2012 OCWP Update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals:
Provide safe and dependable water supply for all 1. Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water providers, policy 2. makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the wise use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with these goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations.
Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to geographic (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis. Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet, where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
Based upon the results of technical studies, thirteen Watershed Planning Region Reports were prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information. They have been designed as “living” documents that can be easily updated to reflect constantly changing water resource data and key demographic and economic information.
Integral to data analysis and development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demands to physical supplies in each OCWP planning basin. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demands, new reservoirs, and various other policy choices.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 OCWP Update is provided in various supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Water available for permitting was calculated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation is available on the OWRB’s website or by request.24 Executive Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Water Management in Oklahoma
Overview of Water Use and
Rights Administration
Sources of Water Law
The right to use water, the right to regulate use of water, ownership rights in water, the prevention of water pollution, and water quality, are all legal matters that, to some degree or another, may be addressed by constitutional law, court-made (common) law and principles, statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress, statutes enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature, Indian tribal codes, federal and state agency rules, and private rights created by deeds, easements, and contracts. The administration of water use and rights in Oklahoma involves consideration of these and other sources of voluminous and complex law.
Quantity Distinguished from Quality
Oklahoma statutes provide that the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), through the agency’s nine-member decision-making body appointed by the Governor, is responsible for the appropriation, allocation, distribution and management of water quantity in the state. The OWRB shares responsibility with six other State environmental agencies relative to water quality.
Grand River Exception
An exception to the OWRB’s authority to manage water quantity involves the Grand River in northeast Oklahoma. In 1935, state law created the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) and provided it authority to control, store, and preserve the waters of the Grand River and its tributaries.
Physical Classifications of Water
Most of Oklahoma’s statutes on water rights and use administration are keyed to one of four physical classifications of water: (1) stream water, (2) percolating groundwater, (3) diffused or sheet runoff water, or (4) atmospheric water, such as rain or hail.
Ownership of Water
As long ago as 1890, Oklahoma Territorial statutes on property ownership, rights and obligations stated that “The owner of the land owns water standing thereon, or flowing under or over its surface, but not forming a definite stream. Water running in a definite stream, formed by nature over or under the surface, may be used by him as long as it remains there; but he may not prevent the natural flow of the stream, or of the natural spring from which it commences its definite course, nor pursue or pollute the same.”
This law was carried over verbatim into State of Oklahoma statutes where it remains on the books today in Title 60, Section 60 of the Oklahoma Statutes. In 1963, language was added to clarify that water running in a definite stream is “public water subject to appropriation for the benefit and welfare of the people of this state.”
To summarize, the state’s property ownership law dictates the following about ownership of water:
Diffused water (i.e., water flowing over the surface of the earth yyand not forming a definite stream) is owned by the owner of the land. There are no statues that specifically apply.
Groundwater (i.e., water flowing under the surface but not yyforming a definite stream) is owned by the owner of the land.
Stream water (i.e., water flowing in a definite stream) is yypublic water subject to appropriation.
The state property law is silent about ownership of rain or yyhail while it is in the atmosphere.
Although the state statute declares that stream water is “public water,” there is often a misperception that this statute creates a claim of ownership of stream water in the State of Oklahoma. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized a state’s claim of ownership as a “legal fiction.” The Court instead recognizes that as far back as Roman law, water running in a stream was properly described as “res nullius” or “res communes,” meaning the property of no one or property of everyone, like air, natural light, or animals in the wild. And like management and use of animals in the wild that in Oklahoma are subject to regulation and licensing by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, stream water and other physical classes of water are subject to management and use regulation by the OWRB.
General Water Law Doctrines
and Principles Relating to Use
Controversies involving use of water, distinguished from ownership of water, have arisen for centuries. The most notable legal doctrines that have been developed by courts (common law) and legislatures (statutes) to address such water use controversies include: (1) riparian rights, (2) appropriation, (3) correlative rights, and (4) allocation.
Riparian Rights
Generally, “riparian rights” are said to exist as an integral part of the ownership of land that happens to be geographically adjacent to or adjoining a stream or other body of water, such as a lake or pond. Some may characterize riparian rights as real property. However, a riparian right is more accurately characterized as only a right of use, or a “usufruct” or “usufructory” right. By the early 1800s, English common law recognized the principle that no one could “own” naturally running water in a stream as a property right, but that private citizens can have a right to the use of its flow. English law also recognized the concept of the usufruct, which means a qualified right to the use of property that is owned by all or no one (“res nullius or “res communes”), so rights to the use of the flow of a stream became known as usufructory rights.
Historically, the riparian doctrine has been administered though the court system with ad hoc decisions made in individual lawsuits between riparian landowners. There is generally no permit system for riparian rights in states that follow the riparian doctrine, no applications to file, and no administrative hearings held. The riparian rights system of water use regulation evolved 26 Executive Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
in the eastern U.S. where rainfall is more plentiful and most land tracts touch or adjoin some creek, stream, or river. As a result, relatively few disputes and controversies occurred over water quantity. With plenty of water and few controversies, there is little need for regulatory oversight within a riparian system.
