Towards implementation, the technical studies

              Towards Implementation –The Technical StudiesThe OCWP: A Brief History
1980:
•First official statewide water plan
•Project-oriented
•Proposed statewide east/west water transfer
1995:
•First Water Plan update
•Policy-oriented
•Great success in achieving OCWP water policy recommendations at the state levelGoals of the 2012 OCWP Update
1.Characterize demandsby water use sector.
2.Identify reliable suppliesto meet forecasted demands.
3.Perform technicalstudiesin support of the evaluation of emerging water management issues.
4.Comprehensive stakeholder engagement to make recommendations regarding the management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
5.Ensure water resources management programs that createreliability.
6.Make “implementable” recommendations regarding the future of water management in Oklahoma based upon technical evaluations and stakeholder input.Two Major ComponentsReliableWaterSupply
Robust Public Participation
Expert Technical Evaluation
A “good” plan vs.
the “right” planWhat is a Water Plan?
•It has both passive and active characteristics and functions
•Passive
–A resource to inform future decisions
–Foundational analysis decisions
–Supply/demand, extent of limitations, effectiveness of options
–Short-term and long-term
–Statewide, regional and local planning
–A firm foundation for implementation
•Active
–An identification of the most pressing issues
–A Plan for moving those issues forward
–Informed by technical analyses (and stakeholder input)
–Implementation of priority investigations, policies and programs to ensure a reliable future water supplyWater Planning Philosophy
•Always looking to the future
•Worst case scenario planning
•Solutions oriented
•Informing and empowering local decision-making
•Enabling and facilitating implementationFoundational Technical Analyses
Implementation of Statewide PrioritiesRegional PlanningLocal Planning
Reliable Future Water SupplyPassive
ActiveWhat is this Plan?“A Foundation”
•An answer to a statutory mandate.
•A driver for economic development.
•Well-vetted and scientifically sound.
•A living document.
•A picture of where we are and what we have:
–An impressive compendium of water related information on 82 basins and 13 regions across the state.
–A thorough and frank evaluation of Oklahoma’s current and future water policies and programs.
•What the future will look like:
–Technical information on water supplies, demands, limitations and options to prepare for the future.
–An evaluation of both emerging issues and future opportunities.
–A deliberation of public and stakeholder input on innovative technical analyses and diverse policy evaluations.
•A strategy on how to get us there:
–A tool to inform decision-making and stimulate intensive local planning.
–Synthesized information resulting in priority water policy recommendations and other initiatives that will ensure a reliable water future for Oklahoma.Components of the OCWP Update
I.Executive Report:
–Synthesis of OCWP Technical Studies and Results
–Water Policy Recommendations
II.Watershed Planning Region Reports (13):
–Presents results of OCWP technical analyses, including options to address identified water shortagesPlanning for What, Exactly?A Plan for Reliability Means Having a Reliable Plan
•Expert Technical Evaluation
•Consistent, Defensible Methodologies
•Robust Public Participation
•Innovative and Forward‐thinking
•Integrated and Coordinated
•Consistent with Emerging Federal Priorities and InitiativesTechnical Studies
–The OCWP has collected a wealth of technical data and information that will be indispensable to water providers, policy makers, and water users in making informed water management decisions.
