Home

Oklahoma Digital Prairie: Documents, Images and Information

Upper Arkansas watershed planning region

Reference URL

Add tags

To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed the entire object, paste this HTML in website To link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region

Upper Arkansas watershed planning region

1 of 5

View Description

View PDF & Text

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

This page

All

PDF
Text

search this item

Text Search...

Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Upper Arkansas
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning RegionContents
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Regional Summary 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations 2
Water Supply Options . 4
Water Supply . 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers . 22
OCWP Provider Survey 35
Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Limitations Analysis 40
Primary Options 40
Demand Management 40
Out-of-Basin Supplies . 40
Reservoir Use 40
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 41
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 41
Expanded Options 41
Expanded Conservation Measures . 41
Artificial Aquifer Recharge 41
Marginal Quality Water Sources 41
Potential Reservoir Development 41
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 45
Basin 63 . 45
Basin 67 . 55
Basin 68 . 65
Basin 69 . 75
Basin 70 . 85
Basin 71 . 95
Basin 72 . 105
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Upper Arkansas Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals:
Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations.
Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Upper Arkansas Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060,
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.
Regional Overview
The Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region includes seven basins (numbered 63 and 67-72 for reference). The region encompasses 7,452 square miles in northern Oklahoma, spanning from the northeast portion of Woods County to the northwest portion of Creek County and also including all or portions of Alfalfa, Grant, Kay, Osage, Garfield, Noble, Pawnee, Kingfisher, Logan, Payne, Tulsa, and Lincoln Counties.
The region is located primarily in the Central Lowland physiography province. The terrain is dominated by broad, level-to-slightly rolling plains, with rougher, broken plains in the southern area of the region and transitioning to the rolling hills, ridges, and steep-sided valleys of the Flint Hills to the east. The Upper Arkansas Region is a mix of cropland and rangeland, with mixed prairie grasses giving way to densely forested bottomland in the east.
The climate is moist and sub-humid with the mean annual temperature of around 60°F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 24 inches in the northwest to 42 inches in the east. Rainfall peaks in the spring and fall, with May being the wettest month of the year. Annual evaporation ranges from 62 inches in the west to 55 inches in the east and often exceeds precipitation on an annual basis. Frequent droughts cause severe crop damage, but severe flooding can also occur as the result of heavy rainfall events. Thunderstorms accompanied by high winds, hail, and heavy rain increase the likelihood of flash flooding, emphasizing the necessity of watershed protection and flood prevention projects.
The largest cities in the region include Enid (2010 population 47,989), Stillwater (47,582), Ponca City (27,197), Blackwell (9,428), and Cushing (8,655). The greatest demand is from Municipal and Industrial and Thermoelectric water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 182,770 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 54,190 AFY (42%) from 2010.2 Upper Arkansas Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Upper Arkansas Regional Summary
The Upper Arkansas Region accounts for 7% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are currently Municipal and Industrial (37%), Thermoelectric Power (29%), and Crop Irrigation (15%).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 69% of the region’s demand. The region is supplied by three major rivers: the Arkansas, Cimarron, and Salt Fork of the Arkansas. Historically, the region’s rivers and creeks have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers and their tributaries to provide public water supply, flood control, power generation, and recreation. Large reservoirs in the Upper Arkansas Region include: Keystone, Kaw, Sooner, Carl Blackwell, and Great Salt Plains. There are ten additional municipal lakes that have normal pools ranging from 1,800 AF to 19,700 AF.
Relative to other regions, surface water quality in the region is considered poor to fair. Multiple rivers, creeks, and lakes are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of surface water supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 24% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted withdrawals are from the Arkansas River and the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River aquifers. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year, although these projected depletions will be small relative to the amount of water in storage. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Synopsis
The Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies, and to a lesser extent, bedrock groundwater and alluvial aquifers.
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to meet future demand.
By 2020, surface water supplies will be insufficient to meet demand in basins without major reservoirs.
By 2020, alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and changes in well yields or water quality.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps, alluvial groundwater storage depletions, and bedrock groundwater storage depletions.
Aquifer recharge and recovery could be considered to store variable surface water supplies, increase alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage, and reduce adverse effects of localized storage depletions in Basins 63 and 68.
Surface water alternatives, such as groundwater supplies and/or developing new small reservoirs, could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage.
No basins within the region have been identified as water availability “hot spots,” areas where severe deficits or gaps in supply are anticipated. (See “Water Availability Analysis” in the OCWP Executive Report.)
Current Water Demand:
128,570 acre-feet/year (7% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Municipal & Industrial (37% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
69% SW
24% Alluvial GW
7% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
182,770 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
54,200 acre-feet/year (42%)
Upper Arkansas Region Demand Summary
Current and Projected Regional Water DemandUpper Arkansas Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 7% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Vamoosa-Ada aquifer, North -Central Oklahoma minor aquifer, and to a lesser extent other minor aquifers. The Vamoosa-Ada has about 2 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year in Basin 68, but will be largest in the summer months. Bedrock aquifer depletions are will also occur during the summer in Basin 72. These bedrock groundwater withdrawals are expected to be from the North-Central Oklahoma minor bedrock aquifer, which may be limited by both well yield and available storage.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Water Supply Limitations
Upper Arkansas Region
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Upper Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Basins and users that rely on surface water are projected to have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future, except where major reservoirs can provide adequate storage and supply. Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions are also projected in the future. The development of additional alluvial bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short- to long-term water supply option. However, additional long-term water supply alternatives should also be considered for both surface water and groundwater users.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions or immediate need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation, primarily through public water suppliers and increased irrigation efficiency, could reduce surface water gaps and storage depletions, and in Basins 67 and 69, eliminate gaps and alluvial depletions. Further future reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities, which would include a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops (e.g., sorghum or wheat for grain), along with increased efficiency and public water supply conservation. Due to extended dry periods and predominant use of surface water supplies, drought management measures alone will likely be an ineffective water supply option.
New reservoirs and expanded use of existing reservoirs could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and eliminate gaps. Keystone and Kaw have unpermitted yield that could supply new users. However, poor water quality limits Keystone’s use as a public supply source. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Eight reservoirs were identified in the Upper Arkansas Region as having potential for future consideration. These sources could serve as regional or inter-regional supplies to provide additional water to mitigate the region’s groundwater depletions. Due to the distance from the reservoirs to demand points, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users.
The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of aquifers, which would result in minimal increases in projected groundwater depletions. Increased demands would still leave users susceptible to the adverse effects of depletions.
Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Upper Arkansas Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Options
Upper Arkansas RegionOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Report 5
6 Upper Arkansas Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Upper Arkansas Region. The region’s major streams include the Cimarron River, the Chikaskia River, the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, and the Arkansas River. Streams in this region generally have abundant flows, but can experience periods of low-flow conditions as well as periodic flooding events.
The Arkansas River mainstem originates in Kansas and flows into Oklahoma in the Upper Arkansas Region. It runs for 110 miles through Basins 71 and 72 before flowing into the Middle Arkansas Region. Other major tributaries to the Arkansas River mainstem include Black Bear Creek (about 100 miles in Basin 71) and Red Rock Creek (80 miles in Basin 72).
The Salt Fork of the Arkansas River originates in Kansas and flows 50 miles through Basins 68 and 67 before joining the Arkansas River at the outlet of Basin 67. Major tributaries include Pond Creek (60 miles in Basin 68) and the Medicine Lodge River (14 miles in Basin 68).
The Cimarron River flows into the Upper Arkansas Region from the Central Region. It flows for 120 miles through Basins 63 and 71 before joining the Arkansas River. Major tributaries include Skeleton Creek (70 miles in Basin 62).
In the Upper Arkansas Region, streamflow is generally abundant with intermittent periods of low flow; streams in some parts of the region go dry in the late summer. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest are Keystone and Kaw, built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1964 and 1976, respectively.
Keystone Lake, located on the mainstem of the Arkansas River in Basin 71, is authorized for flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, navigation, and fish and wildlife. Water is released for power generation, and as scheduled, to aid navigation on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system. Poor water quality limits its use for public water supply. Most of the currently permitted water is used by the Public Service Company of Oklahoma for cooling water at its Tulsa plant.
Kaw Lake is also located on the mainstem of the Arkansas River in Basin 72. The lake is authorized for flood control, water supply, hydropower, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. The reservoir also provides a substantial amount of water to
As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought.
Reservoirs
Upper Arkansas Region
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted
Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purpose1
Normal Pool Storage
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Boomer
71
City of Stillwater
1932
CW, R
3,200
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Carl Blackwell
70
Oklahoma State University
1937
WS. R
61,500
55,000
7,000
0
0
0
0
12,520
0
Cleveland City
71
City of Cleveland
1936
WS, R
2,200
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Cushing
71
City of Cushing
1950
WS, R
3,304
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Fairfax City
72
City of Fairfax
1936
WS, R
1,795
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Great Salt Plains
68
USACE
1941
FC, C, FW
31,420
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Yield
Kaw
72
USACE
1976
FC, WS, HP, WQ, R, FW
428,600
171,200
187,040
0
0
31,800
43,680
141,403
45,637
Keystone
71
USACE
1964
FC, WS, HP, N, FW
557,600
20,000
22,400
0
0
0
0
13,968
8,452
Langston
63
City of Langston
1966
WS, FC, R
5,792
---
---
0
0
0
0
1,500
---
Lone Chimney
71
Tri-County Development Authority
1984
WS, FC, R
6,200
---
2,509
0
0
0
0
2,507
2
McMurtry
71
City of Stillwater
1971
WS, FC, R
19,733
13,500
3,002
0
0
0
0
2,649
353
Pawnee
71
City of Pawnee
1932
WS, R
3,855
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Perry
71
City of Perry
1937
WS, FC, R
6,358
---
---
0
0
0
0
2,270
---
Ponca
72
City of Ponca City
1935
WS, R
14,440
15,300
2,529
0
0
0
0
2,529
0
Sooner
72
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.
1972
CW
149,000
149,000
3,600
0
0
0
0
3,600
0
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
No known Information is annotated as “---”Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Report 7
Existing reservoirs in this region provide enough storage and yield for the region’s future demand. However, existing water rights would need to be taken into consideration for future planning purposes, and expanded water transmission infrastructure would be required. Modified reservoir operations or reallocation of assigned storage may provide additional flexibility to meet future water needs. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
Upper Arkansas Region8 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Upper Arkansas Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
63
67
68
69
70
71
72
AFY
Average Annual Flow
1,126,000
777,200
468,800
251,900
216,100
3,864,200
2,112,000
Minimum Annual Flow
110,100
78,300
44,600
27,900
24,100
465,400
150,800
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
Upper Arkansas Region
Surface water is the main source of supply in the Upper Arkansas Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.
OG&E for power generation purposes. Water quality in the reservoir is fair and suitable for most purposes.
Other major municipal lakes in the region include Langston Lake in Basin 63; Lone Chimney, Perry, Cleveland City, Cushing, Pawnee, McMurtry, and Carl Blackwell lakes in Basin 71; and Fairfax City and Ponca lakes in Basin 72. In addition, Boomer Lake primarily provides cooling water and recreational opportunities in the Stillwater area in Basin 71. Sooner Lake, located on Greasy Creek Tributary to the Arkansas River in Basin 72, is a cooling water lake owned and operated by OG&E. Great Salt Plans Lake is located on the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River in Basin 68. Except for 761 acres near the dam, which is operated by the Corps of Engineers, the Great Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Due to high mineral content, the lake is not used for most beneficial purposes. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for water supply, recreation, and flood control. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Report 9
to 200 gpm in the terrace. The water is very hard and is typically classified as a calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type. Water quality is generally suitable for most purposes, except in some areas where saltwater encroachment has precluded its use for domestic purposes. The aquifer underlies a small portion of Basin 63 in the south.
The Salt Fork of the Arkansas River aquifer’s alluvium deposits have a maximum thickness of 60 feet while terrace deposits have a maximum thickness of 150 feet. The maximum saturated thickness is 50 feet. The formations are typically clay and silt in the upper portion, changing into fine to coarse sand with local lenses of fine gravel. The aquifer is generally unconfined with well depths of 50 to 150 feet and yields of 100 to 200 gpm in the alluvium portion and 100 to 500 gpm in the terrace. The water is very hard and generally of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type; dissolved solids are typically less than 500 mg/L, although saltwater encroachment occurs
Groundwater Resources
Two major bedrock aquifers, the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada, and four major alluvial aquifers, Arkansas River, Cimarron River, Enid Isolated Terrace, and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, underlie the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region.
The Garber-Wellington aquifer consists of fine-grained sandstone interbedded with siltstone and shale. Depth to water varies from 100 to 350 feet. Well yields range from 50 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 500 gpm, and average 200 gpm. While a major source of Municipal and Industrial water supply in the Central Planning Region, only a small portion of the aquifer’s northern boundary underlies Basin 63 in the Upper Arkansas Region where there is shale and may yield as low as 10 gpm. Quality is generally good, but in some areas concentrations of nitrate, arsenic, chromium, selenium, uranium, and other elements may exceed drinking water standards. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 63 and 71.
The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer consists of 125 to 1,000 feet of interbedded sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, with the proportion of shale increasing northward. Wells commonly yield 25 to 150 gpm. Water quality is generally good and suitable for use as public supply, although iron infiltration and hardness are problems in some areas and there are local problems due to contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities. The aquifer underlies eastern portions of Basins 71 and 72.
