OCWP Middle Arkansas watershed region |
Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 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
Object Description
Description
Title | OCWP Middle Arkansas watershed region |
OkDocs Class# | W1700.3 W331ma 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_MiddleArkansas_Region_Report.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report on the 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 |
Date created | 2011-12-07 |
Date modified | 2011-12-07 |