–Ten separate technical workgroups, including more than 100 experts, have provided invaluable input into OCWP technical methodologies and decisions.13 Watershed Planning Regions:
•Aggregated from 82 basins delineated by hydrology and stream gage locationsSources of Data
•Best Available
•USGS –streamflow, groundwater models, brackish water characterization, water use data
•Corps of Engineers –Reservoir yields,
•USDA ���Livestock data, irrigated acres by crop
•NRCS –reservoir yields, crop irrigation requirements
•Bureau of Reclamation –reservoir yields, climate change datasets,
•OWRB –water rights data; water quality; groundwater basin data
•DEQ –public water supply providers data, water quality data
•OESC –employment projections
•ODOC –Population projections
•OK Corp Comm–Oil and Gas drilling dataExpert Technical EvaluationFour Interrelated Components
Physical AvailabilityBasin 1Basin 2
Basin 3
Basin 4
`Demand, Physical Availability, Permit Availability, and Water Quality Assessment
Characterize Supply Challenges
Explore Solutions and Develop PlansNo shortageGaps
Hot SpotNo shortage
Explore Causes of Gaps and Supply Options
Basin 1
Watershed Planning Region Report with Supply Options and Provider-Level Supply Information
Basin 2
Basin 3
Basin 4`Water Demand ForecastingDemand Forecasting
•The following sectors were forecasted
–Municipal and Industrial (PWS systems)
–Self-Supplied Residential
–Self-Supplied Industrial
–Thermoelectric Power
–Agriculture (Irrigation and Livestock)
–Oil and Gas
–Demands forecasted at the Region and Basin levelMunicipal and Industrial Demands
County-Level Public-Supplied ResidentialCounty-Level Public Supplied Nonresidential DemandCounty Level Municipal and Industrial Demand
ODOC Population Projections
USGS Data on Self-Supplied
Per capita Water Use from Survey
System Water Loss from Survey
OESC Data for ProjectionsEmployment Data from NAICSIWR Water Use Factors by NAICSProvider Level Demand
County-Level Municipal and Industrial Demand
Per Capita Water Use from Survey (gpcd)Supplemented with DEQ/OWRB
ODOC Population ProjectionsProvider-Level Municipal and Industrial Demand Forecast: Retail Population Served & Demand Forecast (AFY)Self Supplied Residential DemandUSGS Data on Self-Supplied by CountyODOC Population Projections by County
County average gpcd
Self-Supplied Residential Demand Self-Supplied Industrial Demand
Identification of Sites
Water Use (OWRB) and Employment Data Calculated Water Use Coefficients for Each(gallons/employee/day)Applied OESC Employment Projections as Before
Self-Supplied Industrial DemandThermoelectric Power Demand
Existing and Proposed Sites IdentifiedUSGS and CDM Analysis = 775 gal/MWh
US DOE forecasts 1.1% annual growth rate to 2060Thermoelectric Power DemandAgriculture DemandCounty-Level Livestock Data for 1997, 2002 and 2007 (USDA) by Group
County-Level Irrigated Acres by Crop Type (USDA)
County Level Agriculture Demand
Historical Max Identified
Build-out to 2060 based upon Historical Max
Linear Interpolation between 2007 and 2060Build-out to 2060 based upon Historical maxHistorical Max (acres) Identified for Each Crop
Applied Irrigation Water Use Req’sfrom NRCSOil and GasHistorical Drilling Data by County and Subsector
Horizontal and Woodford Shale: Linear Regression to 2060 based upon 2001-2008Future Activities Allocated to Counties based upon History
Conventional: Linear Regression to 2060 based on 1989-2008
Water Use Factors/Subsector Applied (Drilling/Cementing and CompletionCounty-Level Oil and Gas DemandsStatewide Water Demand by SectorAllocation to Basins
County-Level Demands
Geographical Distribution
Individual Basin(s)Planning RegionWater Demand Findings
•Statewide consumptive demand increase by 33% to 2060
•Crop Irrigation largest sector in 2060 at 897, 464 acre-feet/year (36% of total demand)
•Oil and Gas largest growth sector at 300%
•Panhandle Region the largest 2060 demand at 473,840 acre-feet/year; Eufaula the lowest at 55,640Four Interrelated ComponentsPhysical AvailabilityHistorical PrecipitationOklahoma has 3 Types of Water Supply
Creeks, streams, rivers
Lakes and reservoirs
Flow varies significantly over time
Aquifer made up of sediment deposited by rivers
Recharged by infiltration of surface water or precipitation
Recharge rate varies over time
Not associated with rivers
Recharged with water percolating from the surface or other overlying aquifers
Recharge is fairly constant over time
ALLUVIAL GROUNDWATERBEDROCK GROUNDWATER