There are two major legal doctrines or approaches to resolve riparian rights claims to use water that have been adopted by courts over time, and two other aspects or issues involving riparian rights that have some bearing on Oklahoma water law.
Riparian Rights to the
Natural Flow (Stream Water)
English courts in the 1800s decided cases between riparian landowners (often conflicts between grist mill operators) by adopting the principle that any change in the natural flow of the stream by a riparian landowner that uses the water causes damages to other owners of other land riparian to the stream. Therefore, use of water that changes the natural flow is not authorized. The practical problem with this principle is that virtually any use of natural flow, even for very limited household use, let alone grist mills or water mills for industrial use, would alter that flow to some degree. Acknowledging the problem with strict compliance, state courts following the “natural flow theory” of the riparian doctrine began to make exceptions to allow limited use by riparian landowners. Today, few states are known to follow a true “natural flow” doctrine of riparian rights.
Riparian Rights to Reasonable
Use (Stream Water and Groundwater)
The famous case of Tyler v. Wilkinson between competing mill owners in Rhode Island was decided in 1827 by Justice Story (later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court). He declared that rights between riparian landowners required a consideration of reasonableness to determine whether a change in natural flow was allowed. He also ruled that all riparian users would have to reduce their use equally in times of shortage.
Unlike an appropriation right, a riparian right (being part of the real property) is not automatically lost if the riparian landowner makes no use of the water or if the riparian landowner begins use for a period, stops use, and begins the same use or changes use in the future. Each riparian landowner has the same right, limited only by its reasonableness.
In a state that follows the reasonable use riparian doctrine, conflicts and controversies regarding water use between riparian landowners are typically resolved in court litigation with the focus on determining reasonableness of types of use, reasonableness of volumes, and timing and methods of use among competing landowners. Due to this variability, it is clear that the doctrine of riparian rights to a reasonable use cannot provide the certainty and security necessary for substantial development (e.g., public water supply infrastructure, irrigation systems, reservoirs, etc.) of water resources required for economic growth.
In Oklahoma, despite the pre-statehood Legislature’s adoption of the natural flow language, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided several cases before 1963 using a “reasonableness” analysis to resolve disputes between riparian landowners. In 1993, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its 5 to 4 opinion in Franco-American Charolaise, Ltd. v. OWRB, wherein the Court declared that Oklahoma follows the “reasonable use” doctrine, as opposed to the natural flow doctrine.
Appurtenancy of Riparian Lands
States that endorse a riparian doctrine for water rights (natural flow or reasonable use) must also decide the geographic extent of the land area that may carry the riparian right. The “source of title” test, used in some riparian doctrine states, holds that the riparian right extends only to the smallest tract held under one title in the chain of title leading to the present owner. Following this test, the size of the riparian tract typically diminishes over the decades as tracts are subdivided (through inheritance or other development) and the new tracts do not touch the stream. This test typically results in less total volume of water that can be claimed by riparian landowners over time.
The contrasting “unity of title” test used in other riparian doctrine states provides that if an owner of a tract of land that is riparian later acquires more land that adjoins the original riparian tract, the owner may claim a riparian right for use of water on both tracts because the adjoining tract becomes “unified” with the riparian tract as a whole. This test may result in more volume of water that can be claimed in a stream system by riparian landowners over time.
In Oklahoma, two cases ruled that an oil company holding a lease for water use from a riparian landowner could use the water off the riparian lands for oil drilling purposes as long as that use was reasonable. With these cases, it can be argued that Oklahoma went beyond the unity of title test and allowed riparian landowners to market water for use off the riparian premises, regardless of the location of the land where the water is used.
Regulated Riparianism
With increased demand for water in the relatively water-rich eastern U.S., where the riparian rights doctrine prevails, coupled with more variability of natural rainfall (more extreme and longer droughts), some states that follow the riparian doctrine have seen a need to exercise more oversight of water use. These states have enacted laws requiring that riparian landowners obtain permits to use water, a concept that was foreign to the common law of riparian rights where rare disputes were resolved in courts.
