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

              Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Middle Arkansas
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Middle Arkansas Watershed Planning RegionStatewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Contents
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Regional Summary 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations 2
Water Supply Options . 4
Water Supply . 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers . 22
OCWP Provider Survey 36
Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Limitations Analysis 42
Primary Options 42
Demand Management 42
Out-of-Basin Supplies . 42
Reservoir Use 42
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 43
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 43
Expanded Options 43
Expanded Conservation Measures . 43
Artificial Aquifer Recharge 43
Marginal Quality Water Sources 43
Potential Reservoir Development 43
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 47
Basin 49 . 47
Basin 73 . 57
Basin 74 . 67
Basin 75 . 77
Basin 76 . 87
Basin 77 . 97
Basin 78 . 107
Basin 79 . 117
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Middle Arkansas Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Planstreamflow 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.
Regional Overview
The Middle Arkansas Watershed Planning Region includes eight basins (numbered 49 and 73–79 for reference). The region is primarily in the Central Lowland physiography province and encompasses 5,173 square miles in northeastern Oklahoma, spanning all of Washington and Nowata Counties and parts of Osage, Craig, Tulsa, Rogers, Mayes, Wagoner, Creek, Okmulgee, and Muskogee Counties.
Encompassing some of the most scenic areas of the state, the region’s terrain includes forested mountains, rolling plains, and rich river basins. Much of the region is a mosaic of prairie grassland and, particularly in the eastern portion of the region, woodlands with a mix of rangeland and cropland.
The region’s climate is mild with annual mean temperatures varying from 59°F to 61°F. Annual evaporation averages about 56 inches per year. Annual average precipitation ranges from 36 inches in the farthest north to 45 inches in the south and east near Tulsa.
The largest cities in the region include Tulsa (2010 population 384,583), Broken Arrow (77,924), Bartlesville (35,575), Sapulpa (21,285), and Sand Springs (18,023). The greatest demand is from Municipal and Industrial water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 304,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 76,000 AFY (33%) from 2010.
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 Middle Arkansas Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily
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.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
2 Middle Arkansas Regional Report
Planexpected to have available surface water for new permitting to meet local demand through 2060.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet less than 1% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted alluvial groundwater withdrawals in the region are from the Arkansas River aquifer in Basin 49. The predominant use of alluvial groundwater is for domestic use, which does not require a permit. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur throughout the year. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer. In Basin 49, these projected depletions will be small relative to the amount of water in storage in the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer. Site-specific information should be considered for minor aquifers before
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
Current Water Demand:
228,660 acre-feet/year (12% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Municipal & Industrial (69% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
95% SW
4.8% Alluvial GW
0.2% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
304,290 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
75,630 acre-feet/year (33%)
Middle Arkansas Region Demand Summary
The Middle Arkansas Region accounts for 12% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are Municipal and Industrial (63% of the region’s overall demand), Thermoelectric Power (24%), and Crop Irrigation (8%).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 95% of the region’s demand. The region is supplied by three major rivers: the Arkansas River, the Verdigris River, and the Caney River. The rivers and creeks in the region can have periods of low to no flow due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation, especially on the Verdigris River. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers and their tributaries to provide water supply, flood control and recreation. Large reservoirs in the Middle Arkansas Region include: Oologah, Skiatook, Copan, Hulah, and Birch. Twelve additional municipal lakes have normal pools ranging from 2,000 AF to 17,000 AF.
Relative to other regions in the state, surface water quality in the region is considered fair to good, except Basin 76 that is rated poor. Multiple rivers, creeks, and lakes, including the major rivers, are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim. All basins in the region are
Synopsis
The Middle Arkansas Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface   water supplies (including reservoirs) and to a lesser extent on alluvial 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 will be typically insufficient to meet demand in   those basins without existing major reservoirs (Basins 49, 73, 75, 77, and 78).
By 2020, alluvial groundwater storage depletions may 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 or eliminate surface water gaps, alluvial   groundwater storage depletions, and bedrock groundwater storage depletions.
Surface water alternatives, such as bedrock groundwater supplies from major   aquifers and/or developing new reservoirs, could mitigate surface water gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage.
No basins within the region have been identified as water availability “hot   spots,” areas where severe deficits or gaps in supply are anticipated. (See “Water Availability Analysis” in the OCWP Executive Report.)
Middle Arkansas Regional Summary Beaver-Cache Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Middle Arkansas Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Potential 2060 Water Supply Limitations
Middle Arkansas Region
long-term or large-scale use. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 5% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Vamoosa-Ada aquifer and to a lesser extent multiple minor aquifers. No bedrock aquifer storage depletions are expected to occur in the Middle Arkansas Region. The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Middle Arkansas Regional Report OOkkllaahhoommaa CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee WWaatteerr PPllaann
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 Option Effectiveness
Middle Arkansas Region
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 and reservoirs are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Middle Arkansas Region. Basins and users that rely on surface water are projected to have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future, except where major reservoirs can provide adequate supply. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions are also projected in the future. No bedrock aquifer storage depletions are expected to occur in the Middle Arkansas Region. The development of the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer and Vamoosa-Ada bedrock aquifer should be considered a short- to long-term water supply option. However, additional long-term water supply alternatives should be considered for both surface water and groundwater users.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or in delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities, primarily increased conservation by public water suppliers and from increased crop irrigation efficiency, could reduce gaps and storage depletions and, in Basins 73 and 76, could eliminate surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Further reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities, which could eliminate gaps and storage depletions in Basins 74 and 75. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn) to low water demand crops such as sorghum or wheat, along with increased irrigation efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to extended dry periods and predominant use of surface water supplies, drought management measures alone will likely be an ineffective water supply option for most basins.
New reservoirs and expanded use of existing reservoirs could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and eliminate gaps. Major reservoirs in the Middle Arkansas Region have little unpermitted yield, but are expected to meet substantial future demand of existing permit holders. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Two reservoirs were identified for future consideration: Candy Lake in Basin 74 and Sand Reservoir in Basin 76. These water sources could serve as regional or inter-regional supplies to provide additional water to mitigate the region’s surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Out-of-basin supplies, such as transfers from the Grand River Basin, could provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s 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 major groundwater aquifers, which would result in minimal increases in projected groundwater storage depletions. However, these aquifers are not widespread in the region, and alluvial users would still be susceptible to the adverse effects of storage depletions.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5
6 Middle Arkansas Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Reservoirs
Middle Arkansas Region
Water Supply
Navigation
Water Quality
Permitted Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purposes1
Normal Pool Storage
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Birch
74
USACE
1977
FC, WS, WQ, R, FW
19,225
7,600
3,360
---
---
7,600
3,360
2,800
560
Bixhoma
49
City of Bixby
1965
WS, R
3,130
---
---
---
---
---
---
1,120
---
Bluestem
74
City of Pawhuska
1958
WS, R
17,000
---
---
---
---
---
---
2,000
---
Claremore
78
City of Claremore
1930
WS, R
7,900
---
---
---
---
---
---
3,890
---
Copan
76
USACE
1983
FC, WS, WQ, R, FW
43,400
7,500
3,3602
---
---
26,100
17,920
3,340
20
Heyburn
49
USACE
1950
FC, WS, R, FW
5,307
2,000
1,904
---
---
0
0
2,085
0
Hominy Municipal
74
City of Hominy
1940
WS, R
5,000
---
---
---
---
---
---
667
---
Hudson
76
City of Bartlesville
1949
WS, R
4,000
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Hulah
76
USACE
1951
FC, WS, LF, R, FW
31,160
19,800
11,0883
---
---
7,100
5,040
13,886
2
Oologah
79
USACE
1963
FC, WS, N, R, FW
552,210
342,600
172,480
168,000
91,224
0
0
172,246
234
Pawhuska
74
City of Pawhuska
1936
WS, R
3,600
---
---
---
---
---
---
0
---
Sahoma
49
City of Sapulpa
1947
WS, R
4,850
---
---
---
---
---
---
4,800
---
Shell
49
City of Sand Springs
1922
WS, R
9,500
---
---
---
---
---
---
4,828
---
Skiatook
74
USACE
1984
FC, WS, WQ, R, FW
322,700
62,900
15,680
---
---
233,000
69,440
15,680
0
Waxhoma
74
City of Barnsdall
1955
WS, R
2,000
---
---
---
---
---
---
295
---
Yahola
73
City of Tulsa
1948
WS, R
6,445
---
---
---
---
---
---
0
---
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, 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 “---”
2 Copan is projected to have 0.97 mgd [approx. 1,086 afy] of dependable water supply yield through 2035, decreasing to 0.88 mgd [approx. 986 afy] by 2055 (Bartlesville Water Supply and Conveyance Study, PAS Program, USACE, Dec. 2007).