SURFACE WATERWater Supply SourcesCharacterizing Supply Shortages
Occurs when surface water use exceeds surface water flow
Demand is not met
Evaluated using 58 years of monthly flow data in each basin
Occurs when alluvial groundwater use exceeds rate of recharge to the alluvial aquifer
Net reduction in water in aquifer storage but demand may be met
Varies with hydrology
Occurs when bedrock groundwater use exceeds rate of recharge to the bedrock aquifer
Net reduction in water in aquifer storage but demand may be met
Does not vary with hydrologyAlluvial GW “Storage Depletion”
Bedrock GW “Storage Depletion”
Surface Water “Gap”0
20,00040,00060,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000200,000JanuaryFebruary
March
April
May
June
JulyAugustSeptember
October
November
December
Monthly Flow (af/month)
Month
Mean Monthly FlowsAverage Annual Flow
Mean Monthly Streamflow (Period of Record)Variable Demand Patterns
Insert demand graphData Considered and Methodology
•Surface Water:
–Considered 58 years of streamflowbased upon USGS gage data in all 82 basins
–Looked at annual average and minimum (drought of record) streamflow
–Considered storage in reservoirs
–Baseline scenario: current supply proportions held constant in the future
–Evaluated impacts of future surface water demands on a monthly time stepGage LocationsSurface Water GapsProbability of GapsMinimum Annual StreamflowGroundwater
•Evaluated alluvial and bedrock sources
•Data from previously developed assessments of aquifer storage and recharge rates
•Groundwater resources distributed to the 82 basin level
•Impacts of future demands on groundwater evaluated at the basin level
•Baseline scenario: current supply proportions held constant in the future
•Depletion rates typically minimal statewide, but localized impacts could occur—important for planningPotential Changes in Water Supply
Potential Changes in Water Demand
Use Oklahoma H2O to Assess Impacts on Shortages & SolutionsGCM climate projectionsQuantity, intensity, and seasonality of runoff in 82 basinsGCM climate projections Focus on M&I and AgClimate Demand ModelOklahoma H2O Gap ToolReservoir Yield ModelSupply SolutionsClimate Projections
•Based upon increased emissions of CO2, globally temperature will increase
•As a result, evaporation will increase which will result in increased precipitation
•Precipitation increases not predicted everywhere, not evenly distributed
•Increased temp with increase precipmeans higher evapand evapotranspiration, less water available
•Impacts supply and demand Two Ensemble Hybrid-Delta Projections Demonstrate Range of Climate ChangeChange in August Historical Average
Temperature in 2060Increase in Historical Average Annual PrecipitationImpacts to StreamflowImpacts to Surface Water GapsChanges to Demand
Statistical relationship established between temperature and
precipitation and demand (monthly time step)Relationships established between temperature, precipitation and evapotranspirationand thus irrigation needsFour Interrelated Components
Physical AvailabilityData and Methodology
•Predicting future permit availability
•Utilized existing permit data from OWRB
•Followed current OWRB permitting protocol
•Surface Water
–Prior Appropriation Doctrine
–Average Annual Flow
–Beneficial Use
–Availability to 2060 considered: existing rights, future rights (based upon demand forecasts), reservoir yields, domestic use, compact obligations and downstream basin’s permit need to 2060Surface Water Permit Availability at 2060Data and Methodology
•Groundwater (alluvial and bedrock)
–Private Property Right
–Followed current OWRB permitting protocol
–Considered temporary allocations of 2.0 acre-feet/surface acre/year for unstudied basins
–Considered Equal Proportionate Share (regular permits) as appropriate in studied basins
–Distributed availability to 82 basin levelGroundwater Permit Availability at 2060Four Interrelated Components
Physical AvailabilityData and Methods
•Surface Water only; lack of holistic data for GW
•Water quality condition score determined for all basins
•Evaluated separately for streams and lakes
•Assessed characteristic that could impair future beneficial use:
–Trends in key parameters based largely on OWRB’sBeneficial Use Monitoring Program data
–Impairments for AG and PPWS beneficial uses
–Impairment for turbidity
–Threatened for total nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll-a (lakes only)Example of Trends WorkWater Quality AssessmentHow Do These Gears Turn in Each Basin?
