Oklahoma comprehensive water plan 2012 update. Drinking water infrastructure needs assessment by region

              Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
2012 Update
Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Assessment by Region
April 2011
Prepared by CDM under a cooperative agreement between the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board
 i
Contents
Section 1 - Executive Summary
1.1 OCWP Methodology .................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Regional Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 1-4
Section 2 - Cost Estimating Approach
2.1 Background: EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment ... 2-1
2.2 OCWP Regional Cost Development ......................................................... 2-2
2.2.1 OCWP Method: A General Overview ......................................... 2-3
2.2.2 OCWP Method: Selecting Providers ......................................... 2-6
2.2.3 OCWP Method: Developing Project List ................................... 2-7
2.2.4 OCWP Method: Summation of Projects ................................... 2-9
Section 3 - Summary of Regional Water Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs
Section 4 - Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
4.1 Beaver-Cache – Regional Description .................................................... 4-1
4.2 Beaver-Cache – Developing Project Lists ............................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Beaver-Cache – Large Water Providers ................................... 4-1
4.2.1.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 4-1
4.2.1.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 4-2
4.2.1.3 Summary ................................................................ 4-2
4.2.2 Beaver-Cache – Medium Water Providers .............................. 4-3
4.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 4-3
4.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 4-4
4.2.2.3 Summary ................................................................ 4-4
4.2.3 Beaver-Cache – Small Water Providers ................................... 4-5
4.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 4-6
4.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 4-7
4.2.3.3 Summary ................................................................ 4-8
4.3 Beaver-Cache – Regional Major Reservoir Projects .............................. 4-9
4.4 Beaver-Cache – Regional Cost Summary ............................................. 4-10
Section 5 - Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
5.1 Blue Boggy – Regional Description ......................................................... 5-1
5.2 Blue Boggy – Developing Project Lists ................................................... 5-1
5.2.1 Blue Boggy – Large Water Providers ....................................... 5-1
5.2.2 Blue Boggy – Medium Water Providers ................................... 5-1
5.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 5-2
5.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 5-3
5.2.2.3 Summary ................................................................ 5-3
5.2.3 Blue Boggy – Small Water Providers ....................................... 5-4
Contents
 ii
5.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 5-5
5.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 5-6
5.2.3.3 Summary ................................................................ 5-7
5.3 Blue Boggy – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ................................... 5-8
5.4 Blue Boggy – Regional Cost Summary.................................................... 5-8
Section 6 - Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
6.1 Central – Regional Description ............................................................... 6-1
6.2 Central – Developing Project Lists .......................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 Central – Large Water Providers .............................................. 6-1
6.2.1.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 6-2
6.2.1.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 6-3
6.2.1.3 Summary ................................................................ 6-3
6.2.2 Central – Medium Water Providers ......................................... 6-4
6.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 6-6
6.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 6-7
6.2.2.3 Summary ................................................................ 6-9
6.2.3 Central – Small Water Providers ............................................ 6-10
6.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 6-12
6.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 6-13
6.2.3.3 Summary .............................................................. 6-14
6.3 Central – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ....................................... 6-14
6.4 Central – Regional Cost Summary ........................................................ 6-16
Section 7 - Eufaula Regional Infrastructure Costs
7.1 Eufaula – Regional Description ............................................................... 7-1
7.2 Eufaula – Developing Project Lists ......................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 Eufaula – Large Water Providers ............................................. 7-1
7.2.2 Eufaula – Medium Water Providers ......................................... 7-1
7.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 7-2
7.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 7-4
7.2.2.3 Summary ................................................................ 7-4
7.2.3 Eufaula – Small Water Providers ............................................. 7-5
7.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 7-7
7.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 7-8
7.2.3.3 Summary ................................................................ 7-9
7.3 Eufaula – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ....................................... 7-10
7.4 Eufaula – Regional Cost Summary ....................................................... 7-11
Section 8 - Grand Regional Infrastructure Costs
8.1 Grand – Regional Description ................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Grand – Developing Project Lists ............................................................ 8-1
Contents
 iii
8.2.1 Grand – Large Water Providers ................................................ 8-1
8.2.2 Grand – Medium Water Providers ........................................... 8-1
8.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 8-3
8.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 8-3
8.2.2.3 Summary ................................................................ 8-4
8.2.3 Grand – Small Water Providers................................................ 8-5
8.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 8-7
8.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 8-8
8.2.3.3 Summary ................................................................ 8-8
8.3 Grand – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ........................................... 8-9
8.4 Grand – Regional Cost Summary .......................................................... 8-11
Section 9 - Lower Arkansas Regional Infrastructure Costs
9.1 Lower Arkansas – Regional Description ................................................. 9-1
9.2 Lower Arkansas – Developing Project Lists ........................................... 9-1
9.2.1 Lower Arkansas – Large Water Providers ............................... 9-1
9.2.2 Lower Arkansas – Medium Water Providers ........................... 9-1
9.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 9-3
9.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 9-4
9.2.2.3 Summary ................................................................ 9-4
9.2.3 Lower Arkansas – Small Water Providers ............................... 9-5
9.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ....................................... 9-7
9.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ......................................... 9-8
9.2.3.3 Summary ................................................................ 9-8
9.3 Lower Arkansas – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ........................... 9-9
9.4 Lower Arkansas – Regional Cost Summary.......................................... 9-10
Section 10 - Lower Washita Regional Infrastructure Costs
10.1 Lower Washita – Regional Description ................................................. 10-1
10.2 Lower Washita – Developing Project Lists ........................................... 10-1
10.2.1 Lower Washita – Large Water Providers ............................... 10-1
10.2.2 Lower Washita – Medium Water Providers ........................... 10-1
10.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 10-3
10.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 10-3
10.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 10-5
10.2.3 Lower Washita – Small Water Providers ............................... 10-6
10.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 10-7
10.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 10-8
10.2.3.3 Summary .............................................................. 10-9
10.3 Lower Washita – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ........................ 10-10
10.4 Lower Washita – Regional Cost Summary ........................................ 10-11
Contents
 iv
Section 11 - Middle Arkansas Regional Infrastructure Costs
11.1 Middle Arkansas – Regional Description ............................................. 11-1
11.2 Middle Arkansas – Developing Project Lists ........................................ 11-1
11.2.1 Middle Arkansas – Large Water Providers ............................ 11-1
11.2.1.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 11-2
11.2.1.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 11-3
11.2.1.3 Summary .............................................................. 11-3
11.2.2 Middle Arkansas – Medium Water Providers ........................ 11-4
11.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 11-6
11.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 11-7
11.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 11-7
11.2.3 Middle Arkansas – Small Water Providers ............................ 11-8
11.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers .................................. 11-11
11.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers .................................... 11-11
11.2.3.3 Summary ........................................................... 11-12
11.3 Middle Arkansas – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ..................... 11-13
11.4 Middle Arkansas – Regional Cost Summary ..................................... 11-15
Section 12 - Panhandle Regional Infrastructure Costs
12.1 Panhandle – Regional Description ....................................................... 12-1
12.2 Panhandle – Developing Project Lists .................................................. 12-1
12.2.1 Panhandle – Large Water Providers ...................................... 12-1
12.2.2 Panhandle – Medium Water Providers ................................. 12-1
12.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 12-2
12.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 12-2
12.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 12-3
12.2.3 Panhandle – Small Water Providers ...................................... 12-4
12.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 12-5
12.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 12-5
12.2.3.3 Summary .............................................................. 12-6
12.3 Panhandle – Regional Major Reservoir Projects.................................. 12-7
12.4 Panhandle – Regional Cost Summary .................................................. 12-8
Section 13 - Southeast Regional Infrastructure Costs
13.1 Southeast – Regional Description ........................................................ 13-1
13.2 Southeast – Developing Project Lists ................................................... 13-1
13.2.1 Southeast – Large Water Providers ....................................... 13-1
13.2.2 Southeast – Medium Water Providers .................................. 13-1
13.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 13-2
13.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 13-3
13.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 13-3
Contents
 v
13.2.3 Southeast – Small Water Providers ....................................... 13-4
13.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 13-5
13.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 13-5
13.2.3.3 Summary .............................................................. 13-5
13.3 Southeast – Regional Major Reservoir Projects .................................. 13-6
13.4 Southeast – Regional Cost Summary ................................................... 13-7
Section 14 - Southwest Regional Infrastructure Costs
14.1 Southwest – Regional Description ........................................................ 14-1
14.2 Southwest – Developing Project Lists .................................................. 14-1
14.2.1 Southwest – Large Water Providers ...................................... 14-1
14.2.2 Southwest – Medium Water Providers .................................. 14-1
14.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 14-2
14.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 14-2
14.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 14-3
14.2.3 Southwest – Small Water Providers ...................................... 14-4
14.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 14-5
14.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 14-6
14.2.3.3 Summary .............................................................. 14-7
14.3 Southwest – Regional Major Reservoir Projects .................................. 14-8
14.4 Southwest – Regional Cost Summary .................................................. 14-9
Section 15 - Upper Arkansas Regional Infrastructure Costs
15.1 Upper Arkansas – Regional Description ............................................... 15-1
15.2 Upper Arkansas – Developing Project Lists ......................................... 15-1
15.2.1 Upper Arkansas – Large Water Providers ............................. 15-1
15.2.2 Upper Arkansas – Medium Water Providers ......................... 15-1
15.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 15-2
15.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 15-3
15.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 15-4
15.2.3 Upper Arkansas – Small Water Providers ............................. 15-5
15.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 15-8
15.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 15-9
15.2.3.3 Summary ........................................................... 15-10
15.3 Upper Arkansas – Regional Major Reservoir Projects ...................... 15-11
15.4 Upper Arkansas – Regional Cost Summary....................................... 15-12
Section 16 - West Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
16.1 West Central – Regional Description .................................................... 16-1
16.2 West Central – Developing Project Lists............................................... 16-1
16.2.1 West Central – Large Water Providers .................................. 16-1
16.2.2 West Central – Medium Water Providers .............................. 16-1
Contents
 vi
16.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 16-2
16.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 16-3
16.2.2.3 Summary .............................................................. 16-3
16.2.3 West Central – Small Water Providers .................................. 16-4
16.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers ..................................... 16-6
16.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers ....................................... 16-6
16.2.3.3 Summary .............................................................. 16-7
16.3 West Central – Regional Major Reservoir Projects .............................. 16-8
16.4 West Central – Regional Cost Summary ............................................... 16-9
Appendices
Appendix A OCWP Cost Models
Appendix B OCWP Project Development Worksheets
Contents
 vii
Figures
1-1 OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment Approach .... 1-2
1-2 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs ...................................................... 1-5
2-1 OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment Approach .... 2-3
2-2 Provider Selection Decision Tree ............................................................ 2-7
3-1 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs ...................................................... 3-2
4-1 Beaver-Cache Region – Large Water Providers Costs Over Time ......... 4-3
4-2 Beaver-Cache Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ..... 4-5
4-3 Beaver-Cache Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ......... 4-8
4-4 Beaver-Cache Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects
Over Time .................................................................................................. 4-9
5-1 Blue Boggy Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ......... 5-3
5-2 Blue Boggy Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time .............. 5-7
6-1 Central Region – Large Water Providers Costs Over Time .................... 6-4
6-2 Central Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ................ 6-9
6-3 Central Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time .................. 6-14
6-4 Central Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 6-15
7-1 Eufaula Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ............... 7-5
7-2 Eufaula Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ................. 7-10
7-3 Eufaula Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 7-11
8-1 Grand Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time .................. 8-5
8-2 Grand Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ...................... 8-9
8-3 Grand Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 8-10
9-1 Lower Arkansas Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over
Time .......................................................................................................... 9-4
