OCWP Lower Washita watershed region |
Previous | 1 of 5 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the Lower Washita Watershed Planning RegionStatewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region and Basin Delineation Contents Introduction 1 Regional Overview . 1 Regional Summary 2 Synopsis . 2 Water Resources & Limitations 2 Water Supply Options . 4 Water Supply . 6 Physical Water Availability . 6 Surface Water Resources 6 Groundwater Resources . 9 Permit Availability 11 Water Quality 12 Water Demand . 20 Public Water Providers . 22 OCWP Provider Survey 32 Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Limitations Analysis 36 Primary Options 36 Demand Management 36 Out-of-Basin Supplies . 36 Reservoir Use 36 Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 37 Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 37 Expanded Options 37 Expanded Conservation Measures . 37 Artificial Aquifer Recharge 37 Marginal Quality Water Sources 37 Potential Reservoir Development 37 Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 39 Basin 14 . 39 Basin 15 . 49 Basin 16 59 Basin 21 . 69 Basin 22 . 79 Basin 23 . 89 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Lower Washita Regional Report 1 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Regional Overview The Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region includes six basins (numbered 14-16 and 21-23 for reference). The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province and encompasses 6,192 square miles in southern Oklahoma, spanning all of Carter, Love, and Marshall Counties and parts of Canadian, Caddo, Comanche, Grady, McClain, Garvin, Pontotoc, Stephens, Murray, Johnston, Jefferson, and Bryan Counties. The region’s terrain varies from lush pasture in the river bottoms to the rugged foothills of the Arbuckle Mountains. The region’s climate is mild with annual mean temperatures varying from 61°F to 64°F. Annual evaporation within the region ranges from 63 inches per year in the west to 55 inches per year in the east. Annual average precipitation ranges from 27 inches in the west to 43 inches in the east. The largest cities in the region include Ardmore (2010 population 24,978), Chickasha (16,100), Anadarko (6,399), and Pauls Valley (6,138). The greatest demand is from the Crop Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial water use sectors. By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 117,200 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 37,000 AFY (46%) from 2010. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals: Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment. Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources. In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations. Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions. This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Lower Washita Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information. Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios. Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and 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.federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates. Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.2 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Summary The Lower Washita Region accounts for about 4% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are Municipal and Industrial (39% of the region’s overall 2010 demand) and Crop Irrigation (36%). Water Supply & Limitations Surface Water Surface water supplies including reservoirs are used to meet 49% of the Lower Washita Region’s demand. Surface water supply shortages are expected at times in Basins 15, 16, 22, and 23 by 2020. There is a low to moderate probability of shortages occurring in at least one month of the year by 2060, except in Basin 22 where shortages are expected to occur in almost every year. There are four major rivers in the region: the Red River, the Washita River, Mud Creek, and Walnut Bayou. The Red River is not considered as a water supply source for this study due to water quality constraints. Historically, the Washita River has had substantial flows in the spring. However, periods of low flow can occur in any month of the year, particularly in the summer and fall, due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Lake Texoma, constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Lake of the Arbuckles, a Bureau of Reclamation project, are the two major federal lakes in the region. Other large lakes have been built on tributaries in the Lower Washita Region to provide public water supply, flood control, and recreation. Large reservoirs in the region include: Lake Murray (State of Oklahoma); Healdton Lake (City of Healdton); Humphreys, Clear Creek, Fuqua, and Duncan Lakes (City of Duncan); Wiley Post Memorial Lake (City of Maysville); Lake Chickasha (City of Chickasha); and Pauls Valley and RC Longmire Lakes (City of Pauls Valley). Many other small lakes are located in the region and provide water for various purposes. All basins in the region, except Basin 16, are expected to have available surface water for new permitting to meet local demand through 2060. With the exception of the Red River, surface water quality in the region is considered generally fair relative to other regions in the state. However, several creeks in the region are impaired for Agricultural use due to high levels of chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS). Alluvial Groundwater Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 12% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted alluvial groundwater rights in the region are from the Washita River major alluvial aquifer. About one third of current alluvial groundwater withdrawals are from the Crop Irrigation demand sector, about 29% are from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector, and about 26% are from the Synopsis The Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies (including reservoirs) 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, surface water supplies may be insufficient at times to meet demand in basins without major reservoirs (Basins 15, 16, 22, and 23). By 2020, groundwater storage depletions may occur in all basins and eventually lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and potential changes to well yields or water quality. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps and storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible. Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions. Surface water alternatives, such as the use of bedrock groundwater supplies and/or developing new reservoirs, could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage. One basin (Basin 22) in the region has been identified as a “hot spot,” an area where more pronounced water supply availability issues are forecasted. (See “Regional and Statewide Opportunities and Solutions,” OCWP Executive Report.) Current and Projected Regional Water Demand Lower Washita Region Demand Summary Current Water Demand: 80,440 acre-feet/year (4% of state total) Largest Demand Sector: Municipal & Industrial (39% of regional total) Current Supply Sources: 49% SW 12% Alluvial GW 39% Bedrock GW Projected Demand (2060): 117,230 acre-feet/year Growth (2010-2060): 36,790 acre-feet/year (46%)Lower Washita Regional Report 3 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Self-Supplied Residential demand sector. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions may occur in all basins in the region except Basin 23. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Bedrock Groundwater Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 39% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Rush Springs major aquifer and the Antlers major aquifer. There are also substantial permits in the Arbuckle-Simpson major aquifer, and to a lesser extent, in multiple minor aquifers. The Rush Springs aquifer has about 10 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. The Antlers aquifer has about 10.8 million AF of groundwater storage in the region. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer has about 5.7 million AF of groundwater storage in the region. The recharge to the major aquifers is expected to be sufficient to meet all of the region’s bedrock groundwater demand through 2060, except in Basins 15, 22, and 23, where bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Results of the multi-year Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study indicate that in order to maintain natural flow to springs and streams emanating from the aquifer, the equal proportionate share could be significantly lower than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for temporary permits. There are no significant groundwater quality issues in the basin. However, localized areas with high levels of nitrate and fluoride have been found in the overall Rush Springs aquifer and may occur in Basins 14 and 16. Water Supply Limitations Lower Washita Region Water Supply Limitations Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Supply Options To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Surface water supplies, reservoirs, and bedrock groundwater supplies are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Lower Washita Region. Surface water users may have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future, except in Basins 14 and 21. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions of major and minor aquifers are also projected in the future and may occur in all basins in the region except Basin 23 by 2020. Bedrock groundwater depletions are expected by 2020 in Basins 15, 22, and 23. Additional long-term water supplies should be considered for surface water users and groundwater users. Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities could reduce gaps and storage depletions throughout the region. Future reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to the generally low frequency of shortages in most of the basins, temporary drought management measures may be an effective water supply option. New reservoirs and expanded use of existing reservoirs could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and eliminate gaps throughout the region. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Twelve potentially viable sites were identified in the Lower Washita Region. Lake Texoma, in Basin 21, has substantial unpermitted yield to meet the needs of new users, but water quality may severely constrain its use. These water sources could serve as in-basin storage or out-of-basin supplies to provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance from these reservoirs to demand points in each basin and the basins’ substantial groundwater supplies, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users. The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of major alluvial and bedrock groundwater, which would result in minimal or no increases in projected groundwater storage depletions. However, these aquifers only underlie about 40% of the region, and pending changes to the equal proportionate share of the Arbuckle-Simpson may be significantly lower than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for temporary permits. Water Supply Option Effectiveness Lower Washita Region Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Lower Washita Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Lower Washita Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5 6 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Reservoirs Lower Washita Region Reservoir Name Primary Basin Number Reservoir Owner/ Operator Year Built Purposes1 Normal Pool Storage Water Supply Irrigation Water Quality Permitted Withdrawals Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted Storage Yield Storage Yield Storage Yield AF AF AFY AF AFY AF AFY AFY AFY Arbuckle 14 Bureau of Reclamation 1967 WS, FC, FW, R 72,400 62,600 24,000 0 0 0 0 24,000 0 Chickasha 16 City of Chickasha 1958 WS, R 41,080 --- --- 0 0 0 0 5,200 No Known Yield Clear Creek 14 City of Duncan 1948 WS, R 7,710 --- --- 0 0 0 0 2,262 No Known Yield Duncan 14 City of Duncan 1937 WS, R 7,200 --- --- 0 0 0 0 738 No Known Yield Fuqua 14 City of Duncan 1962 WS. FC, R 21,100 21,100 3,427 0 0 0 0 1,245 2,182 Healdton 22 City of Healdton 1979 WS, FC, R 3,766 --- 413 0 0 0 0 1,473 0 Humphreys 14 City of Duncan 1958 WS, FC, R 14,041 --- 3,226 0 0 0 0 5,408 0 Murray 21 State of Oklahoma 1938 R 153,250 111,921 1,008 0 0 0 0 12,860 0 Pauls Valley 14 City of Pauls Valley 1954 WS, R 8,730 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,993 --- RC Longmire 14 City of Pauls Valley 1989 WS, FC, R N/A 13,162 3,360 0 0 0 0 3,361 0 Taylor 14 City of Marlow, Leased 1960 WS, FC, R 1,877 --- --- --- --- 0 0 1,877 --- Texoma 21 USACE 1944 FC, WS, HP, LF, R 2,643,000 150,000 168,000 0 0 0 0 5,730 162,271 Wiley Post Memorial 15 City of Maysville 1971 WS, FC, R 2,082 0 538 0 0 0 0 700 0 1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed. WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation No known information is annotated as “---” Water Supply Physical Water Availability Surface Water Resources Surface water has historically been about half of the supply used to meet demand in the Lower Washita Region. The region’s major rivers include the Red River, the Washita River, Mud Creek and Walnut Bayou. Many streams in this region experience a wide range of flows, including both periodic low-flow conditions and flooding events. Water in the Red River mainstem (southern border of the Lower Washita Region), which maintains substantial flows, is highly mineralized above Lake Texoma, primarily due to high concentrations of chlorides from natural sources upstream. Without extensive water treatment or management techniques, the high chloride content of the Red River renders water generally unsuitable for most consumptive uses. For this reason, the Red River was not considered as a feasible source of supply in these analyses. As treatment technology evolves over time, treatment costs will likely decrease, and this source may become more attractive relative to other local and regional source options. Also, full implementation of the Corps of Engineers’ Red River Chloride Control Project could reduce naturally occurring chloride levels in the Red River and its tributaries, thereby making it a more feasible source of future water supply. The mainstem of the Washita River is located in the north and west areas of the region, flowing south before joining the Red River in Lake Texoma. About 530 miles of the Washita River mainstem are located in Oklahoma with 240 miles in the Lower Washita Region. The Washita is also highly mineralized, although tributary streams improve overall quality in the lower reaches. Major tributaries in the Lower Washita Region include Caddo Creek (45 miles). The Washita River and tributaries are located in Basins 14, 15, 16, and 21. Mud Creek originates in Basin 23, where it flows 75 miles in a southeasterly direction before joining the Red River. Walnut Bayou heads in Basin 22 and flows 32 miles south to its confluence with the Red River. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. Reservoirs in the region with the largest water supply yields are federal projects and include Lake Texoma (Denison Dam) and Lake of the Arbuckles. Lake Texoma, a Corps of Engineer Project, was constructed on the main stem of the Red River in 1944 for the purposes of flood control, water supply, recreation, navigation, and hydropower purposes, as well as for regulation of the Red River. The lake is subject to the provisions of the Red River Compact, which equally allocates Texoma water supply storage and yield to Texas and Oklahoma. Each state is allotted a dependable water supply yield of 168,000 AFY. Unfortunately, the water is of very poor quality and is not suitable for most municipal and industrial uses without extensive treatment or blending. 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.Lower Washita Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7 Surface Water Resources Lower Washita Region Major reservoirs in the Lower Washita Region include Texoma, Lake of the Arbuckles, Healdton, Humphreys, Wiley Post Memorial, Chickasha, Clear Creek, Duncan, Pauls Valley, RC Longmire, and Fuqua. These lakes 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. Of Oklahoma’s equal share of water, only 5,730 AFY has been authorized for use by stream water rights (over 98% of that for irrigation purposes). More than 160,000 AFY of unpermitted yield is available for beneficial use in Oklahoma. The Lake of the Arbuckles was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1967 on Rock Creek, a tributary of the Washita River. The lake was built for the purposes of water supply, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife mitigation and contains 62,600 acre-feet of conservation storage yielding 24,000 AFY. The entire yield is allocated to the Arbuckle Master Conservancy District which provides water to the cities of Ardmore, Davis, Sulphur, Wynnewood, and Dougherty. Smaller water supply and recreation lakes include Healdton Lake in Basin 22, operated by the City of Healdton; Lake Humphreys, Clear Creek Lake, Duncan Lake, and Lake Fuqua in Basin 14, owned by the City of Duncan; Wiley Post Memorial Lake in Basin 15, operated by the City of Maysville; Pauls Valley Lake and RC Longmire Lake in Basin 14, owned by the City of Pauls Valley; Lake Chickasha in Basin 16, owned by the City of Chickasha; and Lake Murray in Basin 21, owned by the State of Oklahoma. 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.8 Lower Washita 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. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option. Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer. For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately. Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed. For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions. Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060 Lower Washita Region Streamflow Statistic Basins 14 15 16 21 22 23 AFY Average Annual Flow 1,253,200 628,300 466,900 2,054,800 42,300 143,300 Minimum Annual Flow 224,000 113,400 72,700 372,800 0 1,200 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) Lower Washita Region Surface water sources supply about half of the demand in the Lower Washita 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.Lower Washita Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9 Groundwater Resources Lower Washita Region Aquifer Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer Recharge Rate Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Region Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 Percent Inch/Yr AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Antlers Bedrock Major 19% 0.3-1.7 44,100 10,894,000 2.1 1,461,100 Arbuckle-Simpson Bedrock Major 5% 5.58 21,400 5,756,000 temporary2 384,000 Canadian River Alluvial Major <1% 2.0 0 48,000 temporary 2.0 25,600 Gerty Sand Alluvial Major <1% 0.9 600 63,000 0.7 7,400 Red River Alluvial Major 7% 2.5 5,600 1,109,000 temporary 2.0 567,300 Rush Springs Bedrock Major 9% 1.8 48,100 10,009,000 temporary 2.0 614,400 Washita River Alluvial Major 8% 2.65-4.41 20,200 1,938,000 1.0-1.5 602,600 El Reno Bedrock Minor 14% 0.75 8,100 2,887,000 temporary 2.0 1,103,300 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor -- 3,800 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor -- 23,900 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major. 