Oklahoma comprehensive water plan Eufaula Watershed Planning Region

              Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Eufaula Watershed
Planning RegionContents
Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Regional Summary 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations 2
Water Supply Options . 4
Water Supply . 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers . 22
Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Limitations Analysis . 34
Primary Options 34
Demand Management 34
Out-of-Basin Supplies . 34
Reservoir Use 34
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water 35
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 35
Expanded Options . 35
Expanded Conservation Measures . 35
Artificial Aquifer Recharge 35
Marginal Quality Water Sources 35
Potential Reservoir Development 35
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 39
Basin 48 . 39
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Sources . 54
Eufaula Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Planand 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 Eufaula 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 demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives,
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.
Regional Overview
The Eufaula Watershed Planning Region includes one basin (Basin 48). The region includes portions of the Central Lowland and Ouachita physiography provinces, encompassing 3,223 square miles in east-central Oklahoma, covering portions of Okmulgee, Okfuskee, Hughes, Seminole, McIntosh, Haskell, and Pittsburg Counties.
The region’s terrain ranges from the hills and ridges of the Northern Cross Timbers in the north, transitioning southward to the diverse plains, terraces, and wooded hills of the Arkansas Valley, then to the Fourche Mountains at the far southern border.. The region’s climate is mild with annual mean temperatures varying from 59°F. to 63 °F. Annual evaporation varies from 50 to 58 inches, and average precipitation varies from 42 to 50 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include McAlester (2010 population, 18,431), Okmulgee (12,882), Seminole (6,855), and Henryetta (6,183). The greatest demand is from Municipal and Industrial water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 55,630 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 14,800 AFY (36%) from 2010.2 Eufaula Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Eufaula Regional Summary
The Eufaula Region accounts for 2% of the state’s total water demand. About 51% of the 2010 demand is in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Oil and Gas (25%) is the second-largest demand sector.
Water Resources and Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water supplies, including reservoirs, are used to meet 88% of the Eufaula Region’s demand. The region is supplied by two major streams: the Canadian River and North Canadian River. The rivers and creeks in the region can have periods of low to no flow due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers and their tributaries to provide public water supply, flood control, recreation, and other purposes. Eufaula Lake, constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1964, is the lone major reservoir in the region. Large municipal lakes include McAlester, Dripping Springs, Henryetta, Okmulgee, Talawanda #2, Weleetka, and Wewoka. Sportsman is also a significant lake in the region but is not used for municipal water supply.
Relative to other regions in the state, surface water quality is considered good, several water bodies have been identified as impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial sector). The availability of permits is not expected to limit the development of surface water supplies for in-basin use through 2060.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 4% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted alluvial groundwater withdrawals in the region are from the Canadian River and North Canadian River aquifers. Domestic users do not require permits and may be obtaining supplies from the major and minor alluvial aquifers throughout the region to meet their needs. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur. However, the availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand in Basin 48 through 2060.
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 8% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from minor bedrock aquifers. The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer has more than 1.6 million AF of storage in the basin and receives 4,000 AFY of recharge from the basin, but only underlies about 3% of the basin. If bedrock groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from the Vamoosa-Ada or minor aquifers are likely to occur. However, the availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Synopsis
The Eufaula Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies   (including reservoirs), and to a lesser extent, alluvial and bedrock groundwater.
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to   meet future demand.
By 2020, alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may lead to higher   pumping costs, a need for deeper wells, and potential changes to well yields and/or water quality.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that   storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce or eliminate alluvial and bedrock groundwater   storage depletions.
Reservoir storage could be used as an alternative to mitigate alluvial or bedrock   groundwater storage depletions.
Current Water Demand:
40,850 acre-feet/year (2% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Municipal & Industrial (51% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
88% SW
4% Alluvial GW
8% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
55,640 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
14,790 acre-feet/year (36%)
Eufaula Region Demand Summary
Current and Projected Regional Water DemandEufaula Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Limitations
Eufaula 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 are 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.4 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Effectiveness of water supply options in the Eufaula Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Eufaula Regionfor reservoirs throughout the state; one potentially-viable reservoir site was identified in this region (Higgins Reservoir). Due to substantial in-basin reservoir storage, out-of-basin/region supplies may not be cost-effective for many users.
Surface water users without access to major reservoirs could instead be supplied in part by increased use of major groundwater aquifers, which would result in minimal increases in projected groundwater storage depletions. However, these aquifers are not widespread in the region, and groundwater users would still be susceptible to the adverse effects of groundwater storage depletions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage, may create surface water gaps and is not recommended.
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Lake Eufaula and other lakes in the basin are capable of providing dependable water supplies to existing users, and with new infrastructure and reallocation of storage, could be used to meet all of Basin 48’s future surface water demand during periods of low streamflow. However, these reservoirs are fully allocated. Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur starting in 2020. The development of additional reservoir supplies and, where accessible, groundwater supplies should be considered short- to long-term water supply options.
Moderately expanded water conservation activities, primarily from increased conservation by public water suppliers and from increased crop irrigation efficiency, could reduce groundwater storage depletions. Further reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (such as corn for grain and forage crops;) to low water demand crops, such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased irrigation efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Temporary drought management activities may not be necessary since aquifer storage could continue to provide supplies during droughts.
New reservoir storage could increase the dependability of available surface water supplies and mitigate alluvial groundwater storage depletions in the basin. Major reservoirs in the Eufaula Region do not have unpermitted yield but are expected to meet substantial future demand from existing permit holders. Out-of-basin sources could provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s gaps and groundwater storage depletions. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study included an evaluation of the potential Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 5
6 Eufaula Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Eufaula Region. The two major streams in the region are the Canadian and North Canadian Rivers. The Canadian River generally has abundant flows but has historically experienced prolonged periods of both above- and below-average streamflow.
The Canadian River flows for 34 miles through Basin 48 in the Eufaula Region before entering Lake Eufaula. Major tributaries in the region include Fish Creek (134 miles long in the region), Coal Creek (55 miles long), and the North Canadian River (55 miles long). The North Canadian enters Lake Eufaula in its northern reaches and joins the Canadian near the Town of Eufaula.
Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The region is named for its major lake, Eufaula Lake, which was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1964 for flood control, water supply, navigation, and hydropower purposes (since modified to include recreation). The lake, located on the Canadian River in Basin 48, has a dependable water supply yield of 56,000 AFY. Other significant municipal water supply lakes include McAlester Lake, built on Bull Creek in 1930 by the City of McAlester; Dripping Springs Lake, built in 1976 by the City of Okmulgee; and Okmulgee Lake, built in 1928 by City of Okmulgee. Smaller water supply lakes in the region include Henryetta, Talawanda #2, Weleetka, and Wewoka. In addition, the City of Seminole operates Sportsman Lake, which does not sustain a water supply yield. 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, agricultural water supply, flood control, and recreation.
Significant reservoirs in the Eufaula Region have little or no unpermitted yield, but are expected to meet future demand from existing permit holders. Existing water rights should be considered when planning to meet additional future demand from existing reservoirs. Improved reservoir operations, water right reductions, or reallocation of assigned storage from one use to another could potentially provide additional flexibility to meet future water needs.
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.
Reservoirs
Eufaula Region
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purpose1
Normal Pool Storage
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted Withdrawals2
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Dripping Springs
48
City of Okmulgee
1976
WS, FC, R
16,200
---
7,214
0
0
0
0
7,800
0
Eufaula
48
USACE
1964
FC, WS, HP, N, R
2,314,600
56,000
56,000
0
0
0
0
63,096
0
Henryetta
48
City of Henryetta
1928
WS, R
6,660
---
---
---
---
---
---
3,727
---
McAlester
48
City of McAlester
1930
WS, R
13,398
16,900
9,200
0
0
0
0
16,000
0
Okmulgee
48
City of Okmulgee
1928
WS, R
14,170
---
---
---
---
---
---
4,434
---
Sportsman
48
City of Seminole
1958
FC, R
5,349
---
---
---
---
---
---
3,000
---
Talawanda #2
48
City of McAlester
1924
WS, R
2,750
---
---
---
---
---
---
3,000
---
Weleetka
48
City of Weleetka
1923
WS, R
385
---
---
---
---
---
---
233
---
Wewoka
48
City of Wewoka
1925
WS, R
3,301
---
---
---
---
---
---
957
---
1 Purpose refers to the use(s) for reservoir storage as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s) at the time of construction.
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
2 Some permitted withdrawals at Lake Eufaula include water from the hydroelectric power pool.
No known information is annotated as “---”Eufaula Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7
Surface Water Resources
Eufaula Region
Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.8 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
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.
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Eufaula Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basin
48
AFY
Average Annual Flow
3,993,100
Minimum Annual Flow
182,700
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
Eufaula Region
Surface water is the main source of supply in the Eufaula Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought) or localized variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users.Eufaula Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9
1,000 mg/L. However, the water is generally suitable for most municipal and industrial uses.
The North Canadian River alluvial aquifer consists of fine- to coarse-grained sand with minor clay and silt and local lenses of basal gravel overlain by dune sand. Formation thickness averages 30 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 300 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields range from 300 to 600 gpm in the alluvium and from 100 to 300 gpm in the terrace formations. The water is a very hard calcium bicarbonate type.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the East-Central Oklahoma, Kiamichi, and Pennsylvanian. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Ashland Isolated Terrace. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but wells generally yield less than 50 gpm. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems.
Groundwater Resources
Two major bedrock aquifers, the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada, are present in the Eufaula Watershed Planning Region. Two major alluvial aquifers, the Canadian River and North Canadian River are also located in the region.
The Garber-Wellington aquifer consists of fine-grained sandstone interbedded with siltstone and shale. Depth to water varies from less than 100 feet to 250 feet; saturated thickness ranges from 150 to 650 feet. Wells generally yield from 200 to 400 gallons per minute (gpm). Water quality is generally good but in some areas concentrations of nitrate, arsenic, chromium, and selenium may exceed drinking water standards.
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.
The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer consists of 125 to 1,000 feet of interbedded sandstone, shale, and conglomerate. Wells commonly yield 25 to 150 gpm. Water quality is generally good and suitable for use as public supply although iron infiltration and hardness are problems in some areas along with localized contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities.
The Canadian River alluvial aquifer consists of clay and silt downgrading to fine- to coarse-grained sand with lenses of basal gravel. Formation thickness ranges from 20 to 40 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 50 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields in the alluvium range from 100 to 400 gpm and from 50 to 100 gpm in the terrace. The water is a very hard calcium bicarbonate type with total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of approximately
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Groundwater Resources
Eufaula Region
Aquifer
Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Basin
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Canadian River
Alluvial
Major
7%
2.0
3,000
348,000
temporary 2.0
129,900
North Canadian River
Alluvial
Major
5%
5.0-7.0
1,100
575,000
1.0
101,200
Vamoosa-Ada
Bedrock
Major
3%
0.5-0.7
6,300
1,630,000
2.0
123,300
Garber-Wellington
Bedrock
Major
<1%
1.6
0
0
temporary 2.0
0
Ashland Isolated Terrace
Alluvial
Minor
1%
3.9
600
54,000
temporary 2.0
24,600
East-Central Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
22%
2.8
1,000
7,169,000
temporary 2.0
920,100
Kiamichi
Bedrock
Minor
6%
1.1
100
180,000
temporary 2.0
268,700
Pennsylvanian
Bedrock
Minor
37%
1.1
100
12,667,000
temporary 2.0
1,548,500
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
N/A
100
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
N/A
0
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.
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge, or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Groundwater Resources
Eufaula Region
Major bedrock aquifers in the Eufaula Region include the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Canadian River and North Canadian 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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 11
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.
Projections indicate there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in the Eufaula Region. Water users throughout the region need to consider the existing rights from major reservoirs. For groundwater, equal proportionate shares in the Eufaula Region range from 1 AFY per acre to 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin/region demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin/region demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Eufaula Region.
Groundwater Permit Availability
Eufaula Region
Projections indicate there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in the Eufaula Region. Water users throughout the region should consider utilizing existing water rights in Lake Eufaula.