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Yields in the Arkansas River aquifer alluvium deposits range from 200 to 500 gpm while wells in the terrace deposits range from 100 to 200 gpm. Deposits are commonly 50 to 100 feet in depth with saturated thickness averaging 25 to 75 feet. The formation consists of clays, sand, silt and gravels. Hardness is the major quality problem and TDS values are usually less than 500 mg/L. The water is generally suitable for most Municipal and Industrial (M&I) uses, although heavy pumping leads to chloride intrusion in the formation. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 71 and 72.
The Cimarron River aquifer consists of silt and clay in the upper portion grading downward to sandy clay, sand and fine gravel with a maximum thickness of about 80 feet and a maximum saturated thickness of about 50 feet. Terrace deposits are typically overlain by dune sand as much as 100 feet thick. The aquifer is generally unconfined with well depths of 50 to 100 feet and yields of 200 to 500 gpm in the alluvium and 100
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.
Groundwater Resources
Upper Arkansas Region
Aquifer
Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arkansas River
Alluvial
Major
3%
5.0
38,000
193,000
temporary 2.0
222,600
Cimarron River
Alluvial
Major
1%
2.3
4,200
107,000
temporary 2.0
50,100
Enid Isolated Terrace
Alluvial
Major
1%
2.3
5,000
213,000
0.5
18,800
Garber-Wellington
Bedrock
Major
3%
1.6
700
2,965,000
temporary 2.0
268,400
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River
Alluvial
Major
11%
2.3
42,900
2,189,000
temporary 2.0
1,049,500
Vamoosa-Ada
Bedrock
Major
10%
0.7-1.4
10,200
3,559,000
2.0
903,000
Chikaskia River
Alluvial
Minor
1%
4.5
2,000
89,000
temporary 2.0
47,600
El Reno
Bedrock
Minor
6%
0.75
1,600
1,494,000
temporary 2.0
574,200
North-Central Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
37%
1.0
13,900
13,562,000
temporary 2.0
3,510,200
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
7,800
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
2,200
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.10 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
in some areas. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 67, 68, and 69.
The Enid Isolated Terrace aquifer underlies approximately 81 square miles and is composed of terrace deposits that consist of discontinuous layers of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. The aquifer underlies a portion of Basin 63 and small portions of Basins 68, 71, and 72.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno and North-Central Oklahoma aquifers. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Chikaskia River. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock use in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but may have insufficient yields for large volume users.
Major bedrock aquifers in the Upper Arkansas Region include the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Arkansas River, Cimarron River, Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, and Enid Isolated Terrace. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.
Groundwater Resources
Upper Arkansas Region
Water Reuse
Treated M&I wastewater return flows can be captured and reused through a variety of approaches commonly referred to as water reuse. Water reuse can reduce dependence upon conventional supplies as well as demand on potable water systems. However, water reuse is not always a cost-effective alternative and can result in reduced treated wastewater discharges to receiving waters, impacting stream flows and the availability of supplies for downstream users. Water reuse is already practiced by several Oklahoma communities.
In the U.S., the most common application of reused water by public water providers is for non-potable irrigation (e.g., lawn watering, golf course irrigation) and industrial applications. The OCWP Marginal Quality Water Workgroup found that because supplies are greater in and near the state’s municipalities, M&I non-potable (e.g., landscape irrigation) and some industrial or power-generation use are likely the most cost-effective applications for water reuse in Oklahoma. The workgroup concluded that public water suppliers and users should consider water reuse where it can be cost-effectively implemented and socially acceptable, and that the state should continue to support the development of more detailed reuse regulations to provide a framework for utilizing this water resource while recognizing downstream uses of that water.
The workgroup identified the basins statewide in which water reuse could offset the most significant amount of potable water demand. While none of those basins is in the Upper Arkansas Region, the workgroup recognized that water reuse could be implemented virtually anywhere in the state dependent upon downstream water availability, needs, and water rights.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Permit Availability
For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law.
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Upper Arkansas Region. For groundwater, each aquifer’s equal proportionate share (EPS) determines the amount of water available for permits in studied groundwater basins. Equal proportionate shares in the Upper Arkansas Region range from 0.5 AFY per acre to 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Upper Arkansas Region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.
Surface Water Permit Availability
Upper Arkansas Region
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Upper Arkansas Region.
Groundwater Permit Availability
Upper Arkansas Region
Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Upper Arkansas Region.12 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region is defined by two major river systems, the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers, and numerous minor and major water supply reservoirs. The majority of the region is contained within the Central Great Plains (CGP) ecoregion, with some Cross Timbers (CT) and Flint Hills (FH) influence along the eastern border.
Except for two intervening ecoregions, the Prairie Tablelands extends from the west through over half of the region’s geographical area and is drained by tributaries of the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers. The area is nearly level, underlain by shale, sandstone, and siltstone. It is dominated by cropland with dense mixed-grass prairies. Streams are turbid and silt-dominated, lying in broad, shallow, low-gradient channels with incised banks and typified by Skeleton Creek (south), Salt Fork of the Arkansas River (north and central), and Chikaskia River (northeastern). Normally, salinity is high in the west, with mean conductivity ranging from 1,700 (Skeleton) to near 2,700 μS (Salt Fork). Northeastern salinity lowers with values ranging from 300 (Ponca) to 900 μS (Kaw and Chikaskia). Kaw and Ponca Lakes are typical water supply lakes in the east. Oligotrophic to eutrophic, nutrient values are lower on the Salt Fork and Chikaskia with concentrations ranging from 0.10 to 0.27 ppm for total phosphorus (TP) and 1.01 to 1.50 ppm of total nitrogen (TN). Skeleton is hyper-eutrophic with TP of 0.54 ppm and TN of 4.57 ppm. Lakes are phosphorus limited and mesotrophic (lower Kaw) to hyper-eutrophic (Ponca). Water clarity is fair (Chikaskia turbidity = 43 NTU) to poor (Salt Fork = 97 NTU). Lake clarity is poor to good, with an average Secchi depth of 35 (Upper Kaw) to 61 cm (Ponca). Ecological diversity varies throughout depending on salinity, habitat degradation, and sedimentation. Some unique gravel/cobble/bedrock streams support darter habitat.
The Salt Plains and Pleistocene Sand Dunes intervene in the eastern part of Alfalfa County in Basin 68. The Salt Plains have high subsurface salinity and low ecological diversity. Streams are shallow with flat banks and typically ephemeral. The Pleistocene Sand Dunes have more permeable sandy soils, interlaced with springs and inter-dune wetlands. Streams are typically sandy, with incised, highly erodible banks. The Great Salt Plains Reservoir has high salinity (max conductivity = 10,016 μS) and poor clarity (Secchi depth = 10 cm). It is nitrogen limited and hyper-eutrophic.
The south-central part of the region is dominated by the Cross Timbers Transition, a hybrid mix of rough plains covered by prairie grasses and oak/elm/cedar forests. Cropland/rangeland are the major land uses. Streams are rockier and contained in narrower, incised channels. The area is characterized by the Arkansas (including Black Bear Creek) and Cimarron drainages and water supply lakes. Conductivity is lower in the Arkansas, ranging from 840 (Black Bear) to 1,300 μS (Ralston). It increases in the Cimarron to nearly 6,000 μS. Average lake conductivity is 300 μS, but rises to 1,500 μS in Sooner Lake in Basin 72. Having high nutrient concentrations, streams are eutrophic/hyper-eutrophic, with TN of 1.47 to 1.91 ppm and TP of 0.25 to 0.39 ppm. Lakes are mesotrophic (Cushing, Perry, and Sooner) to eutrophic (Boomer, Lone Chimney, and Pawnee). Water clarity is fair (Black Bear = 44 NTU) to poor (Ripley = 160 NTU).
The Upper Arkansas Planning Region is dominated by Central Great Plains ecoregions but transitions to the Cross Timbers and Flint Hills in the east. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices, and is generally poor to good depending on drainage and location.
Ecoregions
Upper Arkansas Region
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics.
The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur.
The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g., municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters.
Lake clarity is poor to excellent, with mean Secchi depths ranging from 22 (Perry) to 115 cm (Sooner). Ecological diversity is variable, influenced by salinity, habitat degradation, and sedimentation.
The Flint Hills in Osage and Kay Counties in Basins 71 and 72 are underlain by shallow limestone/shale and the low hills are rangeland/grassland, including tall grass prairie. Channels are more natural, with low to incised banks and gravel/cobble bottoms. The area is characterized by Salt Creek and Fairfax Lake. Salinity is low/moderate, with conductivity values ranging from 200 (Fairfax) to 500 μS (Salt Creek). Waters are eutrophic, with means of TN/TP approximately 0.85/0.07 ppm. Clarity is fair on Salt Creek (33 NTU) to good at Fairfax (73 cm). Ecological diversity is higher because of stream morphology and lower salinity/habitat degradation.
Finally, the Northern Cross Timbers intersects the region in the southeast and western Payne County. The area is more forested than neighboring plains with intervening grasslands and mixed land use. Streams are diverse through the ecoregion. In this region, they are shallower, sand/silt dominated, and highly incised. The area is typified by Keystone Reservoir and lakes Carl Blackwell, Langston, and McMurtry. Keystone Reservoir integrates the Arkansas/Cimarron drainages from north to south. Salinity is moderate to high with conductivity ranging from 550 (Arkansas River) to nearly 7,000 μS (Cimarron River), and clarity is average, with Secchi depth ranging from 26-47 cm. Classified as eutrophic to hypertrophic, Keystone is co-limited for nitrogen/phosphorus, with relatively high concentrations. In the Payne County area, salinity is relatively low, as conductivity ranges from 300-400 μS. Clarity ranges from average (Blackwell = 37cm) to good (Langston = 70 cm). All are phosphorus limited. Nutrient concentrations are low to moderate. Langston is mesotrophic, while Carl Blackwell is eutrophic. Ecological diversity is fair and
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Upper Arkansas Region
BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission has begun a watershed implementation project on Stillwater Creek to address sediment and turbidity. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed a TMDL study on Oak Creek.14 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses. For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments—whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ.
impacted by poor habitat, non-native salinity, and sedimentation.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources.
The Upper Arkansas region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Cimarron and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River aquifers is generally suitable for most purposes, except in some areas where saltwater encroachment has precluded its use for domestic purposes. The water is generally hard and of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. In most areas, dissolved solids concentrations in the Cimarron and Salt Fork formations are below drinking water standards.
Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada. The Garber-Wellington is in the southernmost tip of the region. It is of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and ranges from hard to very hard. In general, concentrations of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate are low. Water from the aquifer is normally suitable for public water supply, but concentrations of nitrates, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, arsenic, chromium, selenium, and uranium may exceed drinking water standards in localized areas. The Vamoosa-Ada is primarily in the far southeastern portion of the Upper Arkansas Region. Although water quality is generally good, iron infiltration and hardness are problems. Chloride and sulfate concentrations are generally low, and except for areas of local contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities, water is suitable for use as public supply.
Water Quality Impairments
Upper Arkansas Region
Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Surface waters in this region have impacts due to turbidity as well as naturally occurring levels of salinity.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Upper Arkansas Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture
Upper Arkansas Region16 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.
Surface Water Protection Areas
Upper Arkansas Region
Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters. Because Cleveland Reservoir and Lone Chimney Lake are public water supply reservoirs and have relatively small watersheds, they could potentially benefit from SWS designations. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watersheds. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll-a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: ���If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.
Groundwater Protection Areas
Upper Arkansas Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and address vulnerability. The Enid Isolated Terrace and Cimarron River and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River alluvial aquifers have been identified by the OWRB as very highly vulnerable.18 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Upper Arkansas Region
Site
Black Bear Creek near Pawnee
Chikaskia River near Blackwell
Cimarron River near Guthrie
Cimarron River near Ripley
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Ingersol
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Tonkawa
Parameter
All Data Trend (1960-1993, 1998-2009) 1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1952-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend 2000-2009)1
Recent Trend (2000-2009)
All Data Trend (1979-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1951-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the Upper Arkansas Region are:
Significant upward trend for recent conductivity on the Cimarron, Chikaskia, and Salt Fork Rivers•
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout the region•
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on the Cimarron River•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Upper Arkansas Region
Site
Lake Carl Blackwell
Fairfax City Lake
Kaw Lake
Keystone Lake
Langston Lake
Lake McMurtry
Pawnee Lake
Perry Lake
Parameter
(1995-2008)
(1995-2007)
(1996-2008)
(1995-2009)
(1994-2008)
(1995-2009)
(1994-2007)
(1996-2007)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concerns in the Upper Arkansas Region are:
Significant upward trend for chlorophyll-a and total nitrogen on numerous reservoirs•
Significant upward trend for turbidity on Carl Blackwell and Langston reservoirs• 20 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand
The Upper Arkansas Region’s water demand accounts for about 7% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 42% (54,190 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Thermoelectric Power sectors.
Thermoelectric Power demand is projected to account for 36% of the region’s water demand in 2060. The Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company’s Sooner Plant, which is supplied by surface water, is a large user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) use is projected to account for about 32% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 70% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 22% by alluvial groundwater, and 8% by bedrock groundwater.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 12% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 24% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 57% by alluvial groundwater, and 19% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Upper Arkansas Region include cotton, pasture grasses, and corn.
Self-Supplied Industrial demand in the region is projected to account for 7% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 82% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 16% by alluvial groundwater, and 2% by bedrock groundwater.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 6% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 93% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 4% by bedrock groundwater.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 5% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 22% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 59% by alluvial groundwater, and 19% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production, followed distantly by sheep.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 92% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 8% by bedrock groundwater.
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Upper Arkansas Region
Projected water demand by sector. By 2060, 35% of the demand will come from the Thermoelectric Power sector and 32% will come from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector.
Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Upper Arkansas Region
The Upper Arkansas Region’s water needs account for about 7% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 42% (54,200 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Thermoelectric Power sectors.
Total Water Demand
by Sector
Upper Arkansas Region
Water Demand
Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors.
Water Demand Sectors
nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector.
n Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector, when available.
n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as self-supplied industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector.
n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports.
OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin.
Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports.
Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Upper Arkansas Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
