Oklahoma comprehensive water plan Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region

              Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Beaver-Cache Watershed
Planning Region
Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Contents
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Beaver-Cache 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
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 24 . 35
Basin 25 . 45
Basin 26 . 55
Basin 27 . 65
Basin 28 . 75
Basin 29 . 85
Basin 30 . 95
Basin 31 . 105
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Regional Overview
The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region includes eight basins (numbered 24-31 for reference). The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province, encompassing 3,288 square miles in southwest Oklahoma spanning from the southern portion of Caddo County in the north to the Red River on the south, and including all or portions of Tillman, Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Grady, Stephens, and Jefferson Counties.
The region’s terrain varies from lush pasture in the river bottoms and gently rolling plains to the Wichita Mountains in the northwest, which rise 400 to 1,100 feet above surrounding redbed plains. Mixed eroded plains occur over the southwest portion of the region, much of which has been converted for wheat or cotton production, transitioning east to tallgrass prairie and intergrading in the northeast to Post-Oak-Blackjack forest, known locally as the Cross Timbers.
The region has a generally mild climate with average monthly temperatures varying from 38°F in January to 84°F in July (Lawton Regional Airport). Annual average precipitation ranges from 28 inches in the west to 34 inches in the east. Annual evaporation ranges from 27 inches in the west to 33 inches in the east.
The largest cities in the region include Lawton (2010 population of 96,867), Duncan (23,431), Frederick (3,940), and Marlow (4,662). The greatest water demand is from municipal and industrial water use followed by crop irrigation.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total water demand of 56,560 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 12,000 AFY (27%) from 2010.peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins is based on 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 OCWP Update is provided in various 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 OCWP Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the OCWP Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.
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 dividing 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 Beaver-Cache 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 tool, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demands 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, demands, 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
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.
Beaver-Cache Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanBedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 17% of the demand in the region. Currently allocated groundwater and projected withdrawals are from the Rush Springs aquifer, and to a lesser extent, the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills and Hennessey-Garber aquifers. Aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur during summer months. These depletions are small relative to the amount of water in storage and maximum annual yields of the aquifers.
The Beaver-Cache Region accounts for 2% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sector is Municipal and Industrial (55%), followed by Crop Irrigation (28%).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet two-thirds of the Beaver-Cache Region’s demand. The region is supplied by three large creeks that flow into the Red River: Beaver Creek, Cache Creek, and Deep Red Creek. Historically, major creeks in the region experience seasonal low flows and extended periods of low flow due to droughts. Large reservoirs have been built on Cache Creek tributaries (Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth) and Beaver Creek (Waurika Lake) to supply public water systems and irrigators and provide other important regional benefits, such as flood control and recreation. Basins lacking access to major reservoirs are expected to experience physical surface water supply shortages in the future. supply a similar portion of demand in the future, depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur in summer months, although projected depletions will be small relative to the amount of water in storage and permit availability. Water quality issues will remain a concern for the region and may constrain some uses of alluvial groundwater.
The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Water quality may constrain supplies for Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors. Public and private water and agriculture supplies in Lake Lawtonka, Waurika Lake, Cow Creek, Deep Red Creek, and Beaver Creek currently have water quality impairments due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids, sulfates, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed, in part, through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of surface water supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 19% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently allocated alluvial groundwater (i.e., groundwater in alluvial and terrace deposits) withdrawals in the region are from the Tillman Terrace aquifer, and to a lesser extent, the Red River aquifer. If alluvial groundwater is used to
Synopsis
The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water   supplies (including reservoirs) and to a lesser extent, groundwater supplies.
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on existing   reservoirs and major aquifers to meet future demand.
Surface water supplies will be insufficient at times to meet demand in basins without   major reservoirs.
Groundwater storage depletions are anticipated but should be relatively small   compared to the amount of water in storage.
Construction of additional small reservoirs, new out-of-basin or other regional   supplies, and increased reliance on groundwater may be effective solutions for areas with anticipated surface water gaps.
Users with surface water gaps or who rely on minor aquifers can increase   dependability of their supplies through emergency demand management and conservation, new reservoirs, and/or out-of-basin supplies.
Basin 26 has been identified as a “hot spot,” an area where more pronounced water   supply availability issues are forecasted. (See “Regional and Statewide Opportunities and Solutions,” 2012 OCWP Executive Report.)
Beaver-Cache Regional Summary
AFY
Current Water Demand:
44,590 acre-feet/year (2% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Municipal & Industrial (55% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
64% SW
19% Alluvial GW
17% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
56,560 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
11,970 acre-feet/year (27%)
Beaver-Cache Region Demand Summary
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
2 Beaver-Cache Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanWater quality issues may constrain future Municipal and Industrial use (due to high fluoride levels) and Crop Irrigation use (due to high chloride levels) from portions of the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer.
The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Water Supply Limitations
Beaver-Cache Region
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations are determined based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations are determined 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; 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 are considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.
Beaver-Cache Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanThis evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Beaver-Cache Region
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local and existing out of basin supplies was assumed to continue in current (2010) proportions.
Existing major reservoirs are expected to be capable of supplying the majority of surface water demand in the Beaver-Cache region. Basins without access to major reservoirs are expected to experience physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future. The demand in these basins is relatively small and broadly dispersed. Water conservation or emergency drought management practices can aid in reducing projected gaps or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Two potentially viable sites were identified in the OCWP Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region.
Due to extended dry periods, demand management measures alone will likely be insufficient to prevent gaps. New reservoirs at the basin outlet, typically holding less than 500 acre-feet (AF) of water, could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies in basins without a major reservoir (Basins 24, 26, 29, 30, and 31). Alternatively, interbasin transfer of water from existing major reservoirs or major aquifers could prevent gaps while minor aquifers could help domestic or small volume users meet future demands.
Depletions of groundwater storage are anticipated throughout the Beaver-Cache region, particularly during the summer. However, both bedrock and alluvial aquifer storage depletions are minimal compared to the amount of water in storage. Water rights are not expected to constrain the ability to meet local demand through 2060.
Users in portions of Basins 24, 25, and 26 currently utilize groundwater from non-delineated minor aquifers. These aquifers typically have low yields, and while providing a valuable source of water for domestic use, may not provide adequate supply for high-volume users. These users can reduce the potential of shortages through emergency demand management and conservation, new small reservoirs, or out-of-basin sources.