9-2 Lower Arkansas Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ...... 9-9
9-3 Lower Arkansas Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects
Over Time ................................................................................................ 9-10
10-1 Lower Washita Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 10-5
10-2 Lower Washita Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ...... 10-9
10-3 Lower Washita Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects
Over Time ............................................................................................. 10-10
Contents
 viii
11-1 Middle Arkansas Region – Large Water Providers Costs Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 11-4
11-2 Middle Arkansas Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 11-8
11-3 Middle Arkansas Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over
Time ..................................................................................................... 11-13
11-4 Middle Arkansas Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation
Projects Over Time .............................................................................. 11-14
12-1 Panhandle Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ........ 12-3
12-2 Panhandle Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ............ 12-6
12-3 Panhandle Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 12-7
13-1 Southeast Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ......... 13-3
13-2 Southeast Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ............. 13-6
14-1 Southwest Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time ........ 14-4
14-2 Southwest Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ............. 14-7
14-3 Southwest Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 14-8
15-1 Upper Arkansas Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over
Time ........................................................................................................ 15-5
15-2 Upper Arkansas Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time . 15-10
15-3 Upper Arkansas Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects
Over Time ............................................................................................. 15-11
16-1 West Central Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time .... 16-4
16-2 West Central Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time ......... 16-8
16-3 West Central Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects
Over Time ................................................................................................ 16-9
Contents
 ix
Tables
1-1 Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by
Category .................................................................................................... 1-4
3-1 Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ................................................. 3-1
3-2 Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by Region ....................... 3-3
3-3 Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by
Category .................................................................................................... 3-3
3-4 Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure
Type ........................................................................................................... 3-5
4-1 Beaver-Cache Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ......... 4-1
4-2 Beaver-Cache Region �� Large Water Provider Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................... 4-2
4-3 Beaver-Cache Region – Medium OCWP Providers................................. 4-3
4-4 Beaver-Cache Region – Medium Water Provider Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................... 4-4
4-5 Beaver-Cache Region – Small OCWP Providers ..................................... 4-5
4-6 Beaver-Cache Region – Small Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................... 4-8
4-7 Beaver-Cache Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects ......... 4-9
4-8 Beaver-Cache Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
Summary................................................................................................. 4-10
5-1 Blue Boggy Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum .............. 5-1
5-2 Blue Boggy Region �� Medium OCWP Providers ..................................... 5-2
5-3 Blue Boggy Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................... 5-3
5-4 Blue Boggy Region – Small OCWP Providers.......................................... 5-4
5-5 Blue Boggy Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ........................................................................................................... 5-7
5-6 Blue Boggy Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects .............. 5-8
5-7 Blue Boggy Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary ..... 5-9
6-1 Central Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum .................... 6-1
6-2 Central Region – Large OCWP Providers ................................................ 6-2
6-3 Central Region – Large Water Provider Costs by Infrastructure Type .. 6-4
6-4 Central Region – Medium OCWP Providers ............................................ 6-5
6-5 Central Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ........................................................................................................... 6-9
6-6 Central Region – Small OCWP Providers .............................................. 6-10
6-7 Central Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ......................................................................................................... 6-14
6-8 Central Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects .................. 6-15
Contents
 x
6-9 Central Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary ......... 6-16
7-1 Eufaula Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum .................... 7-1
7-2 Eufaula Region – Medium OCWP Providers ........................................... 7-2
7-3 Eufaula Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ........................................................................................................... 7-4
7-4 Eufaula Region – Small OCWP Providers ............................................... 7-5
7-5 Eufaula Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ........................................................................................................... 7-9
7-6 Eufaula Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects ................. 7-10
7-7 Eufaula Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary ........ 7-12
8-1 Grand Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ...................... 8-1
8-2 Grand Region – Medium OCWP Providers.............................................. 8-2
8-3 Grand Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ........................................................................................................... 8-4
8-4 Grand Region – Small OCWP Providers .................................................. 8-5
8-5 Grand Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure Type .. 8-9
8-6 Grand Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects .................... 8-10
8-7 Grand Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary ........... 8-11
9-1 Lower Arkansas Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ...... 9-1
9-2 Lower Arkansas Region – Medium OCWP Providers ............................. 9-2
9-3 Lower Arkansas Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................... 9-4
9-4 Lower Arkansas Region – Small OCWP Providers.................................. 9-5
9-5 Lower Arkansas Region – Small Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................... 9-8
9-6 Lower Arkansas Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects ...... 9-9
9-7 Lower Arkansas Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
Summary................................................................................................. 9-11
10-1 Lower Washita Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ...... 10-1
10-2 Lower Washita Region – Medium OCWP Providers ............................. 10-2
10-3 Lower Washita Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 10-5
10-4 Lower Washita Region – Small OCWP Providers ................................. 10-6
10-5 Lower Washita Region – Small Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 10-9
10-6 Lower Washita Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects... 10-10
10-7 Lower Washita Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
Summary.............................................................................................. 10-11
11-1 Middle Arkansas Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum .. 11-1
11-2 Middle Arkansas Region – Large OCWP Providers .............................. 11-2
11-3 Middle Arkansas Region – Large Water Provider Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 11-4
11-4 Middle Arkansas Region – Medium OCWP Providers .......................... 11-5
Contents
 xi
11-5 Middle Arkansas Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 11-7
11-6 Middle Arkansas Region – Small OCWP Providers .............................. 11-8
11-7 Middle Arkansas Region – Small Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type .............................................................................. 11-12
11-8 Middle Arkansas Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation
Projects ................................................................................................ 11-14
11-9 Middle Arkansas Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
Summary.............................................................................................. 11-15
12-1 Panhandle Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ............ 12-1
12-2 Panhandle Region – Medium OCWP Providers .................................... 12-2
12-3 Panhandle Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 12-3
12-4 Panhandle Region – Small OCWP Providers ........................................ 12-4
12-5 Panhandle Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ......................................................................................................... 12-6
12-6 Panhandle Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects ............ 12-7
12-7 Panhandle Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary ... 12-8
13-1 Southeast Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ............. 13-1
13-2 Southeast Region – Medium OCWP Providers ..................................... 13-2
13-3 Southeast Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 13-3
13-4 Southeast Region – Small OCWP Providers ......................................... 13-4
13-5 Southeast Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ......................................................................................................... 13-6
13-6 Southeast Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects ............. 13-7
13-7 Southeast Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary .... 13-7
14-1 Southwest Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ............. 14-1
14-2 Southwest Region – Medium OCWP Providers .................................... 14-2
14-3 Southwest Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 14-3
14-4 Southwest Region – Small OCWP Providers ........................................ 14-4
14-5 Southwest Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure
Type ......................................................................................................... 14-7
14-6 Southwest Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects............. 14-8
14-7 Southwest Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary .... 14-9
15-1 Upper Arkansas Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum .... 15-1
15-2 Upper Arkansas Region – Medium OCWP Providers ........................... 15-2
15-3 Upper Arkansas Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 15-4
15-4 Upper Arkansas Region – Small OCWP Providers................................ 15-5
15-5 Upper Arkansas Region – Small Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type .............................................................................. 15-10
Contents
 xii
15-6 Upper Arkansas Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects . 15-11
15-7 Upper Arkansas Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
Summary.............................................................................................. 15-12
16-1 West Central Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum ......... 16-1
16-2 West Central Region – Medium OCWP Providers ................................ 16-2
16-3 West Central Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 16-4
16-4 West Central Region – Small OCWP Providers ..................................... 16-5
16-5 West Central Region – Small Water Providers Costs by
Infrastructure Type ................................................................................. 16-7
16-6 West Central Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Projects ......... 16-8
16-7 West Central Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost
Summary.............................................................................................. 16-10
Contents
 xiii
Acronyms
AF acre-foot
AFY acre-feet per year
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
DWINS Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GWUDI groundwater under the direct influence
LF linear feet
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
O&M operations and maintenance
OCWP Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board
PWA Public Works Authority
RWD Rural Water District
RWS & SWMD Rural Water System and Surface Water
Management District
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
WTP water treatment plant
A 1-1
Section 1
Executive Summary
As part of the update to the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP), Camp Dresser
& McKee Inc. (CDM) prepared cost estimates to meet the drinking water infrastructure
needs for the next 50 years. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur
within this extended period, it is necessary to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude
level, the long range costs of providing potable water to the state's citizens, industries, and
farmers. The results of this study identify needs that individual providers may be unable to
meet without assistance. Meeting the drinking water needs for the next 50 years requires
support and funding assistance by various state and federal agencies.
In this study, project cost estimates are developed for a selection of existing water
providers. These costs are weighted, using a methodology similar to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) system for determining national drinking water
infrastructure costs, to develop 13 regional cost estimates. The regional cost estimates
then are summed to provide a statewide cost estimate to meet drinking water needs for
the next 50 years.
This report is organized in three main sections. Section 1 serves as an introduction and a
summary of the study and includes abbreviated description of methodology and results.
Section 2 provides a detailed description of the methodology used to develop cost
estimates. This section includes lists of assumptions made, types of projects included or
excluded by the study, and sources used to develop projects and costs. Section 3
summarizes the regional and statewide cost estimates developed as part of this task.
Sections 4 through 16 provide details about each of the regional cost estimates. These
provide comprehensive information on selected providers, project lists used, and other
information used to develop the regional cost estimates.
1.1 OCWP Methodology
The OCWP methodology is similar to EPA's methodology presented in the report 2009
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey [DWINS] and Assessment: Fourth Report to
Congress. In this OCWP report, the term "2007 DWINS" is used to encompass the EPA
method, cost models, and results associated with the most recent survey. This task uses
the 13 regions, developed as part of other OCWP tasks, as the basis for developing cost
estimates. Figure 1-1 illustrates the OCWP method.
Section 1
Executive Summary
A 1-2
Equations 1-1 and 1-2 represent the summation equations used to calculate regional
costs.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type and by Stratum =
Number of Systems in Stratum / Number of System Sampled * Sum of Project Costs
for Systems Sampled by Infrastructure Type
Equation 1-1 Cost by Infrastructure Type and by Stratum (or Size)
Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Stratum = Sum of Drinking Water
Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type and by Stratum
Equation 1-2 Cost by Region for Stratum
A few of the key similarities between the OCWP and 2007 DWINS methodologies include
the following:
 The OCWP study used the same definition for small, medium, and large systems.
Categorization of water providers was based on projected 2060 population and project
size was based on projected 2060 total demands including retail, system losses, and
sales (more information on projections may be found in the Water Demand Forecast
Report available on the Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB] website).
Figure 1-1. OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment Approach
Select water supply provider for modeling
Develop project list for selected provider
Calculate costs for projects using cost
models or available information
Sum project costs by infrastructure type
Apply weighting equation to calculate
regional cost by infrastructure type
Apply summation equation to calculate regional cost
Using major reservoir list by region,
develop rehabilitation project list
Calculate costs for projects using
cost models
Sum project costs to calculate regional
cost for major reservoir projects
For Small, Medium, & Large Providers: For Reservoir Projects:
Section 1
Executive Summary
A 1-3
 The OCWP study used the same infrastructure type classification of distribution and
transmission, treatment, storage, source, and other. Generally, the definitions of each
category are the same between the 2007 DWINS and this study.
