Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region

              DRAFT
1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Blue-Boggy
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning RegionStatewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Contents
Introduction 1
Regional Overview 1
Regional Summary . 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Supply & Limitations . 2
Water Supply Options 4
Water Supply 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers 22
OCWP Provider Survey 32
Water Supply Options . 34
Limitations Analysis . 34
Primary Options 34
Demand Management 34
Out-of Basin Supplies 34
Reservoir Use . 34
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water 35
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 35
Expanded Options . 35
Expanded Conservation Measures . 35
Artificial Aquifer Recharge . 35
Marginal Water Quality Sources 35
Potential Reservoir Development . 36
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis 39
Basin 7 39
Basin 8 49
Basin 9 . 59
Basin 10 69
Basin 11 . 79
Basin 12 89
Basin 13 . 99
Glossary 108
Blue-Boggy Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanSurface 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 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.
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 Blue-Boggy Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector.
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.
Regional Overview
The Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region includes seven basins (numbered 7-13 for reference). The southern portion of the region lies within the Coastal Plain physiography province and the northern part of the region intersects the Central Lowland and Ouachita provinces. The Blue-Boggy encompasses 3,670 square miles in southern Oklahoma, spanning from Pontotoc County to the Red River on the south and including all or portions of Hughes, Pittsburg, Coal, Johnston, Atoka, Bryan, and Choctaw Counties.
The region’s terrain varies from lush pastures in the river bottoms to the rugged foothills of the Arbuckle and Ouachita Mountains. The region’s climate is mild with annual mean temperatures varying from 61 °F to 64 °F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 39 inches in the northwest to 51 inches in the southeastern corner. Annual evaporation ranges from 63 inches per year to 55 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include Durant (2010 population of 16,671), Atoka (3,183), and Coalgate (1,926). The greatest demand is from Crop Irrigation water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 85,700 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 24,300 AFY (40%) from 2010.2 Blue-Boggy Regional Report DRAFT Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
alluvial groundwater withdrawals are likely from
domestic users who do not require a permit.
If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a
similar portion of demand in the future, storage
depletions from these aquifers may occur in the
winter, summer, and fall. 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.
The Blue-Boggy Region accounts for 3% of the
state’s total water demand. The largest demand
sectors are Crop Irrigation (33% of the region’s
overall 2010 demand), Municipal and Industrial
(27%), and Thermoelectric Power (22%).
Water Resources &
Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water supplies including reservoirs are
used to meet 71% of the Blue-Boggy Region’s
demand. Surface water supply shortages are
expected in Basins 9 and 13 by 2020, in Basin
12 by 2030, and in Basins 10 and 11 by 2040.
Shortages are expected to be very infrequent,
except in Basin 9 where there will be a 22%
probability of gaps occurring in at least one
month of the year by 2060. The region is
supplied by four major rivers: the Red River,
Muddy Boggy Creek, Clear Boggy Creek, and
the Blue River. Surface water from Byrds Mill
to other regions in the state. However, several
creeks in the region are impaired for Agricultural
use due to high levels of chloride, sulfate and total
dissolved solids (TDS).
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 6% of the
demand in the region. The majority of currently
permitted alluvial groundwater withdrawals in
the region are from the Red River aquifer and
minor aquifers. About one quarter of the current
Spring, fed by groundwater from the Arbuckle-
Simpson aquifer, supplies a substantial amount
of water out-of-region to the City of Ada in
the Central Watershed Planning Region.
Historically, the rivers and creeks in the region
have had substantial flows. However, infrequent
periods of low flow can occur, particularly in
the summer and fall due to seasonal and long-term
trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs
have been built on Muddy Boggy Creek and
its tributaries to provide public water supply,
flood control, and recreation. Major reservoirs
in the Blue-Boggy Region include McGee Creek
Reservoir (Bureau of Reclamation), Atoka Lake
(Oklahoma City), and Coalgate Lake (City of
Coalgate). McGee Creek Reservoir and Atoka
Lake are major out-of-basin supply sources for
Oklahoma City and also supply local entities
as well. All basins in the region are expected to
have available surface water for new permitting
to meet local demand through 2060. With the
exception of the Red River, surface water quality
in the region is considered generally good relative
Synopsis
   The Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies
(including reservoirs) and bedrock groundwater.
   It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to
meet future demand.
   By 2020, surface water supplies may be insufficient at times to meet demand in most
basins in the region, but the expected frequency of shortages is very low in most
basins.
   By 2020, alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur and
eventually lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and potential
changes to well yields or water quality.
   To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps
.and storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
   Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater
storage depletions.
   Aquifer storage and recovery in Basins 12 and 13 could be considered to store
variable surface water supplies, increase alluvial groundwater storage, and reduce
adverse effects of localized storage depletions.
   Surface water alternatives, such as bedrock groundwater supplies and/or developing
new reservoirs, could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage.
Blue-Boggy Regional Summary
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
AFY
Current Water Demand: 61,390 acre-feet/year (3% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector: Crop Irrigation (33% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources: 71% SW 6% Alluvial GW 23% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060): 85,700 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060): 24,310 acre-feet/year (40%)
Blue-Boggy Region Demand Summary
DRAFT
Blue-Boggy Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 23% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer and to a lesser extent the Antlers aquifer and multiple minor aquifers. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer has about 3.7 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. The Antlers aquifer has about 19.8 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. The recharge to the major aquifers is expected to be sufficient to meet all of the region’s bedrock groundwater demand through 2060, except in Basin 13, where bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Results of the multi-year Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study indicate that in order to maintain natural flow to springs and streams emanating from the aquifer, the equal proportionate share will be significantly lower than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for temporary permits.
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.
Water Supply Limitations
Blue-Boggy RegionDRAFT
4 Blue-Boggy Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
DRAFT
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Surface water supplies, reservoirs, and bedrock groundwater supplies are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Blue-Boggy Region. Surface water users may have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future, except in Basins 7 and 8. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions of major and minor aquifers are also projected in the future and may occur in most basins in the region by 2040. The development of additional alluvial and bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short-term water supply option, except in the Red River aquifer. Therefore, additional long-term water supplies should be considered for surface water users and for alluvial groundwater users.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities could reduce gaps and storage depletions throughout the region, and in Basin 11, eliminate surface water gaps. Future reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to the generally low frequency of shortages, temporary drought management measures may be an effective water supply option.
New reservoirs and expanded use of existing reservoirs could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and eliminate gaps throughout the region. McGee Creek Reservoir in Basin 8 has unpermitted yield that could supply new users. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified seven sites in the Blue-Boggy Region. (Parker Lake, in Basin 8, is the only federal reservoir remaining in Oklahoma that is currently authorized for construction.) These water sources could serve as in-basin storage or out-of-basin supplies to provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance from these reservoirs to demand points in each basin, 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 the Antlers or Red River aquifer, which would result in minimal or no increases in projected groundwater storage depletions.
Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analyses, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Options
Blue-Boggy RegionBlue-Boggy Regional Report 5
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan6 Blue-Boggy Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Reservoirs
Blue-Boggy Region
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purposes1
Normal Pool Storage
Water Supply
Navigation
Water Quality
Permitted Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Atoka
8
City of Oklahoma City
1964
WS, R
105,195
123,500
92,067
0
0
0
0
93,952
0
Coalgate
8
City of Coalgate
1965
WS, FC, R
3,466
---
---
0
0
0
0
3,224
No Known Yield
McGee Creek
8
Bureau of Reclamation
1987
WS, WQ, FC, R, FW
113,930
109,800
71,800
0
0
0
0
64,608
7,192
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation
No known information is annotated as “---”
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Blue-Boggy Region. The region’s major streams include the Red River, Blue River, Clear Boggy Creek, and Muddy Boggy Creek. Many streams in this region experience a wide range of flows, including both periodic no-flow conditions and flooding events. Flows in several basins show significant seasonal variation, with lower flows in late summer and early fall.
Water in the Red River (southern border of the Blue-Boggy region), which maintains substantial flows, may contain high levels of dissolved solids and chlorides in Basin 13 due to natural occurring salt pollution upstream from Denison Dam (Lake Texoma). Water quality improves farther downstream as higher quality flows from tributaries below Denison Dam enter the Red River.
The Blue River (210 miles long) flows southeasterly through Basins 12 and 11 to its confluence with the Red River at the outlet of Basin 11. The Blue River originates from headwater springs in the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer.
Clear Boggy Creek (190 miles long) runs through Basin 9 in the center of the Blue-Boggy Region. It is a tributary to Muddy Boggy Creek at the outlet of Basin 9. The upper Blue River and some tributaries to Clear Boggy Creek originate from headwater springs in the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer, the region’s major groundwater source.
Muddy Boggy Creek (270 miles long) and its tributaries are located in the eastern portion of the Blue-Boggy Region in Basins 7 and 8. Muddy Boggy Creek is tributary to the Red River at the outlet of Basin 7. Major tributaries include McGee Creek (70 miles) and North Boggy Creek.
Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. All three of the large reservoirs in the region are located in Basin 8 in the Muddy Boggy
Water Supply Creek watershed. McGee Creek Reservoir, the only federal reservoir in the region, was built by the Bureau of Reclamation on McGee Creek, a tributary of Muddy Boggy Creek, in 1987. Reservoir purposes include water supply, water quality control, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife mitigation. The reservoir provides a dependable water supply yield of about 71,800 AFY, of which 40,000 AFY is allocated to the City of Oklahoma City in the Central Watershed Planning Region and 24,608 AFY is allocated locally to the City of Atoka, Atoka County Commissioners, Southern Oklahoma Development Trust and the City of Coalgate. Atoka Reservoir, one of the state’s largest municipal reservoirs, was constructed by Oklahoma City on the North Boggy Creek for the purposes of water supply and recreation. Most of the lake’s dependable yield is allocated to Oklahoma City and is accessed via the Atoka pipeline. The city supplements Atoka’s water supply by piping water from McGee Creek Reservoir. Additional water supply yield is allocated locally to the City of Atoka for public water supply and to OG&E for power purposes. Atoka Reservoir is currently fully allocated. Coalgate Reservoir supplies water to the City of Coalgate. The water supply yield of this reservoir is unknown; therefore, the ability of this reservoir to provide future water supplies could not be evaluated.
There are other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for agricultural water supply and recreation.
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.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7
Reservoirs in Oklahoma may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control, and typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
Blue-Boggy Region8 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Blue-Boggy Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
AFY
Average Annual Flow
1,299,800
602,100
514,300
104,200
327,000
227,300
155,100
Minimum Annual Flow
164,200
86,200
54,500
10,000
31,000
21,400
14,300
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)
Blue-Boggy Region
Surface water is the main source of supply in the Blue-Boggy 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.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9
Groundwater Resources
Blue-Boggy 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
AFY
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Antlers
Bedrock
Major
49%
0.3-1.7
15,600
19,872,000
2.1
2,404,100
Arbuckle-Simpson
Bedrock
Major
6%
5.58
106,300
3,714,000
temporary2
196,800
Canadian River
Alluvial
Major
<1%
2
700
11,000
temporary 2.0
3,600
Red River
Alluvial
Major
11%
5
3,800
911,000
temporary 2.0
505,500
Ashland Isolated Terrace
Alluvial
Minor
<1%
3.9
0
27,000
temporary 2.0
12,500
East-Central Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
3%
2.8
2,300
1,195,000
temporary 2.0
150,600
Kiamichi
Bedrock
Minor
14%
1.1
500
455,000
temporary 2.0
664,700
Pennsylvanian
Bedrock
Minor
17%
1.1
1,600
6,386,000
temporary 2.0
778,400
Woodbine
Bedrock
Minor
35%
2.15
3,400
12,630,000
temporary 2.0
1,621,900
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
300
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
300
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.
2 Pursuant to 82 O.S. § 1020.9(A)(2), the temporary allocation for the Arbuckle-Simpson groundwater basin is subject to the OWRB’s case-by case determination of what amount will not likely degrade or interfere with springs or streams emanating from the Arbuckle-Simpson.
Groundwater Resources
Two major bedrock aquifers, the Antlers and the Arbuckle-Simpson, are present in the Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region, and two major alluvial aquifers, the Canadian River and Red River.
The Antlers aquifer is comprised of poorly cemented sandstone with some layers of sandy shale, silt, and clay. The depth to the top of the sandstone formation from the land surface varies from several feet to 1,000 feet and the saturated thickness ranges from less than 5 feet in the north to about 1,000 feet near the Red River. Large-capacity wells tapping the Antlers aquifer commonly yield 100 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). Water quality is generally good, with water becoming slightly saline (dissolved solids greater than 1,000 mg/L) in the southern portions of the aquifer. The Antlers bedrock aquifer underlies portions of all basins in the region.
The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer consists of several formations; about 2/3 of the aquifer consist of limestone and dolomite, with sandstone and shale present in some areas. The saturated thickness is estimated to be from 2,000 to 3,500 feet. Common well yields vary from 25 to 600 gpm, depending on the well location in the aquifer, with deeper wells yielding more than 1,000 gpm in some areas. The aquifer is the source of Byrds Mill, the largest spring in Oklahoma, and contributes flow to several spring-fed streams, including the Blue River and Delaware Creek. The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer and surface water from Byrds
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.Mill Spring supply a substantial amount of water out-of-region to the City of Ada in the Central Watershed Planning Region. Water quality is good with dissolved solids generally less than 500 mg/L. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 9 and 12.