Surface Water Permit Availability
Eufaula 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.12 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the Eufaula Watershed Planning Region is defined by the lower Canadian River watershed and several minor and major water supply reservoirs, most contained within the Cross Timbers (CT) and Arkansas Valley (AV) ecoregions with nominal influence from the Central Irregular Plains and Ouachita Mountains along the northeastern and southern borders.
The Northern Cross Timbers covers the northern one-third of the region. The area is more forested than neighboring plains with intervening grasslands and mixed land use. Streams are diverse through the ecoregion. They are shallower, sand/silt/clay dominated, and highly incised. The area is typified by the North Canadian and Deep Fork Rivers and their respective arms in Lake Eufaula, as well as the terminal end of the reservoir. Other lakes include Sportsman and Wewoka in the west and Dripping Springs and Okmulgee in the north. Stream salinity is moderate to high along the major river systems with mean conductivity from 680 μS/cm (Deep Fork) to 725 μS/cm (North Canadian). Selective tributaries are lower, including Coal and Wewoka Creeks with means less than 450 μS/cm. Conductivity in smaller lakes ranges from 100-250 μS/cm while Eufaula ranges from 350 μS/cm on the Deep Fork arm to nearly 600 μS/cm on the North Canadian arm. Streams are classified as eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic with mean total phosphorus (TP) concentrations ranging from 0.15 (Coal Creek) to 0.20 ppm (North Canadian) and total nitrogen (TN) from 1.04 (Deep Fork) to 2.72 ppm (North Canadian). Classified as mesotrophic (Sportsman and Okmulgee) to eutrophic, lakes are typically phosphorus limited with low to high nutrient concentrations. Eufaula is co-limited for TN/TP. Stream clarity is average (Coal Creek mean turbidity = 40 NTU) to very poor (North Canadian = 124 NTU). Lake clarity ranges from poor (Eufaula North Canadian Secchi depth = 57cm) to excellent (Dripping Springs = 101 cm) while many have average clarity. Ecological diversity is fair and is impacted by poor habitat and sedimentation.
The Lower Canadian Hills of the Arkansas Valley dominate the lower two-thirds of the region. (The Fourche Mountains run along the southern edge but are not included in this description.) As a transitional area, the AV is a diverse ecoregion with a mixture of broad valley plains, floodplains, hills, terraces, and mountains. Prairie grasslands and oak savannas, along with pasture land and croplands, dominate the valleys. The floodplains and terraces are characterized by bottomland hardwood forests. Areas of relief have a mixture of
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.
Ecoregions
Eufaula Region
The Eufaula Planning Region is dominated by the Cross Timbers and Arkansas Valley ecoregions. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices and ranges from poor to excellent depending on drainage and location.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 13
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.
Water Quality Impairments
Eufaula Region
Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. A few surface waters
in this region are negatively impacted by mine drainage.
14 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Waters
with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture
Eufaula Region
Surface Waters
with Designated Beneficial Use
for Public/Private Water Supply
Eufaula Region
oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine forests. Streams lie in narrow to broad meandering channels with a mixture of soft and hard substrates and varying depths. Small streams are disconnected pools during the summer but overall have good to exceptional habitat. Characteristic watersheds are the Canadian River from west to east and several small watersheds to the south, including Brushy Creek. The southern portion of Eufaula is the major reservoir, including the Canadian River and Gaines and Longtown Creek arms, as well as the main portion of the lake. Other lakes in the area are the Talawandas and McAlester. Salinity is relatively high in the Canadian (mean conductivity = 980 μS/cm) but is moderate along the southern edge (Brushy Creek = 380 μS/cm). Lakes follow the same pattern. Conductivity along the Canadian arm is typically greater than 500 μS/cm, while the southern arms are less than 400 μS/cm. The Talawandas and McAlester Lakes are much lower, ranging from 80-170 μS/cm. The Canadian is eutrophic (mean TP = 0.31 ppm; TN = 1.47 ppm) while Brushy Creek is mesotrophic with much lower nutrient concentrations (mean TP = 0.15; TN = 0.94 ppm). Lakes are mesotrophic (Talawandas) to eutrophic (Eufaula and McAlester) and phosphorus limited with low to moderate nutrient concentrations. Stream water clarity is average (Canadian = 53 NTU; Brushy = 49 NTU). Eufaula clarity is poor on the Canadian arm (43 cm) to good on the Longtown arm (82 cm) while the Talawandas have excellent clarity (140-155 cm). Ecological diversity is moderate in the western portion of the ecoregion but can be extremely high in the portion that is included in the Lower Arkansas Watershed Planning Region. Diversity is limited by habitat loss and sedimentation.
The Eufaula Region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Canadian and North Canadian River alluvial aquifers is predominantly of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and variable in dissolved solids content. They are generally suitable for most purposes. Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada with both intersecting the region along its western tip. The Garber-Wellington is of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and ranges from hard to very hard. In general, concentrations of dissolved solids, chloride and sulfate are low. Water from the aquifer is normally suitable for public water supply but locally concentrations of nitrates, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, arsenic, chromium, and selenium may exceed drinking water standards. The Vamoosa-Ada water quality is generally good but is impacted by iron infiltration and hardness. Chloride and sulfate concentrations are generally low. Except for areas of local contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities, water is suitable for use as public supply.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 15
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.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed a TMDL study on Mud Creek. Several other TMDL studies are underway or scheduled.
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Eufaula Region16 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters. Because Dustin Lake, Krebs Lake, and Talawanda #2 are public water supply reservoirs and have relatively small watersheds, they could potentially benefit from Sensitive Water Supply designations. This could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources and provide limits for algae (chlorophyll-a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.
Surface Water Protection Areas
Eufaula 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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 17
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
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.
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and address vulnerability. The North Canadian and Canadian River alluvial aquifers have been identified as very highly vulnerable.
Groundwater Protection Areas
Eufaula Region18 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends.
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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Eufaula Region
Site
Canadian River near Calvin
Canadian River near Whitefield
Deep Fork River near Beggs
North Canadian River near Wetumka
Parameter
All Data Trend (1965-1995, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1944-1990, 1999-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
All Data Trend (1946-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1951-1995, 1999-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
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.
