Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region

              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