 The OCWP study used the same source water classification.
 The OCWP study used the same definition of project costs.
 The OCWP study used the same 2007 DWINS cost models except when EPA cost
models were unavailable.
 The OCWP study excluded all new reservoir projects similar to the 2007 DWINS. While
new reservoirs are a key part of meeting current and future water supply needs for
Oklahoma, the cost associated with developing new reservoirs depends significantly
on the local decisions. These decisions include whether to oversize for recreation,
aesthetic or environmental reasons, comparison between cost and reliability, and
location.
A few of the key differences between the OCWP and 2007 DWINS methodologies are
listed below:
 The OCWP study included all types of projects, not just those eligible for Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program. Examples of projects that were
included in the OCWP study but not in the 2007 DWINS are dam and reservoir
rehabilitation projects and projects specifically for new growth. Cost were split into
DWSRF eligible and non-eligible categories to help define the level of financial support
that could be potentially be sought by applicants for DWSRF loans administered by
OWRB.
 The OCWP study used a 50-year planning horizon compared to the 20-year planning
period for the 2007 DWINS.
 The OCWP study included projects that have been funded since the 2007 and 2008
surveys.
 The OCWP study developed project lists for selected providers while the 2007 DWINS
relied on projects submitted by each survey respondent.
Section 2 of this report provides more information on the methodology developed for
estimating drinking water infrastructure costs.
1.2 Regional Cost Estimates
Fifty-five of the 776 OCWP providers were selected for cost modeling. OCWP providers are
those included in the 2008 OCWP survey and for which water demand projections were
created. The selected providers, using the methodology outlined above and described in
Section 1
Executive Summary
A 1-4
detail in Section 2 of the report, were used to calculate the infrastructure costs of the
region and state.
Across the state, approximately $38 billion (in 2007 dollars) is required to meet the
drinking water infrastructure needs for the next 50 years. Figure 1-2 illustrates the total
drinking water infrastructure costs to meet the water needs until 2060 by region. The
Central region has the largest need, comprising over 31 percent of the state's need.
Middle Arkansas has the second largest need, comprising nearly 17 percent.
Table 1-1 illustrates the costs by size category and period. Small providers have the
largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs comprising nearly 46 percent of the
state's need. The largest infrastructure costs occur in the 2041 – 2060 period.
Table 1-1 Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by Category
Category A
Potential
Funding
Source B
Present - 2020
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2021-2040
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2041-2060
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Total Period
Infrastructure
Need (millions of
2007 dollars) C
Small DWSRF
Eligible
$3,400 $4,990 $8,730 $17,120
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$40 $70 $70 $180
Small Subtotal $3,440 $5,060 $8,800 $17,300
Medium DWSRF
Eligible
$4,320 $4,050 $6,120 $14,490
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$50 $60 $60 $170
Medium Subtotal $4,370 $4,110 $6,180 $14,660
Large DWSRF
Eligible
$1,720 $1,170 $1,690 $4,580
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$50 $20 $20 $90
Large Subtotal $1,770 $1,190 $1,710 $4,670
Reservoir DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$100 $250 $810 $1,160
Reservoir Subtotal $100 $250 $810 $1,160
Total $9,680 $10,610 $17,500 $37,790
A. Large systems are those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems are those serving between 3,301
and 100,000 people and small systems are those serving 3,300 and fewer people. The "reservoir" category
includes all regional reservoir rehabilitation projects.
B This study assumes that distribution projects for new growth and all reservoir projects are non-DWSRF eligible.
All other projects were assumed to be DWSRF eligible. Cost were split into these categories to help define the
level of financial support that could be potentially be sought by applicants for DWSRF loans administered by
OWRB.
C Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Section 1
Executive Summary
A 1-5
Figure 1-2. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
 2-1
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
As part of the update to the OCWP, CDM prepared construction cost estimates to meet the
drinking water infrastructure needs for the next 50 years. This section provides detailed
information on the cost estimating methodology used in this study. This section begins
with a description of the EPA system for determining national drinking water infrastructure.
This subsection provides a foundation of knowledge, since the OCWP method is similar to
the EPA system. Next, this section describes the OCWP cost estimating approach. This
subsection includes a comparison to the EPA system, assumptions made, and sources of
information.
2.1 Background: EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Assessment
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to periodically assess the needs of the nation's
water systems and use the results for allocating the DWSRF. Since the first survey was
completed in 1994/1995, EPA has made changes to improve and more accurately reflect
the 20-year costs of infrastructure needs.
The most recent EPA survey was completed in 2007. The report 2009 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fourth Report to Congress presents the
methodology utilized by EPA to determine water needs and results from the survey. When
cost estimates were unavailable, EPA utilized cost models to estimate the project costs.
The report 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Modeling
the Cost of Infrastructure (cost models) documents these cost models. In this OCWP
report, the term "2007 DWINS" is used to reference the actual survey and all
documentation related specifically to this survey. The 2007 DWINS is the basis for the
OCWP cost estimating methodology.
To develop the water infrastructure costs, EPA sent a survey requesting drinking water
infrastructure needs information to all large providers and a statistically significant portion
of medium providers in each state. For small providers, EPA sent qualified personnel to
complete surveys at a statistically significant portion of small systems across the country.
The surveys collected project descriptions and cost estimates if available. Project costs
provided in the survey were adjusted to reflect January 2007 dollars. Projects are limited
to water system needs eligible for DWSRF program.
The cost models were primarily based on project costs received through the 2007 DWINS
survey. The cost models are appropriate for developing estimates of drinking water
infrastructure costs on a broad basis but should not be used to estimate the cost of
specific projects for individual systems for planning or financing purposes. The cost
models utilize minimal project information that is generally available, such as design
capacity and pipeline size. The cost models provide cost in January 2007 dollars.
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-2
The description below focuses on the large, medium, and small community water systems
portion of the 2007 DWINS. EPA defined large systems as those serving more than
100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people,
and small systems as those serving 3,300 and fewer people. Community water systems
are defined as public water systems that serve at least 15 connections used by year-round
residents or that regularly serve at least 25 residents year-round.
To develop the state need for large water systems, EPA summed all eligible project costs
received. The simple method, shown in Equation 2-1, is possible since all large systems
were surveyed.
Large System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Sum of Project Costs for
Systems Surveyed
Equation 2-1
EPA weighted the project costs included in the survey to determine the state need for
medium water systems. Equation 2-2 illustrates this method.
Medium System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Number of Systems in
Stratum / Number of System Sampled * Sum of Project Costs for Systems Sampled
Equation 2-2
For small systems, EPA calculated a national average small system need and multiplied it
by the number of small providers in the state to determine the state's small water system
need. This approach is shown by Equation 2-3.
Small System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Number of Systems in Stratum *
National Average Small System Need
Equation 2-3
Calculated project costs were multiplied by adjustment factors to account for regional
differences in construction costs.
Using the collected information, EPA created state level water needs. Then, EPA summed
the states' needs along with American Indian and Alaskan Native village water systems
and costs associated with proposed and recently promulgated regulations (developed
separately) to develop a national 20-year need. EPA presented the results by system size
and project type. Project types included distribution and transmission, treatment, storage,
source, and other.
2.2 OCWP Regional Cost Development
This section describes the details of the OCWP approach. It starts with a general
description and comparison with EPA's method. Then a discussion on how specific
providers were selected and sources of information is incorporated. Finally, this section
discusses how project lists were developed and provides a list of common assumptions
necessary to estimate costs.
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-3
2.2.1 OCWP Method: A General Overview
The OCWP method is similar to EPA's 2007 DWINS approach in many ways with only a few
key differences. This task used the 13 regions, developed as part of other OCWP tasks, as
the basis for developing cost estimates. Figure 2-1 illustrates the OCWP method. Several
of these topics are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
Equations 2-4 through 2-11 are used to calculate regional and state level costs.
Large System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type = Sum of
Project Costs for Systems Surveyed by Infrastructure Type
Equation 2-4 Large System Cost by Infrastructure Type
Large System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Sum of Large System Drinking
Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type
Equation 2-5 Large System Cost by Region
Medium System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type =
Number of Systems in Stratum / Number of System Sampled * Sum of Project Costs
for Systems Sampled by Infrastructure Type
Equation 2-6 Medium System Cost by Infrastructure Type
Figure 2-1. OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment Approach
Select water supply provider for modeling
Develop project list for selected provider
Calculate costs for projects using cost
models or available information
Sum project costs by infrastructure type
Apply weighting equation to calculate
regional cost by infrastructure type
Apply summation equation to calculate regional cost
Using major reservoir list by region,
develop rehabilitation project list
Calculate costs for projects using
cost models
Sum project costs to calculate regional
cost for major reservoir projects
For Small, Medium, & Large Providers: For Reservoir Projects:
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-4
Medium System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Sum of Medium System
Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type
Equation 2-7 Medium System Cost by Region
Small System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type = Number
of Systems in Stratum / Number of System Sampled * Sum of Project Costs for
Systems Sampled by Infrastructure Type
Equation 2-8 Small System Cost by Infrastructure Type
Small System Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Sum of Small System Drinking
Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type
Equation 2-9 Small System Cost by Region
Regional Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Sum of Small, Medium and Large
Systems Sampled by Infrastructure Type + Sum of Regional Reservoir Projects
Equation 2-10 Regional Level Cost
State Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs = Sum of Regional Drinking Water
Infrastructure Costs
Equation 2-11 State Level Costs
Similarities between the OCWP and 2007 DWINS methodologies include the following:
 The OCWP study used the same definition for small, medium and large systems.
Categorization of water providers was based on projected 2060 population and project
size is based on projected 2060 total demands including retail, system losses, and
sales (more information on projections may be found in the Water Demand Forecast
Report available on the Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB] website).
 The OCWP study used the same infrastructure type classification of distribution and
transmission, treatment, storage, source and other. Generally, the definitions of each
category are the same between the 2007 DWINS and this study.
− The distribution and transmission category included all infrastructure required to
transport both raw and finished water. Typically raw water infrastructure was
called transmission while finished water infrastructure was labeled as distribution.
− The treatment category included all aspects of raw water treatment.
− The storage category included all finished water storage and only raw water
storage that are onsite and part of the treatment process.
− The source category included surface water intakes, wells, and spring collectors.
For the OCWP study, dams and reservoirs also were included as part of the source
water category.
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-5
− The other category included all projects that do not meet one of the above
category definitions.
 The OCWP study used the same source water classification. Systems are categorized
as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or groundwater
under the direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water. Systems are categorized as
groundwater if they do not have a surface water or GWUDI source. If a water system
purchased water from another provider, it was grouped with the groundwater category
(EPA, in the 1995 assessment, found that purchased water suppliers costs more
closely resembled those of groundwater systems.) The SWDIS primary source
classification determined the water supply source type.
 The OCWP study used the same definition of project costs. Cost estimates assumed
complete construction costs including engineering and design, purchase of raw
materials and equipment, construction and installation labor, and final inspection.
Costs associated with system operation and maintenance (O&M) were not included.
 The OCWP study used the same 2007 DWINS cost models except where EPA cost
models are unavailable. Documentation on source and cost is provided in the OCWP
cost model table, located in Appendix A. One example of this is dam and reservoir
rehabilitation projects.