1 Date 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 total nitrogen on the Canadian River•
Significant increase in turbidity over the entire period of record on the Deep Fork and North Canadian Rivers and • total phosphorus on the North Canadian
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Eufaula Region
Site
Dripping Springs Lake (1994-2009)
Eufaula Lake (1995-2009)
Lake McAlester (1995-2009)
Okmulgee Lake (1995-2007)
Wewoka Lake (1994-2009)
Parameter
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
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 for both chlorophyll-a and total nitrogen on several reservoirs20 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand
Water needs in the Eufaula Region account
for about 2% of the total statewide demand.
Regional demand will increase by 36% (14,790
AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The highest demand
and most significant growth in demand over
this period will be in the Municipal and
Industrial demand sector. However, there
will also be significant growth in the Crop
Irrigation and Oil and Gas demand sectors.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is
projected to account for approximately 49% of
the region’s total 2060 demand. Currently, 92%
of the demand from this sector is supplied by
surface water, 2% by alluvial groundwater, and
6% by bedrock groundwater.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account
for 24% of the total 2060 demand. Currently,
87% of the demand from this sector is
supplied by surface water and 13% by bedrock
groundwater.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account
for 19% of the total 2060 demand. Currently,
83% of the demand from this sector is supplied
by surface water, 11% by alluvial groundwater,
and 6% by bedrock groundwater. The
predominant irrigated crops in the Eufaula
Region are pasture grasses.
Livestock demand is projected to account for
7% of the total 2060 demand. Currently, 83%
of the demand from this sector is supplied by
surface water, 11% by alluvial groundwater, and
6% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in
the region is predominantly hogs, chickens,
and cattle for cow-calf production.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected
to account for 1% of the total 2060 demand.
Currently, 94% of the demand from this sector
is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 6% by
bedrock groundwater.
There is no Self-Supplied Industrial or
Thermoelectric demand in the region.
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Eufaula Region
Municipal and Industrial is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for 49% of
the projected total regional demand in 2060.
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 21
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.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Eufaula Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
6,030
3,720
20,670
10,210
0
200
0
40,850
2020
6,910
3,780
21,970
19,570
0
220
0
52,440
2030
7,780
3,830
23,170
16,730
0
230
0
51,740
2040
8,650
3,880
24,470
16,290
0
250
0
53,540
2050
9,320
3,930
25,890
15,250
0
260
0
54,660
2060
10,400
3,980
27,360
13,610
0
280
0
55,640
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Eufaula Region
This region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 36% (14,790 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial, Crop Irrigation, and Oil and Gas sectors.
Total Water Demand
by Sector
Eufaula Region22 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94% 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 Eufaula Region includes 52 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 McAlester PWA, Okmulgee, Henryetta, Seminole, and Pittsburg Co. RW&S District #1 (Longtown). Together, these five systems serve over 40% of the combined OCWP public water providers’ population in the region.
Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution
Public Water Providers
Eufaula Regionto residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 2)
Eufaula Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
BEGGS
OK1020707
Okmulgee
106
1,430
1,528
1,627
1,725
1,824
1,923
DEWAR
OK3005613
Okmulgee
184
968
1,048
1,108
1,168
1,237
1,307
DUSTIN
OK1020511
Hughes
101
515
576
638
700
772
844
EUFAULA PWA
OK1020514
McIntosh
167
4,497
5,047
5,598
6,225
6,929
7,678
HAILEYVILLE
OK3006111
Pittsburg
327
907
946
986
1,025
1,074
1,124
HANNA PWA
OK2004902
McIntosh
80
521
590
625
694
764
868
HARTSHORNE
OK3006101
Pittsburg
128
2,376
2,486
2,573
2,683
2,803
2,946
HENRYETTA
OK1020709
Okmulgee
85
8,269
8,869
9,406
9,956
10,531
11,093
HUGHES CO RWD #1
OK3003201
Hughes
83
1,127
1,257
1,385
1,522
1,673
1,822
HUGHES CO RWD #2
OK1010414
Hughes
22
1,121
1,251
1,379
1,515
1,665
1,814
HUGHES CO RWD #3
OK3003202
Hughes
328
207
231
255
280
308
335
HUGHES CO RWD #5
OK3003204
Hughes
263
802
895
987
1,084
1,192
1,298
KREBS UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK1020606
Pittsburg
106
2,133
2,234
2,325
2,426
2,538
2,659
MCALESTER PWA
OK1020609
Pittsburg
271
17,977
18,811
19,527
20,360
21,312
22,342
MCINTOSH CO RWD #4 (HITCHITA)
OK3004906
McIntosh
150
419
470
522
580
645
715
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 6 (VIVIAN)
OK2004913
McIntosh
69
2,213
2,478
2,754
3,060
3,406
3,773
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 8 (TEXANNA)
OK1020529
McIntosh
77
4,034
4,517
5,019
5,577
6,207
6,877
MCINTOSH CO RWS & SWMD #9
OK3004907
McIntosh
141
1,465
1,640
1,822
2,025
2,254
2,497
MCINTOSH CO RWD #12 (SHELL CREEK)
OK2004919
McIntosh
150
181
203
225
250
279
309
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 13 (WELLS)
OK2005603
Okmulgee
80
1,509
1,619
1,716
1,816
1,920
2,024
MORRIS
OK3005610
Okmulgee
184
1,466
1,573
1,669
1,765
1,872
1,968
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 3
OK1020710
Muskogee
266
3,023
3,125
3,218
3,299
3,380
3,461
OKMULGEE
OK1020708
Okmulgee
330
13,282
14,263
15,119
16,003
16,917
17,831
OKMULGEE CO RWD #1
OK3005605
Okmulgee
61
1,846
1,981
2,100
2,222
2,350
2,477
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 2 (PRESTON)
OK3005604
Okmulgee
160
3,103
3,330
3,529
3,735
3,949
4,162
OKMULGEE CO RWD #3
OK3005603
Okmulgee
184
235
252
267
283
299
315
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 4
OK3005602
Okmulgee
74
2,082
2,235
2,368
2,506
2,650
2,793
OKMULGEE CO RWD #5 (BRYANT)
OK2005604
Okmulgee
156
766
822
871
921
974
1,027
OKMULGEE CO RWD #20
OK3005606
Okmulgee
107
2,332
2,503
2,652
2,807
2,968
3,129
OKMULGEE CO RWD #21
OK3005607
Okmulgee
100
510
548
580
614
649
685