Physical AvailabilityPotential limitations of each supply source to meet 2060 demands Physical Availability50%
Water Quality20%
Permit Availability30%
Surface WaterRate of GW Depletion50%
GW Depletion as % of Aquifer Storage50%
Alluvial/Bedrock Groundwater
All 82 basins rankedSurface Water LimitationsAlluvial Groundwater LimitationsBedrock Groundwater LimitationsHot-Spot Basins
•Hot spot map hereWater Supply Findings
•Surface water gaps projected in 55 of the 82 basins by 2060
•21 basins forecasted to have surface water permit availability gaps by 2060
•No permitting constraints for groundwater
•27 basins are considered to have poor water quality as it relates to uses for PWS and Ag
•Alluvial groundwater depletions (minor) are forecasted in 64 basins
•Bedrock groundwater depletions (minor) are forecasted in 34 basins
•Seven basins are forecasted to have no water supply shortages: 2 (SE), 7 (Blue-Boggy), 27, (Beaver-Cache), 35 (SW), 70 (Upper Ark), 81 (Grand) and 82 (Lower Arkansas)Water Supply Options
SUPPLY OPTION CATEGORIES
DEMANDMANAGEMENT
OUT OF BASIN SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL RESERVOIR STORAGE
INCREASE SUPPLY FROM SURFACE WATER
INCREASE SUPPLY FROM GROUNDWATER
Based upon results discussed so far, a mid-level analysis of potential options and their associated effectiveness was performed in all 82 basinsDefinitions of Options
•Demand Management: considered conservation (moderate/long term) and drought management measures (short term)
•Out-of-basin supplies: importing water from another basin; evaluated potential, previously studied reservoir sites in the Region for storage
•Reservoir Use: development of in-basin reservoirs; evaluated if streamflowavailable to provide adequate storage to meet future demands; also evaluated previously studied sites and their viability (if any) Definitions of Options
•Increased Use of Surface Water: considers the effectiveness of increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions (run-of-the-river, no storage), rather than through increased groundwater use
•Increased Use of Groundwater: considers the effectiveness of increasing the use of groundwater rather than increased surface water use Demand ManagementOut-of-Basin SuppliesReservoir UseIncreased Use of Surface WaterIncreased Use of GroundwaterExpanded Options
•Options explored beyond the Primary Options
•Generally more statewide in perspective
•However, several as a part of the Primary Options
•Conservation
•Marginal Quality Water
•Artificial Recharge
•Reservoir ViabilityConservation
•Evaluated two scenarios (I and II): Moderate and Substantial
•Analyzed for the Municipal/Industrial and Irrigation sectors
•Assessed statewide and in all 82 basins
•Used the information to evaluate effectiveness as an option to reduce shortages (Demand Management)OCWP Municipal/IndustrialConservation Analysis
Scenario I (Moderate Level) Considerations:
•Passive Conservation: water savings that are the direct result ofplumbing codes of the federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 requiringwater efficient plumbing fixtures
•Metering: installing meters to monitor water loss
•Tiered Rate Structure: increasing tiers of cost with increased water use
•Community Education and Information: changing fundamental habitsOCWP Municipal/IndustrialConservation Analysis
Scenario II (Substantial Level) Considerations:
•More aggressive implementation of various components of Scenario I
•Analyzed the impact of high efficiency indoor water use regulations beyond that of passive conservation
Fixture
Passive Mandates
HighEfficiency Examples
Toilet
1.6 gpf
1.0 gpf
Urinal
1.0 gpf
0.5 gpf
Faucet
2.5 gpm
1.0 gpm
Showerhead
2.5 gpm
2.0 gpmOCWP IrrigationConservation Analysis
•Scenario I (Moderate Level)
–Considered trends in the conversion to higher efficiency irrigation methods in the following categories:
•Sprinkler (low pressure systems)
•Surface/Flood (improvements in the infrastructure of the conveyance system)
•Micro (at or near the surface or root zone)
•Scenario II (Substantial Level)
–Considered the above plus an analysis of the impact of shifting to less water-intensive crops (e.g., grain sorghum instead of corn, forage crops like alfalfa and pasture grass instead of grain, etc.) beginning in 2015.OCWP Conservation AnalysisOther Savings
•OCWP Analysis Also Considered Other Savings Associated with Conservation
•Energy:
–Less energy required to produce water (treatment and delivery)
–Less energy required to convey and treat wastewater (since less water in system)
–Therefore, less water requires less energy
•Cost/Benefit :
–Monetary savings associated with having to treat and convey less water and wastewaterOCWP Conservation Analysis Conservation-AssociatedCost Savings
•Considered direct operational costs for water (by source) and wastewater treatment and delivery saved due to conservation.