 The OCWP study excluded all new reservoir projects similar to the 2007 DWINS. While
new reservoirs are a key part of meeting current and future water supply needs for
Oklahoma, the cost associated with developing new reservoirs depends significantly
on the local decisions. These decisions include whether to oversize for recreation,
aesthetic or environmental reasons, comparison between cost and reliability, and
location.
Differences between the OCWP and 2007 DWINS methodologies are listed below:
 The OCWP study included all types of projects, not just those eligible for DWSRF
program. Examples of projects that were included in the OCWP study but not in the
2007 DWINS are dam and reservoir rehabilitation projects and projects specifically for
new growth.
 The OCWP study used a 50-year planning horizon compared to the 20-year planning
period for the 2007 DWINS.
 The OCWP study used several sources of information including:
− Oklahoma system specific information that was available from the 2007 DWINS.
− The 2008 OCWP survey, which collected information on existing infrastructure and
planned improvements. Cost information was not collected in this survey. More
information may be found in the Provider Survey Summary Report available on the
OWRB website.
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-6
− Regional or provider water studies and master plans to supplement the above
resources.
 The OCWP project lists included drinking water infrastructure items necessary to meet
the 2060 projected annual average day water demands. This study did not evaluate
additional infrastructure that may be needed to meet the peak day demands on which
water projects typically are based. The 2007 DWINS did not distinguish between
annual average and peak day demands since participants provided project size.
 The OCWP study used incremental periods (2020, 2040, and 2060) to calculate costs.
 The OCWP study included projects that have been funded since the 2007 and 2008
surveys.
 The OCWP study developed project lists for selected providers while the 2007 DWINS
relied on projects submitted by each survey respondent. The process to select water
supply providers is discussed in Section 2.2.2 and more information is provided on the
project list development process in Section 2.2.3.
 The OCWP study did not determine Native American water demands separately,
determining instead that these needs are included through the various demand
categories encompassing the state of Oklahoma.
2.2.2 OCWP Method: Selecting Providers
Many factors were evaluated in order to select water supply providers for inclusion in the
OCWP study cost modeling. This section describes the selection process.
Starting with the OCWP water provider list for each region, providers were grouped by
stratum: large, medium, small, surface water, and groundwater. All large, surface water
providers were selected for cost modeling. There were no large, groundwater providers.
For other stratums, selecting at least one water supply provider in each stratum was the
goal. The quality and quantity of available data were the more important selection criteria.
Secondary criteria included choosing providers that were representative of each stratum
in population size served and were representative of the different counties within the
region. Figure 2-2 shows a decision tree that illustrates the selection process.
In most of the regions and in most of the stratums, there was at least one water service
provider suitable for cost modeling. Where there was not a suitable water service provider,
other methods were used to estimate costs. One example occurred in regions where there
was not a medium groundwater provider but there were medium purchased water
providers. In this situation, a neighboring region's medium groundwater stratum was used
for cost estimating. In this example, the modification was made at the regional level and
was reflected in the regional summation. Another example occurred in regions when there
was a suitable stratum provider except that this provider did not complete fully the
distribution piping section of the 2008 OCWP survey, which was necessary for project list
development. In this situation, a second water provider, similar in population size, was
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-7
used to estimate existing distribution piping size, length and age. In this example, the
modification was made at the project list level and was reflected in the worksheet.
2.2.3 OCWP Method: Developing Project List
The next cost-modeling step was developing a project list for each selected provider. To
reduce the subjectivity of this step, a list of standard assumptions was developed and
used unless better information was available.
The first step in developing the provider's project list was to incorporate the 2007 DWINS
projects. The 2007 DWINS information provided project name and basic design
information required for cost modeling. When the 2007 DWINS projects contain cost
information, it was included in the OCWP study. In this study, all 2007 DWINS projects
occurred in the present to 2020 period.
Project development worksheets for surface water and groundwater sources were
developed. Information developed as part of other OCWP tasks and provided in the 2008
OCWP survey were used to complete this form. The OCWP standard assumptions
supplemented the available information. The worksheet provides a standard method for
Figure 2-2. Provider Selection Decision Tree
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-8
estimating types of projects needed, project size, and project date. Examples of the
worksheets are in Appendix B.
In the absence of project descriptions, reasonable suppositions were made so that project
lists could be developed for individual water providers. The intent was not to make
detailed project lists but provide basic project information that enabled use of the 2007
DWINS cost models listed in Appendix A. The following items were typical of the
assumptions:
 If 2060 annual average day water demands exceed permitted water supplies, it is
assumed that the current source water will be utilized in the current proportions to
meet the 2060 demand. This task did not evaluate whether there is available supply
at the existing water sources as part of this task. Costs for wells followed EPA cost
model R1, which includes costs associated with siting, drilling, and developing a well
to completion. Costs for surface water intakes followed EPA cost model R7.
 Rehabilitation of existing major reservoirs was assumed to occur every 100 years. The
amount of storage for rehabilitation is based on the municipal water supply storage. If
unknown, the full normal pool storage was used. Reservoirs with no designated
municipal water supply storage were included in the study but show zero in the
rehabilitation column in the reservoir table in each individual region's section. The
project date is calculated from the construction date of the reservoir. The project has a
cost of $1,000 per AF of storage. This type of project was not included in the 2007
DWINS.
 EPA cost model X1 was used to determine infrastructure costs necessary to bring raw
water from the source to treatment system. To determine the parameters needed for
modeling, a single pipeline with a diameter sized to carry all of the needed capacity
and a distance of 25 miles (or 132,000 linear feet [LF]) was used. For surface water, it
was assumed that raw water pumps are required and costs for the pumps were
developed using EPA cost model R8. When a water treatment plant (WTP) project was
planned, the costs associated with raw water pumping was included in EPA cost model
T10 for the WTP project.
 For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that water treatment infrastructure
would be rehabilitated every 30 years. When water demand exceeds current treatment
capacity, additional treatment capacity to meet projected demand was included. In the
absence of more specific information, it was assumed that existing and new treatment
of surface water was in the form of a conventional filter plant. Costs for the
conventional treatment plant were determined using EPA cost model T10 for
rehabilitation/expansion of WTP. For treating groundwater, costs were determined
using EPA cost model T22 for groundwater chemical feed (no distinction between new
and rehabilitation). Other costs models were used as necessary to accommodate
different types of water treatment. If the existing treatment capacity was unknown, this
study included a rehabilitation/expansion project to meet the projected 2060 water
demands.
Section 2
Cost Estimating Approach
 2-9
 This study used EPA cost model P1 to account for finished water pumps.
 In order to estimate the needs associated with a growing distribution system
infrastructure, it was assumed that the distribution system total length grows in
proportion to population growth. Costs were calculated using EPA cost model M1 for
new distribution piping.
 It was assumed that the water system would have approximately 10 percent of their
treatment capacity in finished water storage. In the absence of more specific
information, this study used EPA cost model S2 for ground-level water storage. EPA
cost model S1 was used for elevated water storage.
 While the deterioration rate of transmission lines and distribution mains varies
considerably based on pipe material, soil conditions, and corrosiveness of the drinking
water, this study assumed that pipe would be replaced or rehabilitated every 75 years
or, stated in a different way, approximately 1.3 percent of the existing inventory would
be replaced or rehabilitated annually. Approximately 0.65 percent of pipe would be
replaced and costs determined using EPA cost model M1 for new pipe. The remaining
0.65 percent of pipe would be rehabilitated and costs determined using EPA cost
model M1 for rehabilitated pipe. This cost model included all components required for
distribution not limited to pipe, installation, hydrants, valves, and site work.
 Costs associated with purchasing water were not specifically developed. However,
water infrastructure needs associated with providers that use only purchased water
were included in the regional water needs through the use of the EPA finding that the
needs of providers that purchase water was similar to the needs of providers who
utilize groundwater.
2.2.4 OCWP Method: Summation of Projects
With completed project lists and costs, Equations 2-4 through 2-11 were used to calculate
regional and statewide drinking water infrastructure costs. The results are presented in
Section 3 of this report.
A 3-1
Section 3
Summary of Regional Drinking Water
Infrastructure Costs
Using the methodology outlined in Section 2, drinking water infrastructure cost estimates
were developed for each of the 13 regions. This section summarizes the costs. Details on
the individual regions can be found in Sections 4 through 16.
There are 776 OCWP providers in the state. OCWP providers are those included in the
2008 OCWP survey and for which water demand projections were created. Table 3-1
shows the number of water providers by stratum. Fifty-five providers were selected for cost
modeling. The selected providers' costs were extrapolated using the equations presented
in Section 2 to calculate the infrastructure costs of the region and state.
Table 3-1. Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum
Population A Surface Water B Groundwater C Total D
Large >100,000 5 0 5
Medium 3,301 – 100,000 100 100 200
Small <3,300 69 502 571
Total 174 602 776
A Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on
projections).
B Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water
or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water.
C Systems are classified as groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition above or if
they only purchase water.
D. From the time of the original survey, the number of providers has decreased due to normal
ODEQ review procedures.
Across the state, approximately $38 billion (in 2007 dollars) is required to meet the
drinking water infrastructure needs for the next 50 years. Figure 3-1 illustrates the total
drinking water infrastructure costs to meet the water needs until 2060 by region.
Table 3-2 identifies costs by region and period. The Central region has the largest need,
comprising over 31 percent of the state's need. Middle Arkansas has the second largest
need, comprising nearly 17 percent.
Section 3
Summary of Regional Water Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs
A 3-2
Figure 3-1. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Section 3
Summary of Regional Water Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs
A 3-3
Table 3-2. Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by Region
Region
Present - 2020
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2021 - 2040
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2041 - 2060
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Total Period
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)A
Beaver-Cache $740 $490 $380 $1,610
Blue Boggy $100 $360 $40 $500
Central $2,700 $990 $8,130 $11,820
Eufaula $530 $1,570 $1,030 $3,130
Grand $510 $1,040 $600 $2,150
Lower Arkansas $440 $580 $1,370 $2,390
Lower Washita $1,200 $1,140 $470 $2,810
Middle Arkansas $1,300 $1,420 $3,540 $6,260
Panhandle $340 $360 $240 $940
Southeast $280 $1,100 $640 $2,020
Southwest $400 $560 $310 $1,270
Upper Arkansas $1,040 $580 $490 $2,110
West Central $100 $430 $250 $780
Total $9,680 $10,620 $17,490 $37,790
A. Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Table 3-3 illustrates the costs by size category and period. Small providers have the
largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs comprising approximately 46 percent of
the state's need. The largest infrastructure costs occur in the 2041 – 2060 period.
Table 3-3. Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by Category
Category A Potential
Funding
Source B
Present - 2020
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2021-2040
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2041-2060
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Total Period
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)C
Small DWSRF
Eligible
$3,400 $4,990 $8,730 $17,120
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$40 $70 $70 $180
Small Subtotal $3,440 $5,060 $8,800 $17,300
Medium DWSRF
Eligible
$4,320 $4,050 $6,120 $14,490
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$50 $60 $60 $170
Medium Subtotal $4,370 $4,110 $6,180 $14,660
Large DWSRF
Eligible
$1,720 $1,170 $1,690 $4,580
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$50 $20 $20 $90
Section 3
Summary of Regional Water Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs
A 3-4
Table 3-3. Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary by Category, continued
Category A Potential
Funding
Source B
Present - 2020
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2021-2040
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2041-2060
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Total Period
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)C
Large Subtotal $1,770 $1,190 $1,710 $4,670
Reservoir DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$100 $250 $810 $1,160
Reservoir Subtotal $100 $250 $810 $1,160
Total $9,680 $10,610 $17,500 $37,790
A Large systems are those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems are those serving between 3,301
and 100,000 people and small systems are those serving 3,300 and fewer people. The "reservoir" category
includes all regional rehabilitation reservoir projects.