The Red River alluvial aquifer consists of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. The aquifer supplies water for Municipal and Industrial, Crop Irrigation and domestic purposes. The average saturated thickness is estimated to be around 20-30 feet. However, little data are available concerning these deposits and their potential as a major source of groundwater. The aquifer is located in southern portions of Basins 7, 10, 11, and 13.
The Canadian River alluvial aquifer consists of clay and silt downgrading to fine- to coarse-grained sand with lenses of basal gravel. Formation thicknesses range from 20 to 40 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 50 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields in the alluvium range between 100 and 400 gpm and between 50 and 100 gpm in the terrace. The water is a very hard calcium bicarbonate type with TDS concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/L. However, the water is generally suitable for most municipal and industrial uses. The Canadian River alluvial and terrace deposits underlie a small portion of Basin 8.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the East-Central Oklahoma, Kiamichi, and Pennsylvanian aquifers. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Ashland Isolated Terrace deposit. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm per well. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but may not have sufficient yields for large-volume users.
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Major bedrock aquifers in the Blue-Boggy Region include the Antlers (which overlies the Woodbine minor bedrock aquifer) and Arbuckle-Simpson. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Canadian River and Red River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.
Groundwater Resources
Blue-Boggy RegionBlue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Blue-Boggy Region. Water users throughout the region need to be aware of existing rights in major reservoirs.
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 Southeast Region. For groundwater, equal proportionate shares in the Blue-Boggy Region currently range from 1 acre-foot per year (AFY) per acre to 2.1 AFY per acre, but results of the Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study indicate that the equal proportionate share may be significantly lower than the current 2 AFY/acre allocation for the aquifer.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Groundwater Permit Availability
Blue-Boggy 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 Blue-Boggy Region.
Surface Water Permit Availability
Blue-Boggy Region
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Ecoregions
Blue-Boggy Region
The Blue-Boggy Planning Region is a transitional area with significant contributions from several ecoregions, including the Cross Timbers, Arkansas Valley, Ouachita Mountains, South Central Plains, and South Central Texas Plains. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices, and is generally poor to excellent depending on drainage and location.Mountain ecoregions to the east/southeast. Diversity can be impacted by sedimentation and habitat degradation. The area is best represented by the upper Muddy Boggy Creek and its tributaries, including North Boggy and Clear Boggy Creek. Municipal water supply reservoirs include Coalgate City and Atoka Lakes. Salinity is typically low to moderate with lake conductivity values below 100 μS/cm and at the Muddy Boggy less than 275 μS/
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.
Water Quality
Water quality of the Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region is defined by several minor and major water supply reservoirs and the lower Red River watershed, including Muddy Boggy Creek and the Blue River. The area is a mixture of diverse ecoregions, including the Cross Timbers (CT), Arkansas Valley (AV), Ouachita Mountains (OM), South Central Plains (SCP), and South Central Texas Plains (SCTP).
The eastern edge of the Cross Timbers runs along the western portion of the region and includes the Eastern Cross Timbers to the south and Arbuckle Uplift to the north. Both areas are a mixture of rolling hills with more ridges to the south and inter-mixed plains to the north. Oak savanna and tall grass prairie are underlain by a mixture of sand, shale, clay, sandstone, and limestone in the Eastern Cross Timbers and mostly granite, dolomite, limestone, sandstone, and shale in the Arbuckle Uplift. Dominant land uses are pasture/grazing lands with some cropland to the south. Streams are diverse through the area. In the uplift, most streams run through deep or shallow channels with gravel/cobble/bedrock substrate. To the east, sand becomes more dominant. Into the Eastern Cross Timbers, streams become lower gradient, dominated by fine substrates. Ecological diversity, impacted by the poor habitat and sedimentation, is higher in the Arbuckle Uplift, decreasing from west to east and north to south. The Arbuckle Uplift is best typified by the upper Blue River, while the Eastern Cross Timbers is exemplified by the middle/lower Blue River. Stream salinity is moderate with mean conductivity from 400 μS/cm (lower Blue River) to near 520 μS/cm on Delaware Creek. Streams have low nutrient concentrations and are typically oligotrophic with mean total phosphorus (TP) concentrations ranging from 0.08-0.09 ppm and total nitrogen (TN) from 0.65-0.66 ppm. Stream clarity is good with mean turbidities ranging from 20 NTU in the north to near 25 NTU in the south.
Lying in the southwestern corner of the region, the South Central Texas Plains cross into Oklahoma. Although a rolling plain, the Northern Post Oak Savanna is much flatter than areas to the north and east. Underlain mostly by shale, marl, limestone, sand, and gravel, the area is covered by tall grass prairie and oak savanna with cropland and pasture land more dominant than neighboring areas to the north and east. Streams have lower gradients with mud, fine sand, and hardpan clay as dominant substrates. Island Bayou has relatively high mean conductivity (725 μS/cm) and poor water clarity (58 NTU). Streams become more oligotrophic and potentially eutrophic with higher nutrient concentrations. On Island Bayou, the mean TP and TN values are 0.26 ppm and 0.93 ppm, respectively. Ecological diversity is lower and can be impacted by channelization, sedimentation, and poor habitat.
The Lower Canadian Hills ecoregion of the Arkansas Valley covers much of the north central portion of the planning region. Underlain by shale, sandstone, and coal, this transitional area is covered by heavily wooded hills and a mixture of oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine forests along with intervening prairies. Streams are deeper with more diverse habitat than the Northern Cross Timbers, but do not have the ecological diversity of the Arkansas Valley and Ouachita Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Blue-Boggy Regional Report 13
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.
cm. However, the mean conductivity of Clear
Boggy Creek is near 450 μS/cm while North
Boggy Creek is 1,220 μS/cm. Water clarity
is typically average to poor. The Clear and
Muddy Boggy have turbidity averages of 39
and 51 NTU while lake Secchi depth means
range from 25-33 cm. The North Boggy has
nearly excellent clarity with mean turbidity of
14 NTU. Streams are oligotrophic to eutrophic.
Nutrient values range from low on the North
Boggy (TP = 0.06 ppm; TN = 0.48 ppm) to
moderate on Muddy Boggy (TP = 0.12 ppm; TN
= 1.02 ppm). Lakes are phosphorus limited,
ranging from mesotrophic (Coalgate City)
to eutrophic (Atoka).
To the east of the AV lies a
small portion of the Ouachita
Mountains with intersections
from the western Ouachita
Valleys/Mountains and Fourche
Mountains. The Fourche
Mountains have long, rugged, steep
ridges with narrow to broad shale valleys.