•Took into account electricity, labor, chemical costs, water analysis, regulatory compliance.
Surface Water
Groundwater
Wastewater
Total
Scenario I
$26,036,731
$2,903,100
$18,510,151
$47,449,981
Scenario II
$38,961,078
$4,344,167
$23,880,443
$67,185,689Energy/Water Nexus Savings
•It takes water to produce thermoelectric power; energy is used in the distribution and treatment of water and wastewater.
•Therefore, energy savings associated with reduced water production and wastewater treatment are important.
Energy Saved
Water Saved
GW hours
Acre-Feet/Year
Scenario I
102
221
Scenario II
146
316OCWP Conservation Analysis Total Water Savings
M&Iand Agriculture Statewide Demand Projections
& Water Savings for Conservation Scenarios (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2060 withEnergy Savings
Baseline
1,377,318
1,455,309
1,523,273
1,587,406
1,642,069
1,711,392
Scenario I
N/A
1,301,816
1,332,781
1,388,603
1,435,807
1,496,643
1,496,422
ScenarioII
N/A
1,155,397
1,170,248
1,209,372
1,244,123
1,295,569
1,295,252OCWP Conservation Analysis What is the Impact?
Gaps/Depletions Mitigation Statewide (2060)
Source
Baseline Shortage Amount
Total & Percent Reduction from Baseline Shortage Amount
Moderate Conservation
Substantial Conservation
SW
75,240 AFY
18,810 AFY
25%
23,980 AFY
32%
AGW
38,980 AFY
12,474 AFY
32%
22,554 AFY
59%
BGW
92,710 AFY
13,906 AFY
15%
73,784 AFY
78%OCWP Conservation Analysis What is the Impact?
Gaps/Depletions Mitigation for Hot Spots (2060)
Source
Baseline Shortage Amount
Total & Percent Reduction from Baseline Shortage Amount
Moderate Level
Substantial Level
SW
14,590 AFY
7,440 AFY
51%
8676 AFY
60%
AGW
12,070 AFY
6,036 AFY
50%
9036 AFY
75%
BGW
69,000 AFY
24,080 AFY
35%
61,320 AFY
89%OCWP Conservation Analysis Improving theWater Future of Basins
Reductionin the Number of Basins with Gaps and/or Storage Depletions
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
BedrockGroundwater
Baseline
55
63
34
Scenario I
42
51
26
Scenario II
33
41
23OCWP Conservation Analysis Further Benefits of Conservation
•Reduce Capital for Forecasted Infrastructure Needs:
–Can stretch supplies and thereby reduce $166 billion need
•Drought Mitigation:
–Reduces demand
–Stretches supplies
–Delays or avoids acute drought restrictions
•More Water for Non-consumptive Uses:
–Protect Oklahoma’s 3rdlargest industry –tourism & recreation
–Equally important to fish & wildlife, both sport industry and ecological protections (e.g., endangered species protection)
–Can reduce impacts of drought on non-consumptive needsHow can we use marginal quality supplies to meet Oklahoma’s future water needs?