B This study assumes that distribution projects for new growth and all reservoir projects are non-DWSRF eligible.
All other projects were assumed to be DWSRF eligible. Cost were split into these categories to help define the
level of financial support that could be potentially be sought by applicants for DWSRF loans administered by
OWRB.
C Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Table 3-4 presents the cost by period and infrastructure type. Distribution and
transmission projects make up the majority, approximately 85 percent, of the drinking
water infrastructure costs in the state. Water treatment projects are the second most
significant infrastructure costs, comprising nearly 10 percent of the statewide total.
Section 3
Summary of Regional Water Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs
A 3-5
Table 3-4. Statewide Drinking Water Infrastructure Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period
Potential
Funding
Source A
Distribution
and
Transmission
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Major
Reservoir
Projects in
Region B
(2007 dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007
dollars) C
Present-2020 DWSRF
Eligible
$7,250 $1,480 $280 $430 $0 $0 $9,440
Non-
DWSRF
Eligible
$100 $0 $0 $0 $40 $100 $240
Present-2020
Subtotal
$7,350 $1,480 $280 $430 $40 $100 $9,680
2021-2040 DWSRF
Eligible
$9,530 $630 $20 $40 $0 $0 $10,220
Non-
DWSRF
Eligible
$150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $400
Present-2040
Subtotal
$9,680 $630 $20 $40 $0 $250 $10,620
2041-2060 DWSRF
Eligible
$14,870 $1,630 $0 $40 $0 $0 $16,540
Non-
DWSRF
Eligible
$150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $810 $960
Present-2060
Subtotal
$15,020 $1,630 $0 $40 $0 $810 $17,500
Total $32,050 $3,740 $300 $510 $40 $1,160 $37,800
A This study assumes that distribution projects for new growth and all reservoir projects are non-DWSRF eligible. All other projects were assumed to be
DWSRF eligible.
B. The "reservoir" category includes all regional rehabilitation reservoir projects.
C. Small differences in values may result from rounding.
A 4-1
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
This section provides some general information about the Beaver-Cache region, identifies
water providers selected for modeling and their project lists, and provides a cost summary
for this region.
4.1 Beaver-Cache –Regional Description
The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region is a 3,288-square-mile area in the
southwest quadrant of Oklahoma, spanning from the southern portion of Caddo County in
the north to the Red River on the south, and including all or portions of Tillman,
Comanche, Cotton, Grady, Stephens, Kiowa, and Jefferson Counties. There are 31 OCWP
providers in this region. OCWP providers are those included in the 2008 OCWP survey and
for which water demand projections were created. Table 4-1 shows the number of Beaver-
Cache water providers by stratum.
Table 4-1. Beaver-Cache Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum
Provider Size Population A Surface Water B Groundwater C Total
Large >100,000 1 0 1
Medium 3,301 – 100,000 1 3 4
Small <3,300 4 22 26
Total 6 25 31
A Population classification was based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more
details on projections).
B Systems were classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water.
C Systems were classified as groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary
source of water is purchased from another provider.
4.2 Beaver-Cache – Developing Project Lists
Four providers were used for cost modeling. The following sections discuss the project lists
for each of these providers.
4.2.1 Beaver-Cache – Large Water Providers
The Beaver-Cache region has one large surface water OCWP provider.
4.2.1.1 Surface Water Providers
The City of Lawton participated in the 2007 DWINS and the 2008 OCWP survey. Using the
methodology described in Section 2.2, a project list was created.
Source Water Projects
No source water projects were identified in the 2007 DWINS. Using the project list
worksheet, two surface water intake rehabilitation projects for Lake Ellsworth and Lake
Lawtonka were included in the OCWP study.
Treatment Projects
A 40-million-gallons-per-day (mgd) conventional WTP rehabilitation project was identified
in the 2007 DWINS. Using the project list worksheet, a new 10-mgd conventional WTP
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-2
project in 2040 and rehabilitation of a 40-mgd WTP in 2060 were included in the OCWP
study.
Storage Projects
Approximately 11 million-gallon (MG) finished water rehabilitation projects were identified
in the 2007 DWINS. No other projects were identified using the project list worksheet.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
Rehabilitation of two 25-mgd, one from each source identified above, and a new 10-mgd
raw water transmission lines were identified using the project list worksheet. No
transmission lines were identified in the 2007 DWINS.
Many distribution projects were identified in the 2007 DWINS and project list worksheet.
Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines, installation of new
pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth, replacement of water meters, replacement
of lead service lines, and rehabilitation of booster pump stations.
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
4.2.1.2 Groundwater Providers
There were no large groundwater providers in this region.
4.2.1.3 Summary
Table 4-2 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Beaver-Cache large
provider stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 4-1 illustrates the drinking water costs over
time.
Table 4-2. Beaver-Cache Region – Large Water Provider Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$103 $50 $3 $4 $0 $160
2021-
2040
$64 $21 $0 $0 $0 $85
2041-
2060
$24 $50 $0 $0 $0 $74
Total $191 $121 $3 $4 $0 $319
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-3
4.2.2 Beaver-Cache – Medium Water Providers
The Beaver-Cache region has four medium OCWP water providers. Information about each
of these providers is shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Beaver-Cache Region – Medium OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK3001602 Comanche Co
RWD #1
Comanche SWP No Yes 3,536 No
OK3001654 Comanche Co
RWD #4
Comanche SWP No No 4,419 No
OK3003401 Jefferson Co
Cons RWD #1
Jefferson SWP No Yes 4,595 No
OK1011401 Frederick Tillman SW No Yes 5,935 Yes
A SW – Surface Water, GW – Groundwater, P – Purchased Water, GU – Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water. Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (SW and GW designations). Systems are classified as
groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary source of water is purchased from another
provider (GW, SWP, and GWP designations).
B Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on projections).
4.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers
There is one medium surface water provider in the Beaver-Cache region. The City of
Frederick participated in the 2008 OCWP survey. Using the methodology described in
Section 2.2, a project list was created.
Figure 4-1. Beaver-Cache Region – Large Water Providers Costs Over Time
$160
$85
$74
Present‐2020
2021‐2040
2041‐2060
All cost in millions of 2007 dollars
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-4
Source Water Projects
Using the project list worksheet, two surface water intake rehabilitation projects for Lake
Frederick and Tom Steed Reservoir were included in the OCWP study.
Treatment Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 2-mgd WTP in 2040 was included in the
OCWP study.
Storage Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 0.2 MG of finished water storage tank
was included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
Rehabilitation of two raw water transmission lines, one from each source identified above,
with a total capacity of 3.5 mgd, was identified using the project list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet. Projects included
rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and installation of new pipelines to
accommodate anticipated growth.
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
4.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers
Three medium providers are grouped in this category because they primarily purchase
water. However, since there was not a provider suitable for cost modeling, the Lower
Washita region was used to estimate the cost for this stratum.
4.2.2.3 Summary
Table 4-4 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Beaver-Cache medium
provider stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 4-2 illustrates the drinking water costs over
time.
Table 4-4. Beaver-Cache Region – Medium Water Provider Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$37 $1 $2 $0 $0 $40
2021-
2040
$246 $6 $0 $2 $0 $254
2041-
2060
$12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12
Total $295 $7 $2 $2 $0 $306
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-5
4.2.3 Beaver-Cache – Small Water Providers
The Beaver-Cache region has 26 small OCWP water providers. Information about each of
these providers is shown in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5. Beaver-Cache Region – Small OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK2000806 Apache Caddo GW No Yes 1,892 Yes
OK2001601 Sterling
PWA
Comanche GW No Yes 960 No
OK2001602 Comanche
Co RWD #3
Comanche SWP No No 998 No
OK2001604 Comanche
Co RWD #2
Comanche GW No No 867 No
OK2001607 Cache Comanche GW No No 2,992 No
OK2001608 Chattanooga
PWS
Comanche GW No Yes 688 No
OK2001609 Indiahoma Comanche SWP No Yes 435 No
OK2001610 Elgin PWS Comanche GW No Yes 1,881 No
Figure 4-2. Beaver-Cache Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-6
Table 4-5. Beaver-Cache Region – Small OCWP Providers, continued
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK2001612 Fletcher Comanche GW No No 1,289 No
OK3001603 Medicine
Park
Comanche SWP No Yes 460 No
OK3001675 Faxon Comanche GWP No No 172 No
OK3001680 Geronimo Comanche SWP No No 1,203 No
OK1011305 Walters Cotton SW No Yes 3,010 No
OK1011306 Temple Cotton SW No Yes 1,263 No
OK2001702 Cotton Co
RWD #2
Cotton GW No No 2,201 No
OK3001701 Devol Cotton GWP No Yes 160 No
OK3001702 Cotton Co
RWD # 1
Cotton GWP No No 660 No
OK1011201 Waurika
PWA
Jefferson SW No Yes 2,441 No
OK3003405 Ryan Jefferson SWP No No 986 No
OK1011101 Comanche
PW
Stephens SW No Yes 1,821 Yes
OK2006905 Stephens Co
RWD #3
(Meridian)
Stephens GW No Yes 1,722 No
OK2007102 Hollister Tillman GWP No No 60 No
OK2007103 Grandfield Tillman SWP No Yes 1,275 No
OK2007104 Davidson Tillman SWP No No 426 No
OK2007107 Tillman Co
RWD #1
Tillman SWP No Yes 1,676 No
OK3007101 Manitou Tillman SWP No Yes 317 No
A SW – Surface Water, GW – Groundwater, P – Purchased Water, GU – Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water. Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (SW and GW designations). Systems are classified as
groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary source of water is purchased from another
provider (GW, SWP, and GWP designations).
B Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on projections).
4.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers
There are four small surface water providers in the Beaver-Cache region. The Comanche
Public Works participated in the 2008 OCWP survey and was selected for modeling. Using
the methodology described in Section 2.2, a project list was created.
Source Water Projects
Using the project list worksheet, one surface water intake rehabilitation projects for
Comanche Lake was included in the OCWP study.
Treatment Projects
Using the project list worksheet, a 1.9-mgd WTP rehabilitation in 2040 was included in the
OCWP study.
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-7
Storage Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 0.2 MG of finished water storage tank
was included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
Rehabilitation of one raw water transmission line with a capacity of 1.9 mgd was identified
using the project list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet. Projects included
rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and installation of new pipelines to
accommodate anticipated growth.
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
4.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers
There are 22 small providers in this category; 13 of these primarily purchase water. The
City of Apache was selected for cost modeling. Apache participated in the 2008 OCWP
survey. Using the methodology described in Section 2.2, a project list was created.
Source Water Projects
Using the project list worksheet, a well rehabilitation project for 0.21 mgd was included in
the OCWP study. The project date was based on the average age of Apache's existing
wells.
Treatment Projects
Using the project list worksheet, a 0.21-mgd groundwater chemical treatment was
included in the OCWP study. Information on Apache's existing treatment technology was
unknown.