Appropriation Doctrine
(Stream Water and Groundwater)
To “appropriate” means to take for oneself or take possession of. Literally, it means taking water from a watercourse (flowing stream or lake). The appropriation doctrine for water management and use evolved from local customs and laws in the early and mid-1800s, primarily from Spanish, Mexican, and Mormon operations of diversions and canal systems for irrigation. These local customs and laws were developed in the arid western U.S. during the time of westward expansion by settlers and where land areas tended to be vast but sources of water were scarce. In other words, unlike the wet east where many tracts of land are riparian to a water source, most private tracts of land in the western states were not riparian to a stream, but instead were often located at some distance from a stream, requiring diversions from the water source to the location of use. Furthermore, most Executive Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
lands in the western U.S. at least initially were considered public lands (or in the public domain) owned by the U.S. With little private ownership of most lands, there were few instances of privately-owned riparian land for riparian water rights to exist. In 1849, the California Supreme Court, during the gold rush era, was the first to determine that local customs to resolve mining claims on public lands should be used to resolve disputes over use of water on those lands. With mining claims, the earlier claim would prevail over a later claim to mine the same land, and the failure to start mining activities, or to continue mining activities after starting, would result in a loss of the mine claim and allow others to have a similar opportunity.
Two fundamental and parallel concepts relating to mining claims and water appropriation claims were recognized:
“Beneficial use” is required. Filing a piece of paper at the 1. claim office only initiated a mine claim and the claim was lost if mining activities did not commence within a certain period of time, or if the mine was later abandoned. Similarly, a claim to use water from a stream had to be confirmed by actual beneficial use of the water. The requirement for beneficial use is characterized as the “anti-speculation” provision that prohibits the filing of paper rights to prevent others from getting a right that can be detrimental to economic development;
“Priority in time gives the better right.” Similar to mining 2. claims in California, whoever files a claim to use water from a stream first (senior), to the extent there is beneficial use of the claimed water, will be able to make persons with later (junior) claims stop diverting during times of shortage.
These two foundational elements of the appropriation doctrine, recognized over 150 years ago, remain in Oklahoma’s appropriation doctrine. Congress, recognizing the need for a secure and certain water rights system to encourage development and settlement of the west, passed the Desert Land Act, Reclamation Acts, and other federal laws beginning in the mid-1800s. It was thus formally and officially recognized that rights to use water in the west would be governed by appropriation laws of the states.
English Rule of Absolute Ownership (Groundwater)
During the period when English courts were developing the natural flow riparian right doctrine, a few controversies arose concerning use of groundwater. Essentially, and without modern technology and knowledge, the courts in the 1800s presumed (even noting so in opinions) that water under the surface of the earth was mysterious and incapable of broad-based regulation. Accordingly, English cases held that because the landowner owned all materials associated with the land (center of earth below to the heavens above), including groundwater, the landowner could capture and use all the groundwater found under the surface, even if use of that water harmed the adjoining landowner. The existing “rule of capture” law in Texas continues to follow this doctrine on ownership and use of groundwater.
American Rule of Reasonable
Use (Groundwater)
Most early U.S. courts rejected the English rule of absolute ownership of groundwater and the perceived harsh results of that doctrine. Instead, American courts incorporated a “reasonableness” test when conflicts over groundwater use were presented. The Oklahoma Supreme Court in the 1936 case of Canada v. City of Shawnee specifically rejected the English rule of absolute ownership and instead adopted the American rule whereby a landowner’s use of groundwater is allowed, even if that use adversely affects a neighbor, but only if the landowner’s use is considered reasonable. One very important restriction of the American rule was also adopted by the Court in the Canada case (i.e., use of the groundwater off the premises from where it is pumped is per se unreasonable). Accordingly, under the American rule of reasonable use, Shawnee was prohibited from transporting groundwater from wells located in a farming area outside the city for use within the city.
Correlative Rights (Groundwater)
This water law doctrine is most associated with management and use of groundwater in California and is sometimes referred to as “strict proportional sharing.” In a drought when water levels drop, all overlying landowners must equally decrease use so everyone might have some water.
Allocation (Groundwater)
A unique blend of some aspects of the reasonable use doctrine and the correlative rights doctrine was adopted in Oklahoma for use of groundwater, effective in 1973. The 1973 allocation doctrine is discussed in the “Groundwater Law” section.
Stream Water Law
Appropriation Statutes and
Cases Before 1963
Just seven years after adoption of the 1890 property ownership statute mentioned previously, the Oklahoma Territorial Legislature adopted a comprehensive appropriation code for water use. The first section of that initial statutory appropriation law from 1897 declared more than a century ago that “the unappropriated waters of the ordinary flow or underflow of every running stream or flowing river and the storm or rain waters of every river or natural stream, canyon, ravine, depression or watershed… are hereby declared to be the property of the public and may be acquired for appropriation for the uses and purposes and in the manner as hereinafter provided.”
This first comprehensive appropriation law contained specific beneficial uses for which water could be appropriated (irrigation, mining, milling water works for cities and towns, and stock raising). It also included the statement that, as between appropriators, the first in time is the first in right. The 1897 statute went on to say that the ordinary flow or underflow could not be diverted to the prejudice of the rights of the riparian landowner without consent, except by condemnation. The law also stated that after an appropriation right is established, it was unlawful for any person to divert or appropriate that water, except that landowners who abut the stream could use the running water for domestic purposes (the first domestic use exemption). 28 Executive Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
In 1905, th