Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report for the Southwest Watershed Planning Region

              Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Southwest
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardDRAFTDRAFT
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Southwest Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardDRAFT
Contents
Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Regional Summary 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations 2
Water Supply Options . 4
Water Supply . 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers . 22
OCWP Provider Survey 27
Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Limitations Analysis 30
Primary Options 30
Demand Management 30
Out-of-Basin Supplies . 30
Reservoir Use 30
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 31
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 31
Expanded Options 31
Expanded Conservation Measures . 31
Artificial Aquifer Recharge 31
Marginal Quality Water Sources 31
Potential Reservoir Development 31
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 35
Basin 32 . 35
Basin 33 . 45
Basin 34 . 55
Basin 35 . 65
Basin 36 . 75
Basin 37 . 85
Basin 38 . 85
Basin 39 . 105
Basin 40 . 115
Basin 41 . 125
Basin 42 . 135
Basin 43 . 145
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
Southwest Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current 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 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with the 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 specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Southwest Region. 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.
Integral to the 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 demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. 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, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
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,
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.
Regional Overview
The Southwest Watershed Planning Region includes 12 basins (numbered 32-43 for reference). The region is primarily located in the Great Lowlands physiography province and encompasses 4,045 square miles in the southwest corner of Oklahoma, spanning all of Harmon, Jackson, and Greer Counties, and portions of Tillman, Kiowa, Beckham, Roger Mills, Comanche, and Washita Counties.
The region’s terrain includes vast farming areas along with rolling river bottoms and the Quartz Mountains in southeastern Kiowa and Greer Counties.
The region has a generally mild climate with mild winters and long, hot summers. Average monthly temperatures vary from 59° F to 64° F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 22 inches in the west to 28 inches in the east. Annual evaporation ranges from 62 to 65 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include Altus (2010 population of 21,840), Elk City (12,827), and Hobart (3,880). The greatest demand is from Crop Irrigation water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 213,100 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 36,100 AFY (20%) from 2010.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 aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP 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. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.DRAFT
2 Southwest Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Southwest Region accounts for 9% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sector is Crop Irrigation, which makes up approximately 87% of total use in the region.
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 38% of the region’s demand. Basins throughout the region are projected to have surface water supply shortages in the future. The region is supplied by three major rivers: the North Fork of the Red River, the Elm Fork of the Red River, and the Salt Fork of the Red River. The Red River is not used as a supply source due to water quality concerns. Historically, the rivers and creeks in the region have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers to provide public water supply, irrigation water supply, flood control, and recreation. Major reservoirs in the Southwest Region include: Lugert-Altus Reservoir (supplies the Lugert-Altus Irrigation District), Elk City Lake, Tom Steed Reservoir (supplies the Mountain Park Master Conservancy District), Altus City Lake, and Rocky Lake.
Relative to other regions, surface water quality is considered poor to fair. Multiple rivers, creeks, and lakes, including the major rivers, are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfates. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
Surface water in seven of the 12 basins is fully 150,000 acres, but this would only be possible if additional water supplies can be obtained. The Area VI chloride control project on the Elm Fork of the Red River, which has been studied for many years by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is considered a potential viable source of additional water through diversion to existing infrastructure or pumped directly into Lugert-Altus Reservoir. However, the construction of proposed Headrick Lake, on the North Fork of the Red River downstream allocated, and an additional two basins are expected to become fully allocated by 2060.
The Lugert-Altus Irrigation District covers approximately 48,000 acres of farmland and includes about 330 landowner members. With more than $50 million annually in gross receipts, mostly from cotton production, the district is a significant contributor to the southwest Oklahoma economy. The district plans to eventually expand its system by some
Southwest Regional Summary
Synopsis
The Southwest Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on reservoirs, alluvial   aquifers, and bedrock aquifers.
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on reservoirs,   alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers to meet future demand.
By 2020, surface water supplies will be typically insufficient to meet demand   throughout the region.
Groundwater storage depletions may lead to higher pumping costs, the need for   deeper wells, and potential changes to well yields or water quality.
Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps, alluvial groundwater   storage depletions, and bedrock groundwater storage depletions.
Aquifer storage (recharge) and recovery could be considered to store variable surface   water supplies, increase alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage, and reduce adverse effects of localized groundwater storage depletions.
Use of additional groundwater supplies and/or developing small reservoirs could   mitigate surface water gaps without having major impacts to groundwater storage.
Six basins (34, 36, 38, 40, 41, and 42) in the region have been identified as “hot   spots,” areas where more pronounced water supply availability issues are forecasted. (See “Regional and Statewide Opportunities and Solutions,” OCWP Executive Report.)
Current Water Demand:
176,990 acre-feet/year (9% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Crop Irrigation (87% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
38% SW
28% Alluvial GW
34% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
213,110 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
36,100 acre-feet/year (20%)
Southwest Region Demand Summary
Current and Projected Regional Water DemandDRAFT
Southwest Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
from its confluence with the Elm Fork and supplemented by the Area VI project, could provide a more reliable supply.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 28% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently allocated alluvial groundwater withdrawals in the region are from the North Fork of the Red River aquifer, Tillman Terrace aquifer, and from non-delineated minor aquifers. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur throughout the year, although these projected depletions will be small to moderate relative to the amount of water in storage. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 34% of the demand in the region. Currently allocated and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Blaine and Ogallala major bedrock aquifers, and to a lesser extent, the Elk City and minor aquifers. The Blaine and Elk City aquifers have about 1.4 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the Region. The Ogallala aquifer has about 420,000 AF of groundwater storage in the region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year, but will be largest in the summer months. These depletions are small relative to the amount of water in storage, but are expected to lead to adverse impacts on pumping costs, yields, and/or water quality.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Potential 2060 Water Supply Limitations
Southwest Region
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Southwest Regional Report DRAFT Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Reservoirs, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Southwest Region. The development of additional bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short-term water supply option. Over time, the Blaine and Ogallala aquifers may no longer be the most cost-effective sources of supply in the basins as water levels decrease. Basins and users that rely on surface water are projected to have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions are also projected in the future. Therefore, additional long-term water supplies should be considered.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities, primarily from increased irrigation efficiency and increased conservation by public water suppliers, could eliminate gaps and storage depletions or provide substantial reductions. Current crops are predominantly wheat for grain, cotton, corn for grain, and forage crops. A shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency, could reduce storage depletions by over 90%. Due to extended dry periods and predominant use of groundwater supplies, drought management measures alone will likely be an ineffective water supply option.