Storage Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 0.02 MG of finished water storage tank
was included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
Rehabilitation of one raw water transmission line with a capacity of 0.21 mgd was
identified using the project list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet. Projects included
rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and installation of new pipelines to
accommodate anticipated growth. In addition, a 0.21 pumping project was included in the
OCWP study.
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-8
4.2.3.3 Summary
Table 4-6 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Beaver-Cache small
provider stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 4-3 illustrates the drinking water costs over
time.
Table 4-6. Beaver-Cache Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$471 $5 $1 $1 $0 $478
2021-
2040
$123 $23 $1 $0 $0 $147
2041-
2060
$295 $0 $0 $0 $0 $295
Total $889 $28 $2 $1 $0 $920
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Figure 4-3. Beaver-Cache Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time
Figure 4-3. Beaver-Cache Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-9
4.3 Beaver-Cache – Regional Major Reservoir Projects
There are six major reservoirs in the Beaver-Cache region. Table 4-7 identifies the
reservoirs and project size. Figure 4-4 illustrates project cost over time.
Table 4-7. Beaver-Cache Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation
Projects
Reservoir Name
Storage Considered
for Rehabilitation A
(AF) Project Year
Comanche Lake 2,500 2060
Dave Boyer Lake 936 2040
Lake Ellsworth 68,700 2080
Lake Frederick 9,663 2080
Lake Lawtonka 64,000 2020
Waurika Lake 167,600 2080
A The amount of storage for rehabilitation is based on the municipal
water supply storage. If unknown, the full normal pool storage was
used. Reservoirs with no designated municipal water supply storage
were included in the study but show zero in the rehabilitation column.
Figure 4-4. Beaver-Cache Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation Costs Over Time
Section 4
Beaver-Cache Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 4-10
4.4 Beaver-Cache – Regional Cost Summary
This section presents the Beaver-Cache regional drinking water infrastructure costs over
the next 50 years. Table 4-8 identifies costs by provider size and project year. Distribution
and transmission projects make up the majority, over 85 percent, of the infrastructure
costs with water treatment and source water projects in distant second and third places,
respectively. Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.
The largest infrastructure costs occur within the next 20 years.
Table 4-8 Beaver-Cache Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
Category A, C
Potential
Funding
Source B
Present - 2020
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2021-2040
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2041-2060
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Total Period
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Small DWSRF
Eligible
$480 $140 $290 $910
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Small
Subtotal
$480 $140 $290 $910
Medium DWSRF
Eligible
$40 $250 $10 $300
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Medium
Subtotal
$40 $250 $10 $300
Large DWSRF
Eligible
$160 $80 $70 $310
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Large
Subtotal
$160 $80 $70 $310
Reservoir DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$60 $0 $0 $60
Reservoir
Subtotal
$60 $0 $0 $60
Total $740 $470 $370 $1,580
A See Table 4-1 for more information on provider size. The "reservoir" category includes all regional
reservoir rehabilitation projects.
B This study assumes that distribution projects for new growth and all reservoir projects are non-DWSRF
eligible. All other projects were assumed to be DWSRF eligible.
C Small differences in values may result from rounding.
A 5-1
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
This section provides some general information about the Blue Boggy region, identifies
water providers selected for modeling and their project lists, and provides a cost summary
for this region.
5.1 Blue Boggy – Regional Description
The Blue Boggy Watershed Planning Region is a 3,670-square-mile area in the southeast
quadrant of Oklahoma, reaching from southern Hughes County in the north and the Red
River on the south, and including all or portions of Pontotoc, Coal, Pittsburg, Johnston,
Atoka, Bryan, Pushmataha, Murray, and Choctaw Counties. There are 41 OCWP providers
in this region. OCWP providers are those included in the 2008 OCWP survey and for which
water demand projections were created. Table 5-1 shows the number of Blue Boggy water
providers by stratum.
Table 5-1. Blue Boggy Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum
Provider Size Population A Surface Water B Groundwater C Total
Large >100,000 0 0 0
Medium 3,301 – 100,000 4 1 5
Small <3,300 2 34 36
Total 6 35 41
A Population classification was based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more
details on projections).
B Systems were classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water.
C Systems were classified as groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary
source of water is purchased from another provider.
5.2 Blue Boggy – Developing Project Lists
Three providers were used for cost modeling. The following sections discuss the project
lists for each of these providers.
5.2.1 Blue Boggy – Large Water Providers
The Blue Boggy region has no large OCWP providers.
5.2.2 Blue Boggy – Medium Water Providers
The Blue Boggy region has five medium OCWP water providers. Information about each of
these providers is shown in Table 5-2.
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-2
Table 5-2. Blue Boggy Region – Medium OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK1010401 Atoka PWS Atoka SW No Yes 5,011 No
OK1010402 Coalgate
PWA
Coal SW Yes Yes 3,941 Yes
OK1010412 Atoka
County RWS
& SWMD #4
Atoka SW No Yes 5,942 No
OK1010601 Durant Bryan SW Yes Yes 24,516 No
OK3000704 Bryan
County
RW&SD #5
Bryan SWP Yes* Yes 6,939 No
A SW – Surface Water, GW – Groundwater, P – Purchased Water, GU – Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water. Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (SW and GW designations). Systems are classified as
groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary source of water is purchased from another
provider (GW, SWP, and GWP designations).
B Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on projections).
5.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers
There are four medium surface water providers in the Blue Boggy region. Colgate Public
Works Authority (PWA) participated in the 2007 DWINS and 2008 OCWP survey. Colgate
PWA was selected for cost modeling. Using the methodology described in Section 2.2, a
project list was created.
Source Water Projects
Using the project list worksheet, one surface water intake rehabilitation project for Colgate
Reservoir was included in the OCWP study. The 2007 DWINS identified seven well
rehabilitation projects.
Treatment Projects
Rehabilitation projects for the 1.2-mgd WTP in 2020 and 2060 were included in the OCWP
study. Additional, the 2007 DWINS identified a chlorination rehabilitation project.
Storage Projects
Rehabilitation projects totaling 0.73 MG of finished water storage were identified in the
2007 DWINS and were included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
Rehabilitation of one raw water transmission line with a capacity of 1.5 mgd was identified
using the project list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet and the 2007
DWINS. Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and
installation of new pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth. Additionally, the 2007
DWINS identified some valves, flushing hydrants, and water meter replacement projects.
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-3
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
5.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers
One medium provider is grouped in this category because it primarily purchases water.
However, since it was not a provider suitable for cost modeling, the Eufaula region was
used to estimate the cost for this stratum.
5.2.2.3 Summary
Table 5-3 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Blue Boggy medium provider
stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 5-1 illustrates the drinking water costs over time.
Table 5-3. Blue Boggy Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$55 $16 $3 $3 $0 $77
2021-
2040
$15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15
2041-
2060
$11 $15 $0 $0 $0 $26
Total $81 $31 $3 $3 $0 $118
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Figure 5-1. Blue Boggy Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-4
5.2.3 Blue Boggy – Small Water Providers
The Blue Boggy region has 36 small OCWP water providers. Information about each of
these providers is shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Blue Boggy Region – Small OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK1020611 Kiowa Pittsburg SW No No 876 No
OK2000302 Atoka Co
RWD # 3
(Caney)
Atoka GW No No 2,142 No
OK2000701 Kenefic Bryan GW No No 364 No
OK2000702 Calera,
Town Of
Bryan GW No Yes 2,738 No
OK2000703 Caddo Bryan GW No Yes 1,490 No
OK2000704 Bokchito Bryan GW No Yes 885 No
OK2000705 Bryan
County
RWD #7
Bryan GW No Yes 363 No
OK2000707 Achille Bryan GW No Yes 803 No
OK2000713 Bryan Co
RWD # 9
Bryan GW No No 352 No
OK2000716 Colbert PWA Bryan GW No Yes 3,137 No
OK2001201 Soper Choctaw GW No Yes 336 No
OK2001204 Choctaw
County
RWD #1
Choctaw GW No Yes 2,938 No
OK2001205 Boswell
PWA
Choctaw GW No Yes 802 No
OK2001501 Lehigh Coal GW No Yes 566 No
OK2003224 Hughes Co
RWD #6
(Gerty)
Hughes GW No Yes 2,045 No
OK2003503 Johnston Co
RWS &
SWMD #4
Johnston GW No Yes 945 No
OK2003517 Bromide Johnston GU No Yes 272 Yes
OK2003518 Wapanucka Johnston GW No Yes 1,864 Yes
OK2003520 Milburn
PWA
Johnston GW No Yes 532 No
OK2006202 Allen PWA Pontotoc GW No No 1,133 No
OK2006203 Stonewall
PWA
Pontotoc GW No No 566 No
OK2006206 Roff Pontotoc GW No No 877 No
OK3000303 Stringtown
PWA
Atoka SWP No Yes 2,103 No
OK3000305 Atoka Co
RWD # 1
(Wardville)
Atoka SWP No No 212 No
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-5
Table 5-4. Blue Boggy Region – Small OCWP Providers, continued
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK3000306 Atoka Co
RWD #2
Atoka SWP No Yes 849 No
OK3000725 Bryan
County
RWD # 6
Bryan GWP No Yes 1,577 No
OK3001214 Choctaw
RWD # 6
Choctaw SWP No Yes 847 No
OK3001501 Clarita Olney
Water Co
Inc
Coal SWP No No 490 No
OK3001502 Centrahoma
Water Co
Inc
Coal SWP No No 943 No
OK3001503 Phillips
RWD #1
Coal SWP No No 450 No
OK3001504 Roundhill
RWD #4
Coal SWP No No 413 No
OK3001505 Coal Co
RWD #5
Coal SWP No Yes 660 No
OK3001506 Tupelo PWA Coal GWP No No 720 No
OK3006105 Pittsburg Co
RWD #11
(Kiowa)
Pittsburg SWP No No 708 No
OK3006218 Pontotoc Co
RWD # 9
Pontotoc GWP No No 1,428 No
OK3006222 Pontotoc Co
RWD # 6
(Fittstown)
Pontotoc GWP No No 926 No
A SW – Surface Water, GW – Groundwater, P – Purchased Water, GU – Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water. Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (SW and GW designations). Systems are classified as
groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary source of water is purchased from another
provider (GW, SWP, and GWP designations).
B Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on projections).
5.2.3.1 Surface Water Providers
There are two small surface water providers in the Southeast region. The City of Bromide
participated in the 2008 OCWP survey and was selected for cost modeling. Bromide is
classified as a surface water provider because they utilize GWUDI of surface water. Using
the methodology described in Section 2.2, a project list was created.
Source Water Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of existing wells with total capacity of
0.040 mgd was included in the OCWP study.
Treatment Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation projects for a 0.040 mgd WTP in 2020 and
2060 were included in the OCWP study.
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-6
Storage Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of finished water storage tank for a
0.004 MG was included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
A rehabilitation of a 0.04-mgd raw water transmission line was identified using the project
list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet. Projects included
rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and installation of new pipelines to
accommodate anticipated growth.
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
5.2.3.2 Groundwater Providers
There are 34 small providers in this category; 14 of these primarily purchase water. The
City of Wapanucka was selected for cost modeling. Wapanucka participated in the 2008
OCWP survey. Johnston County Rural Water System and Surface Water Management
District (RWS & SWMD) #4 was used to supplement the distribution information for
Wapanucka. Using the methodology described in Section 2.2, a project list was created.