18,800
7,770
47,270
2,170
11,820
2,890
37,870
128,570
2020
19,290
7,900
50,200
3,330
12,360
3,110
42,250
138,450
2030
19,780
8,040
52,710
4,780
12,660
3,320
47,140
148,430
2040
20,270
8,180
55,120
6,500
12,970
3,520
52,580
159,140
2050
20,650
8,310
57,200
8,490
13,270
3,720
58,660
170,300
2060
21,260
8,450
59,340
10,760
13,590
3,910
65,450
182,77022 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
level. Retail demand projections detailed in
the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast
table were developed for each of the OCWP
providers in the region. These projections
include estimated system losses, defined as
water lost either during water production
or distribution to residential homes and
businesses. Retail demands do not include
wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not
intended to supersede water demand forecasts
developed by individual providers. OCWP
analyses were made using a consistent
methodology based on accepted data available
on a statewide basis. Where available,
provider-generated forecasts were also
reviewed as part of this effort.
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water
systems permitted or regulated by the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed
in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The
public systems selected for inclusion, which
collectively supply approximately 94 percent
of the state’s current population, consist
of municipal or community water systems
and rural water districts that were readily
identifiable as non-profit, local governmental
entities. This and other information provided
in the OCWP will support provider-level
planning by providing insight into
future supply and
infrastructure needs.
The Upper Arkansas
Region includes 100 of the
785 public supply systems
analyzed for the 2012 OCWP
Update. The Public Water
Providers map indicates the
approximate service areas of these
systems. (The map may not accurately
represent existing service areas or legal
boundaries. In addition, water systems
often serve multiple counties and can
extend into multiple planning basins
and regions.)
In terms of 2010 population served
(excluding provider-to-provider sales),
the five largest systems in the region, in
decreasing order, are Enid, Stillwater,
Ponca City Municipal Water, Blackwell,
and Cushing. These five systems provide
service for more than 60 percent of
the population served by public water
providers in the region.
Demands upon public water systems,
which comprise the majority of the
OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial
(M&I) water demand sector, were
analyzed at both the basin and provider
Public Water Providers
Upper Arkansas Region
Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Projected Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
51 EAST CORP
OK3006003
Payne
73
2,121
2,282
2,452
2,618
2,736
2,849
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1
OK2000202
Alfalfa
133
1,635
1,635
1,635
1,635
1,660
1,688
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 NORTH
OK2000201
Alfalfa
Same as above
0
0
0
0
0
0
ALVA
OK2007603
Woods
288
5,235
5,235
5,294
5,353
5,411
5,519
BILLINGS PWA
OK2005201
Noble
154
557
581
606
630
642
654
BLACKWELL
OK1021101
Kay
153
9,428
9,753
10,006
10,235
10,464
10,717
BLACKWELL RW CORP
OK3003601
Kay
164
927
959
984
1,006
1,029
1,054
BRAMAN
OK3003616
Kay
94
244
254
254
264
264
273
BRECKINRIDGE PWA
OK2002420
Garfield
190
239
249
259
269
269
279
BURBANK
OK3005752
Osage
77
161
170
180
189
198
208
BURLINGTON
OK3000202
Alfalfa
160
156
156
156
156
156
166
CHEROKEE
OK2000208
Alfalfa
221
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,669
1,689
CLEVELAND NORTH
OK1021210
Pawnee
152
3,384
3,750
4,088
4,446
4,812
5,188
COVINGTON
OK3002419
Garfield
63
559
569
588
598
608
628
COYLE
OK2004203
Logan
117
336
380
415
450
486
530
CREEK CO RWD # 5
OK2001994
Creek
57
2,824
3,020
3,173
3,318
3,463
3,619
CREEK CO RWD #10
OK2001907
Creek
136
25
26
28
29
30
31
CUSHING
OK2006061
Payne
131
8,655
9,319
10,011
10,694
11,176
11,631
DEER CREEK
OK2002711
Grant
90
147
147
147
147
157
157
DOUGLAS
OK3002414
Garfield
75
32
32
32
32
32
32
DRUMRIGHT
OK2001902
Creek
183
3,066
3,279
3,445
3,603
3,760
3,930
ENID
OK2002412
Garfield
200
47,989
49,453
50,668
51,804
52,691
53,747
FAIRFAX
OK1021204
Osage
113
1,528
1,638
1,721
1,794
1,868
1,951
FAIRMONT
OK2002413
Garfield
64
147
157
157
157
167
167
GARBER
OK2002416
Garfield
95
857
877
896
916
936
955
GARFIELD CO RWD # 4
OK3002406
Garfield
50
322
333
340
348
354
361
GARFIELD CO RWD # 5
OK2002444
Garfield
119
1,317
1,358
1,390
1,421
1,445
1,474
GARFIELD CO RWD #1 (KREM-HILL)
OK2002402
Garfield
161
705
727
744
761
774
790
GARFIELD CO RWD #7
OK3002408
Garfield
166
315
325
333
340
346
353
GLENCOE
OK3006040
Payne
61
658
708
768
817
857
887
GRANT COUNTY RWD #1
OK3002707
Grant
160
100
102
104
104
107
110
GRAYHORSE RWD
OK3005717
Osage
164
102
109
115
120
125
130
HALLETT PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2005905
Pawnee
89
174
193
212
232
251
270
HILLSDALE PWA
OK3002404
Garfield
80
101
111
111
111
111
121
HUNTER
OK3002415
Garfield
69
310
310
328
328
345
345
JEFFERSON
OK3002702
Grant
61
57
57
57
57
57
5724 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Projected Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
JENNINGS
OK2005904
Pawnee
65
412
452
492
533
583
623
JET
OK2000211
Alfalfa
125
256
256
256
256
256
268
KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY
OK2003605
Kay
169
372
382
392
401
411
421
KAW WATER INC
OK3003618
Kay
122
90
92
95
97
99
102
KAY CO RWD #1
OK3003605
Kay
140
1,778
1,839
1,885
1,930
1,972
2,018
KAY CO RWD #3
OK3003602
Kay
97
1,058
1,094
1,122
1,148
1,173
1,201
KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP)
OK3003603
Kay
150
770
797
817
836
855
875
KAY CO RWD #6
OK2002415
Garfield
87
1,290
1,330
1,361
1,392
1,415
1,444
KAY COUNTY RWD # 4
OK3003624
Kay
111
101
104
107
109
112
114
KAY COUNTY RWD #2
OK3003604
Kay
748
50
52
53
55
56
57
KREMLIN
OK3002403
Garfield
87
717
717
746
775
775
803
LAMONT
OK2002705
Grant
176
465
475
485
485
505
516
LANGSTON PWA
OK1020911
Logan
51
1,735
1,944
2,135
2,326
2,517
2,717
LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2004230
Logan
220
1,558
1,749
1,919
2,091
2,260
2,441
LONE CHIMNEY WATER ASSOCIATION
OK1021221
Pawnee
115
187
207
225
245
265
286
MANCHESTER
OK2002703
Grant
100
104
114
114
114
114
125
MANNFORD
OK1020909
Creek
90
3,067
3,275
3,441
3,594
3,760
3,927
MARLAND
OK2005204
Noble
100
280
299
309
319
328
328
MARSHALL
OK3004201
Logan
191
263
300
327
354
382
418
MCCORD RWD #3
OK3005747
Osage
154
1,838
1,968
2,066
2,155
2,244
2,344
MEDFORD
OK2002704
Grant
378
1,600
1,628
1,669
1,669
1,738
1,766
MORRISON PUBLIC WORKS AUTH.
OK3005205
Noble
73
1,018
1,064
1,094
1,125
1,155
1,185
MULHALL
OK3004203
Logan
134
244
281
308
335
362
389
NASH
OK2002701
Grant
340
191
200
200
200
208
208
NEWKIRK
OK2003604
Kay
215
2,296
2,376
2,436
2,497
2,547
2,607
NOBLE CO RWD # 4
OK3005201
Noble
63
256
269
277
286
292
299
NOBLE CO RWD #1 (LUCIEN)
OK1021205
Noble
171
340
357
369
380
389
397
NOBLE CO RWD #3
OK2005207
Noble
76
152
160
165
170
174
178
NOBLE COUNTY RWD #2
OK3005203
Noble
83
1,523
1,600
1,651
1,702
1,740
1,778
OILTON
OK2001901
Creek
93
1,225
1,319
1,382
1,445
1,508
1,581
ORLANDO
OK3004202
Logan
160
205
232
250
277
295
321
OSAGE CO RWD #21
OK2003616
Osage
93
1,531
1,640
1,721
1,795
1,870
1,954
OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN)
OK3005748
Osage
114
715
766
803
838
872
912
OSAGE PWA
OK2005701
Osage
100
172
184
194
202
210
220
PAWNEE
OK1021209
Pawnee
75
2,298
2,552
2,778
3,014
3,268
3,522
PAWNEE CO RWD #1
OK2005931
Pawnee
69
3,297
3,660
3,985
4,329
4,691
5,054
PAWNEE CO RWD #2
OK3005921
Pawnee
93
1,829
2,030
2,210
2,401
2,602
2,804
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 3)
Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Projected Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
PAWNEE CO RWD #3
OK3005911
Pawnee
113
663
735
801
870
943
1,016
PAWNEE CO RWD #4
OK3005913
Pawnee
70
500
555
604
656
711
766
PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5
OK3005902
Pawnee
517
133
148
161
174
189
204
PAYNE CO RW CORP #3
OK3006030
Payne
151
3,035
3,265
3,508
3,746
3,914
4,076
PAYNE CO RWD #3
OK2006011
Payne
73
1,423
1,531
1,645
1,756
1,835
1,911
PAYNE CO RWD #4
OK3006001
Payne
51
871
937
1,007
1,075
1,124
1,170
PERKINS
OK2006012
Payne
99
2,348
2,531
2,722
2,904
3,040
3,159
PERRY WATER & LIGHT DEPT
OK1021206
Noble
85
5,281
5,546
5,723
5,901
6,033
6,166
PONCA CITY MUNICIPAL WATER
OK1021202
Kay
345
27,197
28,143
28,862
29,530
30,187
30,906
POND CREEK
OK2002702
Grant
325
890
910
920
920
950
970
PRUE PWA
OK2005703
Osage
89
456
496
515
535
555
585
R&C WATER CORP
OK3002703
Grant
107
525
535
544
544
563
576
RALSTON
OK2005901
Pawnee
159
361
401
436
474
514
554
RED ROCK
OK2005202
Noble
142
299
314
324
334
341
349
RIPLEY PWA
OK2006013
Payne
144
385
416
447
478
501
516
SALT FORK WATER AUTHORITY
OK3002418
Garfield
160
25
26
27
27
28
28
SHIDLER
OK1021203
Osage
70
531
569
588
617
636
664
STILLWATER WATER PLANT
OK1021220
Payne
166
47,582
51,204
55,008
58,748
61,395
63,914
SW WATER INC
OK3002706
Grant
186
204
208
211
211
219
224
TONKAWA
OK2003603
Kay
138
3,323
3,441
3,520
3,599
3,678
3,766
TRYON
OK2004103
Lincoln
181
454
501
529
567
605
643
WAKITA
OK2002706
Grant
179
420
420
430
430
450
450
WAUKOMIS PWA
OK2002410
Garfield
92
1,314
1,355
1,386
1,416
1,436
1,467
WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST
OK2005910
Pawnee
90
178
198
216
234
254
273
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1
OK3007602
Woods
243
245
245
247
250
252
257
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3007605
Woods
260
360
360
363
367
370
378
YALE
OK3006039
Payne
78
1,493
1,600
1,717
1,834
1,912
1,990
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (3 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region26 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Projections of Retail Water Demand
Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demand includes water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demand includes customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demand doesn’t include wholesale water to other providers.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations.
The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses.
For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems.
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
51 EAST CORP
OK3006003
Payne
174
187
201
215
224
234
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1
OK2000202
Alfalfa
244
244
244
244
248
252
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 NORTH
OK2000201
Alfalfa
0
0
0
0
0
0
ALVA
OK2007603
Woods
1,692
1,692
1,711
1,730
1,749
1,783
BILLINGS PWA
OK2005201
Noble
96
101
105
109
111
113
BLACKWELL
OK1021101
Kay
1,615
1,671
1,714
1,753
1,792
1,836
BLACKWELL RW CORP
OK3003601
Kay
171
177
181
185
189
194
BRAMAN
OK3003616
Kay
26
27
27
28
28
29
BRECKINRIDGE PWA
OK2002420
Garfield
51
53
55
57
57
59
BURBANK
OK3005752
Osage
14
15
16
16
17
18
BURLINGTON
OK3000202
Alfalfa
28
28
28
28
28
30
CHEROKEE
OK2000208
Alfalfa
405
405
405
405
412
417
CLEVELAND NORTH
OK1021210
Pawnee
577
640
698
759
821
885
COVINGTON
OK3002419
Garfield
40
40
42
42
43
44
COYLE
OK2004203
Logan
44
50
54
59
64
69
CREEK CO RWD # 5
OK2001994
Creek
181
193
203
212
222
232
CREEK CO RWD #10
OK2001907
Creek
4
4
4
4
5
5
CUSHING
OK2006061
Payne
1,274
1,372
1,474
1,574
1,645
1,712
DEER CREEK
OK2002711
Grant
15
15
15
15
16
16
DOUGLAS
OK3002414
Garfield
3
3
3
3
3
3
DRUMRIGHT
OK2001902
Creek
629
672
706
739
771
806
ENID
OK2002412
Garfield
10,728
11,056
11,327
11,581
11,779
12,016
FAIRFAX
OK1021204
Osage
194
208
218
228
237
248
FAIRMONT
OK2002413
Garfield
10
11
11
11
12
12
GARBER
OK2002416
Garfield
91
93
95
97
99
101
GARFIELD CO RWD # 4
OK3002406
Garfield
18
19
19
19
20
20
GARFIELD CO RWD # 5
OK2002444
Garfield
176
182
186
190
193
197
GARFIELD CO RWD #1 (KREM-HILL)
OK2002402
Garfield
128
132
135
138
140
143
GARFIELD CO RWD #7
OK3002408
Garfield
59
61
62
63
64
66
GLENCOE
OK3006040
Payne
45
48
52
56
59
61
GRANT COUNTY RWD #1
OK3002707
Grant
18
18
19
19
19
20
GRAYHORSE RWD
OK3005717
Osage
19
20
21
22
23
24
HALLETT PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2005905
Pawnee
17
19
21
23
25
27
HILLSDALE PWA
OK3002404
Garfield
9
10
10
10
10
11
HUNTER
OK3002415
Garfield
24
24
25
25
26
26
JEFFERSON
OK3002702
Grant
4
4
4
4
4
4
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region
HILLSDALE PWA
Garfield
9
10
10
10
10
11Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
JENNINGS
OK2005904
Pawnee
30
33
36
39
42
45
JET
OK2000211
Alfalfa
36
36
36
36
36
38
KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY
OK2003605
Kay
71
72
74
76
78
80
KAW WATER INC
OK3003618
Kay
12
13
13
13
14
14
KAY CO RWD #1
OK3003605
Kay
278
288
295
302
309
316
KAY CO RWD #3
OK3003602
Kay
115
119
122
124
127
130
KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP)
OK3003603
Kay
130
134
138
141
144
147
KAY CO RWD #6
OK2002415
Garfield
126
130
133
136
139
141
KAY COUNTY RWD # 4
OK3003624
Kay
13
13
13
14
14
14
KAY COUNTY RWD #2
OK3003604
Kay
42
44
45
46
47
48
KREMLIN
OK3002403
Garfield
70
70
73
75
75
78
LAMONT
OK2002705
Grant
92
94
96
96
100
102
LANGSTON PWA
OK1020911
Logan
99
111
122
133
144
155
LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2004230
Logan
384
431
473
515
557
601
LONE CHIMNEY WATER ASSOCIATION
OK1021221
Pawnee
24
27
29
32
34
37
MANCHESTER
OK2002703
Grant
12
13
13
13
13
14
MANNFORD
OK1020909
Creek
308
329
345
361
377
394
MARLAND
OK2005204
Noble
31
34
35
36
37
37
MARSHALL
OK3004201
Logan
56
64
70
76
82
89
MCCORD RWD #3
OK3005747
Osage
316
339
356
371
386
403
MEDFORD
OK2002704
Grant
677
688
706
706
735
747
MORRISON PUBLIC WORKS AUTH.
OK3005205
Noble
83
87
89
92
94
97
MULHALL
OK3004203
Logan
37
42
46
50
54
58
NASH
OK2002701
Grant
73
76
76
76
79
79
NEWKIRK
OK2003604
Kay
553
572
587
601
613
628
NOBLE CO RWD # 4
OK3005201
Noble
18
19
20
20
21
21
NOBLE CO RWD #1 (LUCIEN)
OK1021205
Noble
65
68
71
73
74
76
NOBLE CO RWD #3
OK2005207
Noble
13
14
14
14
15
15
NOBLE COUNTY RWD #2
OK3005203
Noble
142
149
154
159
162
166
OILTON
OK2001901
Creek
128
138
145
151
158
166
ORLANDO
OK3004202
Logan
37
42
45
50
53
58
OSAGE CO RWD #21
OK2003616
Osage
160
171
179
187
195
204
OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN)
OK3005748
Osage
91
98
103
107
111
116
OSAGE PWA
OK2005701
Osage
19
21
22
23
24
25
PAWNEE
OK1021209
Pawnee
193
214
233
253
275
296
PAWNEE CO RWD #1
OK2005931
Pawnee
254
282
307
333
361
389
PAWNEE CO RWD #2
OK3005921
Pawnee
190
211
229
249
270
291
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region28 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
PAWNEE CO RWD #3
OK3005911
Pawnee
84
93
101
110
119
129
PAWNEE CO RWD #4
OK3005913
Pawnee
39
44
47
52
56
60
PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5
OK3005902
Pawnee
77
85
93
101
110
118
PAYNE CO RW CORP #3
OK3006030
Payne
515
554
595
635
664
691
PAYNE CO RWD #3
OK2006011
Payne
116
125
134
143
149
156
PAYNE CO RWD #4
OK3006001
Payne
50
54
58
62
64
67
PERKINS
OK2006012
Payne
261
281
302
322
337
350
PERRY WATER & LIGHT DEPT
OK1021206
Noble
502
527
544
561
573
586
PONCA CITY MUN WATER
OK1021202
Kay
10,518
10,884
11,162
11,420
11,675
11,953
POND CREEK
OK2002702
Grant
324
331
335
335
346
353
PRUE PWA
OK2005703
Osage
45
49
51
53
55
58
R&C WATER CORP
OK3002703
Grant
63
64
65
65
67
69
RALSTON
OK2005901
Pawnee
64
71
78
84
92
99
RED ROCK
OK2005202
Noble
47
50
51
53
54
55
RIPLEY PWA
OK2006013
Payne
62
67
72
77
81
83
SALT FORK WATER AUTHORITY
OK3002418
Garfield
5
5
5
5
5
5
SHIDLER
OK1021203
Osage
42
45
46
48
50
52
STILLWATER WATER PLANT
OK1021220
Payne
8,864
9,539
10,247
10,944
11,437
11,906
SW WATER INC
OK3002706
Grant
43
43
44
44
46
47
TONKAWA
OK2003603
Kay
515
533
545
557
570
583
TRYON
OK2004103
Lincoln
92
102
107
115
123
130
WAKITA
OK2002706
Grant
84
84
86
86
90
90
WAUKOMIS PWA
OK2002410
Garfield
136
140
143
146
148
151
WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST
OK2005910
Pawnee
18
20
22
24
26
28
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1
OK3007602
Woods
67
67
67
68
69
70
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3007605
Woods
105
105
106
107
108
110
YALE
OK3006039
Payne
131
140
151
161
168
175
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast ( of 3)
Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demand. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems.
Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers.
Public Water Provider Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
51 EAST CORP
OK3006003
Stillwater Water Plant
Lone Chimney Water Association
O
O
T
T
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1
OK2000202
Burlington
O
R
ALVA
OK2007603
Woods County RWD#3
Woods County RWD#1
Woods Co RWD #4
Dacoma PWA
O
O
O
T
T
T
BLACKWELL
OK1021101
Blackwell RW Corp
O
T
BLACKWELL RW CORP
OK3003601
Braman
O
T
Blackwell
O
T
BRAMAN
OK3003616
Blackwell RW Corp
O
T
BURBANK
OK3005752
Osage County RWD #3
BURLINGTON
OK3000202
Alfalfa Co RWS $ SWMD #1
O
R
CLEVELAND NORTH
OK1021210
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
COVINGTON
OK3002419
Enid
O
T
CUSHING
OK2006061
Lincoln Co RWD # 4
E
T
DOUGLAS
OK3002414
Kay County RWD #6
T
ENID
OK2002412
Salt Fork Water Authority
Waukomis PWA
Lahoma PWA
Garfield Co RWD #7
Garfield Co RWD #4
Drummond
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
R
T
R
T
FAIRFAX
OK1021204
Grayhorse RWD
O
T
GARFIELD CO RWD # 4
OK3002406
Enid
O
R
GARFIELD CO RWD # 5
OK2002444
Drumond
E
T
GARFIELD CO RWD#1 (KREM-HILL)
OK2002402
Kremlin
Hillsdale PWA
O
O
T
T
GARFIELD CO RWD #7
OK3002408
Enid
O
T
GLENCOE
OK3006040
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
GRANT COUNTY RWD #1
OK3002707
Manchester
O
T
GRAYHORSE RWD
OK3005717
Fairfax
O
T
HILLSDALE PWA
OK3002404
Garfield Co RWD #1
Kremlin
O
T
T
HUNTER
OK3002415
Kay County RWD #6
T30 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
JEFFERSON
OK3002702
Medford
O
T
KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY
OK2003605
Kay County RWD #4
O
T
KAW WATER INC
OK3003618
Kay County RWD #4
KAY CO RWD #1
OK3003605
Ponca City Municipal Water
O
T
KAY CO RWD #3
OK3003602
Ponca City Mun Water
O
T
KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP)
OK3003603
Newkirk
T
KAY CO RWD #6
OK2002415
Douglas
Hunter
T
T
KAY COUNTY RWD # 4
OK3003624
Kaw City WA
O
T
KAY COUNTY RWD #2
OK3003604
Ponca City Mun Water
T
KREMLIN
OK3002403
Hillsdale PWA
T
LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2004230
Mulhall
Orlando
Noble Co RWD #1
Marshall
O
T
T
T
T
ORLANDO
OK3004202
Logan County RWD #3
O
O
OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN)
OK3005748
Burbank
Washington County RWD #3
Ponca City Mun Water
E
T
T
PAWNEE
OK1021209
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
PAWNEE CO RWD #1
OK2005931
Westport Utility Auth Trust
O
T
PAWNEE CO RWD #2
OK3005921
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
PAWNEE CO RWD #3
OK3005911
Lone Chimney WA
T
PAWNEE CO RWD #4
OK3005913
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5
OK3005902
Ralston
T
PAYNE CO RW CORP #3
OK3006030
Stillwater Water Plant
O
T
PAYNE CO RWD #4
OK3006001
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
PONCA CITY MUN WATER
OK1021202
Kay Co RWD #1
Kay Co RWD #3
Osage Co RWD #3
Kay Co RWD #2
McCord RWD #3
O
O
T
T
T
T
Public Water Provider Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 3)
Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
POND CREEK
OK2002702
SW Water Inc
O
T
R&C WATER CORP
OK3002703
Medford
O
T
RALSTON
OK2005901
Pawnee Co RWD #5
T
SALT FORK WA
OK3002418
Covington
O
T
Enid
O
T
STILLWATER WATER PLANT
OK1021220
Payne Co RWD #3
51 East Corp
Noble County RWD #2
Morrison
O
O
O
T
T
T
R
SW WATER INC
OK3002706
Pond Creek
O
T
Pond Creek
O
T
WAUKOMIS PWA
OK2002410
Enid
E
T
WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST
OK2005910
Pawnee Co Rwd #1
O
T
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1
OK3007602
Freedom
O
T
Alva
O
T
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3007605
Alva
Waynoka
O
O
T
T
YALE
OK3006039
Lone Chimney WA
O
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Wholesale Water Transfers (3 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region32 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock
Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
51 EAST CORP
OK3006003
Payne
---
---
---
---
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1
OK2000202
Alfalfa
560
0%
0%
100%
ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 NORTH
OK2000201
Alfalfa
---
---
---
---
ALVA
OK2007603
Woods
4,018
0%
100%
0%
BILLINGS PWA
OK2005201
Noble
1,045
0%
100%
0%
BLACKWELL
OK1021101
Kay
3,725
100%
0%
0%
BLACKWELL RW CORP
OK3003601
Kay
---
---
---
---
BRAMAN
OK3003616
Kay
30
0%
0%
100%
BRECKINRIDGE PWA
OK2002420
Garfield
---
---
---
---
BURBANK
OK3005752
Osage
43
0%
100%
0%
BURLINGTON
OK3000202
Alfalfa
12
0%
100%
0%
CHEROKEE
OK2000208
Alfalfa
535
0%
100%
0%
CLEVELAND NORTH
OK1021210
Pawnee
1,231
0%
0%
100%
COVINGTON
OK3002419
Garfield
---
---
---
---
COYLE
OK2004203
Logan
---
---
---
---
CREEK CO RWD # 5
OK2001994
Creek
675
0%
0%
100%
CREEK CO RWD #10
OK2001907
Creek
---
---
---
---
CUSHING
OK2006061
Payne
9,261
34%
26%
39%
DEER CREEK
OK2002711
Grant
200
---
100%
---
DOUGLAS
OK3002414
Garfield
---
---
---
---
DRUMRIGHT
OK2001902
Creek
1,416
0%
0%
100%
ENID
OK2002412
Garfield
38,355
0%
93%
7%
FAIRFAX
OK1021204
Osage
1,095
91%
9%
0%
FAIRMONT
OK2002413
Garfield
25
0%
0%
100%
GARBER
OK2002416
Garfield
311
0%
0%
100%
GARFIELD CO RWD # 4
OK3002406
Garfield
---
---
---
---
GARFIELD CO RWD # 5
OK2002444
Garfield
1,070
0%
100%
0%
GARFIELD CO RWD #1 (KREM-HILL)
OK2002402
Garfield
---
---
---
---
GARFIELD CO RWD #7
OK3002408
Garfield
---
---
---
---
GLENCOE
OK3006040
Payne
16
0%
0%
100%
GRANT COUNTY RWD #1
OK3002707
Grant
---
---
---
---
GRAYHORSE RWD
OK3005717
Osage
---
---
---
---
HALLETT PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2005905
Pawnee
1,280
0%
0%
100%
HILLSDALE PWA
OK3002404
Garfield
---
---
---
---
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 3)
Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 3)
Upper Arkansas Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock
Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
HUNTER
OK3002415
Garfield
49
0%
0%
100%
JEFFERSON
OK3002702
Grant
---
---
---
---
JENNINGS
OK2005904
Pawnee
80
0%
0%
100%
JET
OK2000211
Alfalfa
84
0%
100%
0%
KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY
OK2003605
Kay
272
---
100%
---
KAW WATER INC
OK3003618
Kay
---
---
---
---
KAY CO RWD #1
OK3003605
Kay
---
---
---
---
KAY CO RWD #3
OK3003602
Kay
---
---
---
---
KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP)
OK3003603
Kay
---
---
---
---
KAY CO RWD #6
OK2002415
Garfield
444
0%
100%
0%
KAY COUNTY RWD # 4
OK3003624
Kay
---
---
---
---
KAY COUNTY RWD #2
OK3003604
Kay
---
---
---
---
KREMLIN
OK3002403
Garfield
300
0%
100%
0%
LAMONT
OK2002705
Grant
1,415
0%
100%
0%
LANGSTON PWA
OK1020911
Logan
---
---
---
---
LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2004230
Logan
716
0%
100%
0%
LONE CHIMNEY WATER ASSOCIATION
OK1021221
Pawnee
2,507
100%
0%
0%
MANCHESTER
OK2002703
Grant
320
0%
100%
0%
MANNFORD
OK1020909
Creek
1,120
100%
0%
0%
MARLAND
OK2005204
Noble
---
---
---
---
MARSHALL
OK3004201
Logan
---
---
---
---
MCCORD RWD #3
OK3005747
Osage
37
0%
100%
0%
MEDFORD
OK2002704
Grant
1,827
0%
100%
0%
MORRISON PUBLIC WORKS AUTH.
OK3005205
Noble
---
---
---
---
MULHALL
OK3004203
Logan
80
0%
0%
100%
NASH
OK2002701
Grant
104
---
100%
---
NEWKIRK
OK2003604
Kay
1,878
60%
40%
0%
NOBLE CO RWD # 4
OK3005201
Noble
---
---
---
---
NOBLE CO RWD #1 (LUCIEN)
OK1021205
Noble
---
---
---
---
NOBLE CO RWD #3
OK2005207
Noble
25
---
100%
---
NOBLE COUNTY RWD #2
OK3005203
Noble
---
---
---
---
OILTON
OK2001901
Creek
163
0%
0%
100%
ORLANDO
OK3004202
Logan
---
---
---
---
OSAGE CO RWD #21
OK2003616
Osage
320
---
100%
---
OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN)
OK3005748
Osage
16
0%
100%
0%34 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock
Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
OSAGE PWA
OK2005701
Osage
92
0%
100%
0%
PAWNEE
OK1021209
Pawnee
438
100%
0%
0%
PAWNEE CO RWD #1
OK2005931
Pawnee
614
0%
33%
67%
PAWNEE CO RWD #2
OK3005921
Pawnee
470
0%
0%
100%
PAWNEE CO RWD #3
OK3005911
Pawnee
---
---
---
---
PAWNEE CO RWD #4
OK3005913
Pawnee
---
---
---
---
PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5
OK3005902
Pawnee
---
---
---
---
PAYNE CO RW CORP #3
OK3006030
Payne
---
---
---
---
PAYNE CO RWD #3
OK2006011
Payne
---
---
---
---
PAYNE CO RWD #4
OK3006001
Payne
---
---
---
---
PERKINS
OK2006012
Payne
1,384
64%
36%
0%
PERRY WATER & LIGHT DEPT
OK1021206
Noble
4,008
100%
0%
0%
PONCA CITY MUN WATER
OK1021202
Kay
2,529
54%
46%
0%
POND CREEK
OK2002702
Grant
1,319
0%
100%
0%
PRUE PWA
OK2005703
Osage
680
---
---
100%
R&C WATER CORP
OK3002703
Grant
---
---
---
---
RALSTON
OK2005901
Pawnee
480
0%
100%
0%
RED ROCK
OK2005202
Noble
36
0%
100%
0%
RIPLEY PWA
OK2006013
Payne
100
0%
100%
0%
SALT FORK WATER AUTHORITY
OK3002418
Garfield
---
---
---
---
SHIDLER
OK1021203
Osage
336
100%
0%
0%
STILLWATER
OK1021220
Payne
58,706
100%
0%
0%
SW WATER INC
OK3002706
Grant
---
---
---
---
TONKAWA
OK2003603
Kay
5,005
56%
44%
0%
TRYON
OK2004103
Lincoln
---
---
---
---
WAKITA
OK2002706
Grant
803
0%
100%
0%
WAUKOMIS PWA
OK2002410
Garfield
334
0%
0%
100%
WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST
OK2005910
Pawnee
113
0%
0%
100%
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1
OK3007602
Woods
---
---
---
---
WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3007605
Woods
---
---
---
---
YALE
OK3006039
Payne
437
0%
100%
0%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (3 of 3)
Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 35
Provider Supply Plans
In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans.
In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems.
Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems.
51 East Corp. (Payne County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Loan Chimney Water Association
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, add storage.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, add looping lines.
Alfalfa County RWS & SWMD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Alfalfa County RWS & SWMD 1 North
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Alva (Woods County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish existing wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Billings PWA (Noble County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
City of Blackwell (Kay County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Chikaskia River
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, add storage.
Blackwell RW Corp. (Kay County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Blackwell
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add & replace distribution system lines, add storage
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines and pumps.
Town of Braman (Kay County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Blackwell Rural Water Corp.
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish existing storage tower and add valves to distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Breckinridge PWA (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Burbank (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Alfalfa County RWD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water tower.
Town of Burlington (Alfalfa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Alfalfa County RWD
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Cherokee (Alfalfa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Cleveland North (Pawnee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Cleveland Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Add chloramines system.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Add distribution system lines & storage.
Town of Covington (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Salt Fork Water Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
City of Coyle (Logan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Creek County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines and add storage.
Creek County RWD 10
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish well; replace storage tank; add distribution system lines for looping.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines.
City of Cushing (Payne County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
Deer Creek (Grant County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply sources: possibly from RNC Medford, purchase and blend for the reduction of Nitrates.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
City of Douglas (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Kay County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace distribution system lines and refurbish storage tank.
City of Drumright (Creek County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Modify clearwell.
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Upper Arkansas Region36 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Construct new reservoir.
City of Enid (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Add Storage and drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Fairfax (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fairfax City Lake, Groundwater
Emergency source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace distribution system line from well to town
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace well pump and construct new water treatment plant.
Town of Fairmont (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: None identified.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Garber (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Garfield County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Enid
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Garfield County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells.
Garfield County RWD 1 (KREM-HILL)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells.
Garfield County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Enid
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Glencoe (Payne County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney Water Association
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Add storage and replace portion of main lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace portion of distribution system lines.
Grant County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Manchester
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells.
Grayhorse RWD (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Fairfax
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace water meters.
Hallett PWA (Pawnee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace well pumps.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Hillsdale PWA (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: No information
Short-Term Needs
No information
Long-Term Needs
No information
Town of Hunter (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Kay County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace distribution system lines and fire hydrants.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Jefferson (Grant County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Medford
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Jennings (Pawnee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Medford
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Jet (Alfalfa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Kaw City WA (Kay County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Kaw Reservoir, Arkansas River
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: need additional well capacity. Infrastructure improvements: replace transmission lines; install meter on lake line.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new treatment plant; additional distribution lines.
Kaw Water Inc. (Kay County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Kay County RWD 4
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Kay County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ponca City
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Kay County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Kay County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Newkirk
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace pumps
Kay County RWD 6 (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Kay County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Kaw City
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add fire hydrants.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage and pump station.
Kay County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ponca City
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Town of Kremlin (Garfield County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Kremlin RWD
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Lamont (Grant County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Emergency source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply sources: plug emergency source and add new PWS.
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
Long-Term Needs
New supply sources: same as short-term.
Infrastructure improvements: replace storage tower.
Langston PWA (Logan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Langston Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Logan County RWS & SWMD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells.
Lone Chimney WA (Pawnee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace Stillwater raw water line; replace filter media at plant; replace portion of distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Manchester (Grant County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Mannford (Creek County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mannford Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Refurbish storage tanks.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; new treatment plant.
Town of Marland (Logan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; drill additional wells.
Town of Marshall (Logan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Logan County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
McCord RWD 3 (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ponca City
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add storage.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
City of Medford (Grant County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add water main lines; drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Morrison PWA (Noble County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Mulhall (Logan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Logan County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
New supply sources: possibly from RNC Medford, purchase and blend for the reduction of Nitrates.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
Town of Nash (Grant County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Newkirk (Kay County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Arkansas River, Sandy Creek Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system; add flow meters; remote control well equip; add storage.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Noble County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Marland
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Noble County RWD 1 (Lucien)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Logan County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Noble County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add computer control equipment and housing; add booster pump station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines and valves; add fire hydrants; refurbish storage tower.
Noble County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lone Chimney, Perry, Stillwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add distribution lines; add variable frequency drive to pumps.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
City of Oilton (Creek County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; replace storage tanks.
Town of Orlando (Logan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Logan county RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Osage County RWD 21
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add treatment at wells to handle iron and manganese.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Osage County RWS & SWD 3 (Braden)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ponca City Municipal Water
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; refurbish pump station.
Osage PWA (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
City of Pawnee (Pawnee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lone Chimney WA, Pawnee Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; need multi-level intake structure.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Pawnee County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: complete infrastructure rebuild; add automatic more reliable meter readers.
Pawnee County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney WA
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Pawnee County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney WA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add & replace distribution system lines; add storage.
Pawnee County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney WA
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Upper Arkansas Region38 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Pawnee County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Ralston
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; refurbish standpipe.
Payne County RW Corp. 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: System inactive - now part of Stillwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Stillwater.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Payne County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater - switching to Stillwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Stillwater.
Infrastructure improvements: add pump station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Payne County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lone Chimney WA
Emergency Source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: add & replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add water office/shop & storage building.
Town