New small reservoirs (50 AF or less of storage) could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies, but are not expected to substantially decrease gaps. Basins 38, 42, and 43 have unallocated streamflow and could develop larger reservoirs to decrease local and potentially
Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Southwest Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analyses, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Southwest Regionregional gaps and groundwater storage depletions. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Two potential reservoir sites were identified in the Southwest Region that could serve as regional sources of supply to provide additional water to mitigate the region’s groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance from these reservoirs to demand points in each basin, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users.
The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of aquifers, which would result in minimal increases in projected groundwater storage depletions. However, increased demands would still leave users susceptible to the adverse effects of groundwater storage depletions.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Southwest Regional Report 5
6 Southwest Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been about a third of the supply used to meet demand in the Southwest Region. The region includes tributaries to the Red River, the largest being the North Fork of the Red River, Sandy Creek, the Salt Fork of the Red River, and the Elm Fork of the Red River. There is considerable variability in streamflow throughout the region, but periods of low streamflow can occur in all basins, with Red River tributaries downstream of the North Fork of the Red River often showing very little flow.
Water in the Red River mainstem (southern border of the Southwest region), which maintains substantial flows, is highly mineralized, primarily due to high concentrations of chlorides from natural sources upstream. Without extensive water treatment or management techniques, the high chloride content of the Red River renders water generally unsuitable for most consumptive uses. For this reason, the Red River was not considered as a feasible source of supply in these analyses. As treatment technology evolves over time, treatment costs will likely decrease, and this source may become more attractive relative to other local and regional source options. Also, full implementation of the Corps of Engineers’ Red River Chloride Control Project could reduce naturally occurring chloride levels in the Red River and its tributaries, thereby making it a more feasible source of future water supply.
The North Fork of the Red River mainstem (180 miles long in Oklahoma) crosses the border from Texas in the northern portion of the Southwest Region and joins the Red River at the southeastern edge of the region. The portion of the river above Lugert-Altus Reservoir is considered the Upper North Fork
As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought.
Water Supply
Reservoirs
Southwest Region
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purposes1
Normal Pool Storage
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Altus City
33
City of Altus
1940
WS, R
2,500
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0
Elk City
34
City of Elk City
1970
FC, R
2,583
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Lugert-Altus
36
Bureau of Reclamation
1947
FC, WS, IR
132,830
132,830
47,100
0
0
0
0
90,430
0
Rocky
34
City of Hobart
1933
WS, R
4,210
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
784
Tom Steed
35
Bureau of Reclamation
1975
WS, FC, R, FW
88,970
88,160
16,000
0
0
0
0
16,100
0
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
No known information is annotated as “---”
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
Southwest Region
Surface water supplies about one-third of the demand in the Southwest Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Southwest Regional Report 7
Major reservoirs in the Southwest Region include Elk City, Lugert-Altus, Tom Steed, Altus City, and Rocky. Reservoirs in Oklahoma may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
Southwest Region
and the downstream portion is considered the Lower North Fork. Tributaries include Elk Creek (80 miles) and Otter Creek (20 miles). The Upper North Fork of the Red River and its tributaries are located in Basins 36 and 37. The Lower North Fork of the Red River and its tributaries are located in Basins 32, 33, 34, and 35. The North Fork is the furthest downstream major Red River tributary in the Southwest Region.
The most upstream major Red River tributary in the region is the Prairie Dog City Fork, which meets the Red River just east of the Texas-Oklahoma border in Basin 40. Sandy Creek (40 miles long) runs through the southwest portion of the region in Basins 40 and 41. The Salt Fork of the Red River (110 miles, 80 miles in Oklahoma) enters Oklahoma to the north of Sandy Creek and runs through Basins 38 and 39. The Elm Fork of the Red River (60 miles) begins to the north of the Salt Fork of the Red River and joins the North Fork of the Red River just below Lugert-Altus Reservoir.
In the Southwest Region, streamflow is variable but generally intermittent. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest is Lugert-Altus Reservoir, built in 1947 on the Upper North Fork of the Red River by the Bureau of Reclamation. Tom Steed Reservoir, built in 1975 and also administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, is located on the Otter Creek tributary of the North Fork of the Red River. Several smaller reservoirs are located within Lower North Fork of the Red River basins, including Lake Elk City (operated by the City of Elk City), Altus City Lake (operated by the City of Altus), and Rocky Lake (operated by the City of Hobart). There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agricultural water supply, flood control and recreation.8 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Southwest Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
AFY
Average Annual Flow
239,700
233,000
172,400
10,300
21,100
47,800
99,200
27,700
11,200
13,300
57,700
50,000
Minimum Annual Flow
32,700
31,800
17,100
0
0
4,100
14,900
4,000
100
200
6,000
5,400
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Southwest Regional Report 9
drinking water source, but it is a major source of irrigation water. Irrigation wells are typically 100 to 300 feet deep with yields between 100 and 500 gallons per minute (gpm), although they can exceed 2,000 gpm.
The Elk City aquifer is comprised of fine-grained, friable sandstone with a maximum thickness of about 185 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 300 gpm of water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial purposes.
The Ogallala aquifer consists predominantly of semi-consolidated sediment layers. While the Ogallala aquifer is the most prolific aquifer in the state, it begins to thin out in its southern reaches and only underlies a small portion of the Southwest Watershed Planning Region in Basin 37. In this area, the maximum saturated thickness is about 250 feet in 2000, and averages about 60 feet. The average depth to water is 39 feet and the average aquifer yield 50 gpm. In contrast to the Oklahoma Panhandle, where groundwater
Groundwater Resources
Three major bedrock aquifers underlie the Southwest Watershed Planning Region: the Blaine, Elk City, and the Ogallala. Two major alluvial aquifers underlie the region: the Tillman Terrace and North Fork of the Red River.
The Blaine aquifer consists of a series of interbedded gypsum, shale, and dolomite 300 to 400 feet thick, overlain with a formation up to 200 feet thick of red-brown shale with thin gypsum and dolomite beds. Water from the aquifer is of poor quality with high dissolved solids and high concentrations of calcium and sulfate. Water quality makes it unsuitable as a levels are declining due to water withdrawals which exceed recharge, groundwater levels in Roger Mills and Beckham Counties have risen since 1980. While the maximum annual yields and equal proportionate shares have been set for most areas underlain by the Ogallala, studies have not been completed for those portions underlying Basin 37. Water quality of the aquifer is generally very good, although in local areas, quality has been impaired by high concentrations of nitrate.