Source Water Projects
Using the project list worksheet, a well rehabilitation project for 0.29 mgd and a new well
and well house for 0.12 mgd were included in the OCWP study. The project date was
based on the average age of Wapanucka's existing wells.
Treatment Projects
Using the project list worksheet, a 0.66 mgd conventional WTP, based on Wapanucka's
existing method of treatment, was included in the OCWP study.
Storage Projects
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 0.066 MG of finished water storage tank
was included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects
Rehabilitation of one raw water transmission line with a capacity of 0.66 mgd was
identified using the project list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet. Projects included
rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and installation of new pipelines to
accommodate anticipated growth. In addition, a 0.66-mgd pumping project was included
in the OCWP study.
Other Projects
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-7
5.2.3.3 Summary
Table 5-5 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Blue Boggy small provider
stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 5-2 illustrates the drinking water costs over time.
Table 5-5. Blue Boggy Region – Small Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$19 $1 $0 $0 $0 $20
2021-
2040
$262 $82 $3 $1 $0 $348
2041-
2060
$5 $1 $0 $7 $0 $13
Total $286 $84 $3 $8 $0 $381
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Figure 5-2. Blue Boggy Region – Small Water Providers Costs Over Time
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-8
5.3 Blue Boggy – Regional Major Reservoir Projects
There are three major reservoirs in the Blue Boggy region. Table 5-6 identifies the
reservoirs and project size. No reservoir rehabilitation projects occur within the OCWP
planning period.
Table 5-6. Blue Boggy Region – Major Reservoir Rehabilitation
Projects
Reservoir Name
Storage Considered
for Rehabilitation A
(AF) Project Year
Atoka Reservoir 123,500 2080
Coalgate Reservoir 3,466 2080
McGee Creek
Reservoir
109,800 2080
A The amount of storage for rehabilitation is based on the
municipal water supply storage. If unknown, the full normal pool
storage was used. Reservoirs with no designated municipal
water supply storage were included in the study but show zero in
the rehabilitation column
5.4 Blue Boggy – Regional Cost Summary
This section presents the Blue Boggy regional drinking water infrastructure costs over the
next 50 years. Table 5-7 identifies costs by provider size and project year. Distribution and
transmission projects make up the majority of the infrastructure costs, nearly 74 percent,
of drinking water infrastructure costs in the region. Water treatment projects are distant
second making up nearly 23 percent. Small providers have the largest overall drinking
water infrastructure costs. The largest infrastructure costs occur in the 2021 – 2040
period.
Section 5
Blue Boggy Regional Infrastructure Costs
A 5-9
Table 5-7 Blue Boggy Region – Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
Category A, C
Potential
Funding
Source B
Present - 2020
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2021-2040
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
2041-2060
Infrastructure
Need (millions
of 2007 dollars)
Total Period
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Small DWSRF Eligible $17 $342 $8 $367
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$3 $5 $5 $13
Small
Subtotal
$20 $347 $13 $380
Medium DWSRF Eligible $77 $15 $26 $118
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Medium
Subtotal
$77 $15 $26 $118
Large DWSRF Eligible $0 $0 $0 $0
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Large
Subtotal
$0 $0 $0 $0
Reservoir DWSRF Eligible $0 $0 $0 $0
Non-DWSRF
Eligible
$0 $0 $0 $0
Reservoir
Subtotal
$0 $0 $0 $0
Total $97 $362 $39 $498
A See Table 5-1 for more information on provider size. The "reservoir" category includes all regional
reservoir rehabilitation project; however, no rehabilitation projects occur within the OCWP planning
range.
B This study assumes that distribution projects for new growth and all reservoir projects are non-DWSRF
eligible. All other projects were assumed to be DWSRF eligible.
C Small differences in values may result from rounding.
 6-1
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
This section provides some general information about the Central region, identifies water
providers selected for modeling and their project lists, and provides a cost summary for
this region.
6.1 Central –Regional Description
The Central Watershed Planning Region is a 10,142-square-mile area including all or
portions of Woods, Woodward, Major, Alfalfa, Garfield, Dewey, Blaine, Kingfisher, Logan,
Canadian, Oklahoma, Lincoln, Creek, Okmulgee, Grady, Cleveland, Pottawatomie,
Seminole, Okfuskee, Garvin, Pontotoc, Caddo, McClain, and Hughes Counties. There are
118 OCWP providers in this region. OCWP providers are those included in the 2008 OCWP
survey and for which water demand projections were created. Table 6-1 shows the
number of Central water providers by stratum.
Table 6-1. Central Region – Number of OCWP Providers by Stratum
Provider Size Population A Surface Water B Groundwater C Total
Large >100,000 2 0 2
Medium 3,301 – 100,000 11 26 37
Small <3,300 4 75 79
Total 17 101 118
A Population classification was based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more
details on projections).
B Systems were classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water.
C Systems were classified as groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary
source of water is purchased from another provider.
6.2 Central – Developing Project Lists
Eight providers were used for cost modeling. The following sections discuss the project
lists for each of these providers.
6.2.1 Central – Large Water Providers
The Central region has two large surface water OCWP providers. Both providers were used
for cost modeling. Information about each of these providers is shown in Table 6-2.
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-2
Table 6-2. Central Region – Large OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK1020801 Norman Cleveland SW Yes Yes 113,160 Yes
OK1020902 Oklahoma
City***
Oklahoma SW Yes* Yes 673,025 Yes
A SW – Surface Water, GW – Groundwater, P – Purchased Water, GU – Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water. Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (SW and GW designations). Systems are classified as
groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary source of water is purchased from another
provider (GW, SWP, and GWP designations).
B Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on projections).
6.2.1.1 Surface Water Providers
The City of Norman and Oklahoma City participated in the 2007 DWINS and the 2008
OCWP survey. Edmond PWA-Arcadia was used to supplement the distribution information
for Norman. Using the methodology described in Section 2.2, a project list was created for
each of these providers
Source Water Projects – Norman
The 2007 DWINS identified several well abandonment and replacement projects. Using
the project list worksheet, two surface water intake rehabilitation projects for Lake
Thunderbird was included in the OCWP study. Additionally, the OCWP study included
Norman's portion of projects associated with bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central
region.
Treatment Projects – Norman
A 14-mgd conventional WTP rehabilitation project was identified in the 2007 DWINS.
Using the project list worksheet, an expansion and rehabilitation to 16.28-mgd WTP in
2060 was included in the OCWP study.
Storage Projects – Norman
Approximately 6.5 MG finished water rehabilitation projects were identified in the 2007
DWINS. No other projects were identified using the project list worksheet.
Distribution and Transmission Projects – Norman
Rehabilitation of raw water transmission lines were identified in the 2007 DWINS.
Additionally, the OCWP study included Norman's portion of projects associated with
bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central region.
Many distribution projects were identified in the 2007 DWINS and project list worksheet.
Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines, installation of new
pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth, replacement of water meters, replacement
of valves, and replacement of backflow preventers.
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-3
Other Projects – Norman
The 2007 DWINS identified a control replacement project. Additionally, the debt service
associated with Norman's portion of projects associated with bringing Atoka Reservoir
water to the Central region was included in this infrastructure category.
Source Water Projects – Oklahoma City
The 2007 DWINS identified 24 raw water pump replacement projects. Using the project
list worksheet, one surface water intake rehabilitation project was included in the OCWP
study. Additionally, the OCWP study included Oklahoma City's portion of projects
associated with bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central region.
Treatment Projects – Oklahoma City
A 150-mgd and 124-mgd WTP rehabilitation projects were identified in the 2007 DWINS.
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 274-mgd WTP in 2060 was included in
the OCWP study.
Storage Projects – Oklahoma City
Approximately 55 MG finished water rehabilitation projects were identified in the 2007
DWINS. No other projects were identified using the project list worksheet.
Distribution and Transmission Projects – Oklahoma City
Rehabilitation of raw water transmission lines were identified using the project list
worksheet and the 2007 DWINS. Additionally, the OCWP study included Oklahoma City's
portion of projects associated with bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central region.
Many distribution projects were identified in the 2007 DWINS and project list worksheet.
Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines, installation of new
pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth, replacement of water meters, and
rehabilitation of booster pump stations.
Other Projects – Oklahoma City
The debt service associated with Oklahoma City's portion of projects associated with
bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central region was included in this infrastructure
category.
6.2.1.2 Groundwater Providers
There were no large groundwater providers in this region.
6.2.1.3 Summary
Table 6-3 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Central large provider
stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 6-1 illustrates the drinking water costs over time.
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-4
Table 6-3. Central Region – Large Water Provider Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$821 $93 $16 $192 $39 $1,161
2021-
2040
$412 $0 $0 $5 $0 $417
2041-
2060
$938 $224 $0 $0 $0 $1,162
Total $2,171 $317 $16 $197 $39 $2,740
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
6.2.2 Central – Medium Water Providers
The Central region has 37 medium OCWP water providers. Information about each of
these providers is shown in Table 6-4.
Figure 6-1. Central Region – Large Water Providers Costs Over Time
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-5
Table 6-4. Central Region – Medium OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK1020504 Shawnee Pottawatomie SW No Yes 40,299 No
OK1020506 Tecumseh
Utility
Authority
Pottawatomie SW No No 8,196 No
OK1020702 Chandler Lincoln SW No No 4,105 No
OK1020705 Stroud PWA Lincoln SW No No 3,983 No
OK1020706 Okemah
Utilities
Authority
Okfuskee SW No Yes 6,901 Yes
OK1020723 Edmond
PWA -
Arcadia
Oklahoma SW Yes Yes 91,287 Dist. Only
OK1020805 Del City Oklahoma SW Yes Yes 26,357 No
OK1020806 Midwest City Oklahoma SW Yes Yes 65,699 Yes
OK1020903 Guthrie Logan SW No Yes 16,190 No
OK2000602 Watonga Blaine GW No Yes 7,074 No
OK2000902 El Reno Canadian GU Yes Yes 25,709 No
OK2000909 Piedmont Canadian SWP No Yes 8,706 No
OK2000910 Yukon Canadian GW No Yes 29,561 No
OK2000922 Mustang Canadian GW No Yes 24,306 No
OK2001411 Noble Cleveland GW No Yes 7,076 No
OK2001412 Moore Cleveland GW Yes Yes 64,453 No
OK2001910 Bristow Mun
Auth*
Creek GW No Yes 5,920 No
OK2002608 Tuttle Grady GW No Yes 6,592 No
OK2003702 Kingfisher Kingfisher GW No Yes 7,535 No
OK2003704 Hennessey Kingfisher GW No No 3,405 No
OK2004105 Lincoln Co
RW & Sewer
Dist 4
Lincoln GW No Yes 3,631 No
OK2004207 Logan Co
RWD #1
Logan GW Yes Yes 7,404 Yes
OK2004701 Purcell McClain GW No Yes 15,236 No
OK2004704 Newcastle McClain GW No Yes 11,515 Dist. Only
OK2005501 Nichols Hills Oklahoma GW Yes Yes 4,781 No
OK2005504 Deer Creek
Rural Water
Corp
Oklahoma GW No Yes 5,362 No
OK2005506 Harrah Oklahoma GW No Yes 5,660 No
OK2005509 Spencer Oklahoma GW Yes Yes 3,691 No
OK2005510 Choctaw Oklahoma GW No Yes 4,556 No
OK2005519 Bethany Oklahoma GU Yes Yes 25,017 No
OK2006201 Ada Pontotoc GW Yes Yes 29,737 Yes
OK2006215 Pontotoc Co
RWD # 8
Pontotoc GW No Yes 4,141 No
OK2006301 Mcloud Pottawatomie GW No Yes 3,371 No
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-6
Table 6-4 Central Region – Medium OCWP Providers, continued
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK2006362 Pott Co
RWD #2 (Tri
County)
Pottawatomie GW No Yes 4,703 No
OK2006701 Bowlegs
Lima Water
Seminole GW No Yes 3,449 No
OK3004710 Blanchard McClain SWP No Yes 6,824 No
OK3006215 Pontotoc Co
RWD # 7
Pontotoc GWP No Yes 5,176 No
A SW – Surface Water, GW – Groundwater, P – Purchased Water, GU – Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water. Systems are classified as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (SW and GW designations). Systems are classified as
groundwater if they do not meet surface water definition or if their primary source of water is purchased from another
provider (GW, SWP, and GWP designations).