PITTSBURG
OK1020604
Pittsburg
67
286
296
306
315
335
345
PITTSBURG CO PWA (CROWDER)
OK1020603
Pittsburg
179
2,233
2,332
2,431
2,530
2,630
2,779
PITTSBURG CO RW&SD #1 (LONGTOWN)
OK1020623
Pittsburg
53
5,154
5,393
5,597
5,836
6,109
6,403
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.24 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 2)
Eufaula Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 4 (CANADIAN)
OK1020612
Pittsburg
117
179
186
194
201
208
222
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 5
OK3006115
Pittsburg
86
1,642
1,718
1,783
1,859
1,947
2,040
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 6 (ALDERSON
OK3006109
Pittsburg
156
307
318
330
341
364
375
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 7 (HAYWOOD)
OK3006108
Pittsburg
255
1,920
2,009
2,085
2,174
2,276
2,386
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 8 (ADAMSON)
OK3006112
Pittsburg
80
5,053
5,287
5,487
5,721
5,989
6,278
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 9
OK3006107
Pittsburg
112
505
529
549
572
599
628
PITTSBURG CO RWD #14
OK1020625
Pittsburg
126
1,162
1,216
1,262
1,316
1,378
1,444
PITTSBURG CO RW&SD #15
OK3006102
Pittsburg
186
141
148
154
160
168
176
PITTSBURG CO RWD #16
OK3006106
Pittsburg
96
808
846
878
915
958
1,004
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 18 (INDIANOLA)
OK3006110
Pittsburg
139
2,062
2,165
2,165
2,268
2,371
2,474
PITTSBURG CO WATER AUTHORITY
OK1020616
Pittsburg
68
26
27
29
30
31
33
SAVANNA
OK3006104
Pittsburg
185
736
775
805
844
883
922
SEMINOLE
OK2006720
Seminole
150
6,847
7,073
7,259
7,445
7,671
7,887
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 1
OK3006702
Seminole
55
390
402
413
424
436
449
SEMINOLE CO RWD #2
OK3006701
Seminole
74
317
327
336
345
355
365
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 5
OK3006704
Seminole
70
198
205
210
216
222
228
WELEETKA
OK1020512
Okfuskee
103
1,111
1,143
1,165
1,198
1,219
1,263
WEWOKA WATER WORKS
OK1020510
Seminole
198
3,592
3,707
3,807
3,907
4,022
4,134
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 25
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 demand includes water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demand includes customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demand doesn’t 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, 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 systems.
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 2)
Eufaula Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
BEGGS
OK1020707
Okmulgee
170
181
193
205
217
228
DEWAR
OK3005613
Okmulgee
199
216
228
241
255
269
DUSTIN
OK1020511
Hughes
58
65
72
79
87
95
EUFAULA PWA
OK1020514
McIntosh
841
944
1,047
1,165
1,296
1,436
HAILEYVILLE
OK3006111
Pittsburg
333
347
361
376
394
412
HANNA PWA
OK2004902
McIntosh
47
53
56
62
68
78
HARTSHORNE
OK3006101
Pittsburg
340
355
368
384
401
421
HENRYETTA
OK1020709
Okmulgee
787
844
896
948
1,003
1,056
HUGHES CO RWD #1
OK3003201
Hughes
104
116
128
141
155
169
HUGHES CO RWD #2
OK1010414
Hughes
28
31
34
37
41
45
HUGHES CO RWD #3
OK3003202
Hughes
76
85
94
103
113
123
HUGHES CO RWD #5
OK3003204
Hughes
237
264
291
320
351
383
KREBS UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK1020606
Pittsburg
254
266
277
289
302
317
MCALESTER PWA
OK1020609
Pittsburg
5,458
5,711
5,929
6,182
6,470
6,783
MCINTOSH CO RWD #4 (HITCHITA)
OK3004906
McIntosh
70
79
88
97
108
120
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 6 (VIVIAN)
OK2004913
McIntosh
172
192
214
237
264
293
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 8 (TEXANNA)
OK1020529
McIntosh
348
389
432
481
535
593
MCINTOSH CO RWS & SWMD #9
OK3004907
McIntosh
232
259
288
320
357
395
MCINTOSH CO RWD #12 (SHELL CREEK)
OK2004919
McIntosh
31
34
38
42
47
52
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 13 (WELLS)
OK2005603
Okmulgee
135
145
153
162
172
181
MORRIS
OK3005610
Okmulgee
302
324
344
364
386
406
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 3
OK1020710
Muskogee
901
931
959
983
1,007
1,031
OKMULGEE
OK1020708
Okmulgee
4,913
5,276
5,592
5,919
6,257
6,595
OKMULGEE CO RWD #1
OK3005605
Okmulgee
126
135
143
151
160
169
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 2 (PRESTON)
OK3005604
Okmulgee
556
597
632
669
708
746
OKMULGEE RWD #3 (KUSA)
OK3005603
Okmulgee
48
52
55
58
62
65
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 4
OK3005602
Okmulgee
172
184
195
206
218
230
OKMULGEE CO RWD #5 (BRYANT)
OK2005604
Okmulgee
134
144
152
161
170
179
OKMULGEE CO RWD #20
OK3005606
Okmulgee
280
301
319
337
356
376
OKMULGEE CO RWD #21
OK3005607
Okmulgee
57
61
65
69
73
77
PITTSBURG
OK1020604
Pittsburg
21
22
23
24
25
26
PITTSBURG CO PWA (CROWDER)
OK1020603
Pittsburg
448
468
488
508
528
558
PITTSBURG CO RW&SD #1 (LONGTOWN)
OK1020623
Pittsburg
305
319
331
345
361
37826 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 4 (CANADIAN)
OK1020612
Pittsburg
23
24
25
26
27
29
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 5
OK3006115
Pittsburg
158
166
172
179
188
197
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 6 (ALDERSON)
OK3006109
Pittsburg
54
56
58
60
64
66
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 7 (HAYWOOD)
OK3006108
Pittsburg
548
574
596
621
650
681
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 8 (ADAMSON)
OK3006112
Pittsburg
453
474
492
513
537
563
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 9
OK3006107
Pittsburg
63
66
69
72
75
79
PITTSBURG CO RWD #14
OK1020625
Pittsburg
164
172
178
186
194
204
PITTSBURG CO RW&SD #15
OK3006102
Pittsburg
29
31
32
33
35
37
PITTSBURG CO RWD #16
OK3006106
Pittsburg
87
91
94
98
103
108
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 18 (INDIANOLA)
OK3006110
Pittsburg
321
337
337
353
369
385
PITTSBURG CO WATER AUTHORITY
OK1020616
Pittsburg
2
2
2
2
2
2
SAVANNA
OK3006104
Pittsburg
152
160
167
175
183
191
SEMINOLE
OK2006720
Seminole
1,150
1,188
1,220
1,251
1,289
1,325
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 1
OK3006702
Seminole
24
25
25
26
27
28
SEMINOLE CO RWD #2
OK3006701
Seminole
26
27
28
29
30
30
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 5
OK3006704
Seminole
16
16
16
17
17
18
WELEETKA
OK1020512
Okfuskee
128
132
135
138
141
146
WEWOKA WATER WORKS
OK1020510
Seminole
795
820
842
864
890
915
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 2)
Eufaula Region
Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demand does not include wholesaled water.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 27
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 demand. 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.