3 Hulah is projected to have 6.4 mgd [approx. 7,168 afy] of dependable water supply yield through 2035, declining to 4.35 mgd [approx. 4,872 afy] by 2055 (Bartlesville Water Supply and Conveyance Study, PAS Program, USACE, Dec. 2007).
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Middle Arkansas Region. The region’s major streams include the Caney, Verdigris, and Arkansas Rivers. All streams in the region are ultimately tributaries to the Arkansas River. Streams generally have abundant flows, but can experience periods of low-flow conditions as well as periodic flooding events. Many basins have significantly lower flows in late summer and fall.
The Arkansas River flows through Basin 49 in the southern portion of the region. In addition to the Verdigris River, major tributaries include Polecat Creek (70 miles long).
The Caney River originates in Kansas and runs for 120 miles through Basins 76 and 75 before joining the Verdigris River in Basin 78 (above the confluence with Bird Creek). The Caney
Water Supply River and its tributaries occupy Basins 75 and 76. Major tributaries include Sand Creek in Basin 76.
The Verdigris River (140 miles long in Oklahoma) originates in Kansas and the mainstem flows into Oklahoma in the northeastern corner of the Middle Arkansas Region. It joins the Arkansas River in Basin 49 in the Middle Arkansas Region. Major tributaries include Bird Creek (approximately 80 miles long in Basins 73 and 74).
In the Middle Arkansas Region, streamflow is variable from year to year and season to season, but is generally abundant with intermittent periods of low flow.
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.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7
Major reservoirs in the Middle Arkansas Region include Oologah, Skiatook, Hulah, Birch and Heyburn. Reservoirs in Oklahoma may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
Middle Arkansas Region
Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest are Oologah and Skiatook, constructed in 1963 and 1984, respectively, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Oologah Lake, located on the Verdigris River in Basin 79, is authorized for flood control, water supply, navigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. The majority of the water rights belong to the City of Tulsa for municipal and industrial water supply purposes. The Public Service Company of Oklahoma also holds a substantial water allocation for thermoelectric power generation purposes. Oologah is the only reservoir in Oklahoma that has storage designated specially for navigation.
Skiatook Lake, located on Hominy Creek in Basin 74, is authorized for flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The majority of the water is currently allocated to the Cities of Sand Springs, Skiatook and Sapulpa.
Other Corps of Engineers multipurpose reservoirs include Hulah and Copan in Basin 76, Birch Lake in Basin 74 and Heyburn Lake in Basin 49.
Some of the major municipal lakes in the region include Lake Hudson in Basin 76; Bluestem Lake, Lake Pawhuska, Lake Waxhoma and Hominy Municipal Lake in Basin 74; Lake Claremore in Basin 78; Lake Yahola in Basin 73; and Lake Bixhoma, Lake Sahoma, and Shell Lake in Basin 49. There are many other Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) projects, small municipal lakes and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agricultural water supply, and recreation.8 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Middle Arkansas Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
49
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
AFY
Average Annual Flow
4,494,400
493,800
413,200
708,400
638,300
2,404,200
2,230,800
1,093,000
Minimum Annual Flow
510,700
13,000
8,100
29,300
28,000
33,700
29,100
49,400
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)
Middle Arkansas Region
Surface water is the main source of supply in the Middle Arkansas Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9
Groundwater Resources
Middle Arkansas Region
Aquifer
Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arkansas River
Alluvial
Major
7%
5
15,400
477,000
temporary 2.0
439,700
Roubidoux
Bedrock
Major
3%
2.5
0
816,000
temporary 2.0
166,400
Vamoosa-Ada
Bedrock
Major
16%
1.1-1.4
1,400
1,727,000
2.0
1,034,800
Cherokee Group
Bedrock
Minor
22%
3
0
1,358,000
temporary 2.0
1,484,800
Northeastern Oklahoma Pennsylvanian
Bedrock
Minor
3%
2.1
0
265,000
temporary 2.0
230,400
Verdigris River Groundwater Basin
Alluvial
Minor
2%
4.2
0
162,000
temporary 2.0
128,000
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
300
temporary 2.0
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
700
temporary 2.0
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.
Groundwater Resources
Two major bedrock aquifers, the Roubidoux and Vamoosa-Ada, underlie the Middle Arkansas Watershed Planning Region, and the Arkansas River major alluvial aquifer is located in the southern portion of the region.
The Roubidoux aquifer consists primarily of dolomite with some interbedded sandstone. The aquifer thickness ranges from zero to greater than 2,000 feet, with average thickness estimated at 1,000 feet. Well yields vary from less than 25 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 1,000 gpm, with shallower well yields ranging from less than 10 gpm to more than 300 gpm. Water quality in the aquifer is mixed. In some areas concentrations of chloride and naturally occurring radioactivity may exceed drinking water standards, and sodium chloride (salt) water is present along the western and southern edges and at depth; water in other areas is suitable for most purposes. The Roubidoux bedrock aquifer underlies a portion of the northeast corner of Basin 79.
The Vamoosa-Ada aquifer consists of 125 to 1,000 feet of interbedded sandstone, shale, and conglomerate. Wells commonly yield 25 to 150 gpm. Water quality is generally good and suitable for use as public supply, although iron infiltration and hardness are problems in some areas and there are local water quality issues resulting from past oil and gas activities.
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.The Vamoosa-Ada bedrock aquifer underlies western portions of Basins 49, 74, and 76.
Wells in the Arkansas River alluvium deposits range from 200 to 500 gpm while wells in the terrace deposits range from 100 to 200 gpm. Formation deposits are commonly 50 to 100 feet in depth with saturated thickness averaging 25 to 75 feet. The formation consists of clays, sand, silt and gravels. Hardness is the major water quality problem and TDS values are usually less than 500 mg/L. The water is generally suitable for most Municipal and Industrial uses, although heavy pumping can cause chloride intrusion into the formation. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 49 and 77.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the Cherokee Group and the Northeastern Oklahoma Pennsylvanian aquifers in the eastern portion of the region. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Verdigris River Groundwater Basin, also in the eastern areas of the region. 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 have insufficient 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 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Major bedrock aquifers in the Middle Arkansas Region include the Roubidoux and Vamoosa-Ada. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Arkansas 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
Middle Arkansas RegionMiddle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
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 Middle Arkansas Region.
Groundwater Permit Availability
Middle Arkansas Region
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Middle Arkansas Region. Water users throughout the region should consider utilizing available water rights in existing reservoirs.
Surface Water Permit Availability
Middle Arkansas Region
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 Middle Arkansas Region. For groundwater, equal proportionate shares in the Middle Arkansas Region are 2 acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre for all aquifers. Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the Middle Arkansas
Watershed Planning Region is defined by
two major river systems, the Arkansas and
Verdigris Rivers, and numerous minor and
major water supply/flood control reservoirs.
Majority is contained within the Central
Irregular Plains (CIP) ecoregion to the east,
with considerable Cross Timbers (CT)
influence to the west. The Flint Hills (FH)
borders along the northwestern edge.
The Osage Cuestas, of the CIP, cover
greater than one half of the region’s eastern
geographical area and is drained by the
Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers, and their
tributaries. The area is an irregular plain,
underlain by sandstone, shale, and limestone.
It is dominated by rangeland and some
cropland, interspersed with native tall grass
prairies and extensive, but disconnected
oak-hickory forest. Typically, turbid and
deep, streams meander in broad, low gradient
valleys, with incised banks. Habitat can be
good, but in many areas is choked by mud/
silt. The Verdigris runs from north to south
through the center, with several major
tributaries entering from the west, including
Bird and Caney Creeks. The Arkansas drains
the lower portion of the ecoregion. Copan,
Claremore, and Oologah Lakes are typical
water supply lakes in the north. Salinity is
low/moderate with mean conductivity in the
Verdigris ranging from 300-400 uS, and in
lakes, from typically 150-300 uS to over 400
uS (Oologah). In the Arkansas, conductivity
remains high, ranging from over 1500 (Bixby)
down to 1400 uS (Haskell). Total nitrogen
(TN) and phosphorus (TP) values vary in the
upper Verdigris drainage, ranging from 0.10-
0.37 ppm of TP and 0.90-2.67 ppm of TN, with
values low at Keetonville and high on Bird
Creek. Along with the phosphorus-limited
lakes, all upper areas are eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic.