4 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5
Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest is Waurika Lake, constructed on Beaver Creek by the USACE in 1977. Waurika Lake is unique in that the USACE was authorized to develop conveyance facilities as a part of the project. The USACE continues to direct flood control operations, but the Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District operates and maintains water supply facilities for its member cities of Comanche, Duncan, Lawton, Temple, and Walters.
The City of Lawton impounds two large municipal lakes in the region: Lake Ellsworth, located on East Cache Creek in Comanche and Caddo Counties, and Lake Lawtonka, on Medicine Creek (tributary to East Cache
Reservoirs
Beaver-Cache 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
Dave Boyer
28
City of Walters
1936
WS, R
936
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Ellsworth
28
City of Lawton
1962
WS, R
81,224
68,700
23,500
0
0
0
0
23,500
0
Frederick
30
City of Frederick
1974
WS, FC, R
9,663
---
---
0
0
0
0
3,400
---
Lawtonka
28
City of Lawton
1905
WS, R
55,171
64,000
23,500
0
0
0
0
23,500
0
Waurika
25
USACE
1977
FC, IR, WS, WQ, R, FW
203,100
151,400
40,549
16,200
5,041
0
0
44,806
784
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, R = Recreation, HP= Hydroelectric Power, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation
No known information is annotated as “---”
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Beaver-Cache Region. The region’s major streams include the Red River, Cache Creek, and Beaver Creek.
Water in the Red River mainstem (southern border of the Beaver-Cache 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 this analysis. 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 Red River Chloride Control Project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) could reduce naturally occurring chloride levels in the Red River and its tributaries, thereby making it a more feasible source of future water supply.
Cache Creek, located in the central area of the region, consists of a short mainstem and three large tributaries: East Cache Creek (approximately 100 miles long), West Cache Creek (60 miles), and Deep Red Creek (90 miles). Downstream of its confluence with these tributaries, Cache Creek flows southwest to the Red River. Cache Creek and its tributaries are located in Basins 27, 28, 29, and 30.
Beaver Creek (80 miles long) originates in northwestern Comanche County and southwestern Grady County. Beaver Creek and its tributaries are located in Basins 24, 25, and 26.
Many streams in this region experience a wide range of flows, including both periodic no flow conditions and flooding events. Streamflow is not a dependable supply source for most purposes due to generally intermittent flow and poor water quality.
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 Creek) near the slopes of Mount Scott in the Wichita Mountains of Comanche County. The reservoirs are owned and operated by Lawton for water supply, flood control, and recreation. Lake Lawtonka receives inflows from Lake Ellsworth to improve yields and maintain water levels. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), municipal, and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agriculture, flood control, and recreation.
6 Beaver-Cache Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanReservoirs in the Beaver-Cache Region include Dave Boyer, Ellsworth, Frederick, Lawtonka, and Waurika. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
Beaver-Cache Region
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
Beaver-Cache Region
Surface water is the main source of supply in the Beaver-Cache Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, localized or intermittent shortages can occur due to variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users.
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Beaver-Cache Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
AFY
Average Annual Flow
195,300
107,000
57,000
399,300
151,000
222,900
122,200
105,800
Minimum Annual Flow
4,400
0
100
36,300
12,900
7,700
4,300
3,500
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. The unused yield of existing reservoirs was considered for this analysis. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that an 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.
More information is available in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report on the OWRB website.
8 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Groundwater Resources
Two major bedrock aquifers, the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills and Rush Springs, are present in the northern portion of the Beaver-Cache Region, and two major alluvial aquifers, the Tillman Terrace and Red River, are located in the southern portion of the region.
The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer underlies portions of Basins 25, 28, and 29, and consists predominantly of limestone and dolomite. The aquifer occurs in two areas: the Limestone Hills north of the Wichita Mountains, where the aquifer is exposed at land surface, and the Cache-Lawton area south of the Wichita Mountains, where the aquifer is buried under as much as 2,000 feet of younger rock. Availability of groundwater in the Limestone Hills is erratic because of faulting and folding. Most wells are 500 feet or deeper, and wells and springs yield as much as 100 gallons per minute (gpm). In the Cache-Lawton area, well depths range from 350 to more than 2,000 feet, and yields from 25 up to 600 gpm have been reported. Water from the Limestone Hills area is generally very hard; water from the Cache-Lawton area is generally soft. Fluoride concentrations from both areas generally exceed the drinking water standard, limiting use for public water supply. Water in parts of the Cache-Lawton area has high chloride concentrations, which may make the water unsuitable for irrigation.
The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in aquifer depletion and reduced storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.use for drinking water. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 25 and 28.
Both the Red River and Tillman Terrace alluvial aquifers consist of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. The Red River aquifer, located in southern Tillman, Cotton, and Jefferson Counties, supplies water for municipal, irrigation, and domestic purposes. The average saturated thickness is estimated to be around 20-30 feet; however, little data are available concerning this aquifer and its potential as a major source of groundwater. The Red River aquifer is located in southern portions of Basins 24 and 31.
The Tillman Terrace aquifer, located in Tillman County, supplies large quantities of groundwater for irrigation purposes and smaller amounts for municipal and domestic use. The formation averages 70 feet in thickness with an average saturated thickness of about 23 feet. 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 without significant treatment. The Tillman Terrace aquifer underlies portions of Basin 31.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno, Hennessey-Garber, Post Oak, and Southwestern Oklahoma. Minor alluvial aquifers include Beaver Creek and Cache-Creek. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally have lower well yields which may be insufficient for large volume users.
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.