2 Pursuant to 82 O.S. § 1020.9(A)(2), the temporary allocation for the Arbuckle-Simpson groundwater basin is subject to the OWRB’s case-by case determination of what amount will not likely degrade or interfere with springs or streams emanating from the Arbuckle-Simpson.Recreation Area, and contributes flow to several spring-fed streams, including Pennington, Travertine, and Honey Creeks. Water quality is good with dissolved solids generally less than 500 mg/L. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 14 and 21. The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting its use for drinking water. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 14, 15 and 16. The Canadian River aquifer consists of clay and silt downgrading to fine- to coarse-grained sand with lenses of basal gravel. Formation thicknesses range from 20 to 40 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 50 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields in the alluvium range between 100 and 400 gpm and between 50 and 100 gpm in the terrace. The water is Groundwater Resources Three major bedrock aquifers, the Antlers, Arbuckle-Simpson, and Rush Springs, underlie the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region. The Antlers is found in the southeastern portion of the region, the Arbuckle-Simpson in the central-eastern area of the region, and the Rush Springs along the northern edge. Four major alluvial aquifers are located in the region: the Canadian River, Washita River, Gerty Sand, and Red River. The Antlers aquifer is comprised of poorly cemented sandstone with some layers of sandy shale, silt, and clay. The depth to the top of the sandstone formation from the land surface varies from several feet to 1,000 feet and the saturated thickness ranges from less than 5 feet in the north to about 1,000 feet near the Red River. Large-capacity wells tapping the Antlers aquifer commonly yield 100 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). Water quality is generally good with water becoming slightly saline (dissolved solids greater than 1,000 mg/L) in the southern portions of the aquifer. The Antlers bedrock aquifer underlies portions of Basins 21 and 22. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer consists of several formations; about two-thirds of the aquifer consists of limestone and dolomite with sandstone and shale present in some areas. The saturated thickness is estimated to be from 2,000 to 3,500 feet. Common well yields vary from 25 to 600 gpm, depending on location in the aquifer with deeper wells yielding more than 1,000 gpm in some areas. The aquifer is the source of many springs, including those at Chickasaw National Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability. Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown. 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 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Resources Lower Washita Region The major bedrock aquifers in the Lower Washita Region are the Antlers, Arbuckle-Simpson, and Rush Springs. Major alluvial aquifers in the region are the Canadian River, Gerty Sand, Red River, and Washita 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. a very hard calcium bicarbonate type with TDS concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/L. However, the water is generally suitable for most municipal and industrial uses. The aquifer underlies a small portion of Basin 15. The Gerty Sand alluvial aquifer consists of gravel, sand, silt, clay, and volcanic ash. The saturated thickness varies from 5 to 75 feet, averaging 28 feet. Depth to water ranges from 10 to 110 feet. Typical well yields vary from 100 to 450 gpm with some wells yielding as much as 850 gpm. Water quality is fair to good and moderately hard with TDS values usually less than 1,000 mg/L. This aquifer underlies portions of Basin 14. The Washita River alluvial aquifer consists of silt and clays downgrading into fine to coarse sand. Wells in this aquifer yield from 200 to 500 gpm, while formation deposits average 70 feet in thickness. The water is hard to very hard and generally of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. TDS values are usually less than 1,000 mg/L. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 14, 15, and 16. The Red River alluvial aquifer, underlying southern portions of basins 21, 22, and 23, consists of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. Located in Jefferson, Love, and Bryan Counties, the aquifer supplies water for Municipal and Industrial, Crop Irrigation, and domestic purposes. The average saturated thickness is estimated to be around 20-30 feet; however, little data are available concerning the aquifer and its potential as a major source of groundwater. Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno bedrock aquifer; there are no delineated minor alluvial aquifers. Minor bedrock aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm per well. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but may have insufficient yields for large-volume users.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 11 Groundwater Permit Availability Lower Washita Region Projections indicate the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Lower Washita Region. Surface Water Permit Availability Lower Washita Region Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Lower Washita Region, except Basin 16. Permit Availability For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law. Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins, except Basin 16, in the Lower Washita Region. For groundwater, equal proportionate shares in the Lower Washita Region range from 0.65 acre-foot per year (AFY) per acre to 2.1 AFY per acre. Findings from the Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study could result in a significantly lower equal proportionate share than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for that aquifer. 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. Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount. The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit. Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan are more typical, and in the Northern Cross Timbers, representative waters would be Chigley and Kickapoo Sandy Creeks and R.C. Longmire Lake. Stream salinity is variable. On Hickory and the Sandy Creeks, salinity is moderate with mean conductivity from 510 μS/cm (Hickory) to near 620 μS/cm on Kickapoo Sandy Creek. On Walnut Bayou and along the Washita River, conductivity means are high, from 915-1175 μS/cm. Lake conductivity is moderate, ranging from 200-400 μS/cm. However, Lake Texoma varies from 900 μS/cm (Washita arm) to greater than 3,500 μS/cm (Red River arm). Stream nutrient concentrations are low in the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers with mean total phosphorus (TP) from 0.04-0.06 ppm and mean total nitrogen (TN) from 0.35-0.40 ppm. On the Sandy Creeks, nutrient values are higher with TP of 0.07-0.13 ppm and TN of 0.55-1.15 ppm. The Washita River is hyper-eutrophic with mean TP of 0.40 ppm and TN of 1.73 ppm. All lakes are phosphorus limited and vary from oligotrophic (Carter and Murray) to mesotrophic (Healdton) to eutrophic (Arbuckle, Longmire, and Texoma). Texoma is hyper-eutrophic on the upper Red River arm. Water clarity is highly variable, ranging from nearly excellent to very poor. In the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers, both Walnut Bayou and Hickory Creek have turbidity means of 14 NTU, while turbidity varies from 42 on Chigley Sandy to 66 NTU on Kickapoo Sandy. Mean turbidity on the Washita River is 172 NTU. Likewise, lake clarity is excellent on Arbuckle, Carter, and Murray (mean Secchi depth = 120-180cm) but poor on Healdton (Secchi = 34 cm). On Texoma, the Washita arm and main lake have excellent clarity (114-143 cm) but is average to good along the upper (36 cm) and Lower (82 cm) Red River arms. Adjacent to and interspersed among the previous ecoregions lay the Arbuckle Mountains and Uplift with significant relief, ledges, and ravines along the mountains giving way to rolling hills and plains along the uplift. The area is underlain by limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale with significant granite outcroppings. Oak savanna and grasslands Ecoregions Lower Washita Region The Lower Washita Planning Region is a transitional area with significant contributions from the Cross Timbers and Central Great Plains. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices and is generally poor to excellent depending on drainage and location. Water Quality Water quality of the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region is defined by numerous water supply reservoirs and the middle Red River watershed, including the Washita River and Mud Creek. The area is dominated by the Cross Timbers (CT) ecoregion but has peripheral influences from the Central Great Plains (CGP). The sub-ecoregions of the Cross Timbers run throughout much of the planning region. While the Northwestern Cross Timbers co-dominates in the north along with the Central Great Plains, an assortment of various sub-ecoregions are inter-mixed in the south. To the west and south are the Western and Eastern Cross Timbers; along the east central edge, but disconnected, lies the Northern Cross Timbers. Except for vegetation density, growing season, and floristic differences, these areas are similar. They are comprised of rolling hills, Cuestas, and ridges with dense oak savanna interspersed with prairie, rangeland and cropland. The Eastern and Western Cross Timbers are mostly underlain by sandstone, shale, and clay, while limestone becomes prevalent in both the Northern and Eastern Cross Timbers. Streams are morphologically diverse. While many are shallow with sandy soils, others have gravel/cobble bottoms with deep pools and riffles. While native habitat impacts ecological diversity, it is affected mostly by habitat degradation and sedimentation. Representative waterbodies in the Eastern Cross Timbers include Lower Washita River and Hickory Creek as well as Murray, Texoma and Carter Lakes. In the Western Cross Timbers, Walnut Bayou and Healdton Lake 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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 13 dominate the plains and hills while much of the uplands are dominated post-blackjack oak, winged-elm stands and prairie. Streams are mostly formed of gravel/cobble/ bedrock and are typically clear. Gradients are high to moderate. Ecological diversity - as represented by Pennington, Mill, and Oil Creeks as well as Jean Neustadt and Ardmore City Lakes - is higher than anywhere in the Cross Timbers but may be affected by habitat degradation. Stream salinity is moderate, increasing from east (Pennington = 410 μS/cm) to west (Oil = 550 μS/cm), and lake conductivity ranges from 220-360 μS/cm. Stream nutrient concentrations also vary east to west. Pennington mean TP and TN equal 0.05 and 0.33 ppm. Mean TP and TN values are 0.10 and 0.80 ppm on Oil Creek. Both lakes are phosphorus limited and eutrophic. Stream clarity is excellent on both Pennington and Oil Creeks (6-7 NTU) and good on Mill (26 NTU). Lake clarity ranges from good on Neustadt (76 cm) to excellent on Ardmore City (106 cm). The northern area of the region is co-dominated by the Northwestern Cross Timbers and Prairie Tablelands and Cross Timbers Transition of the Central Great Plains. The transition area consists of a hybrid mix of rough plains and oak/elm forests that dominate much of the ecoregion while the Cross Timbers have much more extended stands of oak/elm forests and more relief, including broad canyons. Sandstone underlies much of the area. The Prairie Tablelands are nearly flat with some relief and also underlain by sandstone and siltstone. Cropland is more prevalent in the transition and tablelands with rangeland and cropland along the Cross Timbers. Streams in this area are mostly sandy bottom with low to nearly moderate gradients. In the tablelands, streams are mostly shallow, low gradient, and choked by silt; gravel substrates exist in areas with relief. Ecological diversity is lower than in most parts of the Cross Timbers but higher than in the much of the Central Great Plains. Diversity is impacted by habitat degradation, channelization, and sedimentation. The Northwestern Timbers Water Quality Standards and Implementation The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics. The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur. The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed TMDL studies on Oil Creek, Chigley Sandy Creek, Sand Creek, Roaring Creek, Laflin Creek and Bitter Creek. Several other TMDL studies are underway or scheduled. Water Quality Standards Implementation Lower Washita Region 14 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Impairments A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses. For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation. The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported. In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments—whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution. For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ. Water Quality Impairments Lower Washita Region Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Surface waters in this region are impacted by excessive levels of turbidity. are best represented by Wildhorse Creek and several lakes, including Taylor-Marlow, Fuqua, Clear Creek, Duncan, Humphreys, and Louis Burtschi. The Washita River near Anadarko and Pauls Valley, as well as Ionine (tablelands) and Finn (transition) Creeks, exemplify the plains ecoregions. Chickasha is a good example of the tablelands and Pauls Valley and Wiley Post are example lakes for the transition. Stream salinity is high throughout all three regions with conductivity means ranging from near 700 μS/ cm on Finn Creek to greater than 2,000 μS/ cm on Ionine Creek. Means on Wildhorse Creek and the Washita River range from 1,100-1,685 μS/cm. Lake salinity is highly variable. In the lower Cross Timbers, lake salinity is moderate, varying from less than 250 to greater than 600 μS/cm; in the transition area, Wiley Post and Pauls Valley are lower, ranging from just over 200 to nearly 360 μS/ cm. However, salinity is much higher in the northern portions with Burtschi greater than 1,100 and Chickasha greater than 2,000 μS/ cm. The Washita River throughout is hyper-eutrophic with TP means from 0.36-0.58 ppm and TN means from 1.62-1.86. In other areas, TP and TN vary from 0.09 and 0.49 ppm on Wildhorse Creek to a TP of 0.23 ppm on Finn Creek and a TN of 0.83 on Ionine Creek. Lakes are phosphorus limited with varying levels of cultural eutrophication. While nearly all lakes are eutrophic, Pauls Valley has remained mesotrophic while Burtschi, Chickasha, and Taylor have progressed to hyper-eutrophic. Clarity is average to nearly poor on most creeks with both Finn and Ionine turbidity less than 50 NTU. However with turbidity means from 76 to 214, the Washita has poor to very poor clarity. Lake clarity is poor (Wiley Post = 16 cm) to good (Burtschi = 72 cm) with all other lakes fair to average. The Broken Red Plains intersect the planning region along the southwestern corner. Although more irregular than most of the Central Great Plains, it has much less relief than surrounding ecoregions of the CT or CGP. Soils are characteristically sandy and Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 15 the area is grassland dominated with low density scrub forests. Land uses include cropland/rangeland. Creeks are mostly sand/silt with low gradients and little diversity, which is affected by habitat degradation, channelization, and sedimentation. The Red River and Mud Creek, as well as Comanche Lake, exemplify the area. Stream salinity is high. Mud Creek mean conductivity is nearly 800 μS/cm but the Red is nearly 5,000 μS/cm with significant upstream effects. Comanche remains moderate, ranging from 260-345 μS/cm. Streams are hyper-eutrophic with TP means of 0.40-0.45 ppm and TN ranging from 1.25-1.86 ppm. Comanche Lake is phosphorus limited and hyper-eutrophic. Stream clarity is poor with turbidity means of 118-127 NTU; lake clarity is good at 82 cm. The Lower Washita region is underlain by several alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Alluvial aquifers include the Canadian, Red, and Washita River alluvium and terrace. In most alluvial aquifers in the region, water quality is good and, except for hardness and localized nitrate problems, the water is appropriate for domestic, irrigation, industrial and municipal use. Thick deposits of salt and gypsum occur in many Permian-age formations creating high chloride and sulfate concentrations, which can migrate into portions of alluvial aquifers. The Canadian River alluvium is predominantly of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and variable in dissolved solids content, while the Red River alluvium typically has much higher concentrations of dissolved solids. They are generally suitable for most purposes. However, the alluvium and terrace aquifers are highly vulnerable to contamination from surface activities due to their high porosities and permeabilities and shallow water tables. Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Antlers, Rush Springs Sandstone, and Arbuckle-Simpson. The Rush Springs Sandstone extends into the northwestern portion of the region. Although comparatively hard, most of its water is suitable for domestic, municipal, irrigation and industrial use with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally less than 500 ppm. However, sulfate and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking water standards in some areas. The Antlers Sandstone formation underlies the southeastern part of the region and water quality is generally good with dissolved solids between 200 and 1,000 mg/L. Water is slightly saline in the south with dissolved solids greater than 1,000 ppm. It is suitable for most uses but the ODEQ has identified several monitoring wells in this aquifer with elevated nitrate levels and some wells show consistently low pH values. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer underlies part of the region’s eastern area; water is generally hard and of a calcium bicarbonate or calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. Pennington, Mill, and Oil Creeks, as well as Honey and Travertine Creeks, originate from headwater springs in the Arbuckle-Simpson. Most of the water in the aquifer is suitable for all regulated uses, including public drinking water supplies. Dissolved solids concentrations are low, with a median concentration of 347 mg/L. Some wells and springs on the edge of the aquifer have chloride and dissolved solids concentrations that exceed secondary drinking water standards. Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply Lower Washita Region Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture Lower Washita Region16 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters. Because Wiley Post Memorial Lake, R. C. Longmire Lake, Healdton City Lake, Carter Lake, Madill City Lake, and Elmore City Lake are public water supply reservoirs and have relatively small watersheds, they could potentially benefit from SWS designations. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watersheds. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs. Surface Water Protection Areas Lower Washita 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 Lower Washita Regional Report 17 Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and levels of vulnerability. The Gerty and Arbuckle-Simpson aquifers have been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable, while the Red River and Washita River alluvial aquifers have been identified as very highly vulnerable. The eastern portion of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer has been designated as a sole source aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Groundwater Protection Areas Lower Washita Region Groundwater Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.” Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies. Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures. Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities. Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas. Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution. NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.18 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Trends Study As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity. Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus. Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity. Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend. Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%. Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%. Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high. Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment. Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 19 Reservoir Water Quality Trends Lower Washita Region Site Arbuckle Lake Lake Chickasha Lake Fuqua Lake Murray Pauls Valley Lake Lake Texoma Parameter (1996-2009) (1994-2007) (1994-2007) (1995-2009) (1995-2008) (1998-2009) Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3) NT NT NT NT Conductivity (us/cm) NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT NT NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT 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 in the Lower Washita Region are: Significant upward trend for conductivity on numerous reservoirs • Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on Arbuckle and Chickasha reservoirs• Significant upward trend for turbidity on Arbuckle and Texoma reservoirs• Stream Water Quality Trends Lower Washita Region Site Mud Creek near Courtney Red River near Terral, OK Washita River near Anadarko Washita River near Durwood Washita River near Pauls Valley Parameter All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1967-1995, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1964-1993, 1999-2009)1 Recent Trend (1999-2009) All Data Trend (1946-1995, 1996-2009)1 Recent Trend (1996-2009) All Data Trend (1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) Conductivity (us/cm) NT NT NT NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT NT NT NT NT Turbidity (NTU) 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 in the Lower Washita Region are: Significant upward trend for total nitrogen and phosphorus on Washita River• Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout region• 20 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin (Percent of Total Basin Demand) Lower Washita Region Projected water demand by sector. Municipal and Industrial is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for 42% of the total regional demand in 2060. Water Demand Water needs in the Lower Washita Region account for about 4% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 46% (37,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial sectors. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is projected to account for approximately 42% of the region’s 2060 demand. Currently, 62% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 9% by alluvial groundwater, and 29% by bedrock groundwater. Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 36% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 36% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 11% by alluvial groundwater, and 53% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Lower Washita Region include pasture grasses, wheat, and peanuts. Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 9% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 84% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 13% by bedrock groundwater. Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted. Livestock demand is projected to account for 8% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 35% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 12% by alluvial groundwater, and 53% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production, followed distantly by chickens and sheep. Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 4% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 77% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 23% by bedrock groundwater. Self-Supplied Industrial demand is projected to account for 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 80% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 2% by alluvial groundwater, and 18% by bedrock groundwater. There is no Thermoelectric Power demand in the region. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 21 The Lower Washita accounts for about 4% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 46% (37,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors. Total Water Demand by Sector Lower Washita Region Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric Power Total AFY 2010 29,100 8,320 31,770 5,970 2,000 3,270 0 80,440 2020 31,680 8,480 38,390 10,450 2,000 3,510 0 94,510 2030 34,250 8,630 40,940 9,610 2,010 3,680 0 99,130 2040 36,830 8,790 43,470 9,840 2,030 3,850 0 104,800 2050 38,810 8,940 46,190 10,330 2,060 4,020 0 110,360 2060 41,990 9,100 49,010 10,810 2,120 4,210 0 117,230 Total Water Demand by Sector Lower Washita Region Supply Sources Used to Meet Current Demand (2010) Lower Washita Region 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. 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 users), 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 the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports. OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin. Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the Basin Summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports. Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.22 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to 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. Public Water Providers The Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region includes 66 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 City of Ardmore, City of Chickasha, Marshall County Water Corp., Southern Oklahoma Water Corp., and Bryan County RWS & SWMD #2. Together, these five systems serve over 40 percent of the combined OCWP public water providers’ population in the region. Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include Lower Washita Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 23 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Public Water Providers Lower Washita Region24 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 ALEX OK2002603 Grady 126 646 694 732 770 808 837 ANADARKO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OK1010806 Caddo 143 6,867 7,150 7,383 7,605 7,827 8,030 ARBUCKLE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Murray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDMORE OK1010814 Carter 304 25,011 26,483 27,904 29,275 30,757 32,340 BINGER PWA OK2000803 Caddo 88 714 744 773 793 823 843 BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan 82 7,760 8,559 9,378 10,197 11,016 11,856 BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray 185 925 1,004 1,099 1,187 1,286 1,386 BYARS OK2004709 McClain 71 291 343 387 431 484 528 CADDO CO RWD #1 (LOOKEBA) OK2000802 Caddo 189 200 215 215 215 231 231 CEMENT OK3000806 Caddo 135 536 556 576 596 615 625 CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady 171 16,100 17,314 18,312 19,206 20,099 21,031 CORNISH OK3003404 Jefferson 151 172 172 172 172 182 182 CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo 116 1,180 1,229 1,269 1,309 1,348 1,378 DAVIS OK1010822 Murray 302 3,283 3,571 3,905 4,216 4,573 4,930 DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray 174 230 258 278 297 325 354 ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Garvin 93 756 776 796 806 826 846 ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Garvin 116 925 949 974 986 1,010 1,035 GARVIN CO RWD # 6 (WELLS) OK2002511 Garvin 14 2,762 2,833 2,884 2,934 2,994 3,054 GARVIN CO RWD #1 OK2002516 Garvin 67 1,406 1,443 1,468 1,494 1,524 1,555 GARVIN CO RWD #2 OK2002514 Garvin 85 1,699 1,743 1,774 1,805 1,842 1,879 GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Garvin 94 1,215 1,247 1,269 1,291 1,317 1,344 GARVIN CO RWD #6 (SW PURCHASE) OK3002515 Garvin 16 2,762 2,833 2,884 2,934 2,994 3,054 GRACEMONT PWA OK2000811 Caddo 115 340 360 370 380 390 400 GRADY CO RWD #1 OK2002604 Grady 60 307 329 348 365 382 399 GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady 79 465 499 527 553 579 605 GRADY CO RWD #3 OK2002607 Grady 112 82 88 93 97 102 106 GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady 79 3,402 3,647 3,856 4,044 4,232 4,427 GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Grady 109 2,901 3,110 3,288 3,449 3,608 3,775 HEALDTON OK1011102 Carter 127 2,904 3,085 3,246 3,407 3,577 3,758 JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Johnston 122 2,657 2,979 3,321 3,662 4,032 4,421 KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall 89 1,490 1,834 2,185 2,546 2,922 3,324 LEON RWD #1 (LOVE COUNTY) OK2004302 Love 120 111 131 151 172 192 212 LINDSAY PWA OK2002501 Garvin 121 3,012 3,085 3,146 3,198 3,270 3,332 LONE GROVE OK2001007 Carter 90 3,914 4,150 4,369 4,581 4,817 5,061 Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 2) Lower Washita RegionOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 25 Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 MADILL OK1010820 Marshall 176 3,656 4,501 5,363 6,249 7,178 8,149 MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Johnston 100 1,246 1,399 1,553 1,706 1,879 2,070 MARIETTA PWA OK2004301 Love 92 2,578 7,480 7,896 8,339 8,808 9,269 MARLOW PWA OK2006907 Stephens 149 4,800 4,863 4,905 4,958 5,042 5,137 MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Marshall 90 14,878 18,313 21,838 25,455 29,239 33,191 MAYSVILLE OK1010807 Garvin 125 1,326 1,356 1,376 1,396 1,426 1,456 MCCLAIN CO RWD # 8 OK2004711 McClain 91 2,412 2,816 3,190 3,563 3,952 4,349 MILL CREEK OK2003501 Johnston 103 361 399 447 495 542 599 MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Murray 114 4,521 4,909 5,372 5,801 6,289 6,778 NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Grady 112 954 954 1,060 1,060 1,165 1,165 OAKLAND OK3004513 Marshall 106 605 746 893 1,041 1,196 1,358 OAKVIEW WATER CORP OK2004506 Marshall 106 992 1,221 1,456 1,697 1,949 2,213 PAOLI OK2002502 Garvin 76 663 673 683 693 713 723 PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin 211 6,173 6,330 6,447 6,554 6,691 6,828 RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Carter 153 137 137 147 156 166 166 RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston 100 476 532 588 653 709 784 RINGLING OK2003404 Jefferson 100 1,200 1,222 1,233 1,255 1,287 1,320 RUSH SPRINGS OK2002609 Grady 129 1,278 1,371 1,446 1,521 1,586 1,660 SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Carter 105 13,691 14,497 15,278 16,023 16,841 17,709 STEPHENS CO RW&SD #1 OK2006906 Stephens 135 900 911 919 930 945 963 STEPHENS CO RWD #4 (LOCO) OK2006904 Stephens 113 215 215 215 215 215 229 STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Stephens 138 3,635 3,678 3,712 3,755 3,815 3,888 SULPHUR OK2005001 Murray 167 5,135 5,586 6,105 6,586 7,144 7,703 TERRAL OK2003405 Jefferson 91 386 396 396 407 417 428 THACKERVILLE OK2004303 Love 177 1,053 5,121 5,194 5,267 5,349 5,431 TISHOMINGO WTP OK1010815 Johnston 96 3,220 3,607 4,022 4,437 4,880 5,351 VERDEN OK4002619 Grady 89 676 724 762 800 838 876 WAYNE OK2004702 McClain 140 789 919 1,040 1,160 1,290 1,420 WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Murray 158 917 998 1,091 1,178 1,278 1,377 WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Carter 125 1,414 1,497 1,578 1,655 1,739 1,829 WILSON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OK2001001 Carter 91 1,713 1,806 1,910 2,004 2,107 2,211 WYNNEWOOD WATER & LIGHT OK1010812 Garvin 180 2,379 2,439 2,488 2,528 2,588 2,638 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System 2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.26 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 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, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems. Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 ALEX OK2002603 Grady 91 98 103 109 114 118 ANADARKO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OK1010806 Caddo 1,099 1,145 1,182 1,218 1,253 1,286 ARBUCKLE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Murray 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDMORE OK1010814 Carter 8,521 9,023 9,507 9,974 10,479 11,018 BINGER PWA OK2000803 Caddo 70 73 76 78 81 83 BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan 710 783 858 933 1,008 1,085 BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray 192 209 228 246 267 288 BYARS OK2004709 McClain 23 27 31 35 39 42 CADDO CO RWD #1 (LOOKEBA) OK2000802 Caddo 42 46 46 46 49 49 CEMENT OK3000806 Caddo 81 84 87 90 93 95 CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady 3,094 3,316 3,508 3,679 3,850 4,028 CORNISH OK3003404 Jefferson 29 29 29 29 31 31 CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo 153 159 164 169 175 178 DAVIS OK1010822 Murray 1,109 1,206 1,319 1,424 1,545 1,665 DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray 45 50 54 58 63 69 ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Garvin 78 80 83 84 86 88 ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Garvin 120 123 127 128 131 134 GARVIN CO RWD # 6 (WELLS) OK2002511 Garvin 43 44 45 46 47 48 GARVIN CO RWD #1 OK2002516 Garvin 106 108 110 112 115 117 GARVIN CO RWD #2 OK2002514 Garvin 162 166 169 172 176 179 GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Garvin 128 132 134 136 139 142 GARVIN CO RWD #6 (SW PURCHASE) OK3002515 Garvin 49 51 52 53 54 55 GRACEMONT PWA OK2000811 Caddo 44 47 48 49 50 52 GRADY CO RWD #1 OK2002604 Grady 21 22 23 25 26 27 GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady 41 44 47 49 51 54 GRADY CO RWD #3 OK2002607 Grady 10 11 12 12 13 13 GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady 301 323 341 358 375 392 GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Grady 355 381 402 422 442 462 HEALDTON OK1011102 Carter 413 439 461 484 509 534 JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Johnston 363 407 454 500 551 604 KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall 149 183 218 254 292 332 LEON RWD #1 (LOVE COUNTY) OK2004302 Love 15 18 20 23 26 29 LINDSAY PWA OK2002501 Garvin 409 419 428 435 444 453 LONE GROVE OK2001007 Carter 394 418 440 461 485 510Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 27 Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 MADILL OK1010820 Marshall 721 887 1,057 1,232 1,415 1,606 MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Johnston 140 157 174 191 210 232 MARIETTA PWA OK2004301 Love 266 771 814 860 908 955 MARLOW PWA OK2006907 Stephens 801 811 818 827 841 857 MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Marshall 1,500 1,847 2,202 2,567 2,948 3,347 MAYSVILLE OK1010807 Garvin 186 190 193 195 200 204 MCCLAIN CO RWD # 8 OK2004711 McClain 247 288 326 365 405 445 MILL CREEK OK2003501 Johnston 42 46 52 57 63 69 MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Murray 576 625 684 738 801 863 NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Grady 120 120 133 133 147 147 OAKLAND OK3004513 Marshall 72 88 106 123 142 161 OAKVIEW WATER CORP OK2004506 Marshall 117 144 172 201 231 262 PAOLI OK2002502 Garvin 57 57 58 59 61 62 PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin 1,462 1,499 1,526 1,552 1,584 1,617 RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Carter 23 23 25 27 28 28 RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston 53 60 66 73 80 88 RINGLING OK2003404 Jefferson 134 137 138 141 144 148 RUSH SPRINGS OK2002609 Grady 184 198 209 219 229 240 SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Carter 1,603 1,697 1,798 1,876 1,972 2,073 STEPHENS CO RW&SD #1 OK2006906 Stephens 136 138 139 141 143 146 STEPHENS CO RWD #4 (LOCO) OK2006904 Stephens 27 27 27 27 27 29 STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Stephens 560 567 572 579 588 599 SULPHUR OK2005001 Murray 961 1,045 1,142 1,232 1,336 1,441 TERRAL OK2003405 Jefferson 39 40 40 41 42 43 THACKERVILLE OK2004303 Love 209 1,015 1,030 1,044 1,061 1,077 TISHOMINGO WTP OK1010815 Johnston 347 389 433 478 526 576 VERDEN OK4002619 Grady 67 72 76 80 83 87 WAYNE OK2004702 McClain 124 144 163 182 202 223 WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Murray 162 177 193 208 226 244 WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Carter 197 209 220 231 243 255 WILSON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OK2001001 Carter 175 185 195 205 215 226 WYNNEWOOD WATER & LIGHT OK1010812 Garvin 480 492 502 510 522 532 The OWRB provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede demand forecasts developed by individual water providers. However, the OCWP analyses sought to use a consistent methodology based on accepted data that are available on a statewide basis. When made available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.28 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both ARBUCKLE MCD None Ardmore Davis Wynnewood Dougherty Sulphur (future use) O O O O R R R R ARDMORE OK1010814 Southern Oklahoma Water Corp Lone Grove O E B T Southern Oklahoma Water Corp O T BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan Co RWD #5 E T Durant O T BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray Co RWD #1 O T CEMENT OK3000806 Grady Co RWD # 7 O T CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady Co RWD #6 Norge Water Co O O T T Fort Cobb MCD O T CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo Co RWD #3 O T DAVIS OK1010822 Western Carter Co Water Corp West Davis RWD O O T T DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray Co RWD #1 E R ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Elmore City RW Corp O T ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Elmore City O T Pauls Valley O T GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Pauls Valley T GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady Co RWD #6 E T GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady Co RWD #2 E T Chickasha Tuttle O O T T GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Cement O T HEALDTON OK1011102 Jefferson Co RWD #1 E T KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall County Water Corp E T LONE GROVE OK2001007 Ardmore E T JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Ravia Milburn Public Works Authority E T T MADILL OK1010820 Marshall County Water Corp Oakland E O T T Marshall County Water Corp E T MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Marshall County Water Corp E T MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Kingston PWA Madill Mannsville Public Works Authority E E E T T T Madill E T MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Dougherty O T NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Chickasha O T Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 2) Lower Washita Region Wholesale Water Transfers Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet 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. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 29 Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 2) Lower Washita 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 OAKLAND OK3004513 Madill O T PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin Co RWD #4 Elmore City RW Corp O O T T RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Western Carter Co Water Corp O T RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston Co RWD # 3 E T RINGLING OK2003404 Cornish O T SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Ardmore O T STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Comanche Co RWD #3 E T Duncan E T WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Davis Western Carter Co Water Corp O E T T WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Ratliff City West Davis RWD O E T T City of Davis O B 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System30 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider Water Rights Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider. A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider. In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights. Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent ALEX OK2002603 Grady 174 --- --- 100% ANADARKO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OK1010806 Caddo 1,319 71% 0% 29% ARBUCKLE MCD None Murray 24,000 100% 0% 0% ARDMORE OK1010814 Carter 6,092 85% 15% 0% BINGER PWA OK2000803 Caddo 180 0% 100% 0% BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan 921 100% 0% 0% BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray --- --- --- --- BYARS OK2004709 McClain 100 0% 0% 100% CADDO CO RWD #1 (LOOKEBA) OK2000802 Caddo 20 0% 100% 0% CEMENT OK3000806 Caddo 320 --- 100% --- CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady 5,274 100% 0% 0% CORNISH OK3003404 Jefferson --- --- --- --- CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo 580 0% 100% 0% DAVIS OK1010822 Murray 5,625 100% 0% 0% DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray --- --- --- --- ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Garvin 298 80% 20% 0% ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Garvin --- --- --- --- GARVIN CO RWD # 6 (WELLS) OK2002511 Garvin 400 0% 0% 100% GARVIN CO RWD #1 OK2002516 Garvin --- --- --- --- GARVIN CO RWD #2 OK2002514 Garvin 525 0% 77% 23% GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Garvin --- --- --- --- GARVIN CO RWD #6 (SW PURCHASE) OK3002515 Garvin --- --- --- --- GRACEMONT PWA OK2000811 Caddo 243 0% 100% 0% GRADY CO RWD #1 OK2002604 Grady 11 0% 100% 0% GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady 34 0% 56% 44% GRADY CO RWD #3 OK2002607 Grady 35 0% 0% 100% GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady 886 --- 100% --- GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Grady --- --- --- --- HEALDTON OK1011102 Carter 1,873 79% 21% 0% JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Johnston 507 0% 0% 100% KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall 1,250 0% 100% 0% LEON RWD #1 (LOVE COUNTY) OK2004302 Love 130 0% 23% 77% LINDSAY PWA OK2002501 Garvin 2,168 1% 0% 99%Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 31 Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent LONE GROVE OK2001007 Carter 562 0% 100% 0% MADILL OK1010820 Marshall 3,442 100% 0% 0% MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Johnston --- --- --- --- MARIETTA PWA OK2004301 Love 1,885 0% 100% 0% MARLOW PWA OK2006907 Stephens 5,994 32% 68% 0% MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Marshall 1,616 100% 0% 0% MAYSVILLE OK1010807 Garvin 700 100% 0% 0% MCCLAIN CO RWD # 8 OK2004711 McClain 647 0% 0% 100% MILL CREEK OK2003501 Johnston 575 0% 0% 100% MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Murray 764 0% 0% 100% NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Grady --- --- --- --- OAKLAND OK3004513 Marshall --- --- --- --- OAKVIEW WATER CORP OK2004506 Marshall 310 0% 100% 0% PAOLI OK2002502 Garvin --- --- --- --- PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin 5,354 100% 0% 0% RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Carter 244 0% 100% 0% RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston 149 0% 100% 0% RINGLING OK2003404 Jefferson 233 0% 100% 0% RUSH SPRINGS OK2002609 Grady 137 0% 100% 0% SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Carter 530 36% 64% 0% STEPHENS CO RW&SD #1 OK2006906 Stephens 55 0% 100% 0% STEPHENS CO RWD #4 (LOCO) OK2006904 Stephens 160 --- 100% --- STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Stephens 640 0% 100% 0% SULPHUR OK2005001 Murray 1,377 0% 0% 100% TERRAL OK2003405 Jefferson 25 --- --- 100% THACKERVILLE OK2004303 Love 299 0% 96% 4% TISHOMINGO WTP OK1010815 Johnston 1,144 45% 55% 0% VERDEN OK4002619 Grady 212 --- --- 100% WAYNE OK2004702 McClain 105 0% 0% 100% WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Murray 135 0% 100% 0% WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Carter 57 0% 100% 0% WILSON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OK2001001 Carter 160 0% 100% 0% WYNNEWOOD WATER & LIGHT OK1010812 Garvin 600 0% 0% 100% 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System32 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan OCWP Water Provider Survey Lower Washita Region Town of Alex (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines; Upgrade water treatment plant. Anadarko WTP (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Fort Cobb MCD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage tank; add membrane to WTP. Arbuckle MCD Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new primary source pipeline for Sulphur municipal water supply. City of Ardmore (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Mountain Lake/City Lake, Lake Jean Neustadt, Lake Scott King Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Binger PWA (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Bryan County RWS & SWMD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Blue River, Eagle Lake Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage tanks. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: construct new reservoir or additional wells. Buckhorn RWD (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Murray County District 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add and replace distribution system lines. Town of Byars (McClain County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Caddo County RWD 1 (Lookeba) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Cement (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Grady County RWD 7 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage tank. City of Chickasha (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Ft. Cobb MCD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system distribution system lines; add storage tanks; refurbish existing water tanks. Supply: seeking long-term source. Town of Cornish (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: town of Ringling. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Cyril (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: RWD 3 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. City of Davis (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Honey Creek Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; construct new WTP. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: refurbish or drill wells; add storage. Town of Dougherty (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Murray County 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage tower fencing; refurbish storage tower; replace water meters. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage; new WTP. Elmore City (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Pauls Valley/Lake Longmire, Elmore City RWC, groundwater. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Elmore City RWC (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary sources: Pauls Valley PWA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garvin County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garvin County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: City of Lindsay Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. 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. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 33 OCWP Water Provider Survey Lower Washita Region Garvin County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Pauls Valley Municipal Authority Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garvin County RWD 6 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Gerty Sands Aquifer Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells; add storage. Long-Term Needs New supply source: Oscar aquifer. Infrastructure improvements: add additional wells to Oscar. Garvin County RWD 6 (SW Purchase) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Wynnewood Short-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Gracemont PWA (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Grady County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Grady County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater, Grady County RWD 6 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage. Grady County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs None identified. Grady County RWD 6 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Cities of Chickasha and Tuttle Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe (Tuttle area). Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Grady County RWD 7 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Town of Healdton (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Healdton Municipal Lake, groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well (Oscar aquifer). Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well; add storage. Johnston County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle-Simpson) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well; add distribution lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells; add storage. Kingston PWA (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater; Marshall County Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Leon RWD 1 (Love County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Lindsay PWA (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Lone Grove (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: redrill well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add storage. City of Madill (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City Lake, Carter Lake, Hauani Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Mannsville PWA (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Antlers Sandstone aquifer) Emergency source: Marshall County Water Corp. Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: add storage; drill additional wells. Marietta RWD (Love County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; replace distribution system lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; replace distribution system lines; add storage. Marlow PWA (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs None identified. Marshall County Water Corp. Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lakes Rex Smith, Oteaka and Ruel Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Maysville (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Maysville Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage and booster stations; new WTP. McClain County RWD 8 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add storage. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Mill Creek (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle-Simpson) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: refurbish water tower. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional well; replace water main lines and cut-off valves. Murray County 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Norge Water Co. (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Chickasha Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs None identified.34 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan OCWP Water Provider Survey Lower Washita Region Town of Oakland (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Madill Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Oakview Water Corp. (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Paoli (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Pauls Valley (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: R.C. Longmire Lake and Valley City Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: upsize raw water line; add storage Ratliff City (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Western Carter County Water & Sewer Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Ravia (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: surface water Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. Town of Ringling (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage; drill additional wells. Town of Rush Springs (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Southern Oklahoma Water Corp. (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Lake Murray, groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Stephens County RW & SD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Stephens County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: Jefferson County RWD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: refurbish additional well. Long-Term Needs None identified. Stephens County RWD 5 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: City of Duncan Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. City of Sulphur (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace portion of water main lines; replace pump station pump. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add pump station; refurbish existing wells. Town of Terral PWA (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater, Jefferson County RWD 1 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Thackerville (Love County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Tishomingo WTP (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Pennington Creek Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: add pump and valves in distribution system; upgrade water treatment plant. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. Town of Verden (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater (Rush Springs aquifer). Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add storage and standpipe. Town of Wayne (McClain County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: McClain County RWD 8 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. West Davis RWD (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: city of Davis Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; replace distribution system lines; add storage. Western Carter County Water Corp. Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater, City of Davis. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Wilson Municipal Authority (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Oscar B aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Wynnewood Water & Light (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lake Arbuckle Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 35 Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water. Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level. More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region. Infrastructure Cost Summary Lower Washita Region Provider System Category1 Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars) Present - 2020 2021 - 2040 2041 - 2060 Total Period Small $375 $202 $36 $613 Medium $824 $933 $212 $1,969 Large $0 $0 $0 $0 Reservoir2 $0 $7 $222 $229 Total $1,199 $1,142 $470 $2,811 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 $2.8 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure needs of the Lower • Washita region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur within the next 20 years. Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 75 percent of the providers’ estimated • infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects. Medium-sized providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.• Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoir comprise approximately eight percent of the total costs.• 36 Lower Washita Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Supply Options Limitations Analysis For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur. Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%. The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data. Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report. Primary Options To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated. Demand Management “Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements. Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irri