On the lower Verdigris (Caney
and Wagoner), nutrient values decrease to
0.16 (TP) and 1.15-1.45 (TN), with Wagoner
classified as mesotrophic. The Arkansas is
hyper-eutrophic, with TP = 0.23 and TN
ranging from 1.34-1.44 ppm. Water clarity is
good to fair on the Arkansas (turbidity = 21-
40 NTU), and fair (Wagoner and Bird Creek
turbidity = 33 NTU) to poor (Caney = 66 NTU)
along the Verdigris drainage. Lake clarity
is average to good, with average Secchi
depths of 32 (Copan) to 68 cm
(Oologah). Ecological diversity
varies throughout depending
on habitat degradation and
sedimentation and is typically
lower than ecoregions to the east
but higher than to the west.
The Northern Cross Timbers
covers most of western third
of the region. The area is more
forested than neighboring CIP
with intervening grasslands,
and mixed land use. Streams are
diverse through the ecoregion.
They are narrower, shallower and
sand/silt dominated, but still incised.
The area is typified by upper Bird Creek
in the north and Arkansas River below
Keystone Reservoir to the south. Also,
numerous small to medium lakes cover the
area, including Hulah, Hudson, Waxhoma,
Birch, Hominy, Skiatook, Shell, Sahoma, and
Heyburn Lakes—going north to south. In
streams, salinity is moderate to high with
conductivity ranging from 200-300 uS (Bird)
to over 1,600 uS (Arkansas). On lakes, salinity
is low (Bixhoma = 50-100 uS) to moderate
(Skiatook = 200-330 uS). Streams are typically
mesotrophic, with TP < 0.15 and TN < 1.16
ppm. Lakes are phosphorus limited and range
from mesotrophic (e.g., Skiatook, Waxhoma,
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.
The Middle Arkansas Planning Region is dominated by Central Irregular Plains to the east
and to a lesser extent, the Cross Timbers to the west. Water quality is highly influenced
by both geology and land use practices, and is generally poor to excellent depending on
drainage and location.
Ecoregions
Middle Arkansas Region
Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Middle Arkansas Region
BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. This region, as all regions, could benefit from additional non-point source restoration programs. The ODEQ has completed TMDL studies on Keeler Creek, Inola Creek, and Fourmile Creek. Several other TMDL studies are underway or scheduled.
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.
Bixhoma, and Heyburn) to eutrophic, and nearly hyper-eutrophic (e.g., Hudson). Stream water clarity is excellent (< 10 NTU on small tributaries) to good on the Arkansas (21 NTU). Lake clarity is variable with many average to excellent (Bixhoma = 146 cm; Waxhoma = 153 cm). However, clarity can be poor (Hulah = 27 cm). Ecological diversity is fair to good, but impacted by poor habitat, salinity (Arkansas), and sedimentation.
Finally, the Flint Hills are underlain by shallow limestone/shale. FH are mostly low hills of rangeland/grassland, including tall grass prairie. Channels are more natural, with low to incised banks and gravel/cobble bottoms. The area is characterized by the headwaters of Bird Creek, and Bluestem and Pawhuska Lakes. Salinity is moderate, with conductivity ranging from 240 (Bluestem) to 500uS (Pawhuska). Lakes are eutrophic and phosphorus limited. Clarity is average (Bluestem = 47 cm) to excellent (Pawhuska = 195 cm). Stream turbidity is typically good. Ecological diversity is higher because of stream morphology and lower salinity/habitat degradation.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed, and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources. As was stated earlier in this document, the Middle Arkansas region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Arkansas and Verdigris River alluvial and terrace deposits yield water which is generally hard, typically of a sodium/calcium bicarbonate type, and in some areas, exceeds drinking water standards. The alluvium and terrace aquifers are highly vulnerable to contamination from surface activities due to their high porosities and permeability and shallow water tables. However, alluvial water is generally suitable for most purposes.
Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Roubidoux and Vamoosa-Ada. Part of the Ozark aquifer, the Roubidoux is in the northeastern tip of the region (Craig County), and through 14 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses. For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments—whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ.
Regional water quality impairments based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Many surface waters in this region have impacts from urbanization, including increased nutrients and sediment, as well as stream habitat alterations due to increases in impervious surfaces. Other surface water impairments in this region occur from eutrophication of water supplies.
Water Quality Impairments
Middle Arkansas Region
Oklahoma, covers varying portions of Craig, Ottawa, Mayes, Delaware, and Cherokee Counties. Water is hard but generally has low total mineral content. However, in far western portion of the aquifer, concentrations of chloride, sulfate and fluoride exceed drinking water standards. Naturally occurring radioactivity has been detected in some areas. Large concentrations of gross-alpha radioactivity and radium-226 occur near the western edge and appear to be correlated with chloride concentrations. The aquifer is a confined aquifer and is not vulnerable to contamination from surface activities. The Vamoosa-Ada lies along the western edge of the region. Although water quality is generally good, iron infiltration and hardness are problems. Chloride and sulfate concentrations are generally low and, except for areas of local contamination resulting from past oil and gas activities, water is suitable for use as public supply.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture
Middle Arkansas Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Middle Arkansas Region16 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.
Since Lakes Hudson, Pawhuska, Waxhoma, Avant, Jackson and Bixhoma are public water supply reservoirs and have relatively small watersheds, they could potentially benefit from SWS designations. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watershed. 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
Middle Arkansas RegionMiddle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Groundwater Protection Areas
Middle Arkansas Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and levels of vulnerability. Groundwater quality in this region could benefit from more protection for the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer which has been identified by the OWRB as a “very high” nutrient vulnerable aquifer.
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.18 Middle Arkansas 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.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Middle Arkansas Region
Parameter
Arkansas River near Bixby
Arkansas River near Haskell
Bird Creek at Port of Catoosa
Caney River near Ramona
Verdigris River near Keetonville
Verdigris River near Lenepah
All Data Trend (1977-1995, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1974-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1974-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1951-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1947-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1944-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1 Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date for at least one parameter yet may not be inclusive of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the Middle Arkansas Region are:
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on the Arkansas River and Bird Creek•
Significant upward trend for turbidity throughout region•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Middle Arkansas Region
Parameter
Birch Lake
Bluestem Lake
Claremore Lake
Copan Lake
Heyburn Lake
Hulah Lake
Oologah Lake
Skiatook Lake
(1980-2009)
(1995-2009)
(1994-2006)
(1994-2008)
(1996-2008)
(1994-2008)
(1996-2008)
(1991-2007)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend1 Decreasing Trend1 NT = No significant trend detected1 Trend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concern in the Middle Arkansas Region are:
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on Claremore, Heyburn and Hulah reservoirs•
Significant upward trend for turbidity and total phosphorus on various reservoirs• 20 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water demand the Middle Arkansas Region accounts for about 12% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 33% (75,630 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial sector followed closely by Thermoelectric Power.
Municipal and Industrial demand is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for approximately 63% of the total regional demand in 2060. Currently, 99% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 1% by bedrock groundwater.
Thermoelectric Power demand is projected to account for 24% of the 2060 demand. The Green Country OP Services’ Green Country Energy plant, Barlow Operators of Tulsa’s Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility, and Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s Riverside, Tulsa, and Northeastern Plants are the users of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region. Currently, 99% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 1% by alluvial groundwater.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 8% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 67% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 32% by alluvial groundwater, and 1% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Middle Arkansas Region include pasture grasses and sod.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, demand for this sector is supplied by surface water.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 2% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 83% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 16% by alluvial groundwater, and 1% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Middle Arkansas Region
Projected water demand by sector. Municipal and Industrial is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for 63% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Water Demand is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production, followed distantly by chickens and horses.
Self Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, demand for this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater.
Self Supplied Industrial demand in the region is supplied by surface water and projected to account for less than 1% of the total regional demand in 2060.
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.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Middle Arkansas Region
Water needs in the Middle Arkansas Region account for about 12% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 33% (75,630 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial sector followed closely by Thermoelectric Power.