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Groundwater Resources
Beaver-Cache 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
Percent­Inch/
Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills
Bedrock
Major
10%
0.3-0.6
5,300
883,000
temporary 2.0
429,800
Red River
Alluvial
Major
6%
2.5
6,900
287,000
temporary 2.0
254,100
Rush Springs
Bedrock
Major
3%
1.8
17,500
1,558,000
temporary 2.0
103,900
Tillman Terrace
Alluvial
Major
4%
2.9
11,900
598,000
1.0
68,200
Beaver Creek
Alluvial
Minor
2%
3.6
0
151,000
1.0
38,300
Cache Creek
Alluvial
Minor
9%
3.6
6,300
746,000
1.0
180,600
El Reno
Bedrock
Minor
2%
0.75
2,700
166,000
temporary 2.0
62,600
Hennessey-Garber
Bedrock
Minor
61%
2.7
3,500
5,579,000
1.6
2,024,400
Post Oak
Bedrock
Minor
5%
3.6
1,600
2,500,000
2.0
190,000
Southwestern Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
5%
2.25
0
293,000
temporary 2.0
217,100
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
2,200
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
3,800
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9
Major bedrock aquifers in the Beaver-Cache Region include Rush Springs and Arbuckle-Timbered Hills. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include Tillman Terrace and 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
Beaver-Cache Region
10 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Groundwater Permit Availability
Beaver-Cache Region
Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all aquifers in the Beaver-Cache region.
Permit Availability
For 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.
In the Beaver-Cache Region, the Tillman Terrace aquifer’s EPS is set at one acre-foot per year (AFY) per acre. For the Rush Springs, Arbuckle Timbered Hills, and Red River aquifers, temporary permits are issued, granting users two AFY per acre of land until the OWRB conducts hydrologic investigations and establishes the maximum annual yield of the basins.
Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits in all aquifers and surface water available for new permits in all basins in the Beaver-Cache region through 2060. However, there is substantially less surface water available for permits in Basins 25 and 26 than other basins in the 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 there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Beaver-Cache Region.
Surface Water Permit Availability
Beaver-Cache Region
Surface Water Permit Availability
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.
To determine surface water permit availability in each OCWP planning basin in 2060, the analysis utilized OWRB protocol to estimate the average annual streamflow at the basin’s outlet point, accounting for both existing and anticipated water uses upstream and downstream, including legal obligations, such as those associated with domestic use and interstate compact requirements.
Groundwater Permit Availability
Groundwater available for permits in Oklahoma is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer. For unstudied aquifers, temporary permits are granted allocating 2 AFY/acre. For studied aquifers, an “equal proportionate share” (EPS) is established based on the maximum annual yield of water in the aquifer, which is then allocated to each acre of land overlying the groundwater basin. Temporary permits are then converted to regular permits and all new permits are based on the EPS.
To calculate groundwater permit availability in 2060, the OCWP analysis determined the geographical area overlying all aquifers in each basin, utilized the respective EPS or temporary permit allocations, then applied current and future permit amounts.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
with conductivity ranging from approximately
380-550 microSiemens (uS). Lakes and streams
are typically phosphorus limited and show
moderate cultural eutrophication, which
is indicative of higher than normal
nutrient concentrations. Ecological
diversity is higher and closely
resembles the Cross Timbers
ecoregion. It can be affected
by habitat degradation and
sedimentation/siltation.
Along the western edge of
the transition in the north
is the Wichita Mountains
ecoregion, which may be the
most ecologically diverse
ecoregion of the Central Great
Plains. Comprised mostly of
steep mountains and rocky
outcroppings, the Wichita
Mountains also support thriving
grasslands and dense scrub oak
forests. Because of the native geology,
the streams are a mixture of cobble,
gravel, and sand and resemble waters
found in the Arbuckle Uplift of south-central
Oklahoma. Likewise, the geology
also produces waters that have
fair to excellent water clarity
and, although slightly alkaline,
comparatively low salinity.
Characteristic watersheds
include Lake Lawtonka and
Lake Elmer Thomas. The lakes
have good to excellent water
clarity, with average turbidity
values ranging from 2-8 NTU and
Secchi depth readings from 3.5-5.5
feet. The water in Lake Lawtonka
is slightly alkaline with an average
pH of 8.1 and average hardness
of 163.4 ppm. Conversely, with
much less buffering capacity
and an average hardness of
less than 50 ppm, Lake Elmer
Thomas has slightly acidic
water with nearly 15% of all
measured pH values of less
than 6.5 units. Moreover, with
Ecoregions
Beaver-Cache Region
The Beaver-Cache region is comprised of several distinct ecoregions, as evidenced by its diverse geology
and water quality, which ranges from excellent to poor.
Water Quality
Water quality of the Beaver-Cache Watershed
Planning Region is markedly different from
north to south. Although wholly contained
within the Central Great Plains ecoregion,
the water quality differences are primarily
due to dramatic geographical changes over
a very small landmass. The northern third
and much of the northeastern portion of
the region is comprised of two distinct
ecoregions, the Cross Timbers Transition and
the Wichita Mountains, which is a mix of
forested, irregular plains and steep highlands.
Conversely, the southern and mostly western
portion of the region is dominated by the
Broken Red Plains ecoregion.
The Cross Timbers Transition runs from
north to south over the eastern portion of the
area. As its name denotes, the transitional
area is a hybrid mix of rough plains, and
the oak/elm forests that dominate much of
the Cross Timbers ecoregion. Represented
by the Lake Ellsworth and Lake Waurika
watersheds, the transition is emblematic
of the waters in the Central Great Plains,
with more loose sediments, such as sand
and silt, and typically higher salinity. Water
clarity is poor to average, with an average
turbidity of 25-40 NTU and Secchi depths
of approximately 1.0-1.5 feet. Likewise, the
water is neutral to slightly alkaline, with pH
values ranging from 7.2-8.8 and an average
hardness of approximately 200 parts per
million (ppm). Waters are moderately saline,
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.
12 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
a conductivity average of 393.8 uS, Lawtonka resembles the salinity found in much of the southern Cross Timbers. However, Elmer Thomas is similar to waters of Southeastern Oklahoma with a mean conductivity of less than 85 uS. While both lakes are phosphorus limited, Lawtonka is moderately eutrophic, while Elmer Thomas remains oligotrophic and has much lower nutrient concentrations. Ecological diversity is higher than anywhere in the Central Great Plains. It can be affected by habitat degradation and sedimentation/siltation.