The North Fork of the Red River alluvial aquifer averages 70 feet in thickness. The formation consists of silt and clays grading into fine to coarse sand. The water is hard to very hard and of a generally calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. TDS values are usually less than 1,100 mg/L. The aquifer is located in portions of Basins 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, and 43.
The Tillman Terrace aquifer, located in Tillman County, supplies large quantities of groundwater for irrigation purposes and smaller amounts for Municipal and Industrial and domestic use. The formation averages 70 feet in thickness (with an average saturated thickness of about 23 feet) and wells in the aquifer produce 200 to 500 gpm. The water exhibits significant hardness and generally requires softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. Nitrate concentrations in the aquifer often exceed drinking water standards, thereby limiting use for public water supply. The Tillman Terrace aquifer underlies portions of Basins 32 and 33.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the Hennessey-Garber, Post Oak, Southwestern Oklahoma, and Western Oklahoma aquifers. Minor aquifers may have significant amounts of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm per well. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems.
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.
Groundwater Resources
Southwest Region
Aquifer
Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Blaine
Bedrock
Major
18%
1.5
85,500
1,403,000
temporary 2.0
744,400
Elk City
Bedrock
Major
5%
2.8
9,400
1,435,000
1.0
108,000
North Fork of the Red River
Alluvial
Major
17%
2.3
71,300
3,763,000
1.0
355,700
Ogallala
Bedrock
Major
2%
0.9
21,000
424,000
temporary 2.0
80,100
Tillman Terrace
Alluvial
Major
4%
2.9
38,000
684,000
1.0
55,600
Hennessey-Garber
Bedrock
Minor
4%
2.7
100
420,000
1.6
153,500
Post Oak
Bedrock
Minor
<1%
3.6
0
0
2.0
0
Southwestern Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
26%
2.25
600
1,807,000
temporary 2.0
1,317,800
Western Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
37%
5,600
N/A
temporary 2.0
1,897,900
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
40,600
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
8,100
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Major bedrock aquifers in the Southwest Region include the Ogallala, Elk City, and Blaine. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include Tillman Terrace and North Fork of the Red River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.
Groundwater Resources
Southwest RegionSouthwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Permit Availability
For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law.
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in Basins 38, 42, and 43. Basins 32 and 33 currently have water available for new permits, but projections indicate that there will be no remaining available surface water for new permits in 2060. There is no surface water available for new permits in Basins 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 41 in the Southwest Region. For groundwater, each aquifer’s equal proportionate share (EPS) determines the amount of water available for permits. Equal proportionate shares in the Southwest Region range from 1 AFY per acre to 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Southwest Region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Southwest Region.
Groundwater Permit Availability
Southwest Region
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in Basins 38, 42, and 43. Basins 32 and 33 currently have water available for new permits, but projections indicate that there will be no remaining available surface water for new permits in 2060. There is no surface water available for new permits in Basins 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 41 in the Southwest Region.
Surface Water Permit Availability
Southwest Region
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the Southwest Watershed Planning Region varies considerably. The majority of the region lies within the Central Great Plains Ecoregion but the Southwestern Tablelands ecoregion encroaches into the west central portion.
The central and southern and eastern borders are defined by two distinct ecoregions, the Southwestern Tablelands and the Red Prairie of the Central Great Plains, with the Wichita Mountains interspersed centrally. The Southwestern Tablelands are located in the west-central area, extending from the Texas border along northern Harmon and southern Beckham Counties, and into western Greer County. Encompassed by the Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks, the area is characterized by hills, buttes, and ledges and dominated by rangeland. Underlain by gypsum, sandstone, dolomite, and salt, the surface waters of the area contain high salt concentrations. The Elm Fork of the Red River has a mean conductivity of 46,700 microsiemens (uS) and a mean chloride concentration of 20,300 parts per million (ppm). Nutrient concentrations are relatively low with mean concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus at 0.36 and 0.02 ppm, respectively. Water clarity is good with a mean turbidity of 18 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) but highly saline waters limit ecological diversity. The Red Prairie ecoregion is more irregular than the surrounding Central Great Plains areas. Similar to the Caprock Canyons, it is underlain by gypsum and sandstone, and though not as saline, sodium chloride concentrations are higher than surrounding areas. Water quality can be characterized by the Elm Fork of the Red River near Granite, Lugert-Altus Reservoir, and the Red River near Davidson to the south. Though lower than the Carl station, salinity remains high near Granite with a mean conductivity of 19,600 uS and chloride concentration of 5760 ppm. With a conductivity of 2,000 uS, salinity at Lugert-Altus is more indicative of the upper North Fork of the Red. Along the southern border, mean conductivity of the Red River is 7,700 uS, with a mean chloride concentration of 2,040 ppm. Tributaries of the Elm Fork typically range from 4,000 – 10,000 uS. At 0.09 ppm, phosphorus concentrations are higher at Granite but are still relatively low, and nitrogen concentrations are similar. However, total phosphorus mean concentrations of 0.26 ppm are considerably higher along the Red River, which is hyper-eutrophic. Lugert-Altus Reservoir is eutrophic
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.
Ecoregions
Southwest Region
The Southwest region is comprised of several distinct ecoregions, as evidenced by its diverse geology and water quality, which ranges from excellent to poor.Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics.
The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur.
The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters.
BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission has begun a watershed implementation project on Elk City Lake Watershed to address the sources of the lake’s impairments, particularly pathogens.
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Southwest Region14 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses. For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments—whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ.
and phosphorus limited; mean total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are 1.0 and 0.05 ppm. Water clarity is poor to good, with an average Secchi depth of 37 cm at Lugert-Altus and river turbidity means from 18 at Granite to 88 at Davidson. Ecological diversity remains relatively low due to high salinity.