Natural vegetation is mostly oak-hickory-pine
forests with intervening native grasslands
and pasture land/hay fields. Streams have
excellent habitat with low to high gradients but
may be turbid with disconnected pools during
the summer. Underlain by sandstone and shale,
the Western Ouachitas are less rugged than the
Fourche Mountains to the north and covered by
oak-hickory-pine forests. Logging and recreation
are the major land uses. The narrow Western
Ouachita Valleys cut through the mountains,
mostly from west to east. Valley uplands
continue to support the oak-hickory-pine forests
but give way to bottomland hardwoods in the
low-lying floodplain. Pasture land and hay fields
dominate open areas with agriculture, recreation,
and commercial logging as primary land uses. The
majority of streams have moderate/high gradients
with gravel/cobble/boulder/bedrock bottoms,
although some sandy bottom streams do exist.
Ecological diversity is high but can be impacted
by poor habitat and sedimentation. The McGee
Creek Reservoir and its watershed exemplify this
area. Salinity is low with conductivity values less
than 100 μS/cm, and water clarity is excellent
(Secchi depth = 149 cm). Phosphorus limited, the
watershed is mesotrophic and has low nutrient
concentrations (TP = 0.03 ppm; TN = 0.35 ppm).
Finally, the Cretaceous Dissected Uplands
of the South Central Plains cover most of the
southern half to two-thirds of the region with
Fluvial Terraces and Red River Bottomlands
running along the southern border. Uplands
are underlain by a mixture of sand, clay and
Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality
Assessment Report. Some surface waters in this region have elevated levels of turbidity.
Water Quality Impairments
Blue-Boggy Region
14 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. They are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes to maintain and protect the quality of state 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 such categories 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.
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Blue-Boggy Region
BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed TMDL studies on Eastman Creek, Blue River, and Caney Creek. Several other TMDL studies are underway or scheduled.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture
Blue-Boggy Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Blue-Boggy Region
gravel, characteristic of the Ouachita Mountains. Uplands are covered by oak-hickory-pine forests with pasture land and some remaining natural grasslands. Upland streams may have moderate gradients with lower organic content but typically are more turbid and slightly harder. Example waterbodies include the middle/lower Clear and Muddy Boggy. Salinity is moderate with conductivity values ranging from 280 μS/cm on Clear Boggy to near 340 μS/cm on Muddy Boggy. Clarity is average with turbidity means between 35-50 NTU. Streams are oligotrophic to eutrophic with moderate nutrient concentrations (TP = 0.13-0.15 ppm; TN = 0.76-0.86 ppm). Lowlands contain southern bottomland forests and extensive wetlands. Agriculture, recreation, and commercial logging are the major land uses. Streams have low to moderate gradients with mostly loose sediments but some gravel/cobble bottoms, and while many do not have perennial flow, pools are maintained. Ecological diversity is moderate to high, increasing on a west to east gradient, but can be impacted by poor habitat and sedimentation. The Red River and several tributaries (including Whitegrass Creek) are excellent representative waterbodies. Whitegrass Creek is typical of most tributaries with moderate salinity (conductivity = 260 μS/cm), poor clarity (turbidity = 115 NTU), and moderate nutrient concentrations (TP = 0.11 ppm; TN = 0.68 ppm). With influences from the Lake Texoma watershed, the Red River mainstem has higher salinity (conductivity = 1,220 μS/cm) but is much less turbid (turbidity = 38 NTU). The river is eutrophic with similar nutrient concentrations (TP = 0.12 ppm; TN = 0.90 ppm).
Concerning groundwater quality, the Blue-Boggy region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Canadian River alluvium and terrace aquifer is predominantly of a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and variable in dissolved solids content. The Red River alluvium typically has much higher concentrations of dissolved solids. They are generally suitable for most purposes. However, the alluvium and terrace aquifers are highly vulnerable to contamination from surface activities due to their high porosities and permeabilities and shallow water tables. The Antlers Sandstone formation is the most extensive major bedrock aquifer in the region. It runs through the middle portion of the region. Water quality is generally good with dissolved solids between 200 and 1,000 mg/L. Water becomes slightly saline in the southern portions of the aquifer with dissolved solids greater than 1,000 ppm. It is suitable for most uses, but the ODEQ has identified several wells in this aquifer with elevated nitrate levels, and some wells show consistently low pH values. 16 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters. Because Durant Lake is a public water supply reservoir and has a relatively small watershed, it could potentially benefit from a SWS designation. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watersheds. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.
Surface Water Protection Areas
Blue-Boggy Region
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Groundwater Protection Areas
Blue-Boggy Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and levels of vulnerability. The Red River alluvial aquifer has been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable while the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer has been identified as very highly vulnerable. These aquifers currently lack protection to prevent degradation.
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.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.18 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Blue-Boggy Region
Parameter
Blue River near Durant
Muddy Boggy near Unger
Red River near Hugo
All Data Trend (1975-1992, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
----
----
----
----
----
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
----
----
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
----
Turbidity (NTU)
----
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1 Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the Blue-Boggy Region are:
Significant upward trend for recent total nitrogen on the Red River•
Significant increase in turbidity over the entire period of record on both the Blue and Red Rivers•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Blue-Boggy Region
Parameter
Lake Atoka
McGee Creek Lake
(1994-2007)
(1996-2009)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
----
Conductivity (us/cm)
----
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
----
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
----
----
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 Blue-Boggy Region are:
Significant upward trend for chlorophyll-a at Atoka Lake•
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen at McGee Creek Lake• 20 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water needs in the Blue-Boggy Region account
for about 3% of the total statewide demand.
Regional demand will increase by 40% (24,300
AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the
demand and growth in demand over this
period will be in the Municipal and Industrial,
Crop Irrigation, and Thermoelectric Power
sectors.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account
for 31% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Currently, 70% of the demand from this
sector is satisfied by surface water, 10% by
alluvial groundwater, and 20% by bedrock
groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in
the Blue-Boggy Region include sod and pasture
grasses.
Municipal and Industrial demand is projected
to account for approximately 28% of the 2060
demand. Currently, 61% of the demand from
this sector is satisfied by surface water, 3%
by alluvial groundwater, and 36% by bedrock
groundwater.
Thermoelectric Power demands are projected
to account for approximately 27% of the 2060
demand. Kiowa Power Partners’ Kiamichi
Energy Facility, supplied by surface water, is
a large user of water for thermoelectric power
generation in the region.
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Blue-Boggy Region
Projected water demand by sector. Crop Irrigation is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the
region, accounting for 31% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Water Demand
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.
Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 6% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 53% of the demand from this sector is satisfied by surface water and 47% by bedrock groundwater.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 6% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 69% of the demand from this sector is satisfied by surface water, 6% by alluvial groundwater, and 25% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the
Total Water Demand by Sector
Blue-Boggy Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
20,140
4,680
16,340
5,390
0
1,520
13,320
61,390
2020
21,370
4,730
17,780
10,350
0
1,660
14,860
70,750
2030
22,600
4,770
19,250
7,450
0
1,800
16,570
72,450
2040
23,830
4,810
20,740
5,780
0
1,940
18,490
75,590
2050
24,770
4,860
22,280
5,460
0
2,090
20,630
80,090
2060
26,280
4,900
23,840
5,420
0
2,240
23,010
85,700
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.
Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
nSelf-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system. Available water use data and employment counts were included in this sector.
nOil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied industrial use), are included in the oil and gas sector.
nMunicipal 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.
nLivestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
nCrop 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 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. Impacts of climate change, increased 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 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 that projected future demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin and as demand on the source basin.
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Blue-Boggy Region
Water needs in the Blue-Boggy Region account for about 3% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 40% (24,300 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial, Crop Irrigation, and Thermoelectric Power sectors.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Blue-Boggy Regionregion is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 3% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 67% of the demand from this sector is satisfied by alluvial groundwater and 33% by bedrock groundwater.
There is no Self-Supplied Industrial demand in the region. 22 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
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 Blue-Boggy Region includes 42 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 Durant, Bryan County RW&SD #5, Pontotoc County RWD #7, Atoka County RWS & SWMD #4, and Atoka PWS. Together, these five systems provide service for approximately 53 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 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
Public Water Providers
Public Water Providers
Blue-Boggy RegionBlue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 2)
Blue-Boggy Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Planning Horizon
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ACHILLE
OK2000707
Bryan
99
523
579
635
691
747
803
ALLEN PWA
OK2006202
Pontotoc
101
964
998
1,032
1,065
1,099
1133
ATOKA CO RWD # 1 (WARDVILLE)
OK3000305
Atoka
62
129
145
161
177
195
212
ATOKA CO RWD #2
OK3000306
Atoka
160
518
582
645
709
779
849
ATOKA CO RWD # 3 (CANEY)
OK2000302
Atoka
212
1,307
1,468
1,628
1,788
1,965
2142
ATOKA COUNTY RWS & SWMD #4
OK1010412
Atoka
171
3,625
4,072
4,516
4,960
5,453
5942
ATOKA PWS
OK1010401
Atoka
251
3,060
3,436
3,811
4,187
4,599
5011
BOKCHITO
OK2000704
Bryan
138
581
636
700
765
820
885
BOSWELL PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2001205
Choctaw
142
703
723
743
762
782
802
BROMIDE
OK2003517
Johnston
138
170
181
204
226
249
272
BRYAN COUNTY RW&SD #5
OK3000704
Bryan
99
4,542
5,009
5,489
5,968
6,447
6939
BRYAN COUNTY RWD # 6
OK3000725
Bryan
58
1,032
1,138
1,247
1,356
1,465
1577
BRYAN COUNTY RWD #7
OK2000705
Bryan
118
237
262
287
312
337
363
BRYAN CO RWD # 9
OK2000713
Bryan
77
230
254
278
302
327
352
CADDO
OK2000703
Bryan
159
972
1,074
1,175
1,277
1,379
1490
CALERA, TOWN OF
OK2000702
Bryan
75
1,795
1,980
2,165
2,350
2,544
2738
CENTRAHOMA WATER CO INC
OK3001502
Coal
50
514
593
670
756
849
943
CHOCTAW COUNTY RWD #1
OK2001204
Choctaw
76
2,622
2,688
2,737
2,803
2,872
2938
CHOCTAW RWD # 6
OK3001214
Choctaw
77
756
775
789
808
828
847
CLARITA OLNEY WATER CO INC
OK3001501
Coal
151
267
308
348
393
441
490
COAL CO RWD #5
OK3001505
Coal
100
360
415
469
529
594
660
COALGATE PWA
OK1010402
Coal
241
2,147
2,480
2,804
3,166
3,549
3941
COLBERT PWA
OK2000716
Bryan
118
2,062
2,270
2,478
2,686
2,912
3137
DURANT
OK1010601
Bryan
244
16,036
17,694
19,394
21,094
22,784
24516
HUGHES CO RWD #6 (GERTY)
OK2003224
Hughes
136
1,250
1,364
1,591
1,705
1,932
2045
JOHNSTON CO RWS& SWMD #4
OK2003503
Johnston
80
568
637
710
783
862
945
KENEFIC
OK2000701
Bryan
166
232
265
287
309
342
364
KIOWA
OK1020611
Pittsburg
150
699
738
768
797
837
876
LEHIGH
OK2001501
Coal
100
305
359
404
458
512
566
MILBURN PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2003520
Johnston
79
318
364
402
439
486
532
PHILLIPS RWD #1
OK3001503
Coal
208
240
285
315
360
405
450
PITTSBURG CO RWD #11 (KIOWA)
OK3006105
Pittsburg
64
565
597
620
644
676
70824 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 2)
Blue-Boggy Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Planning Horizon
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 6 (FITTSTOWN)
OK3006222
Pontotoc
211
787
818
846
874
900
926
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 7
OK3006215
Pontotoc
115
4,402
4,572
4,728
4,885
5,030
5176
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 9
OK3006218
Pontotoc
77
1,214
1,261
1,304
1,347
1,388
1428
ROFF
OK2006206
Pontotoc
112
746
775
801
828
852
877
ROUNDHILL RWD #4
OK3001504
Coal
65
225
260
293
331
372
413
SOPER
OK2001201
Choctaw
85
306
306
316
326
336
336
STONEWALL PWA
OK2006203
Pontotoc
137
481
500
517
534
550
566
STRINGTOWN PWA
OK3000303
Atoka
74
1,285
1,460
1,606
1,752
1,928
2103
TUPELO PWA
OK3001506
Coal
99
388
455
512
578
644
720
WAPANUCKA
OK2003518
Johnston
219
1,128
1,266
1,404
1,542
1,703
1864
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data was taken from 2007 Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day. Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Projections of Retail Water Demands
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 demands include water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demands include customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demands do not 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
Retail Demand Including System Loss (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ACHILLE
OK2000707
Bryan
58
64
70
76
83
89
ALLEN PWA
OK2006202
Pontotoc
109
113
117
121
124
128
ATOKA CO RWD # 1 (WARDVILLE)
OK3000305
Atoka
9
10
11
12
14
15
ATOKA CO RWD #2
OK3000306
Atoka
93
104
116
127
140
152
ATOKA CO RWD # 3 (CANEY)
OK2000302
Atoka
310
349
387
425
467
509
ATOKA COUNTY RWS & SWMD #4
OK1010412
Atoka
696
782
867
952
1,047
1,141
ATOKA PWS
OK1010401
Atoka
859
964
1,069
1,175
1,291
1,406
BOKCHITO
OK2000704
Bryan
90
98
108
118
127
137
BOSWELL PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2001205
Choctaw
112
115
118
121
125
128
BROMIDE
OK2003517
Johnston
26
28
31
35
38
42
BRYAN COUNTY RW&SD #5
OK3000704
Bryan
503
555
608
661
714
768
BRYAN COUNTY RWD # 6
OK3000725
Bryan
67
74
81
88
95
102
BRYAN COUNTY RWD #7
OK2000705
Bryan
31
35
38
41
45
48
BRYAN CO RWD # 9
OK2000713
Bryan
20
22
24
26
28
30
CADDO