Much of the central and mostly western portions of the region are dominated by the Broken Red Plains and Red Prairie ecoregions. Although still more irregular than most of the Central Great Plains, it has characteristically sandy soils and is grassland dominated with low density scrub forests. Creeks are mostly sand and silt with much less relief than the northern portion of the Beaver-Cache region. Reservoirs, like Lake Frederick and Lake Dave Boyer, are similar to reservoirs in the Cross Timbers Transition. They normally demonstrate poor water clarity with turbidity ranging on average from 50-100 NTU, and Secchi depths less than one foot. Water is typically alkaline with pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.5 units, and hardness values averaging approximately 200 ppm. Likewise, they are moderately saline with conductivity ranges between 250-650 uS. Additionally, these lakes are eutrophic and phosphorus limited. Conversely, surface water quality in rivers and streams are much more characteristic of water quality in the Central Great Plains. East and West Cache Creeks drain much of the
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Beaver-Cache Region
A 1997 demonstration project on the Beaver and Whiskey Creek watersheds by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission showed that additional non-point source restoration programs would be beneficial.
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, other bodies of surface water, and groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 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.
More information about OWQS and the latest revisions can be found on the OWRB website.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
central and western portions of the Broken
Red Plains and in several ways resemble the
reservoirs of the area. Water clarity is typically
poor to fair with mean turbidities ranging
from 31-48 NTU, and they are slightly alkaline
with pH ranging from 7.4-8.5 and hardness
ranging from 220-305 ppm. However, salinity
in these rivers begins to approximate that
seen throughout the plains. The conductivity
ranges from a mean of 700 uS on East Cache
Creek to near 1160 uS on West Cache Creek.
When considering the mainstem of the Red
River, the water quality differences
become even starker. Water clarity
is very poor with an average of 120
NTU. The Red River is moderately
alkaline with a pH average of
8.2 but a maximum value of 9.0
units, and a hardness average of
860 ppm. Salinity shows a strong
influence from the upper Red
River ecoregions as conductivity
averages approximately 4,860
uS. Like the reservoirs, rivers
and streams are phosphorus
limited and eutrophic, but
phosphorus and nitrogen
values are much higher, with an
average of 1.149 ppm and 2.328
ppm, respectively, along East
Cache Creek. Lastly, the area is
much less diverse ecologically,
and is more indicative of plains
streams. Habitat degradation,
flow modification, and
sedimentation/siltation can
decrease diversity.
Although a statewide
groundwater water quality
program does not exist in
Oklahoma, various aquifer studies
have been completed, and data
are available from municipal
authorities and other sources.
As was stated earlier in this
document, the Beaver-Cache
region is underlain by several
major and minor bedrock
and alluvial aquifers. In most
Regional water quality impairments are based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment
Report. Natural elevated levels of salinity in this region produce agricultural use impacts and make
several streams unsuitable for use as public water supply. Waurika and Lawtonka lakes, which are both
designated as Sensitive Water Supply (SWS) sources, are impaired due to high levels of chlorophyll-a.
Water Quality Impairments
Beaver-Cache Region
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired
when its quality does not meet the
standards prescribed for its beneficial uses
in the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
(OWQS). 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.
14 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture
Beaver-Cache Region
southwest Oklahoma 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 Rush Springs Sandstone and Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group. The Rush Springs Sandstone extends into the northeastern most portion of the region. Although comparatively hard, most of
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Beaver-Cache Regionthe water derived from it is suitable for domestic, municipal, irrigation and industrial use, with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally less than 500 ppm. However, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking water standards in some areas. The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group occurs in two areas: in the Limestone Hills north of the Wichita Mountains and in the Cache-Lawton area south of the Wichita Mountains. Water from the Limestone Hills area sometimes contains hydrogen sulfide gas and is very hard, calcium bicarbonate water, with total dissolved solids ranging from 195 to 940 ppm. Water from the Cache-Lawton area is soft and of a sodium-chloride type with total dissolved solids ranging from 279 to 6,380 ppm. Where permeability is high, water in the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group may be suitable for industrial use. Because fluoride concentrations generally range from 1.6 to 17 ppm and exceed drinking water standards, public water supply use is limited.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15
Lake Frederick, a public water supply reservoir, does not have a SWS designation, which could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watershed and provide limits for algae (chlorophyll-a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.
Surface Water Protection Areas
Beaver-Cache Region
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.
16 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Groundwater Protection Areas
Beaver-Cache Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater based upon OWRB vulnerability modeling. The Red River alluvial aquifer has been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable but currently lacks protection to prevent degradation.
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.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
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.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five 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 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 habitat.
Total Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess phosphorus leads to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and 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.
18 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Stream Water Quality Trends
Beaver-Cache Region
Parameter
Red River
near Terral, OK
East Cache Creek
near Walters, OK
All Data Trend (1967-1995, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1969-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
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 for stream water quality include the following:
Significant upward trend for conductivity and nutrients on East Cache Creek•
Significant increase in turbidity over the entire period of record at all stations•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Beaver-Cache Region
Parameter
Lake Ellsworth
Lake Lawtonka
Walters Lake
Waurika Lake
(1994-2009)
(1998-2009)
(1995-2008)
(1996-2008)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
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 for reservoir water quality include the following:
Significant upward trends both chlorophyll-a and total nitrogen on several reservoirs•
Significant upward trend in conductivity at both Lawtonka and Walters•
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 19
Self-Supplied Residential (SSR) demand is projected to account for approximately 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 89% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 11% by bedrock groundwater.
Self-Supplied Industrial demand is projected to account for less than 1% of the 2060 demand. Demand for this sector is supplied by surface water.
The Beaver-Cache Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand is projected to increase by 27% (12,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of demand and largest growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is projected to account for approximately 51% of the region’s 2060 demand. Currently, 89% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 8% by bedrock groundwater.
Crop Irrigation demand is projected to account for 28% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 25% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 48% by alluvial groundwater, and 27% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Beaver-Cache Region include cotton, pasture grasses, and wheat.
Thermoelectric Power demand is projected to account for 8% of the 2060 demand. The Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s Comanche Plant, which is supplied by surface water, is a large user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 7% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 35% of the demand for this sector is supplied by surface water, 29% by alluvial groundwater, and 36% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production.
Oil and Gas (O&G) demand is projected to account for 4% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 78% of the demand for this sector is supplied by surface water, 5% by alluvial groundwater, and 17% by bedrock groundwater.