The northern portion of the region is dominated by the Rolling Red Hills ecoregion of the Central Great Plains. The area has steep hilly relief and breaks with intermixed gypsum karst features. It is dominated by rangeland with predominately mixed and short grass prairies, and wooded areas. Eastern red cedar and salt cedar are two notable invasive species. To the south, the Pleistocene Sand Dunes encompass tributaries of the North Fork. This area has permeable sandy soils, interlaced with springs and inter-dune wetlands. Streams and rivers throughout the Rolling Red Hills and Pleistocene Sand Dunes are mostly sand-bottom with low to moderate gradients, incised banks, and unstable substrates. Water quality of this area is exemplified by the North Fork and its tributaries, such as Sweetwater and Turkey Creeks. The area has multiple municipal water supply lakes, including Elk City and Rocky Lakes. With a mean conductivity of 2,620 uS, the North Fork has relatively low conductivity when compared to other parts of the region. Typically, water is of lower conductivity in northern tributaries while southern tributaries have elevated salt concentrations. Both lakes have relatively low conductivity with mean values of approximately 625 uS. On the North Fork, the mean total phosphorus concentration of 0.07 ppm is relatively low, as is the total nitrogen concentration of 1.09 ppm. Elk City and Rocky Lakes are potentially co-limited while Elk city is eutrophic and Rocky Lake is hyper-eutrophic. Water clarity is fair to poor on both the North Fork and the lakes, with mean Secchi depths of
Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Natural elevated levels of salinity in this region produce agricultural and public private water supply impacts, particularly in the North Fork of the Red River and the Salt Fork of the Red River and their tributaries. In light of this, the Army Corps of Engineers has embarked on a chloride control project in this area to research and address the possibilities of reducing the chloride levels. Groundwater from the Blaine aquifer is of poor quality with dissolved solids ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 mg/L. The water has high concentrations of calcium and sulfate resulting from dissolution of the gypsum beds. Locally, in southeastern and northwestern Harmon County, the water has high sodium chloride content. Although the highly mineralized aquifer is unsuitable as a drinking water supply, it is a major source of irrigation water.
Water Quality Impairments
Southwest RegionOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Southwest Regional Report 15
less than 20 cm and a mean turbidity of 31 NTU.
Ecologically, the area is much more diverse than
surrounding areas.
The Red River Tablelands ecoregion encompasses
most of the southern third of the region. The
area has little relief and much cropland. Like
other areas of the region, it is underlain by
dolomite and gypsum with relatively high levels
of salinity. Water quality is more diverse than
in other areas of the region and is characterized
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial
Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Southwest Region
Surface Waters with Designated
Beneficial Use for Agriculture
Southwest Region
by Sandy Creek, the Salt Fork and North Fork,
and Elk Creek. Conductivity values range from
a mean of 1,580 uS at Elk Creek to nearly 8,500
uS on Sandy Creek. With the exception of the
North Fork, chloride values are nearly a third of
sulfate concentrations. Nutrient concentrations
are typical of the region. Total phosphorus
concentrations range from 0.09 ppm on the
Salt Fork River to 0.16 ppm on the North Fork,
while nitrogen values range from 0.84 ppm at
the Salt Fork to a relatively high 3.67 ppm on
Sandy Creek. Waters are eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic.
Clarity is poor to fair. Mean turbidities
range from 61 NTU on Sandy Creek to 24 on the
North Fork. Tom Steed Reservoir lies along the
far eastern tip of the area and is eutrophic with
average water clarity and relatively low salinity.
Diversity is relatively low in areas of high salinity
but improves along Elk Creek.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality
program does not exist in Oklahoma, various
aquifer studies have been completed and data are
available from various sources. The Southwest
Planning Region is underlain by several major
and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. In
most southwest alluvial aquifers, water quality
is good, and except for hardness and localized
nitrate problems, the water is appropriate for
domestic, irrigation, industrial and municipal use.
Throughout much of southwestern Oklahoma,
thick deposits of salt and gypsum occur in many
Permian-age formations creating high chloride
and sulfate concentrations, which can migrate
into portions of alluvial aquifers. Major bedrock
aquifers in the region include the Blaine, Elk
City, and Ogallala. The Blaine underlies the
far southwestern corner extending into Greer,
Harmon, and Jackson Counties. Water from the
Blaine aquifer is of poor quality with dissolved
solids ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 mg/L. The
water has high concentrations of calcium and
sulfate, reflecting dissolution of the gypsum
beds. In southeastern and northwestern Harmon
County, water is high in sodium chloride.
Although the highly mineralized aquifer is
unsuitable as a drinking water supply, it is a
major source of irrigation water. The Elk City
aquifer lies along the northern border of the
region and is comprised of fine-grained and
friable sandstone; its water is generally suitable
for most uses. The Ogallala extends into the
region’s northwestern tip. Water is of a calcium-magnesium
chloride-sulfate type. Although
hard, it is suitable for public supply. However,
excessive chlorides, sulfates and fluorides may
make the water unsuitable in some areas.
16 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.
Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters.
Surface Water Protection Areas
Southwest RegionSouthwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.
Groundwater Protection Areas
Southwest Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and address levels of vulnerability. The Elk City and Blaine aquifers have been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable, while the Red River and North Fork of the Red River alluvial aquifers have been identified as very highly vulnerable. 18 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Southwest Region
Parameter
North Fork of the Red River near Carter
North Fork of the Red River near Headrick
Salt Fork of the Red River near Elmer
All Data Trend (1968-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1958-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1979-1994, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the Southwest Region are:
Significant upward trend for conductivity on the North Fork of the Red River•
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout the region•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Southwest Region
Parameter
Lugert-Altus Reservoir
Rocky Lake
Tom Steed Reservoir
(1996-2005)
(1995-2009)
(1996-2007
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concerns in the Southwest Region are:
Significant upward trend for chlorophyll-a and conductivity on Rocky Lake•
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on Lugert-Altus and Tom Steed reservoirs• 20 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand water, 8% by alluvial groundwater, and 32% by bedrock groundwater.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 21% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 39% by alluvial groundwater, and 40% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for less than 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 64% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 36% by bedrock groundwater.
Self-Supplied Industrial demand is also projected to account for less than 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 5% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 95% by bedrock groundwater.
There is no Thermoelectric Power demand in the region.
The Southwest Region’s water demand accounts for about 9% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 20% (36,100 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation sector.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for 87% of the total regional demand in 2060. Currently, 36% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 29% by alluvial groundwater, and 35% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Southwest Region include cotton, pasture grasses, and wheat.
Municipal and Industrial demand in the Southwest Region is projected to account for approximately 7% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 71% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 16% by alluvial groundwater, and 13% by bedrock groundwater.