How can we increase the reliability of Oklahoma’s groundwater resources?•Characterizing quantity and qualityDefining MQ WaterSource qualitySource quantityConstraints on use
•Assessing potential ―good fits‖ for MQ supply vs. projected demand / gap
•Screening sites for demonstration recharge project
•Statewide assessment
•Considering supply and demand
•Recommendations for demonstration phaseSB1627 Marginal Quality Water
SB1410Aquifer RechargeIntegration into OCWPSenator PaddackUSGSBureau of ReclamationUS EPA / EPA Kerr LabNOAA / NSSLOWRBODEQUniversity of OklahomaOkla. Conservation CommissionOkla. Corporation CommissionOkla. Climatological Survey Okla. Geological SurveyChickasaw NationOIPA & ProducersSenator PaddackUSGSUS EPAOWRBODEQOkla. Conservation CommissionOkla. Corporation CommissionOkla. Farm BureauOkla. Municipal LeagueOkla. Rural Water Assoc.Chickasaw NationPublic Service of OklahomaOIPA & ProducersNature ConservancyLugert-Altus Irrigation Dist.
SB1627 Marginal Quality WaterSB1410Aquifer RechargeMQW WorkgroupSenate Bill 1627MQWs "include brackish or saline contaminated waters, which result from natural or man-made contamination" Directed OWRB to establish a technical work group to identify potential MQW sources and users in OklahomaSought recommendations on how to best utilize MQW supplies for the benefit of our citizens, economy, and environmentCategorize SourcesEstimate Range of Quality and QuantityIdentify Constraints on Uses
•Technical
•Regulatory
•Implementation
Assess Potential Uses
Of MQ Waters
(Feasibility Assessment)Water QualityNeedsQuantityNeeds
Compare Source and Demand Locations
Mapping
Final Report
Analysis Plan for Marginal Quality Water Technical Workgroup
WorkgroupMeetings1
DRAFT FINAL REPORT234
56Defined Categories ofMarginal Quality WaterSurface water or groundwater Water not typically used for public supply Treated wastewater effluent Stormwater runoff Brackish groundwater or surface water Flowback/Produced waterWaters with key parameters over identified M&I thresholds (―Constituents of Concern‖)Potential Constraints to ConsiderTreated WastewaterMarginal Quality Water All Sources Aquifer RechargeWorkgroupSB 1410 Goals and Overall Process
•Develop and apply criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout Oklahoma where aquifer recharge demonstration projects may be most feasible.
•Phase 1: Identification of most suitable area(s):
–Screening
–Detailed analysis / site recommendations
•Phase 2: Demonstration project(s) at one or more areas from Phase 1Data Sources
•OCWP Gap Tool (CDM)
•American Water Institute
•Bureau of Reclamation
•US Geological Survey
•US Environmental Protection AgencyFatal Flaw Criteria
•Heavily developed aquifer
•Proximity of recharge location to demand & source water
•Quality of ground water (TDS < 2,000 mg/l)Fatal FlawCriteria
57 Identified Sites30 Sites for Threshold AnalysisThreshold Criteria
•Water quality of source water
•Source water availability
•Groundwater quality (e.g., nitrate, TDS)
•Hydrogeologicsuitability –aquifer physical properties
•Aquifer storage
•Transmissivity
•Residence time
Threshold Criteria30 Sites Passing Fatal Flaw Criteria
15 Sites for Detailed AnalysisDetailed AnalysisRecommended Sites for Pilot ProjectRecommended Pilot Project Sites
���
–
–
–
–
•
–
–
–
–
–
•
–
–
–
–Alternative Pilot Project Sites
•
–
–
–
•
–
–
–
–Reservoir Viability
•extensive literature search—data collection was the foundation for this work
•identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability
•creation of a database to store essential site information
•evaluation of every identified site
•Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites
•aerial photograph and map reconnaissance of lake sites to identify cost drivers
•screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues
•estimates of updated construction costs on a consistent cost basis, and
•assessment of viability according to five distinct categoriesPotential Reservoir Site Categories
•Category 0—Some reservoir sites were identified by location on the 1966 OWRB map; however, no background or study data could be located for these sites
•Category 1—A number of reservoir sites was briefly described in regional master plans. Some data was reported but essential elements of information (location, dam configuration, drainage area, etc.) were not available.