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.
nSelf 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 users), 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.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Middle Arkansas Region
Total Water Demand by Sector
Middle Arkansas Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self Supplied Industrial
Self Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
19,500
6,190
157,080
1,350
110
2,520
41,910
228,660
2020
20,310
6,220
167,180
1,950
110
2,720
46,750
245,240
2030
21,130
6,260
175,200
2,660
110
2,880
52,160
260,390
2040
21,940
6,300
181,640
3,500
110
3,020
58,190
274,690
2050
22,560
6,330
187,280
4,450
120
3,150
64,920
288,810
2060
23,560
6,370
193,000
5,520
120
3,290
72,420
304,29022 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
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 Middle Arkansas Region includes 92 of the 785 OCWP public supply systems. 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 population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Tulsa, Broken Arrow WTP, Bartlesville, Sand Springs, and Owasso. Together, these five systems serve over 65 percent of the combined OCWP public water providers’ population 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 either during water production or distribution
Public Water Providers
Middle Arkansas Regionto 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.
Public Water Providers Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Planning Horizon
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
AVANT UTILITIES AUTH
OK1021305
Osage
71
392
421
441
460
480
499
BAR-DEW WATER ASSOC INC
OK3007406
Washington
200
211
216
218
221
224
227
BARNSDALL
OK1021304
Osage
189
1,354
1,449
1,516
1,582
1,649
1,716
RURAL WATER DISTRICT #9, OSAGE CO
OK3005702
Osage
83
291
312
327
341
355
371
BARTLESVILLE
OK1021401
Washington
119
34,920
35,693
36,040
36,535
37,021
37,585
BIRCH CREEK RWD
OK2005743
Osage
51
40
43
45
47
49
51
BIXBY PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK3007243
Tulsa
103
22,933
24,174
25,203
25,938
26,494
27,033
BOYNTON PWA
OK3005127
Muskogee
115
274
284
294
303
313
313
BROKEN ARROW WTP3
OK1021508
Tulsa
125
100,000
122,000
149,000
165,000
182,000
200,800
CATOOSA
OK3006629
Rogers
299
3,187
3,582
3,920
4,237
4,560
4,884
CLAREMORE
OK1021512
Rogers
194
17,116
19,226
21,043
22,726
24,456
26,234
COLLINSVILLE
OK1021505
Tulsa
128
4,766
5,019
5,240
5,394
5,504
5,614
CONSOLIDATED RWD #1 NOWATA & ROGERS CO
OK3005301
Nowata
91
1,713
1,956
2,197
2,441
2,697
2,969
CONSOLIDATED RWD #3 CREEK CO
OK3001916
Creek
101
3,064
3,276
3,442
3,600
3,758
3,927
COPAN PWA
OK1021417
Washington
129
1,168
1,196
1,196
1,211
1,225
1,254
COWETA
OK1021509
Wagoner
105
7,397
8,267
8,981
9,640
10,290
10,968
CREEK CO RWD # 1
OK1020419
Creek
218
6,051
6,471
6,799
7,110
7,421
7,756
CREEK CO RWD # 2
OK3001902
Creek
119
11,162
11,937
12,542
13,116
13,690
14,308
CREEK CO RWD # 4
OK3001920
Creek
83
1,021
1,092
1,147
1,200
1,253
1,309
CREEK CO RWD # 7
OK1020405
Creek
77
2,316
2,477
2,602
2,722
2,841
2,969
DELAWARE
OK1021502
Nowata
78
473
536
600
664
737
809
DEWEY
OK3007402
Washington
203
3,299
3,381
3,412
3,463
3,504
3,555
ELM BEND RWD INC
OK3005309
Nowata
151
625
714
801
890
984
1,083
GLENPOOL WATER
OK3007223
Tulsa
60
9,719
10,247
10,686
11,001
11,226
11,462
HASKELL PWA
OK2005111
Muskogee
100
60
62
64
66
68
69
HOMINY
OK1021306
Osage
249
2,636
2,827
2,970
3,094
3,228
3,371
INOLA WATER WORKS INC
OK3006612
Rogers
147
1,649
1,851
2,034
2,199
2,364
2,538
JENKS PWA
OK3007201
Tulsa
213
9,724
10,250
10,690
10,996
11,236
11,465
LE ANN WATER
OK3007407
Washington
203
753
770
777
788
799
811
LENAPAH
OK1021501
Nowata
106
309
354
391
436
482
527
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 9
OK3005119
Muskogee
102
302
313
322
330
338
346
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #10
OK3005128
Muskogee
80
276
285
294
301
309
316
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #14
OK3005134
Muskogee
105
60
63
64
66
68
69
NOWATA
OK1021503
Nowata
112
10,416
11,894
13,372
14,850
16,420
18,060
NOWATA CO RW & S DIST #1
OK3005304
Nowata
95
521
595
668
742
820
90224 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Planning Horizon
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
NOWATA CO RWD #2
OK3005303
Nowata
86
364
416
467
519
574
632
NOWATA CO RWD #5
OK3005307
Nowata
63
103
118
132
147
162
179
NOWATA CO RWD #6
OK3005308
Nowata
72
468
535
601
668
738
812
NOWATA CO RWD #7
OK3005321
Nowata
97
1,457
1,665
1,870
2,077
2,295
2,527
NOWATA COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3005302
Nowata
71
286
327
367
408
451
496
OCHELATA UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK3007414
Washington
202
494
504
514
524
524
534
OKAY PWA
OK3007351
Wagoner
65
619
683
746
801
855
910
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 6 (HECTORVILLE RWD #6)
OK3005611
Okmulgee
84
7,882
8,458
8,963
9,487
10,030
10,573
OSAGE CO RWD # 1
OK3005704
Osage
106
944
1,012
1,061
1,107
1,153
1,205
OSAGE CO RWD # 20 (HULAH)
OK1021410
Osage
211
155
166
174
182
189
198
OSAGE CO RWD # 5
OK3005721
Osage
101
521
558
585
610
636
664
OSAGE CO RWD #15
OK3005736
Osage
61
7,454
7,985
8,379
8,740
9,101
9,510
OSAGE CO RWD #18 (EVERGREEN)
OK3005744
Osage
80
308
330
347
361
376
393
OWASSO
OK3007218
Tulsa
94
23,908
25,209
26,291
27,056
27,628
28,199
PAWHUSKA
OK1021301
Osage
178
3,878
4,154
4,359
4,547
4,735
4,948
PORTER PWA
OK3007306
Wagoner
70
2,450
2,752
2,978
3,204
3,431
3,657
RAMONA
OK3007408
Washington
239
1,550
1,577
1,604
1,632
1,659
1,686
RED BIRD
OK3007305
Wagoner
50
159
177
196
215
224
243
ROGERS CO RWD # 2
OK3006603
Rogers
76
2,855
3,207
3,511
3,792
4,081
4,377
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 COT STA
OK3006650
Rogers
187
4,283
4,812
5,267
5,689
6,123
6,567
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 LAKE PLANT
OK1021513
Rogers
128
3,955
4,444
4,864
5,254
5,654
6,064
ROGERS CO RWD # 4
OK1021506
Rogers
378
2,595
2,916
3,191
3,447
3,710
3,979
ROGERS CO RWD # 5
OK1021507
Rogers
138
10,532
11,833
12,951
13,989
15,054
16,146
ROGERS CO RWD # 6
OK3006628
Rogers
159
1,038
1,166
1,277
1,379
1,484
1,592
ROGERS CO RWD # 7
OK3006604
Rogers
117
2,907
3,266
3,574
3,861
4,155
4,456
ROGERS CO RWD # 8
OK3006606
Rogers
117
3,114
3,499
3,830
4,137
4,452
4,775
ROGERS CO RWD # 9
OK3006605
Rogers
78
910
1,023
1,120
1,209
1,301
1,396
ROGERS CO RWD #12
OK3006648
Rogers
273
183
205
225
243
261
280
ROGERS CO RWD #15
OK3006652
Rogers
154
38
43
47
51
55
59
SAND SPRINGS
OK1020420
Tulsa
148
34,718
36,601
38,160
39,264
40,100
40,918
SAND SPRINGS SKYLINE/81ST AREA
OK3007244
Tulsa
144
51
54
56
58
59
60
SAPULPA
OK1020404
Creek
102
19,573
20,940
22,001
23,004
24,017
25,097
SAPULPA RURAL WATER COMPANY
OK3001904
Creek
122
7,000
7,488
7,868
8,227
8,589
8,975
SKIATOOK PWA
OK1021313
Osage
179
2,498
2,673
2,805
2,924
3,050
3,182
SOUTH COFFEYVILLE
OK3005305
Nowata
107
458
524
588
653
722
795Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (3 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Providers
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Planning Horizon
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
SPERRY
OK3007202
Tulsa
243
1,038
1,098
1,148
1,178
1,208
1,228
STRIKE AXE (CHIMNEY ROCK)
OK3005739
Osage
73
281
301
316
329
343
358
STRIKE-AXE HWY 60
OK3005701
Osage
163
459
492
516
539
561
586
TAFT
OK3005118
Muskogee
95
355
367
378
387
397
406
TULLAHASSEE WATER
OK3007338
Wagoner
50
112
121
139
149
158
167
TULSA
OK1020418
Tulsa
229
390,771
411,984
429,668
442,134
451,592
460,795
TULSA CO W IMP DIST #14
OK3007213
Tulsa
61
1,337
1,410
1,470
1,513
1,545
1,577
WAGONER
OK1021649
Wagoner
172
8,804
9,839
10,691
11,472
12,243
13,054
WAGONER CO RWD # 4
OK1021529
Wagoner
96
22,664
25,311
27,505
29,523
31,510
33,597
WAGONER CO RWD # 5
OK1021528
Wagoner
94
7,899
8,822
9,586
10,290
10,982
11,709
WAGONER CO RWD # 6
OK3007330
Wagoner
115
1,347
1,504
1,635
1,755
1,873
1,997
WAGONER CO RWD # 7 (NEW)
OK1221626
Wagoner
108
1,347
1,504
1,635
1,755
1,873
1,997
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
110
3,927
4,386
4,766
5,116
5,460
5,822
WASHINGTON CO RWD #1
OK3007401
Washington
109
1,105
1,129
1,140
1,156
1,171
1,190
WASHINGTON CO RWD #2
OK3007403
Washington
112
2,260
2,310
2,332
2,364
2,396
2,433
WASHINGTON CO RWD #3 (NEW,#1)
OK1021418
Tulsa
106
17,107
18,035
18,810
19,357
19,770
20,174
WASHINGTON CO RWD #5
OK3007409
Washington
75
1,005
1,027
1,036
1,051
1,065
1,081
WASHINGTON CO RWD #7
OK3007415
Washington
235
342
349
352
357
362
368
WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #3
OK3007221
Tulsa
66
3,053
3,218
3,357
3,454
3,528
3,600
WYNONA
OK2005708
Osage
70
542
580
609
638
666
695
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.
3 Population projections taken from Broken Arrow Master Supply Improvements Report, 200826 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
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.
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Providers
SDWIS ID
County
Retail Demand Including System Loss (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
AVANT UTILITIES AUTH
OK1021305
Osage
31
34
35
37
38
40
BAR-DEW WATER ASSOC INC
OK3007406
Washington
47
48
49
49
50
51
BARNSDALL
OK1021304
Osage
286
306
320
334
349
363
RURAL WATER DISTRICT #9, OSAGE CO
OK3005702
Osage
27
29
30
32
33
34
BARTLESVILLE
OK1021401
Washington
4,658
4,761
4,808
4,874
4,939
5,014
BIRCH CREEK RWD
OK2005743
Osage
2
2
3
3
3
3
BIXBY PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK3007243
Tulsa
2,634
2,776
2,894
2,979
3,043
3,105
BOYNTON PWA
OK3005127
Muskogee
35
37
38
39
40
40
BROKEN ARROW WTP
OK1021508
Tulsa
14,002
17,082
20,863
23,103
25,483
28,116
CATOOSA
OK3006629
Rogers
1,066
1,199
1,312
1,418
1,526
1,634
CLAREMORE
OK1021512
Rogers
3,721
4,180
4,575
4,941
5,317
5,703
COLLINSVILLE
OK1021505
Tulsa
681
717
749
771
787
802
CONSOLIDATED RWD #1 NOWATA & ROGERS CO
OK3005301
Nowata
175
200
224
249
275
303
CONSOLIDATED RWD #3 CREEK CO
OK3001916
Creek
346
370
388
406
424
443
COPAN PWA
OK1021417
Washington
169
173
173
176
178
182
COWETA
OK1021509
Wagoner
870
972
1,056
1,134
1,210
1,290
CREEK CO RWD # 1
OK1020419
Creek
1,476
1,578
1,658
1,734
1,810
1,892
CREEK CO RWD # 2
OK3001902
Creek
1,487
1,590
1,671
1,747
1,824
1,906
CREEK CO RWD # 4
OK3001920
Creek
95
102
107
112
116
122
CREEK CO RWD # 7
OK1020405
Creek
200
214
225
235
246
257
DELAWARE
OK1021502
Nowata
41
47
53
58
65
71
DEWEY
OK3007402
Washington
749
767
774
786
795
807
ELM BEND RWD INC
OK3005309
Nowata
105
120
135
150
166
183
GLENPOOL WATER
OK3007223
Tulsa
654
690
719
741
756
772
HASKELL PWA
OK2005111
Muskogee
7
7
7
7
8
8
HOMINY
OK1021306
Osage
735
788
828
863
900
940
INOLA WATER WORKS INC
OK3006612
Rogers
272
305
335
362
389
418
JENKS PWA
OK3007201
Tulsa
2,321
2,447
2,552
2,625
2,682
2,737
LE ANN WATER
OK3007407
Washington
171
175
176
179
181
184
LENAPAH
OK1021501
Nowata
37
42
46
52
57
62
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 9
OK3005119
Muskogee
35
36
37
38
39
40
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #10
OK3005128
Muskogee
25
26
26
27
28
28
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #14
OK3005134
Muskogee
7
7
8
8
8
8
NOWATA
OK1021503
Nowata
1,311
1,497
1,684
1,870
2,067
2,274
NOWATA CO RW & S DIST #1
OK3005304
Nowata
55
63
71
79
87
96Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Providers
SDWIS ID
County
Retail Demand Including System Loss (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
NOWATA CO RWD #2
OK3005303
Nowata
35
40
45
50
55
61
NOWATA CO RWD #5
OK3005307
Nowata
7
8
9
10
11
13
NOWATA CO RWD #6
OK3005308
Nowata
38
43
48
54
59
65
NOWATA CO RWD #7
OK3005321
Nowata
158
180
202
225
249
274
NOWATA COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3005302
Nowata
23
26
29
32
36
39
OCHELATA UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK3007414
Washington
112
114
116
119
119
121
OKAY PWA
OK3007351
Wagoner
45
50
54
58
62
66
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 6 (HECTORVILLE RWD #6)
OK3005611
Okmulgee
743
798
845
895
946
997
OSAGE CO RWD # 1
OK3005704
Osage
112
120
126
131
137
143
OSAGE CO RWD # 20 (HULAH)
OK1021410
Osage
37
39
41
43
45
47
OSAGE CO RWD # 5
OK3005721
Osage
59
63
66
69
72
75
OSAGE CO RWD #15
OK3005736
Osage
508
544
571
595
620
648
OSAGE CO RWD #18 (EVERGREEN)
OK3005744
Osage
27
29
31
32
34
35
OWASSO
OK3007218
Tulsa
2,507
2,644
2,757
2,837
2,897
2,957
PAWHUSKA
OK1021301
Osage
773
828
869
906
944
986
PORTER PWA
OK3007306
Wagoner
192
216
234
251
269
287
RAMONA
OK3007408
Washington
414
422
429
436
444
451
RED BIRD
OK3007305
Wagoner
9
10
11
12
13
14
ROGERS CO RWD # 2
OK3006603
Rogers
242
272
298
322
346
371
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 COT STA
OK3006650
Rogers
897
1,008
1,103
1,192
1,282
1,375
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 LAKE PLANT
OK1021513
Rogers
567
637
697
753
811
869
ROGERS CO RWD # 4
OK1021506
Rogers
1,100
1,236
1,353
1,461
1,572
1,686
ROGERS CO RWD # 5
OK1021507
Rogers
1,628
1,829
2,002
2,162
2,327
2,496
ROGERS CO RWD # 6
OK3006628
Rogers
185
208
227
246
264
283
ROGERS CO RWD # 7
OK3006604
Rogers
382
429
470
508
546
586
ROGERS CO RWD # 8
OK3006606
Rogers
407
457
500
541
582
624
ROGERS CO RWD # 9
OK3006605
Rogers
80
90
98
106
114
123
ROGERS CO RWD #12
OK3006648
Rogers
56
63
69
74
80
86
ROGERS CO RWD #15
OK3006652
Rogers
7
7
8
9
9
10
SAND SPRINGS
OK1020420
Tulsa
5,739
6,050
6,308
6,490
6,629
6,764
SAND SPRINGS SKYLINE/81ST AREA
OK3007244
Tulsa
8
9
9
9
9
10
SAPULPA
OK1020404
Creek
2,228
2,383
2,504
2,618
2,733
2,856
SAPULPA RURAL WATER COMPANY
OK3001904
Creek
956
1,023
1,075
1,124
1,173
1,226
SKIATOOK PWA
OK1021313
Osage
500
535
561
585
610
637
SOUTH COFFEYVILLE
OK3005305
Nowata
55
63
71
78
87
9528 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (3 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Providers
SDWIS ID
County
Retail Demand Including System Loss (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