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
BEGGS
OK1020707
Okmulgee Co RWD #2
O
T
DEWAR
OK3005613
Okmulgee Co RWD # 4
E
T
Henryetta
T
HAILEYVILLE
OK3006111
Pittsburg Co PWA
O
T
HARTSHORNE
OK3006101
Pittsburg Co PWA
O
T
HENRYETTA
OK1020709
McIntosh Co RWD # 13 (Wells)
Dewar
Okmulgee RWD #3 (Kusa)
Okmulgee Co RWD #21
Okmulgee Co RWD #5 (Bryant)
E
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
HOLDENVILLE
OK1020803
Hughes Co RWD #4
Hughes Co RWD #5
Hughes Co RWD #3
E
O
T
T
T
HUGHES CO RWD #1
OK3003201
Okfuskee Co RWD # 2
Wetumka
O
O
T
T
HUGHES CO RWD #3
OK3003202
Holdenville
T
HUGHES CO RWD #4
OK3003203
Hughes Co RWD #6
O
T
HUGHES CO RWD #5
OK3003204
Wewoka Water Works
Holdenville
O
O
T
T
KREBS UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK1020606
McAlester PWA
E
T
MCALESTER PWA
OK1020609
Pittsburg Co RWD #7
Pittsburg Co RWD #5
Pittsburg Co RWD #6
Krebs Utility Authority
Pittsburg Co RWD #9
Pittsburg Co RWD #16
O
O
O
E
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 3 (VICTOR)
OK3004903
Checotah
O
T
MCINTOSH CO RWD #4 (HITCHITA)
OK3004906
Muskogee Co RWD #3
O
T
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 13 (WELLS)
OK2005603
Henryetta
E
T
MORRIS
OK3005610
Okmulgee
O
T
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 3
OK1020710
McIntosh Co RWD #4
O
T
Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 2)
Eufaula Region28 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 2)
Eufaula Region
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
OKMULGEE
OK1020708
Okmulgee Co RWD # 6
Okmulgee Co RWD # 20
Okmulgee Co RWD # 7
Okmulgee Co RWD # 4
Okmulgee Co RWD #1
Okmulgee Co RWD #2
Morris
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
OKMULGEE CO RWD #1
OK3005605
Okmulgee
O
T
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 2 (PRESTON)
OK3005604
Morris
Beggs
E
E
T
T
Okmulgee
Beggs
O
O
T
T
OKMULGEE CO RWD #3 (KUSA)
OK3005603
Henryetta
O
T
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 4
OK3005602
Okmulgee
Dewar
O
E
T
T
OKMULGEE CO RWD #5 (BRYANT)
OK2005604
Henryetta
E
T
OKMULGEE CO RWD #20
OK3005606
Okmulgee
Okmulgee Co RWD #6
O
O
T
T
PITTSBURG CO PWA (CROWDER)
OK1020603
Pittsburg Co RWD #8 (Adamson)
Haileyville
Hartshorne
Pittsburg Co RWD #18 (Indianola)
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 5
OK3006115
McAlester PWA
O
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 6 (ALDERSON)
OK3006109
McAlester PWA
O
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 7 (HAYWOOD)
OK3006108
McAlester PWA
O
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 8 (ADAMSON)
OK3006112
Pittsburg Co PWA
O
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 9 MCALESTER
OK3006107
McAlester PWA
O
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD #16
OK3006106
McAlester PWA
T
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 18 (INDIANOLA)
OK3006110
Pittsburg Co PWA
O
T
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 1
OK3006702
Wewoka Water Works
O
T
SEMINOLE CO RWD #2
OK3006701
Wewoka Water Works
O
T
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 5
OK3006704
Wewoka Water Works
O
T
WEWOKA WATER WORKS
OK1020510
Seminole Co RWD # 1
Seminole Co RWD # 2
Seminole Co RWD # 5
Hughes Co RWD # 5
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 29
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 2)
Eufaula Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
BEGGS
OK1020707
Okmulgee
513
100%
0%
0%
DEWAR
OK3005613
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
DUSTIN
OK1020511
Hughes
26
0%
0%
100%
EUFAULA PWA
OK1020514
McIntosh
1,746
100%
0%
0%
HAILEYVILLE
OK3006111
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
HANNA PWA
OK2004902
McIntosh
386
0%
0%
100%
HARTSHORNE
OK3006101
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
HENRYETTA
OK1020709
Okmulgee
4,320
100%
0%
0%
HUGHES CO RWD #1
OK3003201
Hughes
4,650
100%
0%
0%
HUGHES CO RWD #2
OK1010414
Hughes
425
71%
29%
---
HUGHES CO RWD #3
OK3003202
Hughes
---
---
---
---
HUGHES CO RWD #5
OK3003204
Hughes
---
---
---
---
KREBS UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK1020606
Pittsburg
558
100%
0%
0%
MCALESTER PWA
OK1020609
Pittsburg
31,500
100%
0%
0%
MCINTOSH CO RWD #4 (HITCHITA)
OK3004906
McIntosh
---
---
---
---
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 6 (VIVIAN)
OK2004913
McIntosh
---
---
---
---
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 8 (TEXANNA)
OK1020529
McIntosh
---
---
---
---
MCINTOSH CO RWS & SWMD #9
OK3004907
McIntosh
602
100%
0%
0%
MCINTOSH CO RWD #12 (SHELL CREEK)
OK2004919
McIntosh
---
---
---
---
MCINTOSH CO RWD # 13 (WELLS)
OK2005603
Okmulgee
200
0%
0%
100%
MORRIS
OK3005610
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 3
OK1020710
Muskogee
579
100%
0%
0%
OKMULGEE
OK1020708
Okmulgee
12,234
100%
0%
0%
OKMULGEE CO RWD #1
OK3005605
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 2 (PRESTON)
OK3005604
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
OKMULGEE RWD #3 (KUSA)
OK3005603
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 4
OK3005602
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
OKMULGEE CO RWD #5 (BRYANT)
OK2005604
Okmulgee
208
0%
---
100%
OKMULGEE CO RWD #20
OK3005606
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
OKMULGEE CO RWD #21
OK3005607
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG
OK1020604
Pittsburg
250
100%
0%
0%
PITTSBURG CO PWA (CROWDER)
OK1020603
Pittsburg
530
100%
0%
0%30 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 2)
Eufaula Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
PITTSBURG CO RW&SD #1 (LONGTOWN)
OK1020623
Pittsburg
1,000
100%
0%
0%
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 4 (CANADIAN)
OK1020612
Pittsburg
5
100%
0%
0%
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 5
OK3006115
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 6 (ALDERSON)
OK3006109
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 7 (HAYWOOD)
OK3006108
Pittsburg
692
100%
0%
0%
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 8 (ADAMSON)
OK3006112
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 9 MCALESTER
OK3006107
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD #14
OK1020625
Pittsburg
565
100%
0%
0%
PITTSBURG CO RW&SD #15
OK3006102
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD #16
OK3006106
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD # 18 (INDIANOLA)
OK3006110
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO WATER AUTHORITY
OK1020616
Pittsburg
2,800
100%
0%
0%
SAVANNA
OK3006104
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
SEMINOLE
OK2006720
Seminole
7,250
41%
59%
0%
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 1
OK3006702
Seminole
---
---
---
---
SEMINOLE CO RWD #2
OK3006701
Seminole
---
---
---
---
SEMINOLE CO RWD # 5
OK3006704
Seminole
---
---
---
---
WELEETKA
OK1020512
Okfuskee
233
100%
0%
0%
WEWOKA WATER WORKS
OK1020510
Seminole
957
100%
0%
0%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 31
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.
OCWP Provider Survey
Eufaula Region