OK2000703
Bryan
173
191
209
227
245
265
CALERA, TOWN OF
OK2000702
Bryan
150
166
181
197
213
229
CENTRAHOMA WATER CO INC
OK3001502
Coal
29
33
38
42
48
53
CHOCTAW COUNTY RWD #1
OK2001204
Choctaw
222
228
232
238
244
249
CHOCTAW RWD # 6
OK3001214
Choctaw
66
67
68
70
72
73
CLARITA OLNEY WATER CO INC
OK3001501
Coal
45
52
59
67
75
83
COAL CO RWD #5
OK3001505
Coal
40
46
53
59
67
74
COALGATE PWA
OK1010402
Coal
580
671
758
856
959
1,065
COLBERT PWA
OK2000716
Bryan
271
299
326
354
383
413
DURANT
OK1010601
Bryan
4,391
4,845
5,310
5,776
6,239
6,713
HUGHES CO RWD #6 (GERTY)
OK2003224
Hughes
190
208
242
260
294
312
JOHNSTON CO RWS& SWMD #4
OK2003503
Johnston
51
57
64
70
77
85
KENEFIC
OK2000701
Bryan
43
49
53
57
64
68
KIOWA
OK1020611
Pittsburg
117
124
129
134
141
147
LEHIGH
OK2001501
Coal
34
40
45
51
57
63
MILBURN PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2003520
Johnston
28
32
36
39
43
47
PHILLIPS RWD #1
OK3001503
Coal
56
66
73
84
94
105
PITTSBURG CO RWD #11 (KIOWA)
OK3006105
Pittsburg
40
43
44
46
48
51
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 6 (FITTSTOWN
OK3006222
Pontotoc
186
193
200
206
212
219
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 7
OK3006215
Pontotoc
567
589
609
629
648
666
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 9
OK3006218
Pontotoc
105
109
112
116
120
123
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 2)
Blue-Boggy Region26 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 2)
Blue-Boggy Region
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 demand does not include wholesaled water.
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Demand Including System Loss (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ROFF
OK2006206
Pontotoc
94
97
100
104
107
110
ROUNDHILL RWD #4
OK3001504
Coal
16
19
21
24
27
30
SOPER
OK2001201
Choctaw
29
29
30
31
32
32
STONEWALL PWA
OK2006203
Pontotoc
74
77
80
82
85
87
STRINGTOWN PWA
OK3000303
Atoka
107
122
134
146
161
175
TUPELO PWA
OK3001506
Coal
43
50
57
64
71
80
WAPANUCKA
OK2003518
Johnston
277
311
345
378
418
457
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemBlue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
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
ATOKA CO RWD #1
OK3000305
Pittsburg Co RWD #11
ATOKA CO RWD #2
OK3000306
Atoka PWS
Atoka Co RWD #4
O
E
T
T
ATOKA COUNTY RWS & SWMD #4
OK1010412
Stringtown PWA
Choctaw Co RWD # 6
Atoka Co RWD #2
Atoka PWS
O
O
E
E
T
T
T
T
Atoka PWS
E
T
ATOKA PWS
OK1010401
Atoka Co RWD #2
Atoka Co RWD #4
O
E
T
T
Atoka Co RWD #4
E
T
BOKCHITO
OK2000704
Bryan Co RWD #5
E
T
BRYAN COUNTY RW&SD #5
OK3000704
Bokchito
E
T
Durant
Bryan Co RWS & SWMD #2
O
E
T
T
BRYAN COUNTY RWD # 6
OK3000725
Caddo PWA
O
T
CADDO
OK2000703
Bryan Co RWD # 6
O
T
CENTRAHOMA WATER CO INC
OK3001502
Coalgate PWA
O
T
CHOCTAW COUNTY RWD #1
OK2001204
Hugo
O
T
CHOCTAW RWD # 6
OK3001214
Atoka Co RWD # 4
O
T
CLARITA OLNEY WATER CO INC
OK3001501
Coalgate PWA
O
T
COAL CO RWD #5
OK3001505
Coalgate PWA
O
T
COALGATE PWA
OK1010402
Clarita Olney Water Co Inc
Centrahoma Water Co Inc
Coal Co RWD #5
Phillips RWD #1
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
DURANT
OK1010601
Bryan Co RWS & SWMD #2
Bryan Co RWD #5
O
O
T
T
HUGHES CO RWD #6 (GERTY)
OK2003224
Hughes Co RWD # 4
O
T
MILBURN PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2003520
Johnston Co RWD #3
T
PHILLIPS RWD #1
OK3001503
Coalgate PWA
O
T
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 6 (FITTSTOWN)
OK3006222
Ada
O
R
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 7
OK3006215
Ada
O
T
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 9
OK3006218
Ada
O
T
STRINGTOWN PWA
OK3000303
Atoka Co RWD #4
O
T
TUPELO PWA
OK3001506
Pontotoc Co RWD #9
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Wholesale Water Transfers
Blue-Boggy Region
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demands. 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. 28 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Provider
County
Water Rights
Source
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
ACHILLE
OK2000707
Bryan
403
0%
100%
0%
ALLEN PWA
OK2006202
Pontotoc
283
0%
0%
100%
ATOKA CO RWD # 1 (WARDVILLE)
OK3000305
Atoka
---
---
---
---
ATOKA CO RWD #2
OK3000306
Atoka
85
0%
100%
0%
ATOKA CO RWD # 3 (CANEY)
OK2000302
Atoka
97
0%
100%
0%
ATOKA COUNTY RWS & SWMD #4
OK1010412
Atoka
---
---
---
---
ATOKA PWS
OK1010401
Atoka
10,000
100%
0%
0%
BOKCHITO
OK2000704
Bryan
200
0%
100%
0%
BOSWELL PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2001205
Choctaw
126
0%
100%
0%
BROMIDE
OK2003517
Johnston
86
49%
51%
0%
BRYAN COUNTY RW&SD #5
OK3000704
Bryan
---
---
---
---
BRYAN COUNTY RWD # 6
OK3000725
Bryan
101
0%
100%
0%
BRYAN COUNTY RWD #7
OK2000705
Bryan
540
0%
100%
0%
BRYAN CO RWD # 9
OK2000713
Bryan
80
0%
0%
100%
CADDO
OK2000703
Bryan
1,337
0%
100%
0%
CALERA, TOWN OF
OK2000702
Bryan
960
0%
100%
0%
CENTRAHOMA WATER CO INC
OK3001502
Coal
---
---
---
---
CHOCTAW COUNTY RWD #1
OK2001204
Choctaw
281
0%
87%
13%
CHOCTAW RWD # 6
OK3001214
Choctaw
---
---
---
---
CLARITA OLNEY WATER CO INC
OK3001501
Coal
---
---
---
---
COAL CO RWD #5
OK3001505
Coal
---
---
---
---
COALGATE PWA
OK1010402
Coal
8,168
96%
4%
0%
COLBERT PWA
OK2000716
Bryan
193
0%
0%
100%
DURANT
OK1010601
Bryan
12,342
100%
0%
0%
HUGHES CO RWD #6 (GERTY)
OK2003224
Hughes
160
0%
0%
100%
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 2)
Blue-Boggy RegionBlue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 2)
Blue-Boggy Region
Provider
County
Water Rights
Source
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
JOHNSTON CO RWS& SWMD #4
OK2003503
Johnston
438
0%
100%
0%
KENEFIC
OK2000701
Bryan
63
0%
100%
0%
KIOWA
OK1020611
Pittsburg
302
100%
0%
0%
LEHIGH
OK2001501
Coal
226
0%
100%
0%
MILBURN PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2003520
Johnston
36
0%
100%
0%
PHILLIPS RWD #1
OK3001503
Coal
---
---
---
---
PITTSBURG CO RWD #11 (KIOWA)
OK3006105
Pittsburg
---
---
---
---
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 6 (FITTSTOWN
OK3006222
Pontotoc
---
---
---
---
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 7
OK3006215
Pontotoc
---
---
---
---
PONTOTOC CO RWD # 9
OK3006218
Pontotoc
---
---
---
---
ROFF
OK2006206
Pontotoc
1,180
0%
100%
0%
ROUNDHILL RWD #4
OK3001504
Coal
---
---
---
---
SOPER
OK2001201
Choctaw
15
0%
100%
0%
STONEWALL PWA
OK2006203
Pontotoc
253
0%
100%
0%
STRINGTOWN PWA
OK3000303
Atoka
504
0%
100%
0%
TUPELO PWA
OK3001506
Coal
211
0%
100%
0%
WAPANUCKA
OK2003518
Johnston
320
100%
0%
0%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System30 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Blue-Boggy Region
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.
Town of Achille (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Allen PWA (Pontotoc County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace aerator tank and booster pump with dual pump system.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill new wells.
Atoka County RWD 1 (Wardville)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pittsburg RWD 11
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution lines.
Atoka County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Atoka PWS
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: repair or replace infrastructure damaged by 2011 tornado.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
Atoka County RWD 3 (Caney)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: inspect standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: construct additional groundwater wells.
