Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs |
Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs |
OkDocs Class# | W1700.8 D781w 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/OCWP_DrinkingWaterInfrastructureAssessment.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 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 |
Date created | 2011-12-07 |
Date modified | 2011-12-07 |