Water demand for Oil and Gas activities is projected to account for approximately 3% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 60% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Southwest Region
Projected water demand by sector. Crop Irrigation is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for 87% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Total Water Demand by Sector
Southwest Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Rural Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
158,760
3,660
12,350
1,110
610
500
0
176,990
2020
164,000
3,760
13,060
1,850
610
540
0
183,820
2030
169,250
3,860
13,760
2,800
610
580
0
190,860
2040
174,490
3,960
14,440
3,940
640
610
0
198,090
2050
178,520
4,060
15,100
5,290
650
650
0
204,270
2060
184,980
4,160
15,770
6,840
670
690
0
213,110
Water Demand
Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors.
Water Demand Sectors
nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector.
nSelf-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
nSelf-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system. Available water use data and employment counts were included in this sector.
nOil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied Industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector.
nMunicipal and Industrial: These demands represent water provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
nLivestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
nCrop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports.
OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin.
Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin Summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports.
Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin and a demand on the source basin.
The Southwest Region’s water needs account for about 9% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 20% (36,120 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation sector.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Southwest Region
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Southwest Region22 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.
The Southwest Region includes 36 of the 785 OCWP public supply systems. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.)
In terms of 2010 population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Altus, Elk City, Hobart, Mangum PWS, and Jackson Co. Water Corp. Together, these five systems serve about 70 percent of the combined OCWP public water providers’ population in the region.
Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution
Public Water Providers
Southwest Regionto residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served
Southwest Region
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Projected Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ALTUS
OK1011501
Jackson
200
21,840
23,148
24,235
25,111
25,832
26,409
BECKHAM CO RWD # 1
OK2000505
Beckham
267
1,367
1,489
1,618
1,746
1,875
2,017
BECKHAM CO RWD # 2
OK2000510
Beckham
130
422
460
500
540
580
623
BECKHAM CO RWD # 3
OK2000547
Beckham
287
1,025
1,117
1,213
1,310
1,407
1,513
BLAIR PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2003304
Jackson
126
1,019
1,073
1,127
1,170
1,202
1,223
CARTER
OK3000501
Beckham
58
332
369
394
431
455
492
DILL CITY
OK2007507
Washita
77
532
552
571
581
591
601
DUKE CENTRAL VUE WATER
OK2003301
Jackson
177
322
343
356
370
377
391
DUKE PUBLIC WATER AUTHORITY
OK3003311
Jackson
152
430
458
476
495
504
522
ELDORADO
OK3003301
Jackson
96
418
440
463
478
493
508
ELK CITY
OK2000501
Beckham
235
12,827
13,972
15,174
16,376
17,578
18,905
ERICK
OK2000502
Beckham
153
1,091
1,190
1,289
1,388
1,497
1,606
GOULD PWA
OK3002901
Harmon
263
212
212
212
222
222
232
GRANITE PWS
OK2002804
Greer
115
956
956
956
972
988
1,004
HARMON ELECTRIC
OK3002801
Greer
11
75
75
75
76
78
79
HARMON WATER CORP
OK2002902
Harmon
350
613
613
628
643
666
681
HEADRICK
OK3003302
Jackson
58
125
134
134
143
143
143
HOBART
OK1011502
Kiowa
128
3,880
3,880
3,920
3,960
4,040
4,121
HOLLIS
OK2002901
Harmon
240
2,333
2,333
2,394
2,466
2,538
2,609
JACKSON CO WATER CORP
OK2003306
Jackson
132
2,636
2,791
2,927
3,033
3,120
3,188
KIOWA CO RWS&SWMD #1
OK3003804
Kiowa
111
179
179
181
182
186
190
LONE WOLF
OK2003806
Kiowa
90
474
474
484
484
494
504
MANGUM PWS
OK2002802
Greer
172
2,914
2,914
2,914
2,965
3,016
3,057
MARTHA
OK3003304
Jackson
73
211
220
230
239
249
249
MOUNTAIN PARK
OK3003807
Kiowa
119
205
205
205
205
210
216
MOUNTAIN PARK MCD (Wholesaler Only)
None
Kiowa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OLUSTEE PWS
OK3003309
Jackson
89
661
698
734
762
780
799
QUARTZ MOUNTAIN REG WATER AUTH
OK2003880
Kiowa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REED WATER CORP
OK3002802
Greer
213
175
175
175
178
181
184
ROCKY
OK3007501
Washita
67
105
111
111
111
117
117
ROOSEVELT PWA
OK2003802
Kiowa
105
280
280
280
280
290
290
SAYRE
OK2000508
Beckham
544
4,223
4,594
4,995
5,395
5,786
6,224
SENTINEL PWS
OK3007505
Washita
91
871
900
920
929
959
969
SNYDER
OK1011503
Kiowa
406
1,497
1,497
1,517
1,527
1,558
1,589
THIRSTY WATER CORP
OK2002806
Greer
137
200
200
200
203
207
210
TIPTON
OK2007101
Tillman
98
916
936
956
976
997
1,027
WILLOW
OK2002801
Greer
316
114
114
114
114
114
124
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data was taken from 2007 Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day. 24 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Projections of Retail Water Demands
Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demands include water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demands include customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demands do not include wholesale water to other providers.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations.
The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses.
For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems.