SPERRY
OK3007202
Tulsa
283
299
313
321
329
335
STRIKE AXE (CHIMNEY ROCK)
OK3005739
Osage
23
25
26
27
28
29
STRIKE-AXE HWY 60
OK3005701
Osage
84
90
94
98
103
107
TAFT
OK3005118
Muskogee
38
39
40
41
42
43
TULLAHASSEE WATER
OK3007338
Wagoner
6
7
8
8
9
9
TULSA2
OK1020418
Tulsa
121,390
135,425
147,108
157,335
168,414
180,272
TULSA CO W IMP DIST #14
OK3007213
Tulsa
91
96
100
103
106
108
WAGONER
OK1021649
Wagoner
1,694
1,893
2,057
2,207
2,356
2,512
WAGONER CO RWD # 4
OK1021529
Wagoner
2,450
2,736
2,973
3,191
3,406
3,631
WAGONER CO RWD # 5
OK1021528
Wagoner
833
931
1,011
1,086
1,159
1,235
WAGONER CO RWD # 6
OK3007330
Wagoner
174
194
211
227
242
258
WAGONER CO RWD # 7 (NEW)
OK1221626
Wagoner
162
181
197
212
226
241
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
483
539
586
629
671
716
WASHINGTON CO RWD #1
OK3007401
Washington
135
138
139
141
143
145
WASHINGTON CO RWD #2
OK3007403
Washington
285
291
294
298
302
306
WASHINGTON CO RWD #3 (NEW,#1)
OK1021418
Tulsa
2,029
2,139
2,231
2,296
2,345
2,393
WASHINGTON CO RWD #5
OK3007409
Washington
84
86
87
88
89
90
WASHINGTON CO RWD #7
OK3007415
Washington
90
92
93
94
95
97
WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #3
OK3007221
Tulsa
225
237
247
254
260
265
WYNONA
OK2005708
Osage
42
45
48
50
52
54
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 Tulsa Demands taken from Tulsa Comprehensive Water System Study, 2005 Addendum.Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 4)
Middle Arkansas 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.
Providers
SDWIS ID
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases From
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
BARNSDALL
OK1021304
Osage Co RWD # 5
Osage Co RWD #9
O
O
T
T
BARTLESVILLE
OK1021401
Dewey
Washington Co RWD #2
Le Ann Water
Ochelata Utility Authority
Washington Co RWD #1
Osage Co RWD #1
Strike Axe
Washington Co RWD #5
Bar-Dew Water Assoc Inc
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
BAR-DEW WATER ASSOC INC
OK3007406
Bartlesville
O
T
BIXBY PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK3007243
Tulsa
O
T
BOYNTON PWA
OK3005127
Muskogee Co RWD # 14
O
T
Haskell County Water Company
BROKEN ARROW WTP
OK1021508
Wagoner Co RWD #5
O
T
Oklahoma Ordinance Works Authority
O
T
CATOOSA
OK3006629
Tulsa
O
T
CLAREMORE
OK1021512
Rogers Co RWD #8
Rogers Co RWD #7
Rogers Co RWD #2
Rogers Co RWD #9
O
O
O
T
T
T
COLLINSVILLE
OK1021505
Tulsa
O
COPAN PWA
OK1021417
Washington Co RWD #7
O
T
COWETA
OK1021509
Wagoner Co RWD #5
O
T
CREEK CO RWD # 1
OK1020419
Creek Co RWD #2
O
T
Creek Co RWD #3
O
T
CREEK CO RWD # 2
OK3001902
Creek Co RWD #7
E
T
Tulsa
Sapulpa
Creek Co RWD #1
O
O
O
T
T
T
CREEK CO RWD #3 CONSOLIDATED
OK3001916
Creek Co RWD # 1
O
T
CREEK CO RWD # 4
OK3001920
Sapulpa Rural Water Company
O
T
CREEK CO RWD # 7
OK1020405
Creek Co RWD #2
E
T
DEWEY
OK3007402
Washington Co RWD #1
O
T
Bartlesville
O
T
ELM BEND RWD INC
OK3005309
Nowata
O
T
GLENPOOL WATER
OK3007223
Okmulgee Co RWD #6
O
T
Tulsa
O
T
JENKS PWA
OK3007201
Tulsa
O
T
LE ANN WATER
OK3007407
Ramona
O
T
Bartlesville
O
T
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 9
OK3005119
Muskogee
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #10
OK3005128
Muskogee
Haskell County Water Company
O
E
T
T30 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Providers
SDWIS ID
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases From
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #14
OK3005134
Boynton PWA
O
T
NOWATA
OK1021503
Nowata Co RWD #2
Nowata Co RWD #5
Nowata Co RWD #3
Elm Bend RWD Inc
Nowata Co RWD # 6
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
CONSOLIDATED RWD #1 NOWATA & ROGERS CO
OK3005301
Chelsea Economic Dev Auth
O
T
NOWATA CO RW & S DIST #1
OK3005304
Dewey
O
T
NOWATA CO RWD #2
OK3005303
Nowata
O
T
NOWATA CO RWD #5
OK3005307
Nowata
O
T
NOWATA CO RWD #6
OK3005308
Nowata
T
NOWATA COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3005302
Nowata
O
T
OCHELATA UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK3007414
Bartlesville
O
T
OKAY PWA
OK3007351
Muskogee
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 6 (HECTORVILLE RWD #6)
OK3005611
Okmulgee Co RWD #20
Okmulgee Co RWD #7
O
E
T
T
Tulsa
Okmulgee
Glenpool Water
O
O
O
T
T
T
OSAGE CO RWD # 1
OK3005704
Bartlesville
O
T
OSAGE CO RWD # 5
OK3005721
Barnsdall
O
T
OSAGE CO RWD #9
OK3005702
Barnsdall
O
T
OSAGE CO RWD #15
OK3005736
Skiatook PWA
Washington Co RWD # 3
Tulsa
O
E
O
T
T
T
OSAGE CO RWD #18 (EVERGREEN)
OK3005744
Pawhuska
O
T
OWASSO
OK3007218
Tulsa
Washington CoRWD # 3
O
E
T
T
PAWHUSKA
OK1021301
Osage Co RWD #18
O
T
PORTER PWA
OK3007306
Tullahassee Water
O
T
Muskogee
Wagoner Co RWD #5
O
O
T
T
RAMONA
OK3007408
Le Ann Water
O
T
RED BIRD
OK3007305
Wagoner Co RWD #5
O
T
ROGERS CO RWD # 2
OK3006603
Claremore
O
T
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 COT STA
OK3006650
Tulsa
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 LAKE PLANT
OK1021513
Rogers Co RWD #12
O
T
ROGERS CO RWD # 5
OK1021507
Rogers Co RWD # 15
T
Tulsa
Wagoner Co RWD # 4
E
E
B
B
ROGERS CO RWD # 6
OK3006628
Rogers Co RWD # 8
Mayes Co RWD #2
O
T
Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 4)
Middle Arkansas RegionMiddle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
Providers
SDWIS ID
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases From
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
ROGERS CO RWD # 7
OK3006604
Rogers Co RWD # 8
Rogers Co RWD #9
O
T
Rogers Co RWD # 8
Claremore
Pryor West RWD # 4
E
O
O
T
T
T
ROGERS CO RWD # 8
OK3006606
Rogers Co RWD #6
Rogers Co RWD #7
O
E
T
T
Rogers Co RWD # 7
Claremore
O
O
T
T
ROGERS CO RWD # 9
OK3006605
Claremore
Rogers Co RWD #7
O
O
T
T
ROGERS CO RWD #12
OK3006648
Rogers Co RWD #3 Lake Plant
O
T
ROGERS CO RWD #15
OK3006652
Rogers Co RWD # 5
T
SAND SPRINGS
OK1020420
Tulsa Co W Imp Dist #14
Tulsa
O
O
T
T
SAND SPRINGS SKYLINE/81ST AREA
OK3007244
Tulsa
O
T
SAPULPA
OK1020404
Creek Co RWD # 2
Sapulpa Rural Water Company
O
O
T
T
SAPULPA RURAL WATER COMPANY
OK3001904
Tulsa
Creek County RWD 4
O
O
T
T
Sapulpa
Tulsa
O
O
T
T
SKIATOOK PWA
OK1021313
Osage Co RWD #15
O
T
Tulsa
O
T
SOUTH COFFEYVILLE
OK3005305
South Coffeyville
O
T
SPERRY
OK3007202
Tulsa
O
T
STRIKE AXE (CHIMNEY ROCK)
OK3005739
Bartlesville
STRIKE AXE HWY 60
OK3005701
Bartlesville
TAFT
OK3005118
Muskogee
TULLAHASSEE WATER
OK3007338
Porter PWA
O
T
TULSA
OK1020418
Jay (via Lake Eucha)
Jenks PWA
Owasso
Bixby Public Works Authority
Catoosa
Glenpool
Sand Springs
Sapulpa Rural Water Company
Skiatook PWA
Sperry
Sapulpa
Creek Co RWD #2
Okmulgee Co RWD #6
Osage Co RWD #15
Rogers Co RWD #3 Cot Sta
Rogers Co RWD #5
Wagoner Co RWD #4
Washington Co RWD #3
Water Improvement District #3
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
O
O
O
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
R
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Sapulpa Rural Water Company
Sand Springs
O
O
T
T
Wholesale Water Transfers (3 of 4)