Beggs (Okmulgee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Beggs Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system and looping lines. Enlarge existing water storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Dewar (Okmulgee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Henryetta
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution lines.
Town of Dustin (Hughes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Dustin City Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: McIntosh County RWD 12, add 2 wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe; replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: McIntosh County RWD 12, add 2 wells.
Eufaula PWA (McIntosh County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Haileyville (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pittsburg PWA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace fire hydrants.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hanna PWA (McIntosh County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Hartshorne (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pittsburg County Water Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Henryetta (Okmulgee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Henryetta Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: North Canadian River as primary source.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hughes County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Okfuskee 2, City of Wetumka
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells.
Hughes County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Shed Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: develop well system including backup wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hughes County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Holdenville
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: upgrading distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Hughes County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Cities of Wewoka and Holdenville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Krebs Utility Authority (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Krebs City Lake, Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Okmulgee County RWD 3 (KUSA)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: City of Henryetta
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
City of McAlester PWA (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lakes McAlester, Talawanda 1&2; Eufaula.
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: install a new clarifier and rehabilitate 3 filters at WTP.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of main line; relocate portion of water lines.
McIntosh County RWD 13 (Okmulgee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Emergency source: City of Henryetta
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
McIntosh County RWD 6 (Vivian)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
McIntosh County RWD 8 (Texanna)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new WTP.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
McIntosh County RWS & SWMD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Checotah
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.32 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OCWP Provider Survey
Eufaula Region
McIntosh County RWD 12 (Shell Creek)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
McIntosh County RWD 4 (Hitchita)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Muskogee Co RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Morris (Okmulgee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Muskogee County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add clarifier to WTP; new water intake.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Okmulgee (Okmulgee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Okmulgee, Dripping Springs
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Okmulgee County RWD 2 (Preston)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee, City of Beggs
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: add new pump station; replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: upgrade distribution system lines; add storage.
Okmulgee County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee
Emergency source: Town of Dewar
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines.
Okmulgee County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: purchase from Towns of Henryetta and Okmulgee.
Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage tank.
Okmulgee County RWD 20
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Okmulgee County RWD 21
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City Henryetta
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: upsize distribution system lines; add water tower.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Okmulgee County RWD 5 (Bryant)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater, City of Henryetta
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: upgrade distribution system lines.
Okmulgee County RWD 7 (Nuyaka)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee, Okmulgee County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: add distribution system lines; add water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: add distribution system lines.
Town of Pittsburg (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pittsburg Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County PWA (Crowder)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; upgrade surface WTP with superpulsators.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: Refurbish water tower.
Pittsburg County RW&S 1 (Longtown)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines; refurbish water towers; new WTP.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: WTP upgrades.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of McAlester
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of McAlester
Emergency source: Adamson Water, City of Krebs
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified. Adamson RWD 8 (Pittsburg County)
Pittsburg County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of McAlester
Emergency source: Hughes County RWD 2, RWD 15
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 8 (Adamson)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pittsburg County PWA
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of McAlester
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 14
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Expand WTP
Pittsburg County RW&SD 15
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: U.S. Army Ammunition Plant (Brown Lake)
Emergency source: RWD 7, Hughes County RWD 2
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 16
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of McAlester
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: additional connection to McAlester
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 18 (Indianola)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pittsburg County PWA
Emergency source: Indianola #9
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells.