Atoka County RWS & SWMD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: McGee Creek Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: increase water to McGee Creek Lake.
Infrastructure improvements: clear well needed at the water treatment plant. Additional water lines needed to supply water to storage tanks.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: increase water to McGee Creek Lake.
Infrastructure improvements: additional storage tanks needed.
Atoka PWS (Atoka County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Atoka Lake, McGee Creek Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: add piping to Atoka PWS to take in two sources of surface water.
Infrastructure improvements: additional piping.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: interconnect to adjacent PWS.
Infrastructure improvements: additional piping.
Town of Bokchito (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Emergency source: Bryan County RWD 5
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: add a new well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Boswell PWA (Choctaw County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish wells and pressure filters. Repaint water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace cast iron pipes.
City of Bromide (Johnston County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill two new wells. Install 1-2 miles of new piping to connect wells to existing water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system piping and add fire hydrants and new water meters.
Bryan County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Durant
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: paint water towers.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: increase storage.
Infrastructure improvements: build additional water towers.
Bryan County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Caddo PWA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: drill wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: add wells.
Bryan County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill another well. Add storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: line replacement; new meters.
Bryan County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill deeper wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: water line replacement.
Town of Caddo (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add new water lines. Repair existing storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Add storage tank. New water lines.
Town of Calera (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill new well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Pipeline repairs and additional storage needed. Upgrade existing treatment facility.
Centrahoma Water Co., Inc. (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: City of Coalgate
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Choctaw County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Emergency source: City of Hugo
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add booster station west of Hugo to blend well water with Hugo water source.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: add additional wells.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Blue-Boggy Region
Choctaw County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: McGee Creek Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Clarita Olney Water Co., Inc. (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Coalgate
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution lines and replace some existing line.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution lines and replace some existing lines. Replace pump station pumps.
Coal County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Coalgate
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Coalgate PWA (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Coalgate City Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: McGee Creek Lake.
Infrastructure improvements: build raw water line to City of Oklahoma City Aqueduct.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: city to purchase water from City of Oklahoma City.
Infrastructure improvements: raise level of water of Coalgate Lake 18 inches.
Colbert PWA (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill addition wells. Add pump stations and storage.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: surface water from Red River.
Infrastructure improvements: drill distribution lines.
City of Durant (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Blue River, Lake Durant
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hughes County RWD 6 (Gerty)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill new replacement wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater
Infrastructure improvements: drill new replacement wells. Upgrade inadequate main lines.
Johnston County RWS & SWMD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: drill additional wells. Increase distribution line capacity on south side of system.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: need additional supply.
Infrastructure improvements: additional storage and increased line capacity in distribution system.
Town of Kenefic (Bryan County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Kiowa (Pittsburg County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Katy Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Lehigh (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Milburn PWA (Johnston County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Johnston County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: obtain new sources of water.
Infrastructure improvement: new distribution lines and additional water tower.
Phillips RWD 1 (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: None identified
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pittsburg County RWD 11 (Kiowa)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Kiowa PWS ID 1020611
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Kiowa PWS.
Infrastructure improvements: add water line to serve customers that are on their own wells or pulling water from the lake.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: add chlorine booster station.
Pontotoc County RWD 6 (Fittstown)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Ada
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: City of Ada.
Infrastructure improvements: upgrade water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: replace most of distribution system piping. Replace water tower.
Pontotoc County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Ada
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines; add storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: add booster pumps and storage tanks; upsize distribution system lines.
Pontotoc County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Ada
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: City of Ada.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: identify new water source.
Town of Roff (Pontotoc County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: replace existing water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: drill new wells. Replace old distribution lines.
Roundhill RWD 4 (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Coalgate
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: water tower cleaned and repainted.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvement: refurbish water tank. Replace pumps. Increase size of main water line.