Middle Arkansas Region32 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Providers
SDWIS ID
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases From
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
TULSA CO W IMP DIST #14
OK3007213
Sand Springs
O
T
WAGONER
OK1021649
Wagoner Co RWD #6
O
T
WAGONER CO RWD # 4
OK1021529
Rogers Co RWD # 5
Wagoner Co RWD # 5
E
O
B
T
Tulsa
O
T
WAGONER CO RWD # 5
OK1021528
Porter PWA
Red Bird
O
O
T
T
Broken Arrow
Wagoner Co RWD #4
Coweta
O
O
O
T
T
T
WAGONER CO RWD # 6
OK3007330
Wagoner
O
T
WAGONER CO RWD # 7 (NEW)
OK1221626
Wagoner Co RWD #1
E
T
WASHINGTON CO RWD #1
OK3007401
Bartlesville
O
T
WASHINGTON CO RWD #2
OK3007403
Bartlesville
O
T
WASHINGTON CO RWD #3 (NEW,#1)
OK1021418
Owasso
Osage Co RWD #15
Rogers Co RWD # 3
E
E
E
T
T
T
WASHINGTON CO RWD #5
OK3007409
Bartlesville
O
T
WASHINGTON CO RWD #7
OK3007415
Copan PWA
O
T
WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #3
OK3007221
Tulsa
O
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Wholesale Water Transfers (4 of 4)
Middle Arkansas RegionMiddle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Water Rights
Source
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
AVANT UTILITIES AUTH
OK1021305
Osage
78
20%
80%
0%
BAR-DEW WATER ASSOC INC
OK3007406
Washington
---
---
---
---
BARNSDALL
OK1021304
Osage
3,095
100%
0%
0%
RURAL WATER DISTRICT #9, OSAGE CO
OK3005702
Osage
---
---
---
---
BARTLESVILLE
OK1021401
Washington
35,669
100%
0%
0%
BIRCH CREEK RWD
OK2005743
Osage
65
0%
0%
100%
BIXBY PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK3007243
Tulsa
2,240
100%
0%
0%
BOYNTON PWA
OK3005127
Muskogee
---
---
---
---
BROKEN ARROW
OK1021508
Tulsa
83,227
100%
0%
0%
CATOOSA
OK3006629
Rogers
---
---
---
---
CLAREMORE
OK1021512
Rogers
7,250
100%
0%
0%
COLLINSVILLE
OK1021505
Tulsa
3,360
100%
0%
0%
CONSOLIDATED RWD #1 NOWATA & ROGERS CO
OK3005301
Nowata
---
---
---
---
CONSOLIDATED RWD #3 CREEK CO
OK3001916
Creek
---
---
---
---
COPAN PWA
OK1021417
Washington
2,240
100%
0%
0%
COWETA
OK1021509
Wagoner
2,760
100%
0%
0%
CREEK CO RWD # 1
OK1020419
Creek
2,085
100%
0%
0%
CREEK CO RWD # 2
OK3001902
Creek
39
100%
---
---
CREEK CO RWD # 4
OK3001920
Creek
---
---
---
---
CREEK CO RWD # 7
OK1020405
Creek
326
100%
0%
0%
DELAWARE
OK1021502
Nowata
43
100%
0%
0%
DEWEY
OK3007402
Washington
---
---
---
---
ELM BEND RWD INC
OK3005309
Nowata
---
---
---
---
GLENPOOL WATER
OK3007223
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
HASKELL PWA
OK2005111
Muskogee
23
0%
0%
100%
HOMINY
OK1021306
Osage
667
100%
0%
0%
INOLA WATER WORKS INC
OK3006612
Rogers
---
---
---
---
JENKS PWA
OK3007201
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
LE ANN WATER
OK3007407
Washington
---
---
---
---
LENAPAH
OK1021501
Nowata
31
100%
0%
0%
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 8
OK3005117
Muskogee
---
---
---
---
MUSKOGEE CO RWD # 9
OK3005119
Muskogee
---
---
---
---
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #10
OK3005128
Muskogee
---
---
---
---
MUSKOGEE CO RWD #14
OK3005134
Muskogee
---
---
---
---
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region34 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Water Rights
Source
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
NOWATA
OK1021503
Nowata
546
100%
0%
0%
NOWATA CO RW & S DIST #1
OK3005304
Nowata
---
---
---
---
NOWATA CO RWD #2
OK3005303
Nowata
---
---
---
---
NOWATA CO RWD #5
OK3005307
Nowata
---
---
---
---
NOWATA CO RWD #6
OK3005308
Nowata
---
---
---
---
NOWATA CO RWD #7
OK3005321
Nowata
950
100%
0%
0%
NOWATA COUNTY RWD # 3
OK3005302
Nowata
---
---
---
---
OCHELATA UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK3007414
Washington
---
---
---
---
OKAY PWA
OK3007351
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
OKMULGEE CO RWD # 6 (HECTORVILLE RWD #6)
OK3005611
Okmulgee
---
---
---
---
OSAGE CO RWD # 1
OK3005704
Osage
---
---
---
---
OSAGE CO RWD # 20 (HULAH)
OK1021410
Osage
67
100%
0%
0%
OSAGE CO RWD # 5
OK3005721
Osage
---
---
---
---
OSAGE CO RWD #15
OK3005736
Osage
2,109
100%
0%
0%
OSAGE CO RWD #18 (EVERGREEN)
OK3005744
Osage
---
---
---
---
OWASSO
OK3007218
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
PAWHUSKA
OK1021301
Osage
2,955
100%
0%
0%
PORTER PWA
OK3007306
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
RAMONA
OK3007408
Washington
---
---
---
---
RED BIRD
OK3007305
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD # 2
OK3006603
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 COT STA
OK3006650
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD # 3 LAKE PLANT
OK1021513
Rogers
5,111
100%
0%
0%
ROGERS CO RWD # 4
OK1021506
Rogers
6,310
100%
0%
0%
ROGERS CO RWD # 5
OK1021507
Rogers
7,500
100%
0%
0%
ROGERS CO RWD # 6
OK3006628
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD # 7
OK3006604
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD # 8
OK3006606
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD # 9
OK3006605
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD #12
OK3006648
Rogers
---
---
---
---
ROGERS CO RWD #15
OK3006652
Rogers
---
---
---
---
SAND SPRINGS
OK1020420
Tulsa
18,268
100%
0%
0%Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 35
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (3 of 3)
Middle Arkansas Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Water Rights
Source
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
SAND SPRINGS SKYLINE/81ST AREA
OK3007244
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
SAPULPA
OK1020404
Creek
8,160
100%
0%
0%
SAPULPA RURAL WATER COMPANY
OK3001904
Creek
---
---
---
---
SKIATOOK PWA
OK1021313
Osage
3,760
100%
0%
0%
SOUTH COFFEYVILLE
OK3005305
Nowata
---
---
---
---
SPERRY
OK3007202
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
STRIKE AXE (CHIMNEY ROCK)
OK3005739
Osage
---
---
---
---
STRIKE-AXE HWY 60
OK3005701
Osage
---
---
---
---
TAFT
OK3005118
Muskogee
---
---
---
---
TULLAHASSEE WATER
OK3007338
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
TULSA
OK1020418
Tulsa
324,707
100%
0%
0%
TULSA CO W IMP DIST #14
OK3007213
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
WAGONER
OK1021649
Wagoner
2,896
100%
0%
0%
WAGONER CO RWD # 4
OK1021529
Wagoner
22,485
100%
0%
0%
WAGONER CO RWD # 5
OK1021528
Wagoner
3,011
100%
0%
0%
WAGONER CO RWD # 6
OK3007330
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 7 (NEW)
OK1221626
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WASHINGTON CO RWD #1
OK3007401
Washington
---
---
---
---
WASHINGTON CO RWD #2
OK3007403
Washington
---
---
---
---
WASHINGTON CO RWD #3 (NEW,#1)
OK1021418
Tulsa
30,377
100%
0%
0%
WASHINGTON CO RWD #5
OK3007409
Washington
---
---
---
---
WASHINGTON CO RWD #7
OK3007415
Washington
---
---
---
---
WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #3
OK3007221
Tulsa
---
---
---
---
WYNONA
OK2005708
Osage
770
---
---
100%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System36 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
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.