Object Description
Description
Title | OCWP Lower Washita watershed region |
OkDocs Class# | W1700.3 W331lw 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_LowerWashita_Region_Report.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the Lower Washita Watershed Planning RegionStatewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region and Basin Delineation Contents Introduction 1 Regional Overview . 1 Regional Summary 2 Synopsis . 2 Water Resources & Limitations 2 Water Supply Options . 4 Water Supply . 6 Physical Water Availability . 6 Surface Water Resources 6 Groundwater Resources . 9 Permit Availability 11 Water Quality 12 Water Demand . 20 Public Water Providers . 22 OCWP Provider Survey 32 Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Limitations Analysis 36 Primary Options 36 Demand Management 36 Out-of-Basin Supplies . 36 Reservoir Use 36 Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 37 Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 37 Expanded Options 37 Expanded Conservation Measures . 37 Artificial Aquifer Recharge 37 Marginal Quality Water Sources 37 Potential Reservoir Development 37 Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 39 Basin 14 . 39 Basin 15 . 49 Basin 16 59 Basin 21 . 69 Basin 22 . 79 Basin 23 . 89 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Lower Washita Regional Report 1 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Regional Overview The Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region includes six basins (numbered 14-16 and 21-23 for reference). The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province and encompasses 6,192 square miles in southern Oklahoma, spanning all of Carter, Love, and Marshall Counties and parts of Canadian, Caddo, Comanche, Grady, McClain, Garvin, Pontotoc, Stephens, Murray, Johnston, Jefferson, and Bryan Counties. The region’s terrain varies from lush pasture in the river bottoms to the rugged foothills of the Arbuckle Mountains. The region’s climate is mild with annual mean temperatures varying from 61°F to 64°F. Annual evaporation within the region ranges from 63 inches per year in the west to 55 inches per year in the east. Annual average precipitation ranges from 27 inches in the west to 43 inches in the east. The largest cities in the region include Ardmore (2010 population 24,978), Chickasha (16,100), Anadarko (6,399), and Pauls Valley (6,138). The greatest demand is from the Crop Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial water use sectors. By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 117,200 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 37,000 AFY (46%) from 2010. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals: Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment. Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources. In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations. Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions. This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Lower Washita Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information. Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios. Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and 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.federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates. Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.2 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Summary The Lower Washita Region accounts for about 4% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are Municipal and Industrial (39% of the region’s overall 2010 demand) and Crop Irrigation (36%). Water Supply & Limitations Surface Water Surface water supplies including reservoirs are used to meet 49% of the Lower Washita Region’s demand. Surface water supply shortages are expected at times in Basins 15, 16, 22, and 23 by 2020. There is a low to moderate probability of shortages occurring in at least one month of the year by 2060, except in Basin 22 where shortages are expected to occur in almost every year. There are four major rivers in the region: the Red River, the Washita River, Mud Creek, and Walnut Bayou. The Red River is not considered as a water supply source for this study due to water quality constraints. Historically, the Washita River has had substantial flows in the spring. However, periods of low flow can occur in any month of the year, particularly in the summer and fall, due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Lake Texoma, constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Lake of the Arbuckles, a Bureau of Reclamation project, are the two major federal lakes in the region. Other large lakes have been built on tributaries in the Lower Washita Region to provide public water supply, flood control, and recreation. Large reservoirs in the region include: Lake Murray (State of Oklahoma); Healdton Lake (City of Healdton); Humphreys, Clear Creek, Fuqua, and Duncan Lakes (City of Duncan); Wiley Post Memorial Lake (City of Maysville); Lake Chickasha (City of Chickasha); and Pauls Valley and RC Longmire Lakes (City of Pauls Valley). Many other small lakes are located in the region and provide water for various purposes. All basins in the region, except Basin 16, are expected to have available surface water for new permitting to meet local demand through 2060. With the exception of the Red River, surface water quality in the region is considered generally fair relative to other regions in the state. However, several creeks in the region are impaired for Agricultural use due to high levels of chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS). Alluvial Groundwater Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 12% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted alluvial groundwater rights in the region are from the Washita River major alluvial aquifer. About one third of current alluvial groundwater withdrawals are from the Crop Irrigation demand sector, about 29% are from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector, and about 26% are from the Synopsis The Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies (including reservoirs) 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, surface water supplies may be insufficient at times to meet demand in basins without major reservoirs (Basins 15, 16, 22, and 23). By 2020, groundwater storage depletions may occur in all basins and eventually lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and potential changes to well yields or water quality. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps and storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible. Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions. Surface water alternatives, such as the use of bedrock groundwater supplies and/or developing new reservoirs, could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage. One basin (Basin 22) in the region has been identified as a “hot spot,” an area where more pronounced water supply availability issues are forecasted. (See “Regional and Statewide Opportunities and Solutions,” OCWP Executive Report.) Current and Projected Regional Water Demand Lower Washita Region Demand Summary Current Water Demand: 80,440 acre-feet/year (4% of state total) Largest Demand Sector: Municipal & Industrial (39% of regional total) Current Supply Sources: 49% SW 12% Alluvial GW 39% Bedrock GW Projected Demand (2060): 117,230 acre-feet/year Growth (2010-2060): 36,790 acre-feet/year (46%)Lower Washita Regional Report 3 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Self-Supplied Residential demand sector. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions may occur in all basins in the region except Basin 23. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Bedrock Groundwater Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 39% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Rush Springs major aquifer and the Antlers major aquifer. There are also substantial permits in the Arbuckle-Simpson major aquifer, and to a lesser extent, in multiple minor aquifers. The Rush Springs aquifer has about 10 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. The Antlers aquifer has about 10.8 million AF of groundwater storage in the region. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer has about 5.7 million AF of groundwater storage in the region. The recharge to the major aquifers is expected to be sufficient to meet all of the region’s bedrock groundwater demand through 2060, except in Basins 15, 22, and 23, where bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Results of the multi-year Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study indicate that in order to maintain natural flow to springs and streams emanating from the aquifer, the equal proportionate share could be significantly lower than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for temporary permits. There are no significant groundwater quality issues in the basin. However, localized areas with high levels of nitrate and fluoride have been found in the overall Rush Springs aquifer and may occur in Basins 14 and 16. Water Supply Limitations Lower Washita Region Water Supply Limitations Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Supply Options To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Surface water supplies, reservoirs, and bedrock groundwater supplies are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Lower Washita Region. Surface water users may have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future, except in Basins 14 and 21. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions of major and minor aquifers are also projected in the future and may occur in all basins in the region except Basin 23 by 2020. Bedrock groundwater depletions are expected by 2020 in Basins 15, 22, and 23. Additional long-term water supplies should be considered for surface water users and groundwater users. Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities could reduce gaps and storage depletions throughout the region. Future reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to the generally low frequency of shortages in most of the basins, temporary drought management measures may be an effective water supply option. New reservoirs and expanded use of existing reservoirs could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and eliminate gaps throughout the region. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Twelve potentially viable sites were identified in the Lower Washita Region. Lake Texoma, in Basin 21, has substantial unpermitted yield to meet the needs of new users, but water quality may severely constrain its use. These water sources could serve as in-basin storage or out-of-basin supplies to provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance from these reservoirs to demand points in each basin and the basins’ substantial groundwater supplies, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users. The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of major alluvial and bedrock groundwater, which would result in minimal or no increases in projected groundwater storage depletions. However, these aquifers only underlie about 40% of the region, and pending changes to the equal proportionate share of the Arbuckle-Simpson may be significantly lower than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for temporary permits. Water Supply Option Effectiveness Lower Washita Region Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Lower Washita Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Lower Washita Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5 6 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Reservoirs Lower Washita Region Reservoir Name Primary Basin Number Reservoir Owner/ Operator Year Built Purposes1 Normal Pool Storage Water Supply Irrigation Water Quality Permitted Withdrawals Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted Storage Yield Storage Yield Storage Yield AF AF AFY AF AFY AF AFY AFY AFY Arbuckle 14 Bureau of Reclamation 1967 WS, FC, FW, R 72,400 62,600 24,000 0 0 0 0 24,000 0 Chickasha 16 City of Chickasha 1958 WS, R 41,080 --- --- 0 0 0 0 5,200 No Known Yield Clear Creek 14 City of Duncan 1948 WS, R 7,710 --- --- 0 0 0 0 2,262 No Known Yield Duncan 14 City of Duncan 1937 WS, R 7,200 --- --- 0 0 0 0 738 No Known Yield Fuqua 14 City of Duncan 1962 WS. FC, R 21,100 21,100 3,427 0 0 0 0 1,245 2,182 Healdton 22 City of Healdton 1979 WS, FC, R 3,766 --- 413 0 0 0 0 1,473 0 Humphreys 14 City of Duncan 1958 WS, FC, R 14,041 --- 3,226 0 0 0 0 5,408 0 Murray 21 State of Oklahoma 1938 R 153,250 111,921 1,008 0 0 0 0 12,860 0 Pauls Valley 14 City of Pauls Valley 1954 WS, R 8,730 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,993 --- RC Longmire 14 City of Pauls Valley 1989 WS, FC, R N/A 13,162 3,360 0 0 0 0 3,361 0 Taylor 14 City of Marlow, Leased 1960 WS, FC, R 1,877 --- --- --- --- 0 0 1,877 --- Texoma 21 USACE 1944 FC, WS, HP, LF, R 2,643,000 150,000 168,000 0 0 0 0 5,730 162,271 Wiley Post Memorial 15 City of Maysville 1971 WS, FC, R 2,082 0 538 0 0 0 0 700 0 1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed. WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation No known information is annotated as “---” Water Supply Physical Water Availability Surface Water Resources Surface water has historically been about half of the supply used to meet demand in the Lower Washita Region. The region’s major rivers include the Red River, the Washita River, Mud Creek and Walnut Bayou. Many streams in this region experience a wide range of flows, including both periodic low-flow conditions and flooding events. Water in the Red River mainstem (southern border of the Lower Washita Region), which maintains substantial flows, is highly mineralized above Lake Texoma, primarily due to high concentrations of chlorides from natural sources upstream. Without extensive water treatment or management techniques, the high chloride content of the Red River renders water generally unsuitable for most consumptive uses. For this reason, the Red River was not considered as a feasible source of supply in these analyses. As treatment technology evolves over time, treatment costs will likely decrease, and this source may become more attractive relative to other local and regional source options. Also, full implementation of the Corps of Engineers’ Red River Chloride Control Project could reduce naturally occurring chloride levels in the Red River and its tributaries, thereby making it a more feasible source of future water supply. The mainstem of the Washita River is located in the north and west areas of the region, flowing south before joining the Red River in Lake Texoma. About 530 miles of the Washita River mainstem are located in Oklahoma with 240 miles in the Lower Washita Region. The Washita is also highly mineralized, although tributary streams improve overall quality in the lower reaches. Major tributaries in the Lower Washita Region include Caddo Creek (45 miles). The Washita River and tributaries are located in Basins 14, 15, 16, and 21. Mud Creek originates in Basin 23, where it flows 75 miles in a southeasterly direction before joining the Red River. Walnut Bayou heads in Basin 22 and flows 32 miles south to its confluence with the Red River. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. Reservoirs in the region with the largest water supply yields are federal projects and include Lake Texoma (Denison Dam) and Lake of the Arbuckles. Lake Texoma, a Corps of Engineer Project, was constructed on the main stem of the Red River in 1944 for the purposes of flood control, water supply, recreation, navigation, and hydropower purposes, as well as for regulation of the Red River. The lake is subject to the provisions of the Red River Compact, which equally allocates Texoma water supply storage and yield to Texas and Oklahoma. Each state is allotted a dependable water supply yield of 168,000 AFY. Unfortunately, the water is of very poor quality and is not suitable for most municipal and industrial uses without extensive treatment or blending. 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.Lower Washita Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7 Surface Water Resources Lower Washita Region Major reservoirs in the Lower Washita Region include Texoma, Lake of the Arbuckles, Healdton, Humphreys, Wiley Post Memorial, Chickasha, Clear Creek, Duncan, Pauls Valley, RC Longmire, and Fuqua. These lakes 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. Of Oklahoma’s equal share of water, only 5,730 AFY has been authorized for use by stream water rights (over 98% of that for irrigation purposes). More than 160,000 AFY of unpermitted yield is available for beneficial use in Oklahoma. The Lake of the Arbuckles was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1967 on Rock Creek, a tributary of the Washita River. The lake was built for the purposes of water supply, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife mitigation and contains 62,600 acre-feet of conservation storage yielding 24,000 AFY. The entire yield is allocated to the Arbuckle Master Conservancy District which provides water to the cities of Ardmore, Davis, Sulphur, Wynnewood, and Dougherty. Smaller water supply and recreation lakes include Healdton Lake in Basin 22, operated by the City of Healdton; Lake Humphreys, Clear Creek Lake, Duncan Lake, and Lake Fuqua in Basin 14, owned by the City of Duncan; Wiley Post Memorial Lake in Basin 15, operated by the City of Maysville; Pauls Valley Lake and RC Longmire Lake in Basin 14, owned by the City of Pauls Valley; Lake Chickasha in Basin 16, owned by the City of Chickasha; and Lake Murray in Basin 21, owned by the State of Oklahoma. 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.8 Lower Washita 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. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option. Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer. For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately. Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed. For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions. Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060 Lower Washita Region Streamflow Statistic Basins 14 15 16 21 22 23 AFY Average Annual Flow 1,253,200 628,300 466,900 2,054,800 42,300 143,300 Minimum Annual Flow 224,000 113,400 72,700 372,800 0 1,200 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) Lower Washita Region Surface water sources supply about half of the demand in the Lower Washita 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.Lower Washita Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9 Groundwater Resources Lower Washita Region Aquifer Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer Recharge Rate Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Region Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 Percent Inch/Yr AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Antlers Bedrock Major 19% 0.3-1.7 44,100 10,894,000 2.1 1,461,100 Arbuckle-Simpson Bedrock Major 5% 5.58 21,400 5,756,000 temporary2 384,000 Canadian River Alluvial Major <1% 2.0 0 48,000 temporary 2.0 25,600 Gerty Sand Alluvial Major <1% 0.9 600 63,000 0.7 7,400 Red River Alluvial Major 7% 2.5 5,600 1,109,000 temporary 2.0 567,300 Rush Springs Bedrock Major 9% 1.8 48,100 10,009,000 temporary 2.0 614,400 Washita River Alluvial Major 8% 2.65-4.41 20,200 1,938,000 1.0-1.5 602,600 El Reno Bedrock Minor 14% 0.75 8,100 2,887,000 temporary 2.0 1,103,300 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor -- 3,800 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor -- 23,900 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major. 2 Pursuant to 82 O.S. § 1020.9(A)(2), the temporary allocation for the Arbuckle-Simpson groundwater basin is subject to the OWRB’s case-by case determination of what amount will not likely degrade or interfere with springs or streams emanating from the Arbuckle-Simpson.Recreation Area, and contributes flow to several spring-fed streams, including Pennington, Travertine, and Honey Creeks. Water quality is good with dissolved solids generally less than 500 mg/L. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 14 and 21. The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting its use for drinking water. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 14, 15 and 16. The Canadian River aquifer consists of clay and silt downgrading to fine- to coarse-grained sand with lenses of basal gravel. Formation thicknesses range from 20 to 40 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 50 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields in the alluvium range between 100 and 400 gpm and between 50 and 100 gpm in the terrace. The water is Groundwater Resources Three major bedrock aquifers, the Antlers, Arbuckle-Simpson, and Rush Springs, underlie the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region. The Antlers is found in the southeastern portion of the region, the Arbuckle-Simpson in the central-eastern area of the region, and the Rush Springs along the northern edge. Four major alluvial aquifers are located in the region: the Canadian River, Washita River, Gerty Sand, and Red River. The Antlers aquifer is comprised of poorly cemented sandstone with some layers of sandy shale, silt, and clay. The depth to the top of the sandstone formation from the land surface varies from several feet to 1,000 feet and the saturated thickness ranges from less than 5 feet in the north to about 1,000 feet near the Red River. Large-capacity wells tapping the Antlers aquifer commonly yield 100 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). Water quality is generally good with water becoming slightly saline (dissolved solids greater than 1,000 mg/L) in the southern portions of the aquifer. The Antlers bedrock aquifer underlies portions of Basins 21 and 22. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer consists of several formations; about two-thirds of the aquifer consists of limestone and dolomite with sandstone and shale present in some areas. The saturated thickness is estimated to be from 2,000 to 3,500 feet. Common well yields vary from 25 to 600 gpm, depending on location in the aquifer with deeper wells yielding more than 1,000 gpm in some areas. The aquifer is the source of many springs, including those at Chickasaw National Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability. Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown. 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 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Resources Lower Washita Region The major bedrock aquifers in the Lower Washita Region are the Antlers, Arbuckle-Simpson, and Rush Springs. Major alluvial aquifers in the region are the Canadian River, Gerty Sand, Red River, and Washita 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. a very hard calcium bicarbonate type with TDS concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/L. However, the water is generally suitable for most municipal and industrial uses. The aquifer underlies a small portion of Basin 15. The Gerty Sand alluvial aquifer consists of gravel, sand, silt, clay, and volcanic ash. The saturated thickness varies from 5 to 75 feet, averaging 28 feet. Depth to water ranges from 10 to 110 feet. Typical well yields vary from 100 to 450 gpm with some wells yielding as much as 850 gpm. Water quality is fair to good and moderately hard with TDS values usually less than 1,000 mg/L. This aquifer underlies portions of Basin 14. The Washita River alluvial aquifer consists of silt and clays downgrading into fine to coarse sand. Wells in this aquifer yield from 200 to 500 gpm, while formation deposits average 70 feet in thickness. The water is hard to very hard and generally of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. TDS values are usually less than 1,000 mg/L. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 14, 15, and 16. The Red River alluvial aquifer, underlying southern portions of basins 21, 22, and 23, consists of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. Located in Jefferson, Love, and Bryan Counties, the aquifer supplies water for Municipal and Industrial, Crop Irrigation, and domestic purposes. The average saturated thickness is estimated to be around 20-30 feet; however, little data are available concerning the aquifer and its potential as a major source of groundwater. Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno bedrock aquifer; there are no delineated minor alluvial aquifers. Minor bedrock aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm per well. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but may have insufficient yields for large-volume users.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 11 Groundwater Permit Availability Lower Washita Region Projections indicate the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Lower Washita Region. Surface Water Permit Availability Lower Washita Region Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Lower Washita Region, except Basin 16. Permit Availability For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law. Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins, except Basin 16, in the Lower Washita Region. For groundwater, equal proportionate shares in the Lower Washita Region range from 0.65 acre-foot per year (AFY) per acre to 2.1 AFY per acre. Findings from the Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study could result in a significantly lower equal proportionate share than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for that aquifer. 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. Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount. The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit. Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan are more typical, and in the Northern Cross Timbers, representative waters would be Chigley and Kickapoo Sandy Creeks and R.C. Longmire Lake. Stream salinity is variable. On Hickory and the Sandy Creeks, salinity is moderate with mean conductivity from 510 μS/cm (Hickory) to near 620 μS/cm on Kickapoo Sandy Creek. On Walnut Bayou and along the Washita River, conductivity means are high, from 915-1175 μS/cm. Lake conductivity is moderate, ranging from 200-400 μS/cm. However, Lake Texoma varies from 900 μS/cm (Washita arm) to greater than 3,500 μS/cm (Red River arm). Stream nutrient concentrations are low in the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers with mean total phosphorus (TP) from 0.04-0.06 ppm and mean total nitrogen (TN) from 0.35-0.40 ppm. On the Sandy Creeks, nutrient values are higher with TP of 0.07-0.13 ppm and TN of 0.55-1.15 ppm. The Washita River is hyper-eutrophic with mean TP of 0.40 ppm and TN of 1.73 ppm. All lakes are phosphorus limited and vary from oligotrophic (Carter and Murray) to mesotrophic (Healdton) to eutrophic (Arbuckle, Longmire, and Texoma). Texoma is hyper-eutrophic on the upper Red River arm. Water clarity is highly variable, ranging from nearly excellent to very poor. In the Eastern and Western Cross Timbers, both Walnut Bayou and Hickory Creek have turbidity means of 14 NTU, while turbidity varies from 42 on Chigley Sandy to 66 NTU on Kickapoo Sandy. Mean turbidity on the Washita River is 172 NTU. Likewise, lake clarity is excellent on Arbuckle, Carter, and Murray (mean Secchi depth = 120-180cm) but poor on Healdton (Secchi = 34 cm). On Texoma, the Washita arm and main lake have excellent clarity (114-143 cm) but is average to good along the upper (36 cm) and Lower (82 cm) Red River arms. Adjacent to and interspersed among the previous ecoregions lay the Arbuckle Mountains and Uplift with significant relief, ledges, and ravines along the mountains giving way to rolling hills and plains along the uplift. The area is underlain by limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale with significant granite outcroppings. Oak savanna and grasslands Ecoregions Lower Washita Region The Lower Washita Planning Region is a transitional area with significant contributions from the Cross Timbers and Central Great Plains. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices and is generally poor to excellent depending on drainage and location. Water Quality Water quality of the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region is defined by numerous water supply reservoirs and the middle Red River watershed, including the Washita River and Mud Creek. The area is dominated by the Cross Timbers (CT) ecoregion but has peripheral influences from the Central Great Plains (CGP). The sub-ecoregions of the Cross Timbers run throughout much of the planning region. While the Northwestern Cross Timbers co-dominates in the north along with the Central Great Plains, an assortment of various sub-ecoregions are inter-mixed in the south. To the west and south are the Western and Eastern Cross Timbers; along the east central edge, but disconnected, lies the Northern Cross Timbers. Except for vegetation density, growing season, and floristic differences, these areas are similar. They are comprised of rolling hills, Cuestas, and ridges with dense oak savanna interspersed with prairie, rangeland and cropland. The Eastern and Western Cross Timbers are mostly underlain by sandstone, shale, and clay, while limestone becomes prevalent in both the Northern and Eastern Cross Timbers. Streams are morphologically diverse. While many are shallow with sandy soils, others have gravel/cobble bottoms with deep pools and riffles. While native habitat impacts ecological diversity, it is affected mostly by habitat degradation and sedimentation. Representative waterbodies in the Eastern Cross Timbers include Lower Washita River and Hickory Creek as well as Murray, Texoma and Carter Lakes. In the Western Cross Timbers, Walnut Bayou and Healdton Lake 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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 13 dominate the plains and hills while much of the uplands are dominated post-blackjack oak, winged-elm stands and prairie. Streams are mostly formed of gravel/cobble/ bedrock and are typically clear. Gradients are high to moderate. Ecological diversity - as represented by Pennington, Mill, and Oil Creeks as well as Jean Neustadt and Ardmore City Lakes - is higher than anywhere in the Cross Timbers but may be affected by habitat degradation. Stream salinity is moderate, increasing from east (Pennington = 410 μS/cm) to west (Oil = 550 μS/cm), and lake conductivity ranges from 220-360 μS/cm. Stream nutrient concentrations also vary east to west. Pennington mean TP and TN equal 0.05 and 0.33 ppm. Mean TP and TN values are 0.10 and 0.80 ppm on Oil Creek. Both lakes are phosphorus limited and eutrophic. Stream clarity is excellent on both Pennington and Oil Creeks (6-7 NTU) and good on Mill (26 NTU). Lake clarity ranges from good on Neustadt (76 cm) to excellent on Ardmore City (106 cm). The northern area of the region is co-dominated by the Northwestern Cross Timbers and Prairie Tablelands and Cross Timbers Transition of the Central Great Plains. The transition area consists of a hybrid mix of rough plains and oak/elm forests that dominate much of the ecoregion while the Cross Timbers have much more extended stands of oak/elm forests and more relief, including broad canyons. Sandstone underlies much of the area. The Prairie Tablelands are nearly flat with some relief and also underlain by sandstone and siltstone. Cropland is more prevalent in the transition and tablelands with rangeland and cropland along the Cross Timbers. Streams in this area are mostly sandy bottom with low to nearly moderate gradients. In the tablelands, streams are mostly shallow, low gradient, and choked by silt; gravel substrates exist in areas with relief. Ecological diversity is lower than in most parts of the Cross Timbers but higher than in the much of the Central Great Plains. Diversity is impacted by habitat degradation, channelization, and sedimentation. The Northwestern Timbers Water Quality Standards and Implementation The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics. The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur. The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed TMDL studies on Oil Creek, Chigley Sandy Creek, Sand Creek, Roaring Creek, Laflin Creek and Bitter Creek. Several other TMDL studies are underway or scheduled. Water Quality Standards Implementation Lower Washita Region 14 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Impairments A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses. For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation. The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported. In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments—whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution. For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ. Water Quality Impairments Lower Washita Region Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Surface waters in this region are impacted by excessive levels of turbidity. are best represented by Wildhorse Creek and several lakes, including Taylor-Marlow, Fuqua, Clear Creek, Duncan, Humphreys, and Louis Burtschi. The Washita River near Anadarko and Pauls Valley, as well as Ionine (tablelands) and Finn (transition) Creeks, exemplify the plains ecoregions. Chickasha is a good example of the tablelands and Pauls Valley and Wiley Post are example lakes for the transition. Stream salinity is high throughout all three regions with conductivity means ranging from near 700 μS/ cm on Finn Creek to greater than 2,000 μS/ cm on Ionine Creek. Means on Wildhorse Creek and the Washita River range from 1,100-1,685 μS/cm. Lake salinity is highly variable. In the lower Cross Timbers, lake salinity is moderate, varying from less than 250 to greater than 600 μS/cm; in the transition area, Wiley Post and Pauls Valley are lower, ranging from just over 200 to nearly 360 μS/ cm. However, salinity is much higher in the northern portions with Burtschi greater than 1,100 and Chickasha greater than 2,000 μS/ cm. The Washita River throughout is hyper-eutrophic with TP means from 0.36-0.58 ppm and TN means from 1.62-1.86. In other areas, TP and TN vary from 0.09 and 0.49 ppm on Wildhorse Creek to a TP of 0.23 ppm on Finn Creek and a TN of 0.83 on Ionine Creek. Lakes are phosphorus limited with varying levels of cultural eutrophication. While nearly all lakes are eutrophic, Pauls Valley has remained mesotrophic while Burtschi, Chickasha, and Taylor have progressed to hyper-eutrophic. Clarity is average to nearly poor on most creeks with both Finn and Ionine turbidity less than 50 NTU. However with turbidity means from 76 to 214, the Washita has poor to very poor clarity. Lake clarity is poor (Wiley Post = 16 cm) to good (Burtschi = 72 cm) with all other lakes fair to average. The Broken Red Plains intersect the planning region along the southwestern corner. Although more irregular than most of the Central Great Plains, it has much less relief than surrounding ecoregions of the CT or CGP. Soils are characteristically sandy and Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 15 the area is grassland dominated with low density scrub forests. Land uses include cropland/rangeland. Creeks are mostly sand/silt with low gradients and little diversity, which is affected by habitat degradation, channelization, and sedimentation. The Red River and Mud Creek, as well as Comanche Lake, exemplify the area. Stream salinity is high. Mud Creek mean conductivity is nearly 800 μS/cm but the Red is nearly 5,000 μS/cm with significant upstream effects. Comanche remains moderate, ranging from 260-345 μS/cm. Streams are hyper-eutrophic with TP means of 0.40-0.45 ppm and TN ranging from 1.25-1.86 ppm. Comanche Lake is phosphorus limited and hyper-eutrophic. Stream clarity is poor with turbidity means of 118-127 NTU; lake clarity is good at 82 cm. The Lower Washita region is underlain by several alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Alluvial aquifers include the Canadian, Red, and Washita River alluvium and terrace. In most alluvial aquifers in the region, water quality is good and, except for hardness and localized nitrate problems, the water is appropriate for domestic, irrigation, industrial and municipal use. Thick deposits of salt and gypsum occur in many Permian-age formations creating high chloride and sulfate concentrations, which can migrate into portions of alluvial aquifers. The Canadian River alluvium is predominantly of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and variable in dissolved solids content, while the Red River alluvium typically has much higher concentrations of dissolved solids. They are generally suitable for most purposes. However, the alluvium and terrace aquifers are highly vulnerable to contamination from surface activities due to their high porosities and permeabilities and shallow water tables. Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Antlers, Rush Springs Sandstone, and Arbuckle-Simpson. The Rush Springs Sandstone extends into the northwestern portion of the region. Although comparatively hard, most of its water is suitable for domestic, municipal, irrigation and industrial use with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally less than 500 ppm. However, sulfate and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking water standards in some areas. The Antlers Sandstone formation underlies the southeastern part of the region and water quality is generally good with dissolved solids between 200 and 1,000 mg/L. Water is slightly saline in the south with dissolved solids greater than 1,000 ppm. It is suitable for most uses but the ODEQ has identified several monitoring wells in this aquifer with elevated nitrate levels and some wells show consistently low pH values. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer underlies part of the region’s eastern area; water is generally hard and of a calcium bicarbonate or calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. Pennington, Mill, and Oil Creeks, as well as Honey and Travertine Creeks, originate from headwater springs in the Arbuckle-Simpson. Most of the water in the aquifer is suitable for all regulated uses, including public drinking water supplies. Dissolved solids concentrations are low, with a median concentration of 347 mg/L. Some wells and springs on the edge of the aquifer have chloride and dissolved solids concentrations that exceed secondary drinking water standards. Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply Lower Washita Region Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture Lower Washita Region16 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters. Because Wiley Post Memorial Lake, R. C. Longmire Lake, Healdton City Lake, Carter Lake, Madill City Lake, and Elmore City Lake are public water supply reservoirs and have relatively small watersheds, they could potentially benefit from SWS designations. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watersheds. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs. Surface Water Protection Areas Lower Washita 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 Lower Washita Regional Report 17 Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and levels of vulnerability. The Gerty and Arbuckle-Simpson aquifers have been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable, while the Red River and Washita River alluvial aquifers have been identified as very highly vulnerable. The eastern portion of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer has been designated as a sole source aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Groundwater Protection Areas Lower Washita Region Groundwater Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.” Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies. Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures. Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities. Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas. Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution. NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.18 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Trends Study As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity. Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus. Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity. Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend. Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%. Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%. Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high. Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment. Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 19 Reservoir Water Quality Trends Lower Washita Region Site Arbuckle Lake Lake Chickasha Lake Fuqua Lake Murray Pauls Valley Lake Lake Texoma Parameter (1996-2009) (1994-2007) (1994-2007) (1995-2009) (1995-2008) (1998-2009) Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3) NT NT NT NT Conductivity (us/cm) NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT NT NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT 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 in the Lower Washita Region are: Significant upward trend for conductivity on numerous reservoirs • Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on Arbuckle and Chickasha reservoirs• Significant upward trend for turbidity on Arbuckle and Texoma reservoirs• Stream Water Quality Trends Lower Washita Region Site Mud Creek near Courtney Red River near Terral, OK Washita River near Anadarko Washita River near Durwood Washita River near Pauls Valley Parameter All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1967-1995, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1964-1993, 1999-2009)1 Recent Trend (1999-2009) All Data Trend (1946-1995, 1996-2009)1 Recent Trend (1996-2009) All Data Trend (1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) Conductivity (us/cm) NT NT NT NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT NT NT NT NT Turbidity (NTU) 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 in the Lower Washita Region are: Significant upward trend for total nitrogen and phosphorus on Washita River• Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout region• 20 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin (Percent of Total Basin Demand) Lower Washita Region Projected water demand by sector. Municipal and Industrial is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for 42% of the total regional demand in 2060. Water Demand Water needs in the Lower Washita Region account for about 4% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 46% (37,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial sectors. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is projected to account for approximately 42% of the region’s 2060 demand. Currently, 62% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 9% by alluvial groundwater, and 29% by bedrock groundwater. Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 36% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 36% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 11% by alluvial groundwater, and 53% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Lower Washita Region include pasture grasses, wheat, and peanuts. Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 9% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 84% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 13% by bedrock groundwater. Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted. Livestock demand is projected to account for 8% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 35% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 12% by alluvial groundwater, and 53% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production, followed distantly by chickens and sheep. Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 4% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 77% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 23% by bedrock groundwater. Self-Supplied Industrial demand is projected to account for 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 80% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 2% by alluvial groundwater, and 18% by bedrock groundwater. There is no Thermoelectric Power demand in the region. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 21 The Lower Washita accounts for about 4% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 46% (37,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors. Total Water Demand by Sector Lower Washita Region Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric Power Total AFY 2010 29,100 8,320 31,770 5,970 2,000 3,270 0 80,440 2020 31,680 8,480 38,390 10,450 2,000 3,510 0 94,510 2030 34,250 8,630 40,940 9,610 2,010 3,680 0 99,130 2040 36,830 8,790 43,470 9,840 2,030 3,850 0 104,800 2050 38,810 8,940 46,190 10,330 2,060 4,020 0 110,360 2060 41,990 9,100 49,010 10,810 2,120 4,210 0 117,230 Total Water Demand by Sector Lower Washita Region Supply Sources Used to Meet Current Demand (2010) Lower Washita Region 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. 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 users), 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 the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports. OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin. Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the Basin Summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports. Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.22 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to 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. Public Water Providers The Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region includes 66 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 City of Ardmore, City of Chickasha, Marshall County Water Corp., Southern Oklahoma Water Corp., and Bryan County RWS & SWMD #2. Together, these five systems serve over 40 percent of the combined OCWP public water providers’ population in the region. Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include Lower Washita Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 23 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Public Water Providers Lower Washita Region24 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 ALEX OK2002603 Grady 126 646 694 732 770 808 837 ANADARKO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OK1010806 Caddo 143 6,867 7,150 7,383 7,605 7,827 8,030 ARBUCKLE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Murray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDMORE OK1010814 Carter 304 25,011 26,483 27,904 29,275 30,757 32,340 BINGER PWA OK2000803 Caddo 88 714 744 773 793 823 843 BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan 82 7,760 8,559 9,378 10,197 11,016 11,856 BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray 185 925 1,004 1,099 1,187 1,286 1,386 BYARS OK2004709 McClain 71 291 343 387 431 484 528 CADDO CO RWD #1 (LOOKEBA) OK2000802 Caddo 189 200 215 215 215 231 231 CEMENT OK3000806 Caddo 135 536 556 576 596 615 625 CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady 171 16,100 17,314 18,312 19,206 20,099 21,031 CORNISH OK3003404 Jefferson 151 172 172 172 172 182 182 CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo 116 1,180 1,229 1,269 1,309 1,348 1,378 DAVIS OK1010822 Murray 302 3,283 3,571 3,905 4,216 4,573 4,930 DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray 174 230 258 278 297 325 354 ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Garvin 93 756 776 796 806 826 846 ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Garvin 116 925 949 974 986 1,010 1,035 GARVIN CO RWD # 6 (WELLS) OK2002511 Garvin 14 2,762 2,833 2,884 2,934 2,994 3,054 GARVIN CO RWD #1 OK2002516 Garvin 67 1,406 1,443 1,468 1,494 1,524 1,555 GARVIN CO RWD #2 OK2002514 Garvin 85 1,699 1,743 1,774 1,805 1,842 1,879 GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Garvin 94 1,215 1,247 1,269 1,291 1,317 1,344 GARVIN CO RWD #6 (SW PURCHASE) OK3002515 Garvin 16 2,762 2,833 2,884 2,934 2,994 3,054 GRACEMONT PWA OK2000811 Caddo 115 340 360 370 380 390 400 GRADY CO RWD #1 OK2002604 Grady 60 307 329 348 365 382 399 GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady 79 465 499 527 553 579 605 GRADY CO RWD #3 OK2002607 Grady 112 82 88 93 97 102 106 GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady 79 3,402 3,647 3,856 4,044 4,232 4,427 GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Grady 109 2,901 3,110 3,288 3,449 3,608 3,775 HEALDTON OK1011102 Carter 127 2,904 3,085 3,246 3,407 3,577 3,758 JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Johnston 122 2,657 2,979 3,321 3,662 4,032 4,421 KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall 89 1,490 1,834 2,185 2,546 2,922 3,324 LEON RWD #1 (LOVE COUNTY) OK2004302 Love 120 111 131 151 172 192 212 LINDSAY PWA OK2002501 Garvin 121 3,012 3,085 3,146 3,198 3,270 3,332 LONE GROVE OK2001007 Carter 90 3,914 4,150 4,369 4,581 4,817 5,061 Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 2) Lower Washita RegionOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 25 Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 MADILL OK1010820 Marshall 176 3,656 4,501 5,363 6,249 7,178 8,149 MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Johnston 100 1,246 1,399 1,553 1,706 1,879 2,070 MARIETTA PWA OK2004301 Love 92 2,578 7,480 7,896 8,339 8,808 9,269 MARLOW PWA OK2006907 Stephens 149 4,800 4,863 4,905 4,958 5,042 5,137 MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Marshall 90 14,878 18,313 21,838 25,455 29,239 33,191 MAYSVILLE OK1010807 Garvin 125 1,326 1,356 1,376 1,396 1,426 1,456 MCCLAIN CO RWD # 8 OK2004711 McClain 91 2,412 2,816 3,190 3,563 3,952 4,349 MILL CREEK OK2003501 Johnston 103 361 399 447 495 542 599 MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Murray 114 4,521 4,909 5,372 5,801 6,289 6,778 NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Grady 112 954 954 1,060 1,060 1,165 1,165 OAKLAND OK3004513 Marshall 106 605 746 893 1,041 1,196 1,358 OAKVIEW WATER CORP OK2004506 Marshall 106 992 1,221 1,456 1,697 1,949 2,213 PAOLI OK2002502 Garvin 76 663 673 683 693 713 723 PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin 211 6,173 6,330 6,447 6,554 6,691 6,828 RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Carter 153 137 137 147 156 166 166 RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston 100 476 532 588 653 709 784 RINGLING OK2003404 Jefferson 100 1,200 1,222 1,233 1,255 1,287 1,320 RUSH SPRINGS OK2002609 Grady 129 1,278 1,371 1,446 1,521 1,586 1,660 SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Carter 105 13,691 14,497 15,278 16,023 16,841 17,709 STEPHENS CO RW&SD #1 OK2006906 Stephens 135 900 911 919 930 945 963 STEPHENS CO RWD #4 (LOCO) OK2006904 Stephens 113 215 215 215 215 215 229 STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Stephens 138 3,635 3,678 3,712 3,755 3,815 3,888 SULPHUR OK2005001 Murray 167 5,135 5,586 6,105 6,586 7,144 7,703 TERRAL OK2003405 Jefferson 91 386 396 396 407 417 428 THACKERVILLE OK2004303 Love 177 1,053 5,121 5,194 5,267 5,349 5,431 TISHOMINGO WTP OK1010815 Johnston 96 3,220 3,607 4,022 4,437 4,880 5,351 VERDEN OK4002619 Grady 89 676 724 762 800 838 876 WAYNE OK2004702 McClain 140 789 919 1,040 1,160 1,290 1,420 WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Murray 158 917 998 1,091 1,178 1,278 1,377 WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Carter 125 1,414 1,497 1,578 1,655 1,739 1,829 WILSON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OK2001001 Carter 91 1,713 1,806 1,910 2,004 2,107 2,211 WYNNEWOOD WATER & LIGHT OK1010812 Garvin 180 2,379 2,439 2,488 2,528 2,588 2,638 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System 2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.26 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 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, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems. Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 ALEX OK2002603 Grady 91 98 103 109 114 118 ANADARKO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OK1010806 Caddo 1,099 1,145 1,182 1,218 1,253 1,286 ARBUCKLE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Murray 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDMORE OK1010814 Carter 8,521 9,023 9,507 9,974 10,479 11,018 BINGER PWA OK2000803 Caddo 70 73 76 78 81 83 BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan 710 783 858 933 1,008 1,085 BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray 192 209 228 246 267 288 BYARS OK2004709 McClain 23 27 31 35 39 42 CADDO CO RWD #1 (LOOKEBA) OK2000802 Caddo 42 46 46 46 49 49 CEMENT OK3000806 Caddo 81 84 87 90 93 95 CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady 3,094 3,316 3,508 3,679 3,850 4,028 CORNISH OK3003404 Jefferson 29 29 29 29 31 31 CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo 153 159 164 169 175 178 DAVIS OK1010822 Murray 1,109 1,206 1,319 1,424 1,545 1,665 DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray 45 50 54 58 63 69 ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Garvin 78 80 83 84 86 88 ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Garvin 120 123 127 128 131 134 GARVIN CO RWD # 6 (WELLS) OK2002511 Garvin 43 44 45 46 47 48 GARVIN CO RWD #1 OK2002516 Garvin 106 108 110 112 115 117 GARVIN CO RWD #2 OK2002514 Garvin 162 166 169 172 176 179 GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Garvin 128 132 134 136 139 142 GARVIN CO RWD #6 (SW PURCHASE) OK3002515 Garvin 49 51 52 53 54 55 GRACEMONT PWA OK2000811 Caddo 44 47 48 49 50 52 GRADY CO RWD #1 OK2002604 Grady 21 22 23 25 26 27 GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady 41 44 47 49 51 54 GRADY CO RWD #3 OK2002607 Grady 10 11 12 12 13 13 GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady 301 323 341 358 375 392 GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Grady 355 381 402 422 442 462 HEALDTON OK1011102 Carter 413 439 461 484 509 534 JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Johnston 363 407 454 500 551 604 KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall 149 183 218 254 292 332 LEON RWD #1 (LOVE COUNTY) OK2004302 Love 15 18 20 23 26 29 LINDSAY PWA OK2002501 Garvin 409 419 428 435 444 453 LONE GROVE OK2001007 Carter 394 418 440 461 485 510Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 27 Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 MADILL OK1010820 Marshall 721 887 1,057 1,232 1,415 1,606 MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Johnston 140 157 174 191 210 232 MARIETTA PWA OK2004301 Love 266 771 814 860 908 955 MARLOW PWA OK2006907 Stephens 801 811 818 827 841 857 MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Marshall 1,500 1,847 2,202 2,567 2,948 3,347 MAYSVILLE OK1010807 Garvin 186 190 193 195 200 204 MCCLAIN CO RWD # 8 OK2004711 McClain 247 288 326 365 405 445 MILL CREEK OK2003501 Johnston 42 46 52 57 63 69 MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Murray 576 625 684 738 801 863 NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Grady 120 120 133 133 147 147 OAKLAND OK3004513 Marshall 72 88 106 123 142 161 OAKVIEW WATER CORP OK2004506 Marshall 117 144 172 201 231 262 PAOLI OK2002502 Garvin 57 57 58 59 61 62 PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin 1,462 1,499 1,526 1,552 1,584 1,617 RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Carter 23 23 25 27 28 28 RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston 53 60 66 73 80 88 RINGLING OK2003404 Jefferson 134 137 138 141 144 148 RUSH SPRINGS OK2002609 Grady 184 198 209 219 229 240 SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Carter 1,603 1,697 1,798 1,876 1,972 2,073 STEPHENS CO RW&SD #1 OK2006906 Stephens 136 138 139 141 143 146 STEPHENS CO RWD #4 (LOCO) OK2006904 Stephens 27 27 27 27 27 29 STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Stephens 560 567 572 579 588 599 SULPHUR OK2005001 Murray 961 1,045 1,142 1,232 1,336 1,441 TERRAL OK2003405 Jefferson 39 40 40 41 42 43 THACKERVILLE OK2004303 Love 209 1,015 1,030 1,044 1,061 1,077 TISHOMINGO WTP OK1010815 Johnston 347 389 433 478 526 576 VERDEN OK4002619 Grady 67 72 76 80 83 87 WAYNE OK2004702 McClain 124 144 163 182 202 223 WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Murray 162 177 193 208 226 244 WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Carter 197 209 220 231 243 255 WILSON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OK2001001 Carter 175 185 195 205 215 226 WYNNEWOOD WATER & LIGHT OK1010812 Garvin 480 492 502 510 522 532 The OWRB provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede demand forecasts developed by individual water providers. However, the OCWP analyses sought to use a consistent methodology based on accepted data that are available on a statewide basis. When made available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.28 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both ARBUCKLE MCD None Ardmore Davis Wynnewood Dougherty Sulphur (future use) O O O O R R R R ARDMORE OK1010814 Southern Oklahoma Water Corp Lone Grove O E B T Southern Oklahoma Water Corp O T BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan Co RWD #5 E T Durant O T BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray Co RWD #1 O T CEMENT OK3000806 Grady Co RWD # 7 O T CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady Co RWD #6 Norge Water Co O O T T Fort Cobb MCD O T CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo Co RWD #3 O T DAVIS OK1010822 Western Carter Co Water Corp West Davis RWD O O T T DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray Co RWD #1 E R ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Elmore City RW Corp O T ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Elmore City O T Pauls Valley O T GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Pauls Valley T GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady Co RWD #6 E T GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady Co RWD #2 E T Chickasha Tuttle O O T T GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Cement O T HEALDTON OK1011102 Jefferson Co RWD #1 E T KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall County Water Corp E T LONE GROVE OK2001007 Ardmore E T JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Ravia Milburn Public Works Authority E T T MADILL OK1010820 Marshall County Water Corp Oakland E O T T Marshall County Water Corp E T MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Marshall County Water Corp E T MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Kingston PWA Madill Mannsville Public Works Authority E E E T T T Madill E T MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Dougherty O T NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Chickasha O T Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 2) Lower Washita Region Wholesale Water Transfers Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet 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. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 29 Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 2) Lower Washita 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 OAKLAND OK3004513 Madill O T PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin Co RWD #4 Elmore City RW Corp O O T T RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Western Carter Co Water Corp O T RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston Co RWD # 3 E T RINGLING OK2003404 Cornish O T SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Ardmore O T STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Comanche Co RWD #3 E T Duncan E T WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Davis Western Carter Co Water Corp O E T T WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Ratliff City West Davis RWD O E T T City of Davis O B 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System30 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider Water Rights Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider. A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider. In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights. Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent ALEX OK2002603 Grady 174 --- --- 100% ANADARKO WATER TREATMENT PLANT OK1010806 Caddo 1,319 71% 0% 29% ARBUCKLE MCD None Murray 24,000 100% 0% 0% ARDMORE OK1010814 Carter 6,092 85% 15% 0% BINGER PWA OK2000803 Caddo 180 0% 100% 0% BRYAN COUNTY RWS & SWMD #2 OK1010604 Bryan 921 100% 0% 0% BUCKHORN RWD OK3005002 Murray --- --- --- --- BYARS OK2004709 McClain 100 0% 0% 100% CADDO CO RWD #1 (LOOKEBA) OK2000802 Caddo 20 0% 100% 0% CEMENT OK3000806 Caddo 320 --- 100% --- CHICKASHA OK1010821 Grady 5,274 100% 0% 0% CORNISH OK3003404 Jefferson --- --- --- --- CYRIL OK3000805 Caddo 580 0% 100% 0% DAVIS OK1010822 Murray 5,625 100% 0% 0% DOUGHERTY OK1010824 Murray --- --- --- --- ELMORE CITY OK2002521 Garvin 298 80% 20% 0% ELMORE CITY RW CORP OK3002505 Garvin --- --- --- --- GARVIN CO RWD # 6 (WELLS) OK2002511 Garvin 400 0% 0% 100% GARVIN CO RWD #1 OK2002516 Garvin --- --- --- --- GARVIN CO RWD #2 OK2002514 Garvin 525 0% 77% 23% GARVIN CO RWD #4 OK3002503 Garvin --- --- --- --- GARVIN CO RWD #6 (SW PURCHASE) OK3002515 Garvin --- --- --- --- GRACEMONT PWA OK2000811 Caddo 243 0% 100% 0% GRADY CO RWD #1 OK2002604 Grady 11 0% 100% 0% GRADY CO RWD #2 OK2002605 Grady 34 0% 56% 44% GRADY CO RWD #3 OK2002607 Grady 35 0% 0% 100% GRADY CO RWD #6 OK3002603 Grady 886 --- 100% --- GRADY CO RWD #7 (NINNEKAH) OK2002633 Grady --- --- --- --- HEALDTON OK1011102 Carter 1,873 79% 21% 0% JOHNSTON CO RWD #3 OK2003511 Johnston 507 0% 0% 100% KINGSTON PWA OK2004501 Marshall 1,250 0% 100% 0% LEON RWD #1 (LOVE COUNTY) OK2004302 Love 130 0% 23% 77% LINDSAY PWA OK2002501 Garvin 2,168 1% 0% 99%Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 31 Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 2) Lower Washita Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent LONE GROVE OK2001007 Carter 562 0% 100% 0% MADILL OK1010820 Marshall 3,442 100% 0% 0% MANNSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2003505 Johnston --- --- --- --- MARIETTA PWA OK2004301 Love 1,885 0% 100% 0% MARLOW PWA OK2006907 Stephens 5,994 32% 68% 0% MARSHALL COUNTY WATER CORP OK1010848 Marshall 1,616 100% 0% 0% MAYSVILLE OK1010807 Garvin 700 100% 0% 0% MCCLAIN CO RWD # 8 OK2004711 McClain 647 0% 0% 100% MILL CREEK OK2003501 Johnston 575 0% 0% 100% MURRAY CO RWD # 1 OK2005012 Murray 764 0% 0% 100% NORGE WATER CO OK3002601 Grady --- --- --- --- OAKLAND OK3004513 Marshall --- --- --- --- OAKVIEW WATER CORP OK2004506 Marshall 310 0% 100% 0% PAOLI OK2002502 Garvin --- --- --- --- PAULS VALLEY OK1010808 Garvin 5,354 100% 0% 0% RATLIFF CITY OK3001004 Carter 244 0% 100% 0% RAVIA OK2003504 Johnston 149 0% 100% 0% RINGLING OK2003404 Jefferson 233 0% 100% 0% RUSH SPRINGS OK2002609 Grady 137 0% 100% 0% SOUTHERN OKLA WATER CORP OK1010830 Carter 530 36% 64% 0% STEPHENS CO RW&SD #1 OK2006906 Stephens 55 0% 100% 0% STEPHENS CO RWD #4 (LOCO) OK2006904 Stephens 160 --- 100% --- STEPHENS CO RWD #5 OK2006969 Stephens 640 0% 100% 0% SULPHUR OK2005001 Murray 1,377 0% 0% 100% TERRAL OK2003405 Jefferson 25 --- --- 100% THACKERVILLE OK2004303 Love 299 0% 96% 4% TISHOMINGO WTP OK1010815 Johnston 1,144 45% 55% 0% VERDEN OK4002619 Grady 212 --- --- 100% WAYNE OK2004702 McClain 105 0% 0% 100% WEST DAVIS RWD OK3005004 Murray 135 0% 100% 0% WESTERN CARTER CO WATER CORP OK2001003 Carter 57 0% 100% 0% WILSON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OK2001001 Carter 160 0% 100% 0% WYNNEWOOD WATER & LIGHT OK1010812 Garvin 600 0% 0% 100% 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System32 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan OCWP Water Provider Survey Lower Washita Region Town of Alex (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines; Upgrade water treatment plant. Anadarko WTP (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Fort Cobb MCD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage tank; add membrane to WTP. Arbuckle MCD Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new primary source pipeline for Sulphur municipal water supply. City of Ardmore (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Mountain Lake/City Lake, Lake Jean Neustadt, Lake Scott King Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Binger PWA (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Bryan County RWS & SWMD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Blue River, Eagle Lake Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage tanks. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: construct new reservoir or additional wells. Buckhorn RWD (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Murray County District 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add and replace distribution system lines. Town of Byars (McClain County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Caddo County RWD 1 (Lookeba) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Cement (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Grady County RWD 7 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage tank. City of Chickasha (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Ft. Cobb MCD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system distribution system lines; add storage tanks; refurbish existing water tanks. Supply: seeking long-term source. Town of Cornish (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: town of Ringling. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Cyril (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: RWD 3 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. City of Davis (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Honey Creek Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; construct new WTP. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: refurbish or drill wells; add storage. Town of Dougherty (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Murray County 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage tower fencing; refurbish storage tower; replace water meters. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage; new WTP. Elmore City (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Pauls Valley/Lake Longmire, Elmore City RWC, groundwater. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Elmore City RWC (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary sources: Pauls Valley PWA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garvin County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garvin County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: City of Lindsay Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. 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. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 33 OCWP Water Provider Survey Lower Washita Region Garvin County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Pauls Valley Municipal Authority Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garvin County RWD 6 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Gerty Sands Aquifer Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells; add storage. Long-Term Needs New supply source: Oscar aquifer. Infrastructure improvements: add additional wells to Oscar. Garvin County RWD 6 (SW Purchase) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Wynnewood Short-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Gracemont PWA (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Grady County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Grady County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater, Grady County RWD 6 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage. Grady County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs None identified. Grady County RWD 6 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Cities of Chickasha and Tuttle Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe (Tuttle area). Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Grady County RWD 7 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Town of Healdton (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Healdton Municipal Lake, groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well (Oscar aquifer). Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well; add storage. Johnston County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle-Simpson) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional well; add distribution lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells; add storage. Kingston PWA (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater; Marshall County Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Leon RWD 1 (Love County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Lindsay PWA (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Lone Grove (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: redrill well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add storage. City of Madill (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City Lake, Carter Lake, Hauani Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Mannsville PWA (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Antlers Sandstone aquifer) Emergency source: Marshall County Water Corp. Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: add storage; drill additional wells. Marietta RWD (Love County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; replace distribution system lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; replace distribution system lines; add storage. Marlow PWA (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs None identified. Marshall County Water Corp. Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lakes Rex Smith, Oteaka and Ruel Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Maysville (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Maysville Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage and booster stations; new WTP. McClain County RWD 8 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add storage. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Mill Creek (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle-Simpson) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: refurbish water tower. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional well; replace water main lines and cut-off valves. Murray County 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Norge Water Co. (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Chickasha Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs None identified.34 Lower Washita Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan OCWP Water Provider Survey Lower Washita Region Town of Oakland (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Madill Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Oakview Water Corp. (Marshall County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Paoli (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Pauls Valley (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: R.C. Longmire Lake and Valley City Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: upsize raw water line; add storage Ratliff City (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Western Carter County Water & Sewer Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Ravia (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: surface water Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. Town of Ringling (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines; add storage; drill additional wells. Town of Rush Springs (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Southern Oklahoma Water Corp. (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arbuckle Lake, Lake Murray, groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Stephens County RW & SD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Stephens County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: Jefferson County RWD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: refurbish additional well. Long-Term Needs None identified. Stephens County RWD 5 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: City of Duncan Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. City of Sulphur (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace portion of water main lines; replace pump station pump. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add pump station; refurbish existing wells. Town of Terral PWA (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater, Jefferson County RWD 1 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Thackerville (Love County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Tishomingo WTP (Johnston County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Pennington Creek Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: add pump and valves in distribution system; upgrade water treatment plant. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. Town of Verden (Grady County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New supply source: groundwater (Rush Springs aquifer). Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; add storage and standpipe. Town of Wayne (McClain County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Emergency source: McClain County RWD 8 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. West Davis RWD (Murray County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: city of Davis Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells; replace distribution system lines; add storage. Western Carter County Water Corp. Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater, City of Davis. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Wilson Municipal Authority (Carter County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Oscar B aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvement: drill additional wells. Wynnewood Water & Light (Garvin County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lake Arbuckle Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Washita Regional Report 35 Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water. Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level. More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region. Infrastructure Cost Summary Lower Washita Region Provider System Category1 Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars) Present - 2020 2021 - 2040 2041 - 2060 Total Period Small $375 $202 $36 $613 Medium $824 $933 $212 $1,969 Large $0 $0 $0 $0 Reservoir2 $0 $7 $222 $229 Total $1,199 $1,142 $470 $2,811 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 $2.8 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure needs of the Lower • Washita region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur within the next 20 years. Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 75 percent of the providers’ estimated • infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects. Medium-sized providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.• Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoir comprise approximately eight percent of the total costs.• 36 Lower Washita Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Supply Options Limitations Analysis For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur. Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%. The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data. Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report. Primary Options To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated. Demand Management “Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements. Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irri |
Date created | 2011-12-07 |
Date modified | 2011-12-07 |