•Category 2—Includes sites which may have significant data available for analysis, but have substantial obstacleswhich might prevent construction, such as endangered species. Potential Reservoir Site Categories
•Category 3—These reservoirs have sufficient data for an analysis, but one or more factors, such as poor water quality, low dependable yield, high cost per unit, etc., indicate reservoir sites that are slightly less desirable than those in Category 4 below.
•Category 4—These reservoirs sites have undergone extensive evaluation and been determined to be the most viable candidates for future development. Category 3 and 4 Sites
•68 sites identified statewide that have at least sufficient data for additional analysis or are considered viable candidates for developmentWater Supply Options Findings
•Moderate levels of conservation were shown to be very effective at addressing water supply shortages
•Out-of-basin supplies and constructing new reservoir sites potentially effective in all 82 basins. Level of effectiveness dependent upon local factors
•Reservoirs have significant potential to provide a reliable supply for the future. In only 3 basins was a new reservoir considered ineffective
•Increasing supply from direct diversions of stream water was considered likely ineffective in all basins. Due to OK’s precipitation patterns and associated streamflow patterns, reservoir or off-stream storage is likely necessaryWater Supply Options Findings
•Groundwater was considered and excellent future supply source and a typically effective option in all but five basins, where there are only minor aquifers.
•Artificial Recharge would be an likely effective supply option at 5 locations across the state and many other depending local factors
•Marginal quality waters, particularly treated effluent, shows particular promise in stretching current supplies to meet future demands. Additionally, brackish groundwater shows viability in certain parts of the state, pending characterization by the USGS
•68 viable reservoir sites exist across Oklahoma. Reservoirs should be considered a very viable option for meeting future demands and providing reliability IntroductionPage 3Regional SummaryPage 4-6Physical Water AvailabilityPage 8-12Permitting (Legal) Availability
Page 13Characterization of Water Quality
Page 14-20Water QualityProtections-Standards-TrendsWater DemandSource-Sector thru 2060Page 22-23Public Water ProvidersCustomers-Demand Forecasts-Infrastructure NeedsPage 24-45Water Supply Limitations & Options
Limitations Analysis:
•Assessed factors limiting the use of the three major supply categories:
–surface water
–alluvial groundwater
–bedrock groundwaterPage 5Water Supply Limitations & Options
Options Analysis:
•Assessed the ability of options to potentially mitigate identified water supply shortages
•Primary Options:
–Demand Management
–Out-of-Basin Supplies
–Reservoir Use
–Increasing Reliance on Surface Water
–Increasing Reliance on Groundwater
•Additional Options:
–Potential Reservoir Development
–Water Conveyance System
–Artificial Groundwater Recharge
–Marginal Quality Water Sources
Page 6Basin ReportsBasin Summary
Page 52-53Historical/Monthly Precipitation & Streamflow
Page 54Groundwater Supply Sources
Page 55Water Demand thru 2060Source & Water Use Sector
Page 56Distribution Among Uses/Sources of Current & Projected Supply
Page 57Likelihood & Severity of ShortagesSurface Water Gaps-Groundwater DepletionsPage 58Options & Alternativesto Forecasted ShortagesPage 59Tools Developed for the OCWP Updateunder USACE / OWRB authoritiesOklahoma H2O Tool
•Physical supply availability for each basin
•Supply shortages by year
–2010/2020/2030/2040/2050/2060
•Supply shortages by source
–Surface water, Alluvial
groundwater, Bedrock groundwater
•Magnitude & Frequency of Gaps Under Historical Range of Hydrologies
•Sensitivity analyses: water quality, new reservoirs, environmental flows, changing demand patterns, etc.Built-in Flexibilityfor What-If Analyses
•
–
–
•
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Gaps
Supply
Baseline Conditions
DemandReservoir Yield Model
•
•
•
•Public Water Supply Planning Guide
•Assist small water supply providers
•Provides framework for long range planning activities, including tables, checklist and open-ended questions
•Builds on data developed as part of the OCWP
•Provides an example using the process for Any City, Oklahoma
Gather dataIdentify goals and objectives
Develop and assess alternatives
Implement selected alternatives
Reassess long range plan
Long Range
Water Supply Planning Process2012
www.owrb.ok.gov/ocwp