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast
Southwest Region
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ALTUS
OK1011501
Jackson
4,905
5,199
5,443
5,639
5,801
5,931
BECKHAM CO RWD # 1
OK2000505
Beckham
409
445
484
522
561
603
BECKHAM CO RWD # 2
OK2000510
Beckham
61
67
73
78
84
91
BECKHAM CO RWD # 3
OK2000547
Beckham
329
359
390
421
452
486
BLAIR PUBLIC WORKS AUTH
OK2003304
Jackson
144
151
159
165
170
173
CARTER
OK3000501
Beckham
22
24
26
28
30
32
DILL CITY
OK2007507
Washita
46
48
49
50
51
52
DUKE CENTRAL VUE WATER
OK2003301
Jackson
64
68
71
73
75
77
DUKE PUBLIC WATER AUTHORITY
OK3003311
Jackson
73
78
81
84
86
89
ELDORADO
OK3003301
Jackson
45
47
50
51
53
55
ELK CITY
OK2000501
Beckham
3,379
3,681
3,998
4,314
4,631
4,981
ERICK
OK2000502
Beckham
187
204
220
237
256
275
GOULD PWA
OK3002901
Harmon
62
62
62
65
65
68
GRANITE PWS
OK2002804
Greer
123
123
123
125
127
129
HARMON ELECTRIC
OK3002801
Greer
1
1
1
1
1
1
HARMON WATER CORP
OK2002902
Harmon
241
241
246
252
261
267
HEADRICK
OK3003302
Jackson
8
9
9
9
9
9
HOBART
OK1011502
Kiowa
557
557
562
568
580
591
HOLLIS
OK2002901
Harmon
628
628
644
663
683
702
JACKSON CO WATER CORP
OK2003306
Jackson
390
413
433
448
461
471
KIOWA CO RWS&SWMD #1
OK3003804
Kiowa
22
22
23
23
23
24
LONE WOLF
OK2003806
Kiowa
48
48
49
49
50
51
MANGUM PWS
OK2002802
Greer
560
560
560
570
580
588
MARTHA
OK3003304
Jackson
17
18
19
20
20
20
MOUNTAIN PARK
OK3003807
Kiowa
27
27
27
27
28
29
MOUNTAIN PARK MCD (Wholesaler Only)
None
Kiowa
0
0
0
0
0
0
OLUSTEE PWS
OK3003309
Jackson
66
69
73
76
77
79
QUARTZ MOUNTAIN REG WATER AUTH
OK2003880
Kiowa
0
0
0
0
0
0
REED WATER CORP
OK3002802
Greer
42
42
42
42
43
44
ROCKY
OK3007501
Washita
8
8
8
8
9
9
ROOSEVELT PWA
OK2003802
Kiowa
33
33
33
33
34
34
SAYRE
OK2000508
Beckham
2,575
2,802
3,046
3,290
3,529
3,796
SENTINEL PWS
OK3007505
Washita
89
92
94
95
98
99
SNYDER
OK1011503
Kiowa
681
681
690
695
709
723
THIRSTY WATER CORP
OK2002806
Greer
31
31
31
31
32
32
TIPTON
OK2007101
Tillman
101
103
105
107
110
113
WILLOW
OK2002801
Greer
40
40
40
40
40
44
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemSouthwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demands. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems.
Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers.
Providers
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency
or Ongoing
Treated or
Raw or Both
Purchases From
Emergency
or Ongoing
Treated or
Raw or Both
ALTUS
OK1011501
Jackson Co Water Corp
Duke Public Water Authority
Quartz Mountain Reg Water Auth
Blair Public Works Authority
Olustee PWS
Martha
Creta Water Company
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
Mountain Park Master Conservancy District
O
R
BECKHAM CO RWD # 1
OK2000505
Sentinel PWS
Carter
Rocky
O
O
O
T
T
T
BECKHAM CO RWD # 3
OK2000547
Hammon
T
CARTER
OK3000501
Beckham Co RWD #1
O
T
DUKE PWA
OK3003311
Jackson Co Water Corp
E
T
Altus
O
T
ELDORADO
OK3003301
Harmon Water Corp
Creta Water Corporation
O
O
T
R
GOULD PWA
OK3002901
Harmon Water Corp
O
B
GRANITE PWS
OK2002804
Quartz Mountain Reg Water Auth
O
T
HARMON ELECTRIC
OK3002801
Mangum PWS
Quartz Mountain Reg Water Auth
O
T
HARMON WATER CORP
OK2002902
Gould PWA
Eldorado
O
O
B
T
HEADRICK
OK3003302
Jackson Co Water Corp
O
T
HOBART
OK1011502
Frontier Development Auth
Butler
O
O
T
T
Foss Reservoir MCD
O
T
JACKSON CO WATER CORP
OK2003306
Headrick
O
T
Altus
Duke Central Vue Water
O
E
T
T
KIOWA CO RWS&SWMD #1
OK3003804
Quartz Mountain Reg Water Auth
O
T
LONE WOLF
OK2003806
Quartz Mountain Reg Water Auth
O
T
MANGUM PWS
OK2002802
Reed Water Corp
Harmon Electric
O
O
T
T
MARTHA
OK3003304
Altus
O
T
MOUNTAIN PARK
OK3003807
Snyder
O
T
MOUNTAIN PARK MCD
None
Altus
Frederick (Beaver-Cache Region)
Snyder
O
O
O
R
R
R
OLUSTEE PWS
OK3003309
Altus
Creta Water Corporation
O
E
T
T
QUARTZ MOUNTAIN REG WATER AUTH
OK2003880
Granite PWS
Lone Wolf
Kiowa Co RWS & SWMD #1
Harmon Electric
O
O
T
T
T
Altus
REED WATER CORP
OK3002802
Mangum PWS
O
T
ROCKY
OK3007501
Beckham Co RWD #1
O
T
SENTINEL PWS
OK3007505
Beckham Co RWD #1
O
T
SNYDER
OK1011503
Comanche Co RWD #4
Mountain Park, Town of
O
O
T
T
Mountain Park MCD
O
B
TIPTON
OK2007101
Frederick
O
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Wholesale Water Transfers
Southwest Region26 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Water Rights
Source
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
ALTUS
OK1011501
Jackson
4,800
100%
0%
0%
BECKHAM CO RWD # 1
OK2000505
Beckham
1,212
0%
100%
0%
BECKHAM CO RWD # 2
OK2000510
Beckham
134
0%
90%
10%
BECKHAM CO RWD # 3
OK2000547
Beckham
282
0%
0%
100%
BLAIR PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2003304
Jackson
274
0%
58%
42%
CARTER
OK3000501
Beckham
---
---
---
---
DILL CITY
OK2007507
Washita
377
0%
0%
100%
DUKE CENTRAL VUE WATER
OK2003301
Jackson
---
---
---
---
DUKE PWA
OK3003311
Jackson
209
0%
100%
0%
ELDORADO
OK3003301
Jackson
86
0%
0%
100%
ELK CITY
OK2000501
Beckham
7,303
0%
100%
0%
ERICK
OK2000502
Beckham
776
0%
100%
0%
GOULD PWA
OK3002901
Harmon
60
0%
100%
0%
GRANITE PWS
OK2002804
Greer
760
0%
100%
0%
HARMON ELECTRIC
OK3002801
Greer
---
---
---
---
HARMON WATER CORP
OK2002902
Harmon
725
0%
100%
0%
HEADRICK
OK3003302
Jackson
---
---
---
---
HOBART
OK1011502
Kiowa
1,731
100%
0%
0%
HOLLIS
OK2002901
Harmon
1,120
0%
100%
0%
JACKSON CO WATER CORP
OK2003306
Jackson
885
0%
100%
0%
KIOWA CO RWS&SWMD #1
OK3003804
Kiowa
---
---
---
---
LONE WOLF
OK2003806
Kiowa
443
0%
100%
0%
MANGUM PWS
OK2002802
Greer
1,220
0%
100%
0%
MARTHA
OK3003304
Jackson
---
---
---
---
MOUNTAIN PARK
OK3003807
Kiowa
---
---
---
---
MOUNTAIN PARK MCD
None
Kiowa
16,100
100%
0%
0%
OLUSTEE PWS
OK3003309
Jackson
29
0%
100%
0%
QUARTZ MOUNTAIN REG WATER AUTH
OK2003880
Kiowa
---
---
---
---
REED WATER CORP
OK3002802
Greer
---
---
---
---
ROCKY
OK3007501
Washita
---
---
---
---
ROOSEVELT PWA
OK2003802
Kiowa
75
0%
100%
0%
SAYRE
OK2000508
Beckham
1,605
0%
100%
0%
SENTINEL PWS
OK3007505
Washita
---
---
---
---
SNYDER
OK1011503
Kiowa
---
---
---
---
THIRSTY WATER CORP
OK2002806
Greer
23
---
100%
---
TIPTON
OK2007101
Tillman
727
0%
100%
0%
WILLOW
OK2002801
Greer
35
0%
100%
0%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals (2010)
Southwest RegionSouthwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Provider Supply Plans
In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans.