Avant Utilities Authority (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Avant Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add storage.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add storage.
Bar-Dew Water Assoc. (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace storage tank.
City of Barnsdall (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Waxhoma
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; refurbish storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Bartlesville (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Hudson, Hulah Lake, Caney River
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: reallocation of water in Hulah and Copan lakes.
Infrastructure improvements: new raw water pump station and transmission line from Copan Lake.
Birch Creek RWD (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; refurbish well and storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage.
Bixby PWA (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage and booster pump station.
Boynton PWA (Muskogee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Haskell
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Broken Arrow WTP (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: OK Ordnance WA
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: City of Tulsa; OK Ordinance WA for emergency supply.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; construct 20 MGD membrane WTP.
City of Catoosa (Rogers County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Claremore (Rogers County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Claremore Lake, Oologah Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tank; add pump station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add pump station; replace distribution system lines; upgrade WTP.
City of Collinsville (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oologah Lake, Collinsville City Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; new raw water line from Oologah Lake to Collinsville Lake; new WTP.
Consolidated RWD 3 (Creek County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Creek County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; replace storage tank; add storage.
Copan PWA (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Copan Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Coweta (Wagoner County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oxbow (Verdigris River)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: upgrades to water treatment plant.
Creek County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Heyburn Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add distribution system lines; refurbish storage tank; add storage tank and pump station.
Creek County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Cities of Tulsa & Sapulpa, Creek County RWD 1
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Creek County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Sapulpa Rural Water
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Creek County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Jackson, Lake Boren
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add distribution system lines.
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Middle Arkansas RegionMiddle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Middle Arkansas Region
Town of Delaware (Nowata County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Verdigris River
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Dewey (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Elm Bend RWD Inc. (Nowata County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Nowata
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system and main lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Glenpool Water (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: Tie in an additional main trunk line and loop.
Haskell PWA (Muskogee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Hominy (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Hominy Municipal Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Inola Water Works Inc. (Rogers County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mazie County Water District 2
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Jenks (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Le Ann Water (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; replace main lines.
Town of Lenapah (Nowata County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Verdigris River
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None required.
Muskogee County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Muskogee
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Muskogee County RWD 10
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add pump station; replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Muskogee County RWD 14
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Boynton
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Nowata (Nowata County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Verdigris River
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add water pumps; refurbish golf course standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new WTP.
Consolidated RWD 1 Nowata & Rogers County
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Chelsea Economic Development Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Nowata County RW&S 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Dewey
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Nowata County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Nowata
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Nowata County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Nowata, Elm Bend RWD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Nowata County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Nowata
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add VFDs to pumps.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Nowata County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Coffeyville, KS
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines;
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Nowata County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Nowata
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines;
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Ochelata Utility Authority (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines;
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: Purchase additional from Bartlesville.
OKAY PWA (Wagoner County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Muskogee
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Okmulgee County RWD 6 (Hectorville RWD 6)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Okmulgee, Tulsa, Glenpool
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace main lines; refurbish storage towers.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Osage County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; replace pumps.
Osage County RWD 20
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Hulah Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Osage County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Barnsdall
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace a portion of distribution system lines.38 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Middle Arkansas Region
Osage County RWD 15
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Skiatook, City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Osage County RWD 18 (Evergreen)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Pawhuska
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines; add pumps.
City of Owasso (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
City of Pawhuska (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Bird Creek, Bluestem Lake, Clear Creek
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines; upgrade WTP.
Porter PWA (Wagoner County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Muskogee, Wagoner County RWD 5
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Ramona (Washington County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Redbird (Wagoner County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Wagoner County RWD 5
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Rogers County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Claremore
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add storage.
Rogers County RWD 3 (Cot Sta)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Rogers county RWD 3 (Lake Plant)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oologah Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage.
Rogers County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oologah Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Upgrades to WTP.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage; replace WTP.
Rogers County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Verdigris River
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Rogers County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mayes Cnty RWD 2, Rogers Cnty RWD 8, OK Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines;
Rogers County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: OK Ordnance Works Authority, City of Claremore
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Rogers County RWD 8
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: City of Claremore
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add storage.
Rogers County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rogers County RWD 7, City of Claremore
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Rogers County 12
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rogers County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Rogers County 15
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rogers County 5
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Osage County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Barnsdall
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; add and replace distribution system lines; add booster pump station and chlorine booster station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; add and replace distribution system lines; add pump station.
City of Sand Springs (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Skiatook Lake, Shell Creek Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water storage tanks; replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply sources: additional treatment capacity. Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Sand Springs Skyline/81st Area (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Sapulpa (Creek County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Skiatook Lake, Sahoma Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Sapulpa Rural Water Co. (Creek County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Sapulpa, City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Skiatook PWA (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
South Coffeyville (Nowata County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Coffeyville, KS
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified. Middle Arkansas Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 39
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Middle Arkansas Region
Town of Sperry (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Strike-Axe Water Co. (Chimney Rock; Osage Co.)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Strike-Axe Water Co. (Hwy 60; Osage Co.)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Town of Taft (Muskogee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Muskogee
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Tullahassee Water (Wagoner County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Porter
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Tulsa (Tulsa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lakes Eucha, Spavinaw, Oologah & Hudson (Markham Ferry)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: rehabilitation of Eucha dam; rehabilitation of Lake Yahola and Lynn Lane Reservoir.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new pipeline, terminal reservoir & pump station; expansion of WTP.
Tulsa County W Imp. Dist.14
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Sand Springs
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
City of Wagoner (Wagoner County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Wagoner County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Verdigris River
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Verdigris River
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Wagoner
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water tower.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 7 (new)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Washington County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Dewey
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Washington County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Washington County RWD 3 (New #1)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oologah Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: developing a new water in Caney River. Infrastructure improvements: new transmission lines and 25 MG storage reservoir.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Washington County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Bartlesville
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish 3 standpipes; add distribution system lines to loop; add portable generator in pump station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: connect to Copan PWA.
Washington County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Copan PWA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system pumps; refurbish standpipe.
Water Imp. District 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Tulsa
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Wynona (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.40 Middle Arkansas Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Middle Arkansas Region
Provider