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Beaver-Cache Region
Water Demand
Municipal and Industrial demand is expected to remain the largest sector in the region, accounting for 51% of the projected total regional demand in 2060.
20 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Beaver-Cache Region
Water needs in the Beaver-Cache Region account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand is projected to increase by 27% (11,970 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Beaver-Cache Region
Total Water Demand by Sector
Beaver-Cache Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
12,390
3,910
24,600
550
200
370
2,570
44,590
2020
13,090
3,950
25,980
810
200
400
2,860
47,290
2030
13,780
4,000
26,970
1,120
200
410
3,190
49,670
2040
14,480
4,040
27,780
1,470
210
430
3,560
51,970
2050
15,010
4,090
28,480
1,890
210
440
3,980
54,090
2060
15,860
4,140
29,110
2,350
220
450
4,440
56,560
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.
n Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system are included in the SSI sector. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector when available.
n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied Industrial use), are included in the oil and gas sector.
n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using 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 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.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
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% 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 Beaver-Cache Region includes 33 of the
785 public supply systems analyzed for the
2012 OCWP Update. 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 population served (excluding
provider-to-provider sales), the five largest
systems in the region, in decreasing order,
are Lawton, Duncan, Caddo County Rural
Water District (RWD) 3, Frederick, and
Jefferson County Consolidated RWD 1. These
five systems provide service for more than
75% of the population served by public water
providers in the region.
Demand upon public water systems, which
comprises the majority of the OCWP’s
Municipal and Industrial water demand
sector, was 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
Public Water Providers
production or distribution to residential
homes and businesses. Retail demand does 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.
Public Water Providers
Beaver-Cache Region
22 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Planning Horizon
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
APACHE
OK2000806
Caddo
111
1,618
1,686
1,735
1,784
1,843
1,892
CACHE
OK2001607
Comanche
148
2,422
2,584
2,726
2,840
2,926
2,992
CHATTANOOGA PWS
OK2001608
Comanche
60
555
604
628
652
676
688
COMANCHE CO RWD #1
OK3001602
Comanche
179
2,858
3,053
3,220
3,350
3,452
3,536
COMANCHE CO RWD #2
OK2001604
Comanche
82
701
749
790
822
847
867
COMANCHE CO RWD #3
OK2001602
Comanche
80
806
861
909
945
974
998
COMANCHE CO RWD #4
OK3001654
Comanche
109
3,572
3,816
4,026
4,187
4,315
4,419
COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS
OK1011101
Stephens
253
1,700
1,711
1,733
1,755
1,777
1,821
COTTON CO RWD #1
OK3001702
Cotton
116
607
615
624
632
652
660
COTTON CO RWD #2
OK2001702
Cotton
140
2,023
2,051
2,079
2,107
2,173
2,201
DAVIDSON
OK2007104
Tillman
270
150
154
158
162
166
170
DEVOL
OK3001701
Cotton
250
150
150
150
150
160
160
DUNCAN
OK1010809
Stephens
198
22,500
22,762
22,973
23,235
23,607
24,070
ELGIN PWS
OK2001610
Comanche
99
1,528
1,634
1,716
1,787
1,834
1,881
FAXON
OK3001675
Comanche
97
134
144
153
163
163
172
FLETCHER
OK2001612
Comanche
87
1,043
1,109
1,175
1,223
1,261
1,289
FREDERICK
OK1011401
Tillman
245
5,300
5,415
5,531
5,646
5,762
5,935
GERONIMO
OK3001680
Comanche
72
976
1,042
1,099
1,147
1,175
1,203
GRANDFIELD
OK2007103
Tillman
140
1,140
1,161
1,192
1,213
1,244
1,275
HOLLISTER
OK2007102
Tillman
64
60
60
60
60
60
60
INDIAHOMA
OK2001609
Comanche
57
355
382
400
418
426
435
JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1
OK3003401
Jefferson
197
4,146
4,213
4,280
4,343
4,469
4,595
LAWTON
OK1011303
Comanche
181
110,957
118,723
124,436
128,881
132,372
135,224
MANITOU
OK3007101
Tillman
196
286
286
296
306
306
317
MEDICINE PARK
OK3001603
Comanche
122
376
404
423
441
451
460
RYAN
OK3003405
Jefferson
214
894
904
915
925
956
986
STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN)
OK2006905
Stephens
75
1,610
1,629
1,644
1,663
1,690
1,722
STERLING PWA
OK2001601
Comanche
105
779
827
874
912
941
960
TEMPLE
OK1011306
Cotton
98
1,152
1,172
1,192
1,213
1,243
1,263
TILLMAN CO RWD #1
OK2007107
Tillman
97
1,500
1,532
1,564
1,596
1,628
1,676
WALTERS
OK1011305
Cotton
107
2,760
2,802
2,843
2,885
2,968
3,010
WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only)
None
Jefferson
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WAURIKA PWA
OK1011201
Jefferson
295
2,200
2,234
2,269
2,303
2,372
2,441
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served
Beaver-Cache Region
Population and Demand Projection Data
Provider level 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 served 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.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Projections of Retail Water Demand
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.