Town of Soper (Choctaw County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Emergency source: Antlers Rural Water
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Antlers Rural Water.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: connect all lines to new service. Replace well casing or drill new well.
Stonewall PWA (Pontotoc County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Add water storage tower.
Stringtown PWA (Atoka County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Atoka County RWS & SWMD 4
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: repair distribution lines near Daisy. Add new line on Farmer Rd.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: chlorine booster stations.
Tupelo PWA (Coal County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Pontotoc RWD 9
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: distribution line replacement.
Town of Wapanucka (Johnston County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: inspect standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater.
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.32 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Blue-Boggy Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$20
$347
$13
$380
Medium
$77
$15
$26
$118
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$97
$362
$39
$498
1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 and fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category is for rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $0.5 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure needs • of the Blue-Boggy region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur from 2021 to 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 70 percent of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects.
Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
There are no projected costs for projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs.•
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water.
Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
34 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur.
Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%.
The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report.
Primary Options
To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements.
Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of Demand Management for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report.
Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin.
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Reservoir Use
“Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs.
The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands.
Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir site(s) unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,”
Water Supply Options Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 35
since diversions would be limited to existing permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand.
Increasing Reliance on
Surface Water
“Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion.
Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source.
Increasing Reliance on
Groundwater
“Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers.
Expanded Options
In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website.
Expanded Conservation Measures
Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the report Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects.
Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodology and results for the five selected sites are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations.
Marginal Quality Water Sources
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1627 requiring the OWRB to establish a technical workgroup to analyze the expanded use of marginal quality water (MQW) from various sources throughout the state. The group included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. Through facilitated discussions, the group defined MQW as that which has been historically unusable due to technological or economic issues associated with diverting, treating, and/or conveying the water. Five categories of MQW were identified for further characterization and technical analysis: (1) treated wastewater effluent, (2) stormwater runoff, (3) oil and gas flowback/produced water, (4) brackish surface and groundwater, and (5) water with elevated levels of key constituents, such as nitrates, that would require advanced treatment prior to beneficial use.
A phased approach was utilized to meet the study’s objectives, which included quantifying and characterizing MQW sources and their locations for use through 2060, assessing constraints to MQW use, and matching identified sources of MQW with projected water shortages across the state along with a determination of feasibility. Of all the general MQW uses evaluated, water reuse—beneficially using treated wastewater to meet certain demand—is perhaps the most commonly applied elsewhere in the U.S. Similarly, wastewater was determined to be one of the most viable sources of marginal quality water for short-term use in Oklahoma. Results of the workgroup’s study are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations.
Potential Reservoir Development
Oklahoma is the location of many reservoirs that provide a dependable, vital water supply source for numerous purposes. While economic, environmental, cultural, and geographical constraints generally limit the construction of new reservoirs, significant interest persists due to their potential in meeting various future needs, particularly those associated with municipalities and feasible regional public supply systems.36 Blue-Boggy Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4)
Blue-Boggy Region
Name
Category
Stream
Basin
Purposes1
Total Storage
Conservation Pool
Primary Study
Updated Cost Estimate2
(2010 dollars)
Surface Area
Storage
Dependable Yield
Date
Agency
AF
Acres
AF
AFY
Albany
4
Island Bayou
13
FC, WS, R, F&W
147,100
4,960
85,200
35,847
1978
USACE
$81,618,000
Bennington (Durant)
3
Blue River
11
WS, F&W, R
0
14,280
287,420
179,000
1975
USACE and Bureau of Reclamation
$180,662,000
Boswell (Alternative D)
4
Boggy Creek
7
FC, WS, F&W, R
407,800
26,700
60,870
56,011
1989
Multiple agencies
$254,112,000
Chickasaw
4
Chickasaw Creek
8
WS, FC, R, P, F&W
195,260
2,030
36,320
17,900
1995
USACE
$61,661,000
Parker
4
Muddy Boggy Creek
8
FC, WS, F&W, R
220,240
6,100
109,940
45,900
1986
USACE
$103,816,000
Sandy Creek
4
Blue River
12
WS, P, F&W, R
105,000
1,840
16,920
10,800
1995
USACE
$64,372,000
Tupelo
4
Clear Boggy Creek
9
WS, F&W, R
242,000
11,950
227,730
100,820
1975
USACE
$188,599,000
1 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
2 Majority of cost estimates were updated using the costs as estimated in previous project reports combined with the USACE Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only.
Reservoir Project Viability Categorization
Category 4: Sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development.
Category 3: Sites with sufficient data for analysis, but less than desirable for current viability.
Category 2: Sites that may contain fatal flaws or other factors that could severely impede potential development.
Category 1: Sites with limited available data and lacking essential elements of information.
Category 0: Typically sites that exist only on an historical map. Study data cannot be located or verified.
As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP reservoir viability study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified).
This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
DRAFT
Expanded Water Supply Options
Blue-Boggy Region39
Basin 7
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Data & Analysis
Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region
Basin 740 Blue-Boggy Regional Report DRAFT Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 7 accounts for about 2% of the current water demand in the Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region. About 34% of the basin’s 2010 demand is from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Crop Irrigation and Livestock are about 29% and 27%, respectively, of the basin’s 2010 demand. Surface water is used to meet 48% of the current demand in the basin. Groundwater satisfies about 52% of the current demand (6% alluvial and less than 46% bedrock). The largest demand and growth in demand over the period will be in the Crop Irrigation demand sector.
The flow in Muddy Boggy Creek downstream of Bokchito Creek is typically greater than 6,000 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 100,000 AF/month in the spring. However, the river can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. The Red River is not currently used as a water supply source in Basin 7 due to water quality considerations.
The availability of permits is not expected to limit the development of surface water supplies for in-basin use through 2060. With the exception of the Red River, surface water quality in Basin 7 is considered good relative to other basins in the state. There are no water bodies in the basin impaired for Public and Private Water Supply or Agricultural use.
The majority of groundwater rights in Basin 7 are in the Antlers major bedrock aquifer. The Antlers aquifer underlies almost the entire basin, has over 4 million AF of storage in the basin, and receives about 17,000 AFY of recharge from Basin 7. There
Basin 7
Current Demand by Source and Sector
Blue-Boggy Region, Basin 7
Total Demand
1,500 AFY
Synopsis
Water users are expected to continue to rely primarily on surface water and bedrock   groundwater supplies.
Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, surface water gaps and   groundwater storage depletions are not are expected to occur in this basin through 2060. However, localized gaps and storage depletions may occur.
Surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions are not expected through   2060; therefore, no supply options are necessary.
Basin 7 Summary
Water Resources
Blue-Boggy Region, Basin 7DRAFT Blue-Boggy Regional Oklahoma Comprehensiv