Object Description

Okla State Agency	Water Resources Board, Oklahoma
Okla Agency Code	'835'
Title	Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region
Alternative title	Upper Arkansas Watershed report; Upper Arkansas regional report
Authors	Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
Publisher	Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Publication Date	2011
Publication type	Planning Document Technical Reports
Subject	Water resources development--Government policy--Oklahoma. Water-supply--Oklahoma--Management.
Purpose	The Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region includes seven basins (numbered 63 and 67-72 for reference). The region encompasses 7,452 square miles in northern Oklahoma, spanning from the northeast portion of Woods County to the northwest portion of Creek County and also including all or portions of Alfalfa, Grant, Kay, Osage, Garfield, Noble, Pawnee, Kingfisher, Logan, Payne, Tulsa, and Lincoln Counties.
Series	Watershed planning region report
OkDocs Class#	W1700.3 W331ua 2011
Digital Format	PDF, Adobe Reader required
ODL electronic copy	Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_UpperArkansas_Region_Report.pdf
Rights and Permissions	This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders.
Language	English
Date created	2011-11-07
Date modified	2013-06-14

Description

Title	Upper Arkansas watershed planning region
OkDocs Class#	W1700.3 W331ua 2011
Digital Format	PDF, Adobe Reader required
ODL electronic copy	Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_UpperArkansas_Region_Report.pdf
Rights and Permissions	This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders.
Language	English
Full text	Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning RegionContents Introduction 1 Regional Overview . 1 Regional Summary 2 Synopsis . 2 Water Resources & Limitations 2 Water Supply Options . 4 Water Supply . 6 Physical Water Availability . 6 Surface Water Resources 6 Groundwater Resources . 9 Permit Availability 11 Water Quality 12 Water Demand . 20 Public Water Providers . 22 OCWP Provider Survey 35 Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Limitations Analysis 40 Primary Options 40 Demand Management 40 Out-of-Basin Supplies . 40 Reservoir Use 40 Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 41 Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 41 Expanded Options 41 Expanded Conservation Measures . 41 Artificial Aquifer Recharge 41 Marginal Quality Water Sources 41 Potential Reservoir Development 41 Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 45 Basin 63 . 45 Basin 67 . 55 Basin 68 . 65 Basin 69 . 75 Basin 70 . 85 Basin 71 . 95 Basin 72 . 105 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region and Basin Delineation Upper Arkansas Regional Report 1 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals: Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment. Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources. In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations. Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions. This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Upper Arkansas Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information. Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios. Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, Introduction The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints. As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates. Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website. Regional Overview The Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region includes seven basins (numbered 63 and 67-72 for reference). The region encompasses 7,452 square miles in northern Oklahoma, spanning from the northeast portion of Woods County to the northwest portion of Creek County and also including all or portions of Alfalfa, Grant, Kay, Osage, Garfield, Noble, Pawnee, Kingfisher, Logan, Payne, Tulsa, and Lincoln Counties. The region is located primarily in the Central Lowland physiography province. The terrain is dominated by broad, level-to-slightly rolling plains, with rougher, broken plains in the southern area of the region and transitioning to the rolling hills, ridges, and steep-sided valleys of the Flint Hills to the east. The Upper Arkansas Region is a mix of cropland and rangeland, with mixed prairie grasses giving way to densely forested bottomland in the east. The climate is moist and sub-humid with the mean annual temperature of around 60°F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 24 inches in the northwest to 42 inches in the east. Rainfall peaks in the spring and fall, with May being the wettest month of the year. Annual evaporation ranges from 62 inches in the west to 55 inches in the east and often exceeds precipitation on an annual basis. Frequent droughts cause severe crop damage, but severe flooding can also occur as the result of heavy rainfall events. Thunderstorms accompanied by high winds, hail, and heavy rain increase the likelihood of flash flooding, emphasizing the necessity of watershed protection and flood prevention projects. The largest cities in the region include Enid (2010 population 47,989), Stillwater (47,582), Ponca City (27,197), Blackwell (9,428), and Cushing (8,655). The greatest demand is from Municipal and Industrial and Thermoelectric water use. By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 182,770 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 54,190 AFY (42%) from 2010.2 Upper Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Summary The Upper Arkansas Region accounts for 7% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are currently Municipal and Industrial (37%), Thermoelectric Power (29%), and Crop Irrigation (15%). Water Resources & Limitations Surface Water Surface water is used to meet about 69% of the region’s demand. The region is supplied by three major rivers: the Arkansas, Cimarron, and Salt Fork of the Arkansas. Historically, the region’s rivers and creeks have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers and their tributaries to provide public water supply, flood control, power generation, and recreation. Large reservoirs in the Upper Arkansas Region include: Keystone, Kaw, Sooner, Carl Blackwell, and Great Salt Plains. There are ten additional municipal lakes that have normal pools ranging from 1,800 AF to 19,700 AF. Relative to other regions, surface water quality in the region is considered poor to fair. Multiple rivers, creeks, and lakes are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but use of these supplies may be limited in the interim. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of surface water supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Alluvial Groundwater Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 24% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted withdrawals are from the Arkansas River and the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River aquifers. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year, although these projected depletions will be small relative to the amount of water in storage. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Synopsis The Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies, and to a lesser extent, bedrock groundwater and alluvial aquifers. It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to meet future demand. By 2020, surface water supplies will be insufficient to meet demand in basins without major reservoirs. By 2020, alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and changes in well yields or water quality. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible. Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps, alluvial groundwater storage depletions, and bedrock groundwater storage depletions. Aquifer recharge and recovery could be considered to store variable surface water supplies, increase alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage, and reduce adverse effects of localized storage depletions in Basins 63 and 68. Surface water alternatives, such as groundwater supplies and/or developing new small reservoirs, could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage. No basins within the region have been identified as water availability “hot spots,” areas where severe deficits or gaps in supply are anticipated. (See “Water Availability Analysis” in the OCWP Executive Report.) Current Water Demand: 128,570 acre-feet/year (7% of state total) Largest Demand Sector: Municipal & Industrial (37% of regional total) Current Supply Sources: 69% SW 24% Alluvial GW 7% Bedrock GW Projected Demand (2060): 182,770 acre-feet/year Growth (2010-2060): 54,200 acre-feet/year (42%) Upper Arkansas Region Demand Summary Current and Projected Regional Water DemandUpper Arkansas Regional Report 3 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Bedrock Groundwater Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 7% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Vamoosa-Ada aquifer, North -Central Oklahoma minor aquifer, and to a lesser extent other minor aquifers. The Vamoosa-Ada has about 2 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year in Basin 68, but will be largest in the summer months. Bedrock aquifer depletions are will also occur during the summer in Basin 72. These bedrock groundwater withdrawals are expected to be from the North-Central Oklahoma minor bedrock aquifer, which may be limited by both well yield and available storage. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Water Supply Limitations Upper Arkansas Region Water Supply Limitations Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Upper Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Supply Options To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Basins and users that rely on surface water are projected to have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future, except where major reservoirs can provide adequate storage and supply. Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions are also projected in the future. The development of additional alluvial bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short- to long-term water supply option. However, additional long-term water supply alternatives should also be considered for both surface water and groundwater users. Water conservation could aid in reducing projected surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions or immediate need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation, primarily through public water suppliers and increased irrigation efficiency, could reduce surface water gaps and storage depletions, and in Basins 67 and 69, eliminate gaps and alluvial depletions. Further future reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities, which would include a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops (e.g., sorghum or wheat for grain), along with increased efficiency and public water supply conservation. Due to extended dry periods and predominant use of surface water supplies, drought management measures alone will likely be an ineffective water supply option. New reservoirs and expanded use of existing reservoirs could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and eliminate gaps. Keystone and Kaw have unpermitted yield that could supply new users. However, poor water quality limits Keystone’s use as a public supply source. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Eight reservoirs were identified in the Upper Arkansas Region as having potential for future consideration. These sources could serve as regional or inter-regional supplies to provide additional water to mitigate the region’s groundwater depletions. Due to the distance from the reservoirs to demand points, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users. The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of aquifers, which would result in minimal increases in projected groundwater depletions. Increased demands would still leave users susceptible to the adverse effects of depletions. Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Upper Arkansas Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Water Supply Options Upper Arkansas RegionOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Report 5 6 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Supply Physical Water Availability Surface Water Resources Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Upper Arkansas Region. The region’s major streams include the Cimarron River, the Chikaskia River, the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, and the Arkansas River. Streams in this region generally have abundant flows, but can experience periods of low-flow conditions as well as periodic flooding events. The Arkansas River mainstem originates in Kansas and flows into Oklahoma in the Upper Arkansas Region. It runs for 110 miles through Basins 71 and 72 before flowing into the Middle Arkansas Region. Other major tributaries to the Arkansas River mainstem include Black Bear Creek (about 100 miles in Basin 71) and Red Rock Creek (80 miles in Basin 72). The Salt Fork of the Arkansas River originates in Kansas and flows 50 miles through Basins 68 and 67 before joining the Arkansas River at the outlet of Basin 67. Major tributaries include Pond Creek (60 miles in Basin 68) and the Medicine Lodge River (14 miles in Basin 68). The Cimarron River flows into the Upper Arkansas Region from the Central Region. It flows for 120 miles through Basins 63 and 71 before joining the Arkansas River. Major tributaries include Skeleton Creek (70 miles in Basin 62). In the Upper Arkansas Region, streamflow is generally abundant with intermittent periods of low flow; streams in some parts of the region go dry in the late summer. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest are Keystone and Kaw, built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1964 and 1976, respectively. Keystone Lake, located on the mainstem of the Arkansas River in Basin 71, is authorized for flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, navigation, and fish and wildlife. Water is released for power generation, and as scheduled, to aid navigation on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system. Poor water quality limits its use for public water supply. Most of the currently permitted water is used by the Public Service Company of Oklahoma for cooling water at its Tulsa plant. Kaw Lake is also located on the mainstem of the Arkansas River in Basin 72. The lake is authorized for flood control, water supply, hydropower, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. The reservoir also provides a substantial amount of water to As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought. Reservoirs Upper Arkansas Region Water Supply Irrigation Water Quality Permitted Withdrawals Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted Reservoir Name Primary Basin Number Reservoir Owner/Operator Year Built Purpose1 Normal Pool Storage Storage Yield Storage Yield Storage Yield AF AF AFY AF AFY AF AFY AFY AFY Boomer 71 City of Stillwater 1932 CW, R 3,200 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Carl Blackwell 70 Oklahoma State University 1937 WS. R 61,500 55,000 7,000 0 0 0 0 12,520 0 Cleveland City 71 City of Cleveland 1936 WS, R 2,200 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Cushing 71 City of Cushing 1950 WS, R 3,304 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Fairfax City 72 City of Fairfax 1936 WS, R 1,795 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Great Salt Plains 68 USACE 1941 FC, C, FW 31,420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Yield Kaw 72 USACE 1976 FC, WS, HP, WQ, R, FW 428,600 171,200 187,040 0 0 31,800 43,680 141,403 45,637 Keystone 71 USACE 1964 FC, WS, HP, N, FW 557,600 20,000 22,400 0 0 0 0 13,968 8,452 Langston 63 City of Langston 1966 WS, FC, R 5,792 --- --- 0 0 0 0 1,500 --- Lone Chimney 71 Tri-County Development Authority 1984 WS, FC, R 6,200 --- 2,509 0 0 0 0 2,507 2 McMurtry 71 City of Stillwater 1971 WS, FC, R 19,733 13,500 3,002 0 0 0 0 2,649 353 Pawnee 71 City of Pawnee 1932 WS, R 3,855 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Perry 71 City of Perry 1937 WS, FC, R 6,358 --- --- 0 0 0 0 2,270 --- Ponca 72 City of Ponca City 1935 WS, R 14,440 15,300 2,529 0 0 0 0 2,529 0 Sooner 72 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. 1972 CW 149,000 149,000 3,600 0 0 0 0 3,600 0 1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed. WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation No known Information is annotated as “---”Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Report 7 Existing reservoirs in this region provide enough storage and yield for the region’s future demand. However, existing water rights would need to be taken into consideration for future planning purposes, and expanded water transmission infrastructure would be required. Modified reservoir operations or reallocation of assigned storage may provide additional flexibility to meet future water needs. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose. Surface Water Resources Upper Arkansas Region8 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060 Upper Arkansas Region Streamflow Statistic Basins 63 67 68 69 70 71 72 AFY Average Annual Flow 1,126,000 777,200 468,800 251,900 216,100 3,864,200 2,112,000 Minimum Annual Flow 110,100 78,300 44,600 27,900 24,100 465,400 150,800 Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060. Surface Water Flows (1950-2007) Upper Arkansas Region Surface water is the main source of supply in the Upper Arkansas Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users. Water Supply Availability Analysis For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand. The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol. The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option. Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer. For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately. Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed. For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions. OG&E for power generation purposes. Water quality in the reservoir is fair and suitable for most purposes. Other major municipal lakes in the region include Langston Lake in Basin 63; Lone Chimney, Perry, Cleveland City, Cushing, Pawnee, McMurtry, and Carl Blackwell lakes in Basin 71; and Fairfax City and Ponca lakes in Basin 72. In addition, Boomer Lake primarily provides cooling water and recreational opportunities in the Stillwater area in Basin 71. Sooner Lake, located on Greasy Creek Tributary to the Arkansas River in Basin 72, is a cooling water lake owned and operated by OG&E. Great Salt Plans Lake is located on the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River in Basin 68. Except for 761 acres near the dam, which is operated by the Corps of Engineers, the Great Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Due to high mineral content, the lake is not used for most beneficial purposes. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for water supply, recreation, and flood control. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Upper Arkansas Regional Report 9 to 200 gpm in the terrace. The water is very hard and is typically classified as a calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type. Water quality is generally suitable for most purposes, except in some areas where saltwater encroachment has precluded its use for domestic purposes. The aquifer underlies a small portion of Basin 63 in the south. The Salt Fork of the Arkansas River aquifer’s alluvium deposits have a maximum thickness of 60 feet while terrace deposits have a maximum thickness of 150 feet. The maximum saturated thickness is 50 feet. The formations are typically clay and silt in the upper portion, changing into fine to coarse sand with local lenses of fine gravel. The aquifer is generally unconfined with well depths of 50 to 150 feet and yields of 100 to 200 gpm in the alluvium portion and 100 to 500 gpm in the terrace. The water is very hard and generally of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type; dissolved solids are typically less than 500 mg/L, although saltwater encroachment occurs Groundwater Resources Two major bedrock aquifers, the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada, and four major alluvial aquifers, Arkansas River, Cimarron River, Enid Isolated Terrace, and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, underlie the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region. The Garber-Wellington aquifer consists of fine-grained sandstone interbedded with siltstone and shale. Depth to water varies from 100 to 350 feet. Well yields range from 50 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 500 gpm, and average 200 gpm. While a major source of Municipal and Industrial water supply in the Central Planning Region, only a small portion of the aquifer’s northern boundary underlies Basin 63 in the Upper Arkansas Region where there is shale and may yield as low as 10 gpm. Quality is generally good, but in some areas concentrations of nitrate, arsenic, chromium, selenium, uranium, and other elements may exceed drinking water standards. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 63 and 71. The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer consists of 125 to 1,000 feet of interbedded sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, with the proportion of shale increasing northward. Wells commonly yield 25 to 150 gpm. Water quality is generally good and suitable for use as public supply, although iron infiltration and hardness are problems in some areas and there are local problems due to contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities. The aquifer underlies eastern portions of Basins 71 and 72. Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability. Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown. Yields in the Arkansas River aquifer alluvium deposits range from 200 to 500 gpm while wells in the terrace deposits range from 100 to 200 gpm. Deposits are commonly 50 to 100 feet in depth with saturated thickness averaging 25 to 75 feet. The formation consists of clays, sand, silt and gravels. Hardness is the major quality problem and TDS values are usually less than 500 mg/L. The water is generally suitable for most Municipal and Industrial (M&I) uses, although heavy pumping leads to chloride intrusion in the formation. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 71 and 72. The Cimarron River aquifer consists of silt and clay in the upper portion grading downward to sandy clay, sand and fine gravel with a maximum thickness of about 80 feet and a maximum saturated thickness of about 50 feet. Terrace deposits are typically overlain by dune sand as much as 100 feet thick. The aquifer is generally unconfined with well depths of 50 to 100 feet and yields of 200 to 500 gpm in the alluvium and 100 Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands. Groundwater Resources Upper Arkansas Region Aquifer Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer Recharge Rate Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Region Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 Percent Inch/Yr AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Arkansas River Alluvial Major 3% 5.0 38,000 193,000 temporary 2.0 222,600 Cimarron River Alluvial Major 1% 2.3 4,200 107,000 temporary 2.0 50,100 Enid Isolated Terrace Alluvial Major 1% 2.3 5,000 213,000 0.5 18,800 Garber-Wellington Bedrock Major 3% 1.6 700 2,965,000 temporary 2.0 268,400 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Alluvial Major 11% 2.3 42,900 2,189,000 temporary 2.0 1,049,500 Vamoosa-Ada Bedrock Major 10% 0.7-1.4 10,200 3,559,000 2.0 903,000 Chikaskia River Alluvial Minor 1% 4.5 2,000 89,000 temporary 2.0 47,600 El Reno Bedrock Minor 6% 0.75 1,600 1,494,000 temporary 2.0 574,200 North-Central Oklahoma Bedrock Minor 37% 1.0 13,900 13,562,000 temporary 2.0 3,510,200 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor 7,800 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor 2,200 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.10 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan in some areas. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 67, 68, and 69. The Enid Isolated Terrace aquifer underlies approximately 81 square miles and is composed of terrace deposits that consist of discontinuous layers of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. The aquifer underlies a portion of Basin 63 and small portions of Basins 68, 71, and 72. Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno and North-Central Oklahoma aquifers. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Chikaskia River. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock use in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but may have insufficient yields for large volume users. Major bedrock aquifers in the Upper Arkansas Region include the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Arkansas River, Cimarron River, Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, and Enid Isolated Terrace. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm. Groundwater Resources Upper Arkansas Region Water Reuse Treated M&I wastewater return flows can be captured and reused through a variety of approaches commonly referred to as water reuse. Water reuse can reduce dependence upon conventional supplies as well as demand on potable water systems. However, water reuse is not always a cost-effective alternative and can result in reduced treated wastewater discharges to receiving waters, impacting stream flows and the availability of supplies for downstream users. Water reuse is already practiced by several Oklahoma communities. In the U.S., the most common application of reused water by public water providers is for non-potable irrigation (e.g., lawn watering, golf course irrigation) and industrial applications. The OCWP Marginal Quality Water Workgroup found that because supplies are greater in and near the state’s municipalities, M&I non-potable (e.g., landscape irrigation) and some industrial or power-generation use are likely the most cost-effective applications for water reuse in Oklahoma. The workgroup concluded that public water suppliers and users should consider water reuse where it can be cost-effectively implemented and socially acceptable, and that the state should continue to support the development of more detailed reuse regulations to provide a framework for utilizing this water resource while recognizing downstream uses of that water. The workgroup identified the basins statewide in which water reuse could offset the most significant amount of potable water demand. While none of those basins is in the Upper Arkansas Region, the workgroup recognized that water reuse could be implemented virtually anywhere in the state dependent upon downstream water availability, needs, and water rights.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11 Permit Availability For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law. Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Upper Arkansas Region. For groundwater, each aquifer’s equal proportionate share (EPS) determines the amount of water available for permits in studied groundwater basins. Equal proportionate shares in the Upper Arkansas Region range from 0.5 AFY per acre to 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Upper Arkansas Region. If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others. Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount. The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit. Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield. Surface Water Permit Availability Upper Arkansas Region Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Upper Arkansas Region. Groundwater Permit Availability Upper Arkansas Region Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Upper Arkansas Region.12 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Water quality of the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region is defined by two major river systems, the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers, and numerous minor and major water supply reservoirs. The majority of the region is contained within the Central Great Plains (CGP) ecoregion, with some Cross Timbers (CT) and Flint Hills (FH) influence along the eastern border. Except for two intervening ecoregions, the Prairie Tablelands extends from the west through over half of the region’s geographical area and is drained by tributaries of the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers. The area is nearly level, underlain by shale, sandstone, and siltstone. It is dominated by cropland with dense mixed-grass prairies. Streams are turbid and silt-dominated, lying in broad, shallow, low-gradient channels with incised banks and typified by Skeleton Creek (south), Salt Fork of the Arkansas River (north and central), and Chikaskia River (northeastern). Normally, salinity is high in the west, with mean conductivity ranging from 1,700 (Skeleton) to near 2,700 μS (Salt Fork). Northeastern salinity lowers with values ranging from 300 (Ponca) to 900 μS (Kaw and Chikaskia). Kaw and Ponca Lakes are typical water supply lakes in the east. Oligotrophic to eutrophic, nutrient values are lower on the Salt Fork and Chikaskia with concentrations ranging from 0.10 to 0.27 ppm for total phosphorus (TP) and 1.01 to 1.50 ppm of total nitrogen (TN). Skeleton is hyper-eutrophic with TP of 0.54 ppm and TN of 4.57 ppm. Lakes are phosphorus limited and mesotrophic (lower Kaw) to hyper-eutrophic (Ponca). Water clarity is fair (Chikaskia turbidity = 43 NTU) to poor (Salt Fork = 97 NTU). Lake clarity is poor to good, with an average Secchi depth of 35 (Upper Kaw) to 61 cm (Ponca). Ecological diversity varies throughout depending on salinity, habitat degradation, and sedimentation. Some unique gravel/cobble/bedrock streams support darter habitat. The Salt Plains and Pleistocene Sand Dunes intervene in the eastern part of Alfalfa County in Basin 68. The Salt Plains have high subsurface salinity and low ecological diversity. Streams are shallow with flat banks and typically ephemeral. The Pleistocene Sand Dunes have more permeable sandy soils, interlaced with springs and inter-dune wetlands. Streams are typically sandy, with incised, highly erodible banks. The Great Salt Plains Reservoir has high salinity (max conductivity = 10,016 μS) and poor clarity (Secchi depth = 10 cm). It is nitrogen limited and hyper-eutrophic. The south-central part of the region is dominated by the Cross Timbers Transition, a hybrid mix of rough plains covered by prairie grasses and oak/elm/cedar forests. Cropland/rangeland are the major land uses. Streams are rockier and contained in narrower, incised channels. The area is characterized by the Arkansas (including Black Bear Creek) and Cimarron drainages and water supply lakes. Conductivity is lower in the Arkansas, ranging from 840 (Black Bear) to 1,300 μS (Ralston). It increases in the Cimarron to nearly 6,000 μS. Average lake conductivity is 300 μS, but rises to 1,500 μS in Sooner Lake in Basin 72. Having high nutrient concentrations, streams are eutrophic/hyper-eutrophic, with TN of 1.47 to 1.91 ppm and TP of 0.25 to 0.39 ppm. Lakes are mesotrophic (Cushing, Perry, and Sooner) to eutrophic (Boomer, Lone Chimney, and Pawnee). Water clarity is fair (Black Bear = 44 NTU) to poor (Ripley = 160 NTU). The Upper Arkansas Planning Region is dominated by Central Great Plains ecoregions but transitions to the Cross Timbers and Flint Hills in the east. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices, and is generally poor to good depending on drainage and location. Ecoregions Upper Arkansas Region Lake Trophic Status A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality. Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels. Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels. Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich. Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13 Water Quality Standards and Implementation The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics. The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur. The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g., municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. Lake clarity is poor to excellent, with mean Secchi depths ranging from 22 (Perry) to 115 cm (Sooner). Ecological diversity is variable, influenced by salinity, habitat degradation, and sedimentation. The Flint Hills in Osage and Kay Counties in Basins 71 and 72 are underlain by shallow limestone/shale and the low hills are rangeland/grassland, including tall grass prairie. Channels are more natural, with low to incised banks and gravel/cobble bottoms. The area is characterized by Salt Creek and Fairfax Lake. Salinity is low/moderate, with conductivity values ranging from 200 (Fairfax) to 500 μS (Salt Creek). Waters are eutrophic, with means of TN/TP approximately 0.85/0.07 ppm. Clarity is fair on Salt Creek (33 NTU) to good at Fairfax (73 cm). Ecological diversity is higher because of stream morphology and lower salinity/habitat degradation. Finally, the Northern Cross Timbers intersects the region in the southeast and western Payne County. The area is more forested than neighboring plains with intervening grasslands and mixed land use. Streams are diverse through the ecoregion. In this region, they are shallower, sand/silt dominated, and highly incised. The area is typified by Keystone Reservoir and lakes Carl Blackwell, Langston, and McMurtry. Keystone Reservoir integrates the Arkansas/Cimarron drainages from north to south. Salinity is moderate to high with conductivity ranging from 550 (Arkansas River) to nearly 7,000 μS (Cimarron River), and clarity is average, with Secchi depth ranging from 26-47 cm. Classified as eutrophic to hypertrophic, Keystone is co-limited for nitrogen/phosphorus, with relatively high concentrations. In the Payne County area, salinity is relatively low, as conductivity ranges from 300-400 μS. Clarity ranges from average (Blackwell = 37cm) to good (Langston = 70 cm). All are phosphorus limited. Nutrient concentrations are low to moderate. Langston is mesotrophic, while Carl Blackwell is eutrophic. Ecological diversity is fair and Water Quality Standards Implementation Upper Arkansas Region BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission has begun a watershed implementation project on Stillwater Creek to address sediment and turbidity. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed a TMDL study on Oak Creek.14 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Impairments A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses. For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation. The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported. In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments—whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution. For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ. impacted by poor habitat, non-native salinity, and sedimentation. Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources. The Upper Arkansas region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Cimarron and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River aquifers is generally suitable for most purposes, except in some areas where saltwater encroachment has precluded its use for domestic purposes. The water is generally hard and of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. In most areas, dissolved solids concentrations in the Cimarron and Salt Fork formations are below drinking water standards. Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Garber-Wellington and Vamoosa-Ada. The Garber-Wellington is in the southernmost tip of the region. It is of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and ranges from hard to very hard. In general, concentrations of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate are low. Water from the aquifer is normally suitable for public water supply, but concentrations of nitrates, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, arsenic, chromium, selenium, and uranium may exceed drinking water standards in localized areas. The Vamoosa-Ada is primarily in the far southeastern portion of the Upper Arkansas Region. Although water quality is generally good, iron infiltration and hardness are problems. Chloride and sulfate concentrations are generally low, and except for areas of local contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities, water is suitable for use as public supply. Water Quality Impairments Upper Arkansas Region Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Surface waters in this region have impacts due to turbidity as well as naturally occurring levels of salinity.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15 Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply Upper Arkansas Region Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture Upper Arkansas Region16 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Surface Water Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways. Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas. Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma. The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants. The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs. Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants. Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma. Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients. Surface Water Protection Areas Upper Arkansas Region Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters. Because Cleveland Reservoir and Lone Chimney Lake are public water supply reservoirs and have relatively small watersheds, they could potentially benefit from SWS designations. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watersheds. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll-a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17 Groundwater Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: ��If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.” Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies. Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures. Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities. Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas. Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution. NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed. Groundwater Protection Areas Upper Arkansas Region Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and address vulnerability. The Enid Isolated Terrace and Cimarron River and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River alluvial aquifers have been identified by the OWRB as very highly vulnerable.18 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Quality Trends Study As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity. Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus. Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity. Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend. Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%. Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%. Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high. Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment. Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19 Stream Water Quality Trends Upper Arkansas Region Site Black Bear Creek near Pawnee Chikaskia River near Blackwell Cimarron River near Guthrie Cimarron River near Ripley Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Ingersol Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Tonkawa Parameter All Data Trend (1960-1993, 1998-2009) 1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1952-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend 2000-2009)1 Recent Trend (2000-2009) All Data Trend (1979-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1951-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) Conductivity (us/cm) NT NT NT NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT NT NT NT NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT Turbidity (NTU) NT NT NT NT NT Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division. 1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters. Notable concerns in the Upper Arkansas Region are: Significant upward trend for recent conductivity on the Cimarron, Chikaskia, and Salt Fork Rivers• Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout the region• Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on the Cimarron River• Reservoir Water Quality Trends Upper Arkansas Region Site Lake Carl Blackwell Fairfax City Lake Kaw Lake Keystone Lake Langston Lake Lake McMurtry Pawnee Lake Perry Lake Parameter (1995-2008) (1995-2007) (1996-2008) (1995-2009) (1994-2008) (1995-2009) (1994-2007) (1996-2007) Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3) NT NT NT NT Conductivity (us/cm) NT NT NT NT NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT NT NT NT NT NT Turbidity (NTU) NT NT NT NT NT Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division. Notable concerns in the Upper Arkansas Region are: Significant upward trend for chlorophyll-a and total nitrogen on numerous reservoirs• Significant upward trend for turbidity on Carl Blackwell and Langston reservoirs• 20 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Water Demand The Upper Arkansas Region’s water demand accounts for about 7% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 42% (54,190 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Thermoelectric Power sectors. Thermoelectric Power demand is projected to account for 36% of the region’s water demand in 2060. The Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company’s Sooner Plant, which is supplied by surface water, is a large user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) use is projected to account for about 32% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 70% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 22% by alluvial groundwater, and 8% by bedrock groundwater. Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 12% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 24% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 57% by alluvial groundwater, and 19% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Upper Arkansas Region include cotton, pasture grasses, and corn. Self-Supplied Industrial demand in the region is projected to account for 7% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 82% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 16% by alluvial groundwater, and 2% by bedrock groundwater. Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 6% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 93% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 4% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock demand is projected to account for 5% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 22% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 59% by alluvial groundwater, and 19% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production, followed distantly by sheep. Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 92% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 8% by bedrock groundwater. Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin (Percent of Total Basin Demand) Upper Arkansas Region Projected water demand by sector. By 2060, 35% of the demand will come from the Thermoelectric Power sector and 32% will come from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21 Supply Sources Used to Meet Current Demand (2010) Upper Arkansas Region The Upper Arkansas Region’s water needs account for about 7% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 42% (54,200 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Thermoelectric Power sectors. Total Water Demand by Sector Upper Arkansas Region Water Demand Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors. Water Demand Sectors nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector. n Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector. n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector, when available. n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as self-supplied industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector. n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants. n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census. n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports. OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin. Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports. Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin. Total Water Demand by Sector Upper Arkansas Region Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric Power Total AFY 2010 18,800 7,770 47,270 2,170 11,820 2,890 37,870 128,570 2020 19,290 7,900 50,200 3,330 12,360 3,110 42,250 138,450 2030 19,780 8,040 52,710 4,780 12,660 3,320 47,140 148,430 2040 20,270 8,180 55,120 6,500 12,970 3,520 52,580 159,140 2050 20,650 8,310 57,200 8,490 13,270 3,720 58,660 170,300 2060 21,260 8,450 59,340 10,760 13,590 3,910 65,450 182,77022 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Public Water Providers level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water. OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort. There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs. The Upper Arkansas Region includes 100 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.) In terms of 2010 population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Enid, Stillwater, Ponca City Municipal Water, Blackwell, and Cushing. These five systems provide service for more than 60 percent of the population served by public water providers in the region. Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider Public Water Providers Upper Arkansas Region Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23 Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Projected Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 51 EAST CORP OK3006003 Payne 73 2,121 2,282 2,452 2,618 2,736 2,849 ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 OK2000202 Alfalfa 133 1,635 1,635 1,635 1,635 1,660 1,688 ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 NORTH OK2000201 Alfalfa Same as above 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALVA OK2007603 Woods 288 5,235 5,235 5,294 5,353 5,411 5,519 BILLINGS PWA OK2005201 Noble 154 557 581 606 630 642 654 BLACKWELL OK1021101 Kay 153 9,428 9,753 10,006 10,235 10,464 10,717 BLACKWELL RW CORP OK3003601 Kay 164 927 959 984 1,006 1,029 1,054 BRAMAN OK3003616 Kay 94 244 254 254 264 264 273 BRECKINRIDGE PWA OK2002420 Garfield 190 239 249 259 269 269 279 BURBANK OK3005752 Osage 77 161 170 180 189 198 208 BURLINGTON OK3000202 Alfalfa 160 156 156 156 156 156 166 CHEROKEE OK2000208 Alfalfa 221 1,638 1,638 1,638 1,638 1,669 1,689 CLEVELAND NORTH OK1021210 Pawnee 152 3,384 3,750 4,088 4,446 4,812 5,188 COVINGTON OK3002419 Garfield 63 559 569 588 598 608 628 COYLE OK2004203 Logan 117 336 380 415 450 486 530 CREEK CO RWD # 5 OK2001994 Creek 57 2,824 3,020 3,173 3,318 3,463 3,619 CREEK CO RWD #10 OK2001907 Creek 136 25 26 28 29 30 31 CUSHING OK2006061 Payne 131 8,655 9,319 10,011 10,694 11,176 11,631 DEER CREEK OK2002711 Grant 90 147 147 147 147 157 157 DOUGLAS OK3002414 Garfield 75 32 32 32 32 32 32 DRUMRIGHT OK2001902 Creek 183 3,066 3,279 3,445 3,603 3,760 3,930 ENID OK2002412 Garfield 200 47,989 49,453 50,668 51,804 52,691 53,747 FAIRFAX OK1021204 Osage 113 1,528 1,638 1,721 1,794 1,868 1,951 FAIRMONT OK2002413 Garfield 64 147 157 157 157 167 167 GARBER OK2002416 Garfield 95 857 877 896 916 936 955 GARFIELD CO RWD # 4 OK3002406 Garfield 50 322 333 340 348 354 361 GARFIELD CO RWD # 5 OK2002444 Garfield 119 1,317 1,358 1,390 1,421 1,445 1,474 GARFIELD CO RWD #1 (KREM-HILL) OK2002402 Garfield 161 705 727 744 761 774 790 GARFIELD CO RWD #7 OK3002408 Garfield 166 315 325 333 340 346 353 GLENCOE OK3006040 Payne 61 658 708 768 817 857 887 GRANT COUNTY RWD #1 OK3002707 Grant 160 100 102 104 104 107 110 GRAYHORSE RWD OK3005717 Osage 164 102 109 115 120 125 130 HALLETT PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2005905 Pawnee 89 174 193 212 232 251 270 HILLSDALE PWA OK3002404 Garfield 80 101 111 111 111 111 121 HUNTER OK3002415 Garfield 69 310 310 328 328 345 345 JEFFERSON OK3002702 Grant 61 57 57 57 57 57 5724 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Projected Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 JENNINGS OK2005904 Pawnee 65 412 452 492 533 583 623 JET OK2000211 Alfalfa 125 256 256 256 256 256 268 KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY OK2003605 Kay 169 372 382 392 401 411 421 KAW WATER INC OK3003618 Kay 122 90 92 95 97 99 102 KAY CO RWD #1 OK3003605 Kay 140 1,778 1,839 1,885 1,930 1,972 2,018 KAY CO RWD #3 OK3003602 Kay 97 1,058 1,094 1,122 1,148 1,173 1,201 KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP) OK3003603 Kay 150 770 797 817 836 855 875 KAY CO RWD #6 OK2002415 Garfield 87 1,290 1,330 1,361 1,392 1,415 1,444 KAY COUNTY RWD # 4 OK3003624 Kay 111 101 104 107 109 112 114 KAY COUNTY RWD #2 OK3003604 Kay 748 50 52 53 55 56 57 KREMLIN OK3002403 Garfield 87 717 717 746 775 775 803 LAMONT OK2002705 Grant 176 465 475 485 485 505 516 LANGSTON PWA OK1020911 Logan 51 1,735 1,944 2,135 2,326 2,517 2,717 LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3 OK2004230 Logan 220 1,558 1,749 1,919 2,091 2,260 2,441 LONE CHIMNEY WATER ASSOCIATION OK1021221 Pawnee 115 187 207 225 245 265 286 MANCHESTER OK2002703 Grant 100 104 114 114 114 114 125 MANNFORD OK1020909 Creek 90 3,067 3,275 3,441 3,594 3,760 3,927 MARLAND OK2005204 Noble 100 280 299 309 319 328 328 MARSHALL OK3004201 Logan 191 263 300 327 354 382 418 MCCORD RWD #3 OK3005747 Osage 154 1,838 1,968 2,066 2,155 2,244 2,344 MEDFORD OK2002704 Grant 378 1,600 1,628 1,669 1,669 1,738 1,766 MORRISON PUBLIC WORKS AUTH. OK3005205 Noble 73 1,018 1,064 1,094 1,125 1,155 1,185 MULHALL OK3004203 Logan 134 244 281 308 335 362 389 NASH OK2002701 Grant 340 191 200 200 200 208 208 NEWKIRK OK2003604 Kay 215 2,296 2,376 2,436 2,497 2,547 2,607 NOBLE CO RWD # 4 OK3005201 Noble 63 256 269 277 286 292 299 NOBLE CO RWD #1 (LUCIEN) OK1021205 Noble 171 340 357 369 380 389 397 NOBLE CO RWD #3 OK2005207 Noble 76 152 160 165 170 174 178 NOBLE COUNTY RWD #2 OK3005203 Noble 83 1,523 1,600 1,651 1,702 1,740 1,778 OILTON OK2001901 Creek 93 1,225 1,319 1,382 1,445 1,508 1,581 ORLANDO OK3004202 Logan 160 205 232 250 277 295 321 OSAGE CO RWD #21 OK2003616 Osage 93 1,531 1,640 1,721 1,795 1,870 1,954 OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN) OK3005748 Osage 114 715 766 803 838 872 912 OSAGE PWA OK2005701 Osage 100 172 184 194 202 210 220 PAWNEE OK1021209 Pawnee 75 2,298 2,552 2,778 3,014 3,268 3,522 PAWNEE CO RWD #1 OK2005931 Pawnee 69 3,297 3,660 3,985 4,329 4,691 5,054 PAWNEE CO RWD #2 OK3005921 Pawnee 93 1,829 2,030 2,210 2,401 2,602 2,804 Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 3) Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25 Provider SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Projected Population Served 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 PAWNEE CO RWD #3 OK3005911 Pawnee 113 663 735 801 870 943 1,016 PAWNEE CO RWD #4 OK3005913 Pawnee 70 500 555 604 656 711 766 PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5 OK3005902 Pawnee 517 133 148 161 174 189 204 PAYNE CO RW CORP #3 OK3006030 Payne 151 3,035 3,265 3,508 3,746 3,914 4,076 PAYNE CO RWD #3 OK2006011 Payne 73 1,423 1,531 1,645 1,756 1,835 1,911 PAYNE CO RWD #4 OK3006001 Payne 51 871 937 1,007 1,075 1,124 1,170 PERKINS OK2006012 Payne 99 2,348 2,531 2,722 2,904 3,040 3,159 PERRY WATER & LIGHT DEPT OK1021206 Noble 85 5,281 5,546 5,723 5,901 6,033 6,166 PONCA CITY MUNICIPAL WATER OK1021202 Kay 345 27,197 28,143 28,862 29,530 30,187 30,906 POND CREEK OK2002702 Grant 325 890 910 920 920 950 970 PRUE PWA OK2005703 Osage 89 456 496 515 535 555 585 R&C WATER CORP OK3002703 Grant 107 525 535 544 544 563 576 RALSTON OK2005901 Pawnee 159 361 401 436 474 514 554 RED ROCK OK2005202 Noble 142 299 314 324 334 341 349 RIPLEY PWA OK2006013 Payne 144 385 416 447 478 501 516 SALT FORK WATER AUTHORITY OK3002418 Garfield 160 25 26 27 27 28 28 SHIDLER OK1021203 Osage 70 531 569 588 617 636 664 STILLWATER WATER PLANT OK1021220 Payne 166 47,582 51,204 55,008 58,748 61,395 63,914 SW WATER INC OK3002706 Grant 186 204 208 211 211 219 224 TONKAWA OK2003603 Kay 138 3,323 3,441 3,520 3,599 3,678 3,766 TRYON OK2004103 Lincoln 181 454 501 529 567 605 643 WAKITA OK2002706 Grant 179 420 420 430 430 450 450 WAUKOMIS PWA OK2002410 Garfield 92 1,314 1,355 1,386 1,416 1,436 1,467 WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST OK2005910 Pawnee 90 178 198 216 234 254 273 WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1 OK3007602 Woods 243 245 245 247 250 252 257 WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3 OK3007605 Woods 260 360 360 363 367 370 378 YALE OK3006039 Payne 78 1,493 1,600 1,717 1,834 1,912 1,990 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System 2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day. Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (3 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region26 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Projections of Retail Water Demand Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demand includes water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demand includes customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demand doesn’t include wholesale water to other providers. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations. The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses. For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems. Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 51 EAST CORP OK3006003 Payne 174 187 201 215 224 234 ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 OK2000202 Alfalfa 244 244 244 244 248 252 ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 NORTH OK2000201 Alfalfa 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALVA OK2007603 Woods 1,692 1,692 1,711 1,730 1,749 1,783 BILLINGS PWA OK2005201 Noble 96 101 105 109 111 113 BLACKWELL OK1021101 Kay 1,615 1,671 1,714 1,753 1,792 1,836 BLACKWELL RW CORP OK3003601 Kay 171 177 181 185 189 194 BRAMAN OK3003616 Kay 26 27 27 28 28 29 BRECKINRIDGE PWA OK2002420 Garfield 51 53 55 57 57 59 BURBANK OK3005752 Osage 14 15 16 16 17 18 BURLINGTON OK3000202 Alfalfa 28 28 28 28 28 30 CHEROKEE OK2000208 Alfalfa 405 405 405 405 412 417 CLEVELAND NORTH OK1021210 Pawnee 577 640 698 759 821 885 COVINGTON OK3002419 Garfield 40 40 42 42 43 44 COYLE OK2004203 Logan 44 50 54 59 64 69 CREEK CO RWD # 5 OK2001994 Creek 181 193 203 212 222 232 CREEK CO RWD #10 OK2001907 Creek 4 4 4 4 5 5 CUSHING OK2006061 Payne 1,274 1,372 1,474 1,574 1,645 1,712 DEER CREEK OK2002711 Grant 15 15 15 15 16 16 DOUGLAS OK3002414 Garfield 3 3 3 3 3 3 DRUMRIGHT OK2001902 Creek 629 672 706 739 771 806 ENID OK2002412 Garfield 10,728 11,056 11,327 11,581 11,779 12,016 FAIRFAX OK1021204 Osage 194 208 218 228 237 248 FAIRMONT OK2002413 Garfield 10 11 11 11 12 12 GARBER OK2002416 Garfield 91 93 95 97 99 101 GARFIELD CO RWD # 4 OK3002406 Garfield 18 19 19 19 20 20 GARFIELD CO RWD # 5 OK2002444 Garfield 176 182 186 190 193 197 GARFIELD CO RWD #1 (KREM-HILL) OK2002402 Garfield 128 132 135 138 140 143 GARFIELD CO RWD #7 OK3002408 Garfield 59 61 62 63 64 66 GLENCOE OK3006040 Payne 45 48 52 56 59 61 GRANT COUNTY RWD #1 OK3002707 Grant 18 18 19 19 19 20 GRAYHORSE RWD OK3005717 Osage 19 20 21 22 23 24 HALLETT PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2005905 Pawnee 17 19 21 23 25 27 HILLSDALE PWA OK3002404 Garfield 9 10 10 10 10 11 HUNTER OK3002415 Garfield 24 24 25 25 26 26 JEFFERSON OK3002702 Grant 4 4 4 4 4 4 Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region HILLSDALE PWA Garfield 9 10 10 10 10 11Upper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27 Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 JENNINGS OK2005904 Pawnee 30 33 36 39 42 45 JET OK2000211 Alfalfa 36 36 36 36 36 38 KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY OK2003605 Kay 71 72 74 76 78 80 KAW WATER INC OK3003618 Kay 12 13 13 13 14 14 KAY CO RWD #1 OK3003605 Kay 278 288 295 302 309 316 KAY CO RWD #3 OK3003602 Kay 115 119 122 124 127 130 KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP) OK3003603 Kay 130 134 138 141 144 147 KAY CO RWD #6 OK2002415 Garfield 126 130 133 136 139 141 KAY COUNTY RWD # 4 OK3003624 Kay 13 13 13 14 14 14 KAY COUNTY RWD #2 OK3003604 Kay 42 44 45 46 47 48 KREMLIN OK3002403 Garfield 70 70 73 75 75 78 LAMONT OK2002705 Grant 92 94 96 96 100 102 LANGSTON PWA OK1020911 Logan 99 111 122 133 144 155 LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3 OK2004230 Logan 384 431 473 515 557 601 LONE CHIMNEY WATER ASSOCIATION OK1021221 Pawnee 24 27 29 32 34 37 MANCHESTER OK2002703 Grant 12 13 13 13 13 14 MANNFORD OK1020909 Creek 308 329 345 361 377 394 MARLAND OK2005204 Noble 31 34 35 36 37 37 MARSHALL OK3004201 Logan 56 64 70 76 82 89 MCCORD RWD #3 OK3005747 Osage 316 339 356 371 386 403 MEDFORD OK2002704 Grant 677 688 706 706 735 747 MORRISON PUBLIC WORKS AUTH. OK3005205 Noble 83 87 89 92 94 97 MULHALL OK3004203 Logan 37 42 46 50 54 58 NASH OK2002701 Grant 73 76 76 76 79 79 NEWKIRK OK2003604 Kay 553 572 587 601 613 628 NOBLE CO RWD # 4 OK3005201 Noble 18 19 20 20 21 21 NOBLE CO RWD #1 (LUCIEN) OK1021205 Noble 65 68 71 73 74 76 NOBLE CO RWD #3 OK2005207 Noble 13 14 14 14 15 15 NOBLE COUNTY RWD #2 OK3005203 Noble 142 149 154 159 162 166 OILTON OK2001901 Creek 128 138 145 151 158 166 ORLANDO OK3004202 Logan 37 42 45 50 53 58 OSAGE CO RWD #21 OK2003616 Osage 160 171 179 187 195 204 OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN) OK3005748 Osage 91 98 103 107 111 116 OSAGE PWA OK2005701 Osage 19 21 22 23 24 25 PAWNEE OK1021209 Pawnee 193 214 233 253 275 296 PAWNEE CO RWD #1 OK2005931 Pawnee 254 282 307 333 361 389 PAWNEE CO RWD #2 OK3005921 Pawnee 190 211 229 249 270 291 Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region28 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 County Demand (AFY) 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 PAWNEE CO RWD #3 OK3005911 Pawnee 84 93 101 110 119 129 PAWNEE CO RWD #4 OK3005913 Pawnee 39 44 47 52 56 60 PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5 OK3005902 Pawnee 77 85 93 101 110 118 PAYNE CO RW CORP #3 OK3006030 Payne 515 554 595 635 664 691 PAYNE CO RWD #3 OK2006011 Payne 116 125 134 143 149 156 PAYNE CO RWD #4 OK3006001 Payne 50 54 58 62 64 67 PERKINS OK2006012 Payne 261 281 302 322 337 350 PERRY WATER & LIGHT DEPT OK1021206 Noble 502 527 544 561 573 586 PONCA CITY MUN WATER OK1021202 Kay 10,518 10,884 11,162 11,420 11,675 11,953 POND CREEK OK2002702 Grant 324 331 335 335 346 353 PRUE PWA OK2005703 Osage 45 49 51 53 55 58 R&C WATER CORP OK3002703 Grant 63 64 65 65 67 69 RALSTON OK2005901 Pawnee 64 71 78 84 92 99 RED ROCK OK2005202 Noble 47 50 51 53 54 55 RIPLEY PWA OK2006013 Payne 62 67 72 77 81 83 SALT FORK WATER AUTHORITY OK3002418 Garfield 5 5 5 5 5 5 SHIDLER OK1021203 Osage 42 45 46 48 50 52 STILLWATER WATER PLANT OK1021220 Payne 8,864 9,539 10,247 10,944 11,437 11,906 SW WATER INC OK3002706 Grant 43 43 44 44 46 47 TONKAWA OK2003603 Kay 515 533 545 557 570 583 TRYON OK2004103 Lincoln 92 102 107 115 123 130 WAKITA OK2002706 Grant 84 84 86 86 90 90 WAUKOMIS PWA OK2002410 Garfield 136 140 143 146 148 151 WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST OK2005910 Pawnee 18 20 22 24 26 28 WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1 OK3007602 Woods 67 67 67 68 69 70 WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3 OK3007605 Woods 105 105 106 107 108 110 YALE OK3006039 Payne 131 140 151 161 168 175 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Demand Forecast ( of 3) Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29 Wholesale Water Transfers Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demand. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems. Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers. Public Water Provider Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both 51 EAST CORP OK3006003 Stillwater Water Plant Lone Chimney Water Association O O T T ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 OK2000202 Burlington O R ALVA OK2007603 Woods County RWD#3 Woods County RWD#1 Woods Co RWD #4 Dacoma PWA O O O T T T BLACKWELL OK1021101 Blackwell RW Corp O T BLACKWELL RW CORP OK3003601 Braman O T Blackwell O T BRAMAN OK3003616 Blackwell RW Corp O T BURBANK OK3005752 Osage County RWD #3 BURLINGTON OK3000202 Alfalfa Co RWS $ SWMD #1 O R CLEVELAND NORTH OK1021210 Lone Chimney WA O T COVINGTON OK3002419 Enid O T CUSHING OK2006061 Lincoln Co RWD # 4 E T DOUGLAS OK3002414 Kay County RWD #6 T ENID OK2002412 Salt Fork Water Authority Waukomis PWA Lahoma PWA Garfield Co RWD #7 Garfield Co RWD #4 Drummond O O O O O O T T R T R T FAIRFAX OK1021204 Grayhorse RWD O T GARFIELD CO RWD # 4 OK3002406 Enid O R GARFIELD CO RWD # 5 OK2002444 Drumond E T GARFIELD CO RWD#1 (KREM-HILL) OK2002402 Kremlin Hillsdale PWA O O T T GARFIELD CO RWD #7 OK3002408 Enid O T GLENCOE OK3006040 Lone Chimney WA O T GRANT COUNTY RWD #1 OK3002707 Manchester O T GRAYHORSE RWD OK3005717 Fairfax O T HILLSDALE PWA OK3002404 Garfield Co RWD #1 Kremlin O T T HUNTER OK3002415 Kay County RWD #6 T30 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both JEFFERSON OK3002702 Medford O T KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY OK2003605 Kay County RWD #4 O T KAW WATER INC OK3003618 Kay County RWD #4 KAY CO RWD #1 OK3003605 Ponca City Municipal Water O T KAY CO RWD #3 OK3003602 Ponca City Mun Water O T KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP) OK3003603 Newkirk T KAY CO RWD #6 OK2002415 Douglas Hunter T T KAY COUNTY RWD # 4 OK3003624 Kaw City WA O T KAY COUNTY RWD #2 OK3003604 Ponca City Mun Water T KREMLIN OK3002403 Hillsdale PWA T LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3 OK2004230 Mulhall Orlando Noble Co RWD #1 Marshall O T T T T ORLANDO OK3004202 Logan County RWD #3 O O OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN) OK3005748 Burbank Washington County RWD #3 Ponca City Mun Water E T T PAWNEE OK1021209 Lone Chimney WA O T PAWNEE CO RWD #1 OK2005931 Westport Utility Auth Trust O T PAWNEE CO RWD #2 OK3005921 Lone Chimney WA O T PAWNEE CO RWD #3 OK3005911 Lone Chimney WA T PAWNEE CO RWD #4 OK3005913 Lone Chimney WA O T PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5 OK3005902 Ralston T PAYNE CO RW CORP #3 OK3006030 Stillwater Water Plant O T PAYNE CO RWD #4 OK3006001 Lone Chimney WA O T PONCA CITY MUN WATER OK1021202 Kay Co RWD #1 Kay Co RWD #3 Osage Co RWD #3 Kay Co RWD #2 McCord RWD #3 O O T T T T Public Water Provider Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 3) Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31 Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both POND CREEK OK2002702 SW Water Inc O T R&C WATER CORP OK3002703 Medford O T RALSTON OK2005901 Pawnee Co RWD #5 T SALT FORK WA OK3002418 Covington O T Enid O T STILLWATER WATER PLANT OK1021220 Payne Co RWD #3 51 East Corp Noble County RWD #2 Morrison O O O T T T R SW WATER INC OK3002706 Pond Creek O T Pond Creek O T WAUKOMIS PWA OK2002410 Enid E T WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST OK2005910 Pawnee Co Rwd #1 O T WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1 OK3007602 Freedom O T Alva O T WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3 OK3007605 Alva Waynoka O O T T YALE OK3006039 Lone Chimney WA O T 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Wholesale Water Transfers (3 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region32 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider Water Rights Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider. A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider. In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights. Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent 51 EAST CORP OK3006003 Payne --- --- --- --- ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 OK2000202 Alfalfa 560 0% 0% 100% ALFALFA CO RWS & SWMD #1 NORTH OK2000201 Alfalfa --- --- --- --- ALVA OK2007603 Woods 4,018 0% 100% 0% BILLINGS PWA OK2005201 Noble 1,045 0% 100% 0% BLACKWELL OK1021101 Kay 3,725 100% 0% 0% BLACKWELL RW CORP OK3003601 Kay --- --- --- --- BRAMAN OK3003616 Kay 30 0% 0% 100% BRECKINRIDGE PWA OK2002420 Garfield --- --- --- --- BURBANK OK3005752 Osage 43 0% 100% 0% BURLINGTON OK3000202 Alfalfa 12 0% 100% 0% CHEROKEE OK2000208 Alfalfa 535 0% 100% 0% CLEVELAND NORTH OK1021210 Pawnee 1,231 0% 0% 100% COVINGTON OK3002419 Garfield --- --- --- --- COYLE OK2004203 Logan --- --- --- --- CREEK CO RWD # 5 OK2001994 Creek 675 0% 0% 100% CREEK CO RWD #10 OK2001907 Creek --- --- --- --- CUSHING OK2006061 Payne 9,261 34% 26% 39% DEER CREEK OK2002711 Grant 200 --- 100% --- DOUGLAS OK3002414 Garfield --- --- --- --- DRUMRIGHT OK2001902 Creek 1,416 0% 0% 100% ENID OK2002412 Garfield 38,355 0% 93% 7% FAIRFAX OK1021204 Osage 1,095 91% 9% 0% FAIRMONT OK2002413 Garfield 25 0% 0% 100% GARBER OK2002416 Garfield 311 0% 0% 100% GARFIELD CO RWD # 4 OK3002406 Garfield --- --- --- --- GARFIELD CO RWD # 5 OK2002444 Garfield 1,070 0% 100% 0% GARFIELD CO RWD #1 (KREM-HILL) OK2002402 Garfield --- --- --- --- GARFIELD CO RWD #7 OK3002408 Garfield --- --- --- --- GLENCOE OK3006040 Payne 16 0% 0% 100% GRANT COUNTY RWD #1 OK3002707 Grant --- --- --- --- GRAYHORSE RWD OK3005717 Osage --- --- --- --- HALLETT PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY OK2005905 Pawnee 1,280 0% 0% 100% HILLSDALE PWA OK3002404 Garfield --- --- --- --- Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 3) Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33 Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 3) Upper Arkansas Region Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent HUNTER OK3002415 Garfield 49 0% 0% 100% JEFFERSON OK3002702 Grant --- --- --- --- JENNINGS OK2005904 Pawnee 80 0% 0% 100% JET OK2000211 Alfalfa 84 0% 100% 0% KAW CITY WATER AUTHORITY OK2003605 Kay 272 --- 100% --- KAW WATER INC OK3003618 Kay --- --- --- --- KAY CO RWD #1 OK3003605 Kay --- --- --- --- KAY CO RWD #3 OK3003602 Kay --- --- --- --- KAY CO RWD #5 (DALE WATER CORP) OK3003603 Kay --- --- --- --- KAY CO RWD #6 OK2002415 Garfield 444 0% 100% 0% KAY COUNTY RWD # 4 OK3003624 Kay --- --- --- --- KAY COUNTY RWD #2 OK3003604 Kay --- --- --- --- KREMLIN OK3002403 Garfield 300 0% 100% 0% LAMONT OK2002705 Grant 1,415 0% 100% 0% LANGSTON PWA OK1020911 Logan --- --- --- --- LOGAN CO RWS & SWMD #3 OK2004230 Logan 716 0% 100% 0% LONE CHIMNEY WATER ASSOCIATION OK1021221 Pawnee 2,507 100% 0% 0% MANCHESTER OK2002703 Grant 320 0% 100% 0% MANNFORD OK1020909 Creek 1,120 100% 0% 0% MARLAND OK2005204 Noble --- --- --- --- MARSHALL OK3004201 Logan --- --- --- --- MCCORD RWD #3 OK3005747 Osage 37 0% 100% 0% MEDFORD OK2002704 Grant 1,827 0% 100% 0% MORRISON PUBLIC WORKS AUTH. OK3005205 Noble --- --- --- --- MULHALL OK3004203 Logan 80 0% 0% 100% NASH OK2002701 Grant 104 --- 100% --- NEWKIRK OK2003604 Kay 1,878 60% 40% 0% NOBLE CO RWD # 4 OK3005201 Noble --- --- --- --- NOBLE CO RWD #1 (LUCIEN) OK1021205 Noble --- --- --- --- NOBLE CO RWD #3 OK2005207 Noble 25 --- 100% --- NOBLE COUNTY RWD #2 OK3005203 Noble --- --- --- --- OILTON OK2001901 Creek 163 0% 0% 100% ORLANDO OK3004202 Logan --- --- --- --- OSAGE CO RWD #21 OK2003616 Osage 320 --- 100% --- OSAGE CO RWS & SWD #3 (BRADEN) OK3005748 Osage 16 0% 100% 0%34 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 County Permitted Quantity Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater (AFY) Percent OSAGE PWA OK2005701 Osage 92 0% 100% 0% PAWNEE OK1021209 Pawnee 438 100% 0% 0% PAWNEE CO RWD #1 OK2005931 Pawnee 614 0% 33% 67% PAWNEE CO RWD #2 OK3005921 Pawnee 470 0% 0% 100% PAWNEE CO RWD #3 OK3005911 Pawnee --- --- --- --- PAWNEE CO RWD #4 OK3005913 Pawnee --- --- --- --- PAWNEE COUNTY RWD #5 OK3005902 Pawnee --- --- --- --- PAYNE CO RW CORP #3 OK3006030 Payne --- --- --- --- PAYNE CO RWD #3 OK2006011 Payne --- --- --- --- PAYNE CO RWD #4 OK3006001 Payne --- --- --- --- PERKINS OK2006012 Payne 1,384 64% 36% 0% PERRY WATER & LIGHT DEPT OK1021206 Noble 4,008 100% 0% 0% PONCA CITY MUN WATER OK1021202 Kay 2,529 54% 46% 0% POND CREEK OK2002702 Grant 1,319 0% 100% 0% PRUE PWA OK2005703 Osage 680 --- --- 100% R&C WATER CORP OK3002703 Grant --- --- --- --- RALSTON OK2005901 Pawnee 480 0% 100% 0% RED ROCK OK2005202 Noble 36 0% 100% 0% RIPLEY PWA OK2006013 Payne 100 0% 100% 0% SALT FORK WATER AUTHORITY OK3002418 Garfield --- --- --- --- SHIDLER OK1021203 Osage 336 100% 0% 0% STILLWATER OK1021220 Payne 58,706 100% 0% 0% SW WATER INC OK3002706 Grant --- --- --- --- TONKAWA OK2003603 Kay 5,005 56% 44% 0% TRYON OK2004103 Lincoln --- --- --- --- WAKITA OK2002706 Grant 803 0% 100% 0% WAUKOMIS PWA OK2002410 Garfield 334 0% 0% 100% WESTPORT UTILITY AUTH TRUST OK2005910 Pawnee 113 0% 0% 100% WOODS COUNTY RWD # 1 OK3007602 Woods --- --- --- --- WOODS COUNTY RWD # 3 OK3007605 Woods --- --- --- --- YALE OK3006039 Payne 437 0% 100% 0% 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (3 of 3) Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 35 Provider Supply Plans In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans. In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems. Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems. 51 East Corp. (Payne County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Loan Chimney Water Association Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, add looping lines. Alfalfa County RWS & SWMD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Alfalfa County RWS & SWMD 1 North Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Alva (Woods County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: refurbish existing wells. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Billings PWA (Noble County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. City of Blackwell (Kay County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Chikaskia River Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines, add storage. Blackwell RW Corp. (Kay County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Blackwell Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add & replace distribution system lines, add storage Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines and pumps. Town of Braman (Kay County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Blackwell Rural Water Corp. Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: refurbish existing storage tower and add valves to distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Breckinridge PWA (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Burbank (Osage County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Alfalfa County RWD Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water tower. Town of Burlington (Alfalfa County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Alfalfa County RWD Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Cherokee (Alfalfa County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Cleveland North (Pawnee County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Cleveland Lake Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Add chloramines system. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Add distribution system lines & storage. Town of Covington (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Salt Fork Water Authority Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. City of Coyle (Logan County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Creek County RWD 5 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines and add storage. Creek County RWD 10 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: refurbish well; replace storage tank; add distribution system lines for looping. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines. City of Cushing (Payne County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs None required. Deer Creek (Grant County) Current Source of Supply Primary sources: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply sources: possibly from RNC Medford, purchase and blend for the reduction of Nitrates. Long-Term Needs None required. City of Douglas (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Kay County RWD 6 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace distribution system lines and refurbish storage tank. City of Drumright (Creek County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Modify clearwell. OCWP Water Provider Survey Upper Arkansas Region36 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Construct new reservoir. City of Enid (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Add Storage and drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Fairfax (Osage County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Fairfax City Lake, Groundwater Emergency source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace distribution system line from well to town Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace well pump and construct new water treatment plant. Town of Fairmont (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: None identified. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Garber (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garfield County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Enid Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Garfield County RWD 5 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells. Garfield County RWD 1 (KREM-HILL) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells. Garfield County RWD 7 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Enid Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Glencoe (Payne County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney Water Association Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Add storage and replace portion of main lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace portion of distribution system lines. Grant County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Manchester Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Drill additional wells. Grayhorse RWD (Osage County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Fairfax Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace water meters. Hallett PWA (Pawnee County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace well pumps. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional well. Hillsdale PWA (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: No information Short-Term Needs No information Long-Term Needs No information Town of Hunter (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Kay County RWD 6 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Replace distribution system lines and fire hydrants. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Jefferson (Grant County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Medford Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Jennings (Pawnee County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Medford Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Town of Jet (Alfalfa County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs None identified. Kaw City WA (Kay County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Kaw Reservoir, Arkansas River Short-Term Needs New supply source: need additional well capacity. Infrastructure improvements: replace transmission lines; install meter on lake line. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new treatment plant; additional distribution lines. Kaw Water Inc. (Kay County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Kay County RWD 4 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Kay County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Ponca City Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Kay County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Kay County RWD 5 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Newkirk Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace pumps Kay County RWD 6 (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Kay County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Kaw City Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add fire hydrants. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage and pump station. Kay County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Ponca City Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Town of Kremlin (Garfield County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Kremlin RWD Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Lamont (Grant County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Emergency source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply sources: plug emergency source and add new PWS. Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. OCWP Water Provider Survey Upper Arkansas RegionUpper Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37 Long-Term Needs New supply sources: same as short-term. Infrastructure improvements: replace storage tower. Langston PWA (Logan County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Langston Lake Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Logan County RWS & SWMD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Lone Chimney WA (Pawnee County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney Lake Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace Stillwater raw water line; replace filter media at plant; replace portion of distribution lines. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Manchester (Grant County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Town of Mannford (Creek County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Mannford Lake Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Refurbish storage tanks. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage; new treatment plant. Town of Marland (Logan County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; drill additional wells. Town of Marshall (Logan County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Logan County RWD 3 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. McCord RWD 3 (Osage County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Ponca City Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. City of Medford (Grant County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add water main lines; drill additional wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Morrison PWA (Noble County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Town of Mulhall (Logan County) Current Source of Supply Primary sources: Logan County RWD 3 Short-Term Needs New supply sources: possibly from RNC Medford, purchase and blend for the reduction of Nitrates. Long-Term Needs None required. Town of Nash (Grant County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Newkirk (Kay County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Arkansas River, Sandy Creek Aquifer Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system; add flow meters; remote control well equip; add storage. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Noble County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Town of Marland Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. Noble County RWD 1 (Lucien) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Logan County RWD 3 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Noble County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add computer control equipment and housing; add booster pump station. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines and valves; add fire hydrants; refurbish storage tower. Noble County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary sources: Lone Chimney, Perry, Stillwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add distribution lines; add variable frequency drive to pumps. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. City of Oilton (Creek County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional well. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; replace storage tanks. Town of Orlando (Logan County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Logan county RWD 3 Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Osage County RWD 21 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add treatment at wells to handle iron and manganese. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Osage County RWS & SWD 3 (Braden) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Ponca City Municipal Water Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; refurbish pump station. Osage PWA (Osage County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. City of Pawnee (Pawnee County) Current Source of Supply Primary sources: Lone Chimney WA, Pawnee Lake Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add storage; need multi-level intake structure. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. Pawnee County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: complete infrastructure rebuild; add automatic more reliable meter readers. Pawnee County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney WA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. Pawnee County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney WA Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add & replace distribution system lines; add storage. Pawnee County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney WA OCWP Water Provider Survey Upper Arkansas Region38 Upper Arkansas Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Pawnee County RWD 5 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Town of Ralston Short-Term Needs New supply source: drill additional well. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; refurbish standpipe. Payne County RW Corp. 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: System inactive - now part of Stillwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: Stillwater. Long-Term Needs None identified. Payne County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Groundwater - switching to Stillwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: Stillwater. Infrastructure improvements: add pump station. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines. Payne County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lone Chimney WA Emergency Source: Groundwater Short-Term Needs New supply source: Drill additional well. Infrastructure improvements: add & replace distribution lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add water office/shop & storage building. Town
Date created	2011-11-07
Date modified	2011-11-07

Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region

Object Description

Description

Tags

Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Upper...

Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Upper...