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Demand Including System Loss
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
AFY
APACHE
OK2000806
Caddo
202
210
216
222
230
236
CACHE
OK2001607
Comanche
402
428
452
471
485
496
CHATTANOOGA PWS
OK2001608
Comanche
37
41
42
44
46
46
COMANCHE CO RWD #1
OK3001602
Comanche
572
611
644
670
690
707
COMANCHE CO RWD #2
OK2001604
Comanche
64
69
73
75
78
80
COMANCHE CO RWD #3
OK2001602
Comanche
72
77
81
85
87
89
COMANCHE CO RWD #4
OK3001654
Comanche
435
464
490
509
525
538
COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS
OK1011101
Stephens
482
485
491
497
504
516
COTTON CO RWD #1
OK3001702
Cotton
79
80
81
82
85
86
COTTON CO RWD #2
OK2001702
Cotton
317
322
326
330
341
345
DAVIDSON
OK2007104
Tillman
45
47
48
49
50
51
DEVOL
OK3001701
Cotton
42
42
42
42
45
45
DUNCAN
OK1010809
Stephens
4,998
5,056
5,103
5,161
5,244
5,347
ELGIN PWS
OK2001610
Comanche
170
182
191
199
204
209
FAXON
OK3001675
Comanche
15
16
17
18
18
19
FLETCHER
OK2001612
Comanche
101
108
114
119
123
125
FREDERICK
OK1011401
Tillman
1,456
1,488
1,520
1,551
1,583
1,631
GERONIMO
OK3001680
Comanche
79
84
89
92
95
97
GRANDFIELD
OK2007103
Tillman
179
182
187
191
196
200
HOLLISTER
OK2007102
Tillman
4
4
4
4
4
4
INDIAHOMA
OK2001609
Comanche
23
24
26
27
27
28
JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1
OK3003401
Jefferson
915
930
945
958
986
1,014
LAWTON
OK1011303
Comanche
22,461
24,033
25,190
26,089
26,796
27,373
MANITOU
OK3007101
Tillman
63
63
65
67
67
69
MEDICINE PARK
OK3001603
Comanche
51
55
58
60
61
63
RYAN
OK3003405
Jefferson
214
217
219
222
229
236
STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN)
OK2006905
Stephens
134
136
137
139
141
144
STERLING PWA
OK2001601
Comanche
92
97
103
107
111
113
TEMPLE
OK1011306
Cotton
126
128
131
133
136
138
TILLMAN CO RWD #1
OK2007107
Tillman
164
167
171
174
177
183
WALTERS
OK1011305
Cotton
332
337
342
347
357
362
WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only)
None
Jefferson
0
0
0
0
0
0
WAURIKA PWA
OK1011201
Jefferson
728
739
751
762
785
808
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast
Beaver-Cache Region
24 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
COMANCHE CO RWD #1
OK3001602
Lawton
O
T
COMANCHE CO RWD #2
OK2001604
Lawton
E
T
COMANCHE CO RWD #3
OK2001602
Lawton
Stephens Co RWD #5
Walters
O
E
O
T
T
T
COMANCHE CO RWD #4
OK3001654
Indiahoma
O
T
Snyder
O
T
COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS
OK1011101
Stephens Co RWD #3 (Meridian)
Jefferson Co Cons RWD #1
O
O
T
R
Waurika Lake MCD
O
R
COTTON CO RWD #1
OK3001702
Grandfield
O
DAVIDSON
OK2007104
Frederick
O
T
DEVOL
OK3001701
Grandfield
O
T
DUNCAN
OK1010809
Stephens Co RWD #5
Jefferson Co RWD #1
O
O
T
T
Waurika Lake MCD
O
R
FAXON
OK3001675
Tillman Co RWD #1
O
T
FREDERICK
OK1011401
Davidson
Grandfield
Manitou
Tillman Co RWD #1
Tipton
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
GERONIMO
OK3001680
Lawton
O
T
GRANDFIELD
OK2007103
Devol
Cotton Co RWD #1
O
O
T
Frederick
O
T
HOLLISTER
OK2007102
Tillman Co RWD #1
O
T
INDIAHOMA
OK2001609
Comanche Co RWD #4
O
T
JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1
OK3003401
Healdton
E
T
Duncan
Comanche Public Works
Waurika PWA
O
O
O
T
T
T
LAWTON
OK1011303
Comanche Co RWD #1
Comanche Co RWD #2
Comanche Co RWD #3
Medicine Park
Geronimo
O
E
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
Waurika Lake MCD
O
R
MANITOU
OK3007101
Frederick
O
T
MEDICINE PARK
OK3001603
Lawton
O
T
RYAN
OK3003405
Waurika PWA
O
T
STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN)
OK2006905
Comanche Public Works
O
T
STERLING PWA
OK2001601
TEMPLE
OK1011306
Waurika Lake MCD
O
R
TILLMAN CO RWD #1
OK2007107
Faxon
Hollister
O
O
T
T
Frederick
O
T
WALTERS
OK1011305
Comanche Co RWD #3
O
T
Waurika Lake MCD
WAURIKA LAKE MCD
NONE
Comanche
Duncan
Lawton
Temple
Walters
Waurika
O
O
O
O
O
O
R
R
R
R
R
R
WAURIKA PWA
OK1011201
Jefferson Co Cons RWD #1
Ryan
O
O
R
T
Waurika Lake MCD
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Wholesale Water Transfers
Beaver-Cache Region
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.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Water Rights
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
APACHE
OK2000806
Caddo
1,743
0%
0%
100%
CACHE
OK2001607
Comanche
258
0%
0%
100%
CHATTANOOGA PWS
OK2001608
Comanche
---
---
---
---
COMANCHE CO RWD #1
OK3001602
Comanche
---
---
---
---
COMANCHE CO RWD #2
OK2001604
Comanche
198
0%
0%
100%
COMANCHE CO RWD #3
OK2001602
Comanche
288
0%
59%
41%
COMANCHE CO RWD #4
OK3001654
Comanche
---
---
---
---
COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS
OK1011101
Stephens
360
100%
0%
0%
COTTON CO RWD #1
OK3001702
Cotton
168
0%
0%
100%
COTTON CO RWD #2
OK2001702
Cotton
1,006
0%
61%
39%
DAVIDSON
OK2007104
Tillman
328
0%
100%
0%
DEVOL
OK3001701
Cotton
7
0%
100%
0%
DUNCAN
OK1010809
Stephens
6,653
100%
0%
0%
ELGIN PWS
OK2001610
Comanche
620
0%
0%
100%
FAXON
OK3001675
Comanche
---
---
---
---
FLETCHER
OK2001612
Comanche
156
0%
0%
100%
FREDERICK
OK1011401
Tillman
4,450
76%
24%
0%
GERONIMO
OK3001680
Comanche
219
0%
48%
52%
GRANDFIELD
OK2007103
Tillman
928
0%
100%
0%
HOLLISTER
OK2007102
Tillman
---
---
---
---
INDIAHOMA
OK2001609
Comanche
240
0%
0%
100%
JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1
OK3003401
Jefferson
---
---
---
---
LAWTON
OK1011303
Comanche
42,233
100%
0%
0%
MANITOU
OK3007101
Tillman
87
0%
100%
0%
MEDICINE PARK
OK3001603
Comanche
---
---
---
---
RYAN
OK3003405
Jefferson
---
---
---
---
STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN)
OK2006905
Stephens
865
0%
0%
100%
STERLING PWA
OK2001601
Comanche
260
0%
0%
100%
TEMPLE
OK1011306
Cotton
---
---
---
---
TILLMAN CO RWD #1
OK2007107
Tillman
234
0%
100%
0%
WALTERS
OK1011305
Cotton
268
100%
0%
0%
WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only)
None
Jefferson
44,806
100%
0%
0%
WAURIKA PWA
OK1011201
Jefferson
---
---
---
---
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals (2010)
Beaver-Cache Region
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), source of supply, and reported water use 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.