Pittsburg County Water Authority
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Eufaula
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 33
OCWP Provider Survey
Eufaula Region
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.
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Eufaula Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$175
$1,202
$835
$2,212
Medium
$357
$328
$198
$883
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$44
$1
$45
Total
$532
$1,574
$1,034
$3,140
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 or fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category refers specifically to rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $3.1 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water • infrastructure needs of the Eufaula Region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur between 2021 and 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 90% of the • providers’ estimated infrastructure costs.
Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs account for approximately • one percent of the total costs.
Town of Savanna (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: US Army Ammunition Plant (Brown Lake)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Seminole (Seminole County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Seminole County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Wewoka
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Seminole County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Wewoka
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Seminole County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Wewoka
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Town of Weleetka (Okfuskee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Weleetka Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; refurbish existing water towers.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water towers; new WTP.
Wewoka Water Works (Seminole County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Wewoka Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: upgrades to WTP.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.34 Eufaula Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. 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 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 35
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.36 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified).
This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study. Potential reservoir development sites for this Watershed Planning Region appear on the following chart and map.
Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4)
Eufaula 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
Acres
AF
AFY
Higgins (Wilburton)
4
Gaines Creek
48
WS, R, F&W
272,500
7,400
190,500
68,000
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$84,651,000
Wetumka
3
Wewoka Creek
48
FC, WS, F&W, R
320,000
11,400
210,000
67,213
1985
USACE
$328,410,000
1 WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
2 Majority of cost estimates were updated using the costs as estimated in previous project reports combined with the USACE Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only.
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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 37
Expanded Water Supply Options
Eufaula Region39
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Data & Analysis
Eufaula Watershed Planning Region
Basin 4840 Eufaula Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 48 Summary
The Eufaula Watershed Planning Region is made up of a single basin, Basin 48. About 51% of the 2010 demand was from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Oil and Gas (25%) was the second-largest demand sector in 2010. Surface water is used to meet 88% of the current demand in the basin. Groundwater satisfies about 12% of the current demand (4% alluvial and 8% bedrock). The peak summer month demand in Basin 48 is about 2 times the monthly winter demand, which is similar to the overall statewide pattern.
Basin 48 has abundant surface water supplies primarily from the Canadian River, North Canadian River, and Lake Eufaula. The Canadian River below Eufaula Dam typically has substantial flows throughout the year. However, the river can experience periods of low flow during any month of the year. Lake Eufaula was constructed on the Canadian River in 1964 by the Corps of Engineers for flood control, water supply, navigation, and hydropower purposes (modified to include recreation). Lake Eufaula has a dependable
Current Demand by Source and Sector
Eufaula Region, Basin 48
Total Demand
40,850 AFY
Synopsis
Water users in Basin 48 are expected to continue to rely primarily on surface water   supplies, including Lake Eufaula and other reservoirs in the basin.
Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020 but will be   minimal in size relative to aquifer storage in the basin. However, localized storage depletions may cause adverse effects for users.
To reduce the risk of adverse effects on water supplies, it is recommended that   storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce the adverse effects of localized alluvial and   bedrock groundwater storage depletions.
Additional reservoir storage could be utilized to mitigate alluvial or bedrock   groundwater storage depletions.
Water Resources
Eufaula Region, Basin 48Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Eufaula Regional Report 41
although there are several water bodies impaired for Public and Private Water Supply and Agricultural use. The availability of permits is not expected to limit the development of surface water supplies for in-basin use through 2060.
The majority of groundwater rights in the basin are from the Vamoosa-Ada major bedrock aquifer, Canadian River major alluvial aquifer, and North Canadian River major alluvial aquifer. These aquifers possess substantial storage in the basin but underlie only a small portion of the basin. There are also permits in multiple minor alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Site-specific information on the suitability of the minor aquifers for supply should be considered before large scale use. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues in the basin.
The projected 2060 water demand of 55,640 AFY in Basin 48 reflects a 14,790 AFY increase (36%) over the 2010 demand.
Gaps & Depletions
Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions are projected to occur by 2020. There are no surface water gaps expected through 2060 in this basin due to the yield of Lake Eufaula and other lakes. Alluvial groundwater depletions are expected to be up to 420 AFY and have a 24% probability of occurring in at least one month of the year by 2060. Bedrock groundwater storage depletions will be 530 AFY in 2060. Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions are largest and most likely to occur during the summer months. Projected annual alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions will be minimal relative to the amount of water stored in the basin’s aquifers; however localized storage depletions may adversely impact well yields, water quality, and/or pumping costs.
Lake Eufaula and other lakes in the basin are capable of providing dependable water supplies to existing users. With new infrastructure they could be used to meet all of Basin 48’s future surface water demand during periods of low streamflow; however these lakes are currently fully allocated.
Options
Water users are expected to continue to rely primarily on surface water supplies. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the basin’s water users, groundwater storage depletions should be decreased where economically feasible.
Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors could reduce alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions. Temporary drought management activities may not be necessary since aquifer storage may continue to provide supplies during droughts.
New out-of-basin supplies could be used to augment supplies and mitigate groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance to reliable supplies, out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective for many users.
New reservoir storage could increase the dependability of available surface water supplies and mitigate alluvial groundwater storage depletions in the basin. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified two potentially viable sites (Higgins and Wetumka Reservoirs) in Basin 48. The use of multiple reservoirs in the basin or reservoirs upstream of the basin’s outlet may increase the amount of storage necessary to mitigate future storage depletions.
Increased reliance on surface water supplies, without reservoir storage, may create surface water gaps and is not recommended.
Increasing the use of major aquifers, where minor aquifers are currently being used, could transfer storage depletions to more dependable supplies. Any increases in storage depletions would be minimal relative to the volume of water stored in the major aquifers underlying the basin, although those supplies may not be accessible to many users.
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
E