B Population based on 2060 projection (see Water Demand Forecast Report for more details on projections).
6.2.2.1 Surface Water Providers
There are 11 medium surface water providers in the Central region. To represent the
average provider, two medium surface water providers were selected. Midwest City
participated in the 2007 DWINS and 2008 OCWP survey. Okemah Utilities Authority
participated in the 2008 OCWP survey. Using the methodology described in Section 2.2, a
project list was created for each of these providers.
Source Water Projects – Midwest City
The 2007 DWINS identified several well abandonment and replacement projects. Using
the project list worksheet, four surface water intake rehabilitation projects for Lake
Thunderbird were included in the OCWP study. Additionally, the OCWP study included
Midwest City's portion of projects associated with bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the
Central region.
Treatment Projects – Midwest City
A 13-mgd WTP rehabilitation project was identified in the 2007 DWINS. The 2007 DWINS
also identified several chlorination treatment projects. Using the project list worksheet,
rehabilitation of 13-mgd WTP in 2060 also was included in the OCWP study.
Storage Projects – Midwest City
Rehabilitation projects totaling 10.7 MG of finished water storage were identified in the
2007 DWINS and were included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects – Midwest City
Rehabilitation of a 13.0-mgd raw water transmission line was identified using the project
list worksheet. Additionally, the OCWP study included Midwest City's portion of projects
associated with bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central region.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet and the 2007
DWINS. Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-7
installation of new pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth. Additionally, the 2007
DWINS identified some booster pump, flushing hydrants, and water meter replacement
projects.
Other Projects – Midwest City
The debt service associated with Midwest City's portion of projects associated with
bringing Atoka Reservoir water to the Central region was included in this infrastructure
category.
Source Water Projects – Okemah Utilities Authority
Using the project list worksheet, one surface water intake rehabilitation project for
Okemah Lake was included in the OCWP study.
Treatment Projects – Okemah Utilities Authority
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 2.2-mgd WTP in 2020 and 2060 were
included in the OCWP study.
Storage Projects – Okemah Utilities Authority
Using the project list worksheet, rehabilitation of 0.22 MG of finished water storage tank
was included in the OCWP study.
Distribution and Transmission Projects – Okemah Utilities Authority
Rehabilitation of a 2.5-mgd raw water transmission lines was identified using the project
list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet. Projects included
rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and installation of new pipelines to
accommodate anticipated growth.
Other Projects – Okemah Utilities Authority
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
6.2.2.2 Groundwater Providers
Twenty-six medium providers are grouped in this category; three of these primarily
purchase water. Logan County Rural Water District (RWD) #1 and the City of Ada were
selected for cost modeling to represent the average Central region medium groundwater
provider. Both of these providers participated in the 2007 DWINS and 2008 OCWP.
Source Water Projects – Logan County RWD #1
The 2007 DWINS identified several well rehabilitation projects.
Treatment Projects – Logan County RWD #1
Groundwater treatment rehabilitation projects with a total capacity of 1.4 mgd were
identified in the 2020 and 2060 periods.
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-8
Storage Projects – Logan County RWD #1
The 2007 DWINS identified four finished water storage rehabilitation projects, for capacity
of 1.0 mgd, were identified using the project list worksheet.
Distribution and Transmission Projects – Logan County RWD #1
Rehabilitation of a 1.48-mgd raw water transmission line was identified using the project
list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet and the 2007
DWINS. Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and
installation of new pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth. In addition, the 2007
DWINS identified a water meter replacement project.
Other Projects – Logan County RWD #1
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
Source Water Projects – Ada
The 2007 DWINS identified several well rehabilitation projects.
Treatment Projects – Ada
The 2007 DWINS identified chlorination and fluoridation treatment projects with a
capacity of 11.0 mgd. Using the project list, a 12.0 mgd groundwater treatment project
was included in the 2060 period.
Storage Projects – Ada
The 2007 DWINS identified three finished water storage rehabilitation projects, for
capacity of 2.0 mgd, were identified using the project list worksheet.
Distribution and Transmission Projects – Ada
Rehabilitation of a 12.0 mgd raw water transmission line was identified using the project
list worksheet.
Many distribution projects were identified in the project list worksheet and the 2007
DWINS. Projects included rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines and
installation of new pipelines to accommodate anticipated growth. The project list
worksheet also identified finished water pump rehabilitation. In addition, the 2007 DWINS
identified lead service line replacement and water meter replacement project.
Other Projects – Ada
No projects were identified in this infrastructure category.
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-9
6.2.2.3 Summary
Table 6-5 presents the drinking water cost through 2060 of the Central medium provider
stratum by infrastructure type. Figure 6-2 illustrates the drinking water costs over time.
Table 6-5. Central Region – Medium Water Providers Costs by Infrastructure Type
Period A
Distribution and
Transmission
(millions of 2007
dollars)
Treatment
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Storage
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Source
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Other
(millions of
2007
dollars)
Total
Infrastructure
Need
(millions of
2007 dollars)
Present-
2020
$536 $182 $52 $65 $4 $839
2021-
2040
$447 $0 $0 $0 $0 $447
2041-
2060
$962 $171 $0 $0 $0 $1,133
Total $1,945 $353 $52 $65 $4 $2,419
A Small differences in values may result from rounding.
Figure 6-2. Central Region – Medium Water Providers Costs Over Time
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-10
6.2.3 Central – Small Water Providers
The Central region has 79 small OCWP water providers. Information about each of these
providers is shown in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6. Central Region – Small OCWP Providers
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK1020508 Wetumka Hughes SW No No 2,434 No
OK1020703 Lincoln Co
RWD #1
Lincoln SW No Yes 578 Yes
OK1020724 Wellston Lincoln SW No No 1,192 No
OK1020807 Pottawatomie
County RWD
#3
Pottawatomie SW No No 753 No
OK2000203 Goltry Alfalfa GW No No 278 No
OK2000206 Aline Alfalfa GW No Yes 225 No
OK2000207 Carmen Alfalfa GW No Yes 431 No
OK2000210 Helena Alfalfa GW No No 447 No
OK2000606 North Blaine
Water
Blaine GW No Yes 1,301 No
OK2000607 Canton Blaine GW No Yes 978 No
OK2000608 Geary Blaine GW No Yes 1,900 No
OK2000610 Hitchcock
Dev
Blaine GW No Yes 306 No
OK2000611 Longdale Blaine GW No Yes 378 No
OK2000612 Okeene Blaine GW No Yes 1,866 No
OK2000904 Calumet Canadian GW No Yes 758 No
OK2000908 Canadian Co
RWD # 1
Canadian GW No No 913 No
OK2000930 Canadian Co
RWD # 4
Canadian GW No Yes 1,370 No
OK2001409 Lexington Cleveland GW No Yes 2,573 No
OK2001903 Depew Creek GW No Yes 738 No
OK2002417 Lahoma PWA Garfield GW No Yes 652 No
OK2002503 Stratford Garvin GW No Yes 1,627 No
OK2002610 Minco Grady GW No Yes 2,221 No
OK2003201 Calvin Hughes GW No Yes 503 No
OK2003701 Loyal Kingfisher GW No Yes 147 No
OK2003703 Okarche Kingfisher GW No Yes 1,838 No
OK2003705 Dover Public
Works Trust
Auth
Kingfisher GW No Yes 670 No
OK2003715 Okarche
RWD
Kingfisher GW No Yes 894 No
OK2003722 Kingfisher Co
RWD #3
Kingfisher GW No Yes 221 No
OK2004101 Prague Lincoln GW No Yes 3,107 No
OK2004104 Carney Lincoln GW No No 942 No
OK2004204 Crescent Logan GW No Yes 2,280 No
OK2004205 Rock Creek Logan GW No Yes 228 No
OK2004206 Logan Co
RWD #2
Logan GW No Yes 1,865 No
Section 6
Central Regional Infrastructure Costs
 6-11
Table 6-6. Central Region – Small OCWP Providers, continued
SWDIS
Identifier
Provider
Name County
Source
Water
Type A
Did they
participate
in 2007
DWINS?
Did they
participate
in 2008
OCWP
survey?
Projected
2060
Population B
Were they
selected
for cost
modeling?
OK2004253 Cimarron City Logan GW No Yes 77 No
OK2004254 Meridian
Water Supply
Logan GW No No 90 No
OK2004401 Meno Major GW No Yes 212 No
OK2004402 Cleo Springs Major GW No Yes 336 No
OK2004403 Ames Major GW No Yes 209 No
OK2004404 Fairview Major GW No No 2,860 No
OK2004405 Ringwood Major GW No Yes 524 No
OK2004407 Major County
RWD #1
Major GW No Yes 989 Yes
OK2004703 Washington McClain GW No Yes 987 No
OK2004707 Goldsby
Water Auth
Trust
McClain GW No Yes 3,183 No
OK2005401 Paden Okfuskee GW No Yes 708 No
OK2005402 Okfuskee Co
RWD # 1
(Boley)
Okfuskee GW No Yes 471 No
OK2005503 Luther Oklahoma GW No Yes 745 No
OK2005507 Jones Oklahoma GW No Yes 1,984 No
OK2006205 Francis Pontotoc GW No Yes 203 No
OK2006302 Maud Pottawatomie GW No No 1,535 No
OK2006304 St Louis RWD Pottawatomie GW No Yes 271 No
OK2006363 Brooksville Pottawatomie GW No No 124 No
OK2006704 Konawa PWA Seminole GW No Yes 1,708 No
OK2006705 Sasakwa
PWA
Seminole GW No No 170 No
OK2006708 Sasakwa
RWD
Seminole GW No Yes 326 No
OK3000606 Greenfield
PWA
Blaine GWP No No 134 No
OK3000901 Heaston RW
Corp
Canadian GWP No Yes 211 No
OK3000903 Canadian Co
Water
Authority
Canadian SWP No Yes 2,206 No
OK3000909 Union City Canadian GWP No Yes 1,053 No
OK3001921 Slick Creek GWP Yes No 202 No
OK3002401 Drummond Garfield GWP No Yes 487 No
OK3003201 Hughes Co
RWD #1
Hughes SWP No Yes 1,822 No
OK3003703 Cashion Kingfisher GWP No Yes 1,058 No
OK