26 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Apache PWA (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace two miles of 4-inch clay tile water line with 6-inch water line. Replace 10 fire plugs.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new water tower.
Town of Cache (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: treat supplies from two recently drilled wells for high levels of fluoride; replace a 3-inch water line with a 6-inch water line; add a new pump to existing booster station and pump housing to comply with DEQ requirements.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: increase the main water line size throughout the distribution system; treat supplies from 4 existing wells for fluoride.
Chattanooga PWS (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (West Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: two new wells.
Infrastructure improvements: chlorine stations for new wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Comanche Co. RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Lawton
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: connect new well field to the north end of the distribution system; construct two new water towers.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Comanche County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle Group Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: purchase additional water rights.
Infrastructure improvements: new distribution lines and storage.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Comanche County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (West Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer), surface water (Lawton, Walters).
Emergency source: Stephens RWD 5.
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: expand existing wellfield.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Comanche County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mountain Park MCD
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: potential contract for water from the City of Lawton. No infrastructure improvements identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Comanche Public Works (Stephens County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika MCD.
Emergency source: Comanche Lake.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Cotton County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grandfield PWA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new water storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
None Identified.
Cotton County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (Red River Terrace Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: additional well.
Town of Davidson (Tillman County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Frederick, groundwater (Tillman Terrace Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Devol (Cotton County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grandfield PWA
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Duncan (Stephens County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika Lake Waurika MCD, Lake Humphreys, Lake Fuqua
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add raw water lines from Lake Fuqua.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Elgin PWS (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: two new wells.
Infrastructure improvements: new water tower; new 12” water line from well fields to town.
Town of Faxon (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Tillman County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replacement of water meters in some areas of town; upgrade water lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replacement of major main water lines and possible expansion of new lines into new housing development.
Fletcher Water Dept. (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
No new water supply sources identified. Infrastructure improvements: one new well.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: expand well system in Rush Springs Aquifer.
Infrastructure improvements: replace and expand water lines in the distribution system; add additional storage.
OCWP Provider Survey
Beaver-Cache Region
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.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
City of Frederick (Tillman County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mountain Park MCD, Frederick Lake, & Tom Steed Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: complete water treatment, storage, and distribution improvement projects to attain TTHM compliance and other benefits.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: continue upgrades as needed.
Town of Geronimo (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Lawton
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Grandfield (Tillman County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Frederick, groundwater (Red River Terrace Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: correct order deficiencies to obtain TTHM compliance; construct facility to eliminate nitrates in groundwater.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hollister PWA (Tillman County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Tillman County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add new valves.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Indiahoma (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Comanche County RWD 4
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: treatment of well water.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: use groundwater sources. Infrastructure improvements: new system to remove impurities.
Jefferson County Cons RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika PWA, Duncan, Comanche
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: use groundwater sources. Infrastructure improvements: well field currently in progress.
Sterling PWA (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater (El Reno Group Aquifer)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: extend distribution line.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: continue extending distribution system.
Temple
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika MCD.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Tillman County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Frederick Lake, Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: new wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: construct a reverse osmosis system to remove nitrates from groundwater.)
Walters PWA (Cotton County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Dave Boyer, East Cache Creek, & Waurika MCD
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: increase pipeline capacity.
Waurika Lake MCD (Wholesaler Only)
No Information
Waurika PWA (Jefferson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika MCD
Short-Term Needs
New water supply sources: one additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: install a microfiltration water treatment plant.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: new wells.
Infrastructure improvements: install new water lines; add more filtration units to the water treatment plant; construct a bigger clearwell; add storage.
City of Lawton (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika MCD, Lake Ellsworth, Lake Lawtonka
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: upgrade distribution capacity; purchase additional storage.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Expansion of treatment capacity of the SEWTP; Installation of additional pumping capacity to convey water from SEWTP to Ft. Sill and industrial facilities west of the City; installation of additional pipes to upgrade the distribution system; improve pumping capacity from MPWTP.
Town of Manitou (Tillman County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Frederick
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New water supply sources: groundwater from existing unused wells.
Infrastructure improvements: develop plan to utilize wells with a blending station.
Town of Medicine Park (Comanche County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Lawton
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: extend infrastructure (piping and storage) to serve areas currently without water service.
Town of Ryan (Jefferson County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Waurika PWA
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Stephens County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
OCWP Provider Survey
Beaver-Cache Region
28 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Beaver-Cache Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$480
$140
$290
$910
Medium
$40
$250
$10
$300
Large
$160
$80
$70
$310
Reservoir
$60
$0
$0
$60
TOTAL
$740
$470
$370
$1,580
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. The “reservoir” category is for rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $1.6 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure • needs of the Beaver-Cache region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur within the next 20 years.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 80% of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment and source water projects.
Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately 4% of the • total costs.
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 estimated costs for new reservoirs are not included, rehabilitation project costs for existing major reservoirs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region report.
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 29
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. Physical availability limitations for surface water were referred to as gaps. Availability limitations for alluvial and bedrock groundwater were referred to as depletions.
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 in the regional summary). 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. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was also the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data. Basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most significant limitations ranking 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). For basins where shortages are not projected, no options are necessary and thus none were evaluated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing conservation or drought management measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Conservation measures” refer to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year, while “drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering. 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 the demand management option 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.
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 sites 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
30 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate 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 option 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 OCWP 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 Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations report.
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. Feasibility of actual use was also reviewed. 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 Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations report.
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 regional public supply systems.