In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems.
Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems.
City of Altus (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mountain Park MCD, Lugert-Altus Irrigation District
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water tower; replace raw water line.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, pumps and motors; add emergency generator and raw water pump station; rehab 8 multimedia filters and RO plant.
Beckham County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Beckham County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: None identified
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Beckham County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Elk City Sandstone aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Blair PWA (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Carter (Beckham County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Beckham County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Refurbish standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Dill City (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Duke Central Vue Water (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Duke PWA (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Altus
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Eldorado (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Creta Water Corp., Harmon Water Corp.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Elk City (Beckham County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
City of Erick (Beckham County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Gould PWA (Harmon County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Harmon Water Corporation
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Granite PWS (Greer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace storage tank, upgrades to water treatment plant.
Harmon Electric (Greer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Quartz Mountain Regional Water Authority, Mangum PWS.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Harmon Water Corp. (Harmon County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Headrick (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Jackson County Water Corp.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Hobart (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rocky Lake
Short-Term Needs
None required.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
City of Hollis (Harmon County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Jackson County Water Corp.
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater, City of Altus
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Kiowa County RWS & SWMD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Quartz Mountain
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Lone Wolf (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Quartz Mountain
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Southwest Region28 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Southwest Region
Mangum PWS (Greer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells.
Town of Martha (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Altus
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Mountain Park (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Snyder
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Mountain Park MCD (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Tom Steed Reservoir
Needs
No Information.
Olustee PWS (Jackson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Altus
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Quartz Mountain RWA (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Reed Water Corp. (Greer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mangum PWS
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines and refurbish storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Rocky (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Beckham County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
Roosevelt PWA (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Sayre (Beckham County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New wells, water tower and distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells, replace distribution lines.
Sentinel PWS (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Beckham County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Refurbish existing wells.
City of Snyder (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mountain Park MCD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New RO water treatment plant.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Thirsty Water Corp. (Greer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mountain Park MCD
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Tipton (Tillman County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Frederick/Frederick Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish existing well.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Willow (Greer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water.
Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region.
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Southwest Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$272
$483
$137
$892
Medium
$130
$65
$43
$238
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$7
$133
$140
TOTAL
$402
$555
$313
$1,270
1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 and fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category is for rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $1.27 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water • infrastructure needs of the Southwest region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur from 2021 to 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 90% of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment and storage projects.
Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately 11% of • the total costs.30 Southwest Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur.
Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%.
The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report.
Primary Options
To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements.
Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of Demand Management for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report.
Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin.
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Reservoir Use
“Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs.
The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands.
Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir site(s) unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand.
Increasing Reliance on
Surface Water
“Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion.
Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source.
Increasing Reliance on
Groundwater
“Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers.
Expanded Options
In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website.
Expanded Conservation Measures
Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the report Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects.
Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodology and results for the five selected sites are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations.
Marginal Quality Water Sources
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1627 requiring the OWRB to establish a technical workgroup to analyze the expanded use of marginal quality water (MQW) from various sources throughout the state. The group included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. Through facilitated discussions, the group defined MQW as that which has been historically unusable due to technological or economic issues associated with diverting, treating, and/or conveying the water. Five categories of MQW were identified for further characterization and technical analysis: (1) treated wastewater effluent, (2) stormwater runoff, (3) oil and gas flowback/produced water, (4) brackish surface and groundwater, and (5) water with elevated levels of key constituents, such as nitrates, that would require advanced treatment prior to beneficial use.
A phased approach was utilized to meet the study’s objectives, which included quantifying and characterizing MQW sources and their locations for use through 2060, assessing constraints to MQW use, and matching identified sources of MQW with projected water shortages across the state along with a determination of feasibility. Of all the general MQW uses evaluated, water reuse—beneficially using treated wastewater to meet certain demand—is perhaps the most commonly applied elsewhere in the U.S. Similarly, wastewater was determined to be one of the most viable sources of marginal quality water for short-term use in Oklahoma. Results of the workgroup’s study are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations.
Potential Reservoir Development
Oklahoma is the location of many reservoirs that provide a dependable, vital water supply source for numerous purposes. While economic, environmental, cultural, and geographical constraints generally limit the construction of new reservoirs, significant interest persists due to their potential in meeting various future needs, particularly those associated with municipalities and feasible regional public supply systems.32 Southwest Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP reservoir viability study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified).
This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4)
Southwest Region
Name
Category
Stream
Basin
Purposes1
Total Storage
Conservation Pool
Primary Study
Updated Cost Estimate 2
(2010 dollars)
Surface Area
Storage
Dependable Yield
Date
Agency
AF
Acres
AF
AFY
Mangum (Lower Dam Site)
4
Salt Fork of the Red River
39
47,043
2,604
0
18,494
2005
USACE
N/A
Port
3
Elk Creek
34
FC, WS, F&W, R
115,700
4,480
42,000
9,000
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$112,065,000
1 WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
2 Majority of cost estimates were updated using the costs as estimated in previous project reports combined with the USACE Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only.
N/A indicates information not available.
Reservoir Project Viability Categorization
Category 4: Sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development.
Category 3: Sites with sufficient data for analysis, but less than desirable for current viability.
Category 2: Sites that may contain fatal flaws or other factors that could severely impede potential development.
Category 1: Sites with limited available data and lacking essential elements of information.
Category 0: Typically sites that exist only on an historical map. Study data cannot be located or verified.Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
Expanded Water Supply Options
Southwest RegionDRAFT
35
Basin 32
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Data & Analysis
Southwest Watershed Planning Region
Basin 3236 Southwest Regional Report DRAFT Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 32 accounts for about 5% of the water demand in the Southwest Watershed Planning Region. The Crop Irrigation demand sector accounts for 97% of the demand in the basin. Surface water satisfies about 9% of the total demand in the basin. Alluvial groundwater satisfies about 91% of the total demand in the basin. The peak summer demand is more than 130 times the winter monthly demand, which is much more pronounced than the overall statewide pattern.
There are no major reservoirs in Basin 32; however, the far northwest tip of the basin receives out-of-basin supplies from the Lugert-Altus Irrigation District. The North Fork of the Red River, the major stream in this basin, typically has flows greater than 5,000 AF/month, but can also have prolonged periods
Synopsis
Most water users are expected to continue to rely on alluvial groundwater supplies.   
Alluvial groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020, but will be minimal in   size relative to aquifer storage in the basin. However, localized storage depletions may cause adverse effects for users.
By 2050, there is a low probability of surface water gaps from increased demands on   existing supplies during low flow periods.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that   groundwater storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could mitigate surface water gaps and the adverse effects of   alluvial groundwater storage depletions.
Use of additional groundwater supplies and/or developing additional small reservoir   storage could mitigate gaps. These supply sources could be used without major impacts to groundwater storage.
Basin 32
Basin 32 Summary
Current Demand by Source and Sector
Southwest Region, Basin 32
Total Demand
7,920 AFY
Water Resources
Southwest Region, Basin 32DRAFT Southwest Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
of low flow in any month of the year. Basin 32 currently has surface water available for new permits but is expected to be fully allocated by 2060. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 32 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
The majority of current groundwater rights are from the Tillman Terrace aquifer, which underlies about 70% of the basin and has about 370,000 AF of in-basin groundwater storage. Minor bedrock aquifers (Hennessey-Garber and Southwestern Oklahoma) are present in the basin, but are not widely used. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of
Basin 32in the future unless the District obtains additional water supplies. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified two potentially viable out-of-basin sites in the Southwest Region. However, in light of the basin’s groundwater resources and distance to other reliable surface water supplies, out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective for many users in the basin.
New reservoir storage can increase the dependability of available surface water supplies and mitigate gaps or adverse effects of localized storage depletions. The flow in Basin 32 will be fully permitted by 2060, which will severely limit the size and location of new reservoirs. However, if permittable, the basin’s entire growth in demand from 2010 to 2060 could be supplied by a new river diversion and a 200 AF reservoir at the basin outlet.permits through 2060. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues.
The projected 2060 water demand of 8,520 AFY reflects a 600 AFY increase (8%) over the 2010 demand.
Gaps &Depletions
Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, alluvial groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020, while surface water gaps may occur by 2050. Surface water gaps will be minimal (10 AFY) on a basin-scale. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions will be as high as 150 AFY by 2060, and will have a 10% probability of occurring in at least one month of the year. Surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions are expected in the spring and summer. Projected annual alluvial groundwater storage depletions are minimal relative to volume of water in storage in Basin 32’s portion of the Tillman Terrace aquifer. However, localized groundwater storage depletions may adversely affect users’ water yield, water level, or water quality. No bedrock groundwater demands are expected in the future based on current water use.
Options
Most water users are expected to continue to heavily rely on alluvial groundwater supplies. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that storage depletions and gaps be decreased where economically feasible.
Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Crop Irrigation sector could mitigate gaps and storage depletions. Temporary drought management could reduce demand, largely from irrigation, and may mitigate gaps. Temporary drought management may not be needed for alluvial groundwater users, since aquifer storage could continue to provide supplies during droughts.
The Lugert-Altus Irrigation District currently provides supplies to the basin, but is not expected to provide supplies to new irrigators
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Southwest Region, Basin 32
Demand Management
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Reservoir Use
Increasing Supply from Surface Water
Increasing Supply from Groundwater
nTypically EffectivenPotentially EffectivenLikely IneffectivenNo Option Necessary
Water Supply Limitations
Southwest Region, Basin 32
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
nMinimalnPotentialnSignificant
Median Historical Streamflow
at the Basin Outlet
Southwest Region, Basin 32
Projected Water Demand
Southwest Region, Basin 32
Increased reliance on surface water, without reservoir storage, would increase gaps and is not recommended.
Increased reliance on alluvial groundwater may mitigate surface water gaps, but will increase storage depletions. Any increases in storage depletions would be small in size relative to the volume of water in storage in Basin 32’s portion of the Tillman Terrace aquifer. However, localized groundwater storage depletions may adversely affect users’ well yield, water quality, and/or pumping costs.38 Southwest Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 32 Data & Analysis
Surface Water Resources
Historical streamflow from 1950 through • 2007 was used to estimate the range of future surface water supplies. The North Fork of the Red River upstream of the Red River had a prolonged period of below average flow from the early 1960s to the mid 1970s. From the mid 1980s to early 2000s, the basin went through a prolonged period of above-average streamflow, demonstrating the hydrologic variability in the basin.
The range of historical streamflow at the • basin outlet is shown by the average, median and minimum streamflow over a 58-year period of record. The median flow of the North Fork of Red River upstream of the Red River is greater than 5,000 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 24,000 AF/month in May and June. However, the river can have prolonged periods of low flow in any month of the year. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 32 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
There are no major reservoirs in the • basin.
Basin 32
Historical Precipitation
Regional Climate Division
Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
Southwest Region, Basin 32
Monthly Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
Southwest Region, Basin 32
nPrimarily Measured Flows
nMeasured/Synthesized Flows
nSignificant Synthesized Flows
Streamflow Data Source
Southwest Region, Basin 32Southwest Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 39
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 32
Groundwater Resources
For Basin 32, groundwater rights total • 24,200 AFY in the Tillman Terrace aquifer and 200 AFY in non-delineated minor alluvial aquifers. The Tillman Terrace aquifer underlies about 69% of the basin and has approximately 372,000 AF of storage.
High concentrations of nitra