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4)
Beaver-Cache Region
Name
Category
Stream
Basin
Purposes1
Total Storage
Conservation Pool
Primary Study
Updated Cost Estimate2
(2010 dollars)
Surface Area
Storage
Dependable Yield
Date
Agency
AF
AF
AF
AFY
Cookietown
4
Deep Red Creek
30
WS, FC, F&W, R
400,000
13,100
208,190
34,700
1979
Bureau of Reclamation
$298,161,000
Snyder
3
Deep Red Creek
30
F&W, WS, R
110,000
3,668
90,000
10,600
1974
Bureau of Reclamation
$103,052,000
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 The majority of cost estimates were updated using estimated costs from previous project reports combined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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.
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.
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. Potential reservoir development sites for this Watershed Planning Region appear on the following chart and map.
32 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Expanded Water Supply Options
Beaver-Cache Region
Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Data & Analysis
Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region
Basin 24
35Basin 24 accounts for about 2% of the current demand in the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region. About 61% of the basin’s 2010 demand was from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Livestock was the second largest demand sector at 25%. Surface water satisfies about 73% of the current demand in the basin. Alluvial groundwater satisfies about 27% of the current demand. There are currently no permits for bedrock groundwater use and none expected in the future. The peak summer month total water demand in Basin 24 is about 2.5 times the winter monthly demand, which is similar to the overall statewide pattern.
The flow in Beaver Creek at its confluence with the Red River is typically greater than 400 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 3,700 AF/month in the spring. However, the creek can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. There are no major reservoirs in the basin; however, the City of Waurika receives out-of-basin supplies from Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District in Basin 25. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 24 is considered poor. Beaver Creek is impaired for Agricultural use due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and chlorides. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
Current Demand by Source and Sector
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Total Demand
710 AFY
Basin 24 Summary
Synopsis
Water users are expected to continue to rely mainly on surface water and to a lesser   extent, alluvial groundwater.
By 2030, there is a moderate probability of surface water gaps from increased   demand on existing supplies during low flow periods.
To reduce the risk of adverse effects on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps   be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation measures could mitigate surface water gaps.  
To mitigate surface water gaps, dependable groundwater supplies, out-of-basin   supplies, and/or developing new reservoirs could be used as alternatives. These supply sources could be used without major impacts to groundwater storage.
Water Resources
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
36 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
dry months. The entire increase in demand from 2010 to 2060 could be supplied by a new river diversion and less than 100 AF of reservoir storage at the basin outlet. Increasing the use of surface water supplies through direct diversions, without reservoir storage, will increase surface water gaps and is not recommended.
Increased reliance on alluvial groundwater supplies could mitigate surface water gaps, but may create alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Any storage depletions would be small relative to the volume of water stored in the Red River aquifer underlying the basin. However, localized storage depletions may occur and adversely affect well yields, water quality, and/or pumping costs.
The Red River alluvial aquifer underlies the eastern portion of the basin, but currently allocated withdrawals from the aquifer are small. The majority of current water rights in the basin are from non-delineated minor alluvial aquifers along Beaver Creek. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered before large scale use. There are currently no water rights in bedrock aquifers in the basin; therefore, no future withdrawals are expected from bedrock sources. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060.
The projected 2060 water demand of 810 AFY in Basin 24 reflects a 100 AFY increase (14%) over the 2010 demand. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector.
Gaps & Depletions
Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, surface water gaps may occur by 2030. No groundwater storage depletions are expected through 2060. Surface water gaps may occur in summer, and by 2060, will be up to 30 AFY with a 45% probability of occurring in at least one month of the year.
Options
Water users are expected to continue to rely on surface water and alluvial groundwater. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the basin’s water users, surface water gaps should be decreased where economically feasible.
Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors could mitigate surface water gaps. Temporary drought management activities may not be effective in this basin, since gaps have a moderate probability of occurring.
Currently, the City of Waurika obtains water from Waurika Lake in Basin 25 via the Waurika Master Conservancy District. Increased use of this source could effectively reduce surface water gaps. Waurika Lake is almost fully allocated at this time.
Out-of-basin supplies could mitigate surface water gaps. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified two potentially viable out-of-basin sites in the Beaver-Cache Region. However, because of the distance to reliable water supplies, out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective for many users in the basin.
Additional reservoir storage in Basin 24 could effectively supplement supplies during
Projected Water Demand
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Water Supply Limitations
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
nMinimalnPotentialnSignificant
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Demand Management
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Reservoir Use
Increasing Supply from Surface Water
Increasing Supply from Groundwater
nTypically EffectivenPotentially EffectivenLikely IneffectivenNo Option Necessary
Median Historical Streamflow
at the Basin Outlet
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 37
Surface Water Resources
Historical streamflow from 1950 through • 2007 was used to estimate the range of future surface water supplies. This basin had a prolonged period of below-average streamflow from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s. From the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, the basin went through a prolonged period of above-average streamflow and precipitation, 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 Beaver Creek confluence with the Red River is greater than 400 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 10,000 AF/month in May and June. However, the creek can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 24 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
There are no significant reservoirs in • the basin.
Monthly Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Historical Precipitation
Regional Climate Division
Basin 24 Data & Analysis
38 Beaver-Cache Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanGroundwater Resources
The majority of current groundwater • rights in the basin are from non-delineated minor alluvial groundwater sources along Beaver Creek. There are additional groundwater rights in the Red River major alluvial aquifer.
There are no significant groundwater • quality issues in the basin.
Groundwater Resources - Aquifer Summary (2010)
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Aquifer
Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Basin
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Red River
Alluvial
Major
24%
300
36,000
temporary 2.0
38,100
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
N/A
0
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
N/A
1,300
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.
Beaver-Cache Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 39
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanWater Demand
Basin 24’s water needs make up • about 2% of the total demand in the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region and will increase by 14% (100 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. However, demand growth in the basin is expected to occur in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors. The majority of demand will be from the Municipal and Industrial and Livestock demand sectors.
Surface water is used to meet 73% • of the total demand in Basin 24 and its use will increase by 15% (70 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of surface water use and growth in surface water use will be in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector.
Alluvial groundwater is used to • meet 27% of the total demand in Basin 24 and its use will increase by 12% (20 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. Alluvial groundwater use will be solely from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector.
There is no current bedrock • groundwater use in Basin 24; no future demand is expected.
Total Demand by Sector
Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric P