Water demand forecast report 2011 |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 2012 Update Water Demand Forecast Report Revised March 2011 Prepared by CDM under a cooperative agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board i Contents Section 1 - Introduction 1.1 General Methodology ............................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Document Organization ........................................................................... 1-3 Section 2 - Public Water Supplier Survey Section 3 - Publically-Supplied Municipal and Industrial 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Public-Supply Residential ........................................................................ 3-1 3.2.1 Methodology .............................................................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Data ........................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 Forecast ..................................................................................... 3-9 3.3 Public-Supply Nonresidential ................................................................ 3-11 3.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3-12 3.3.2 Data ......................................................................................... 3-12 3.3.3 Forecast ................................................................................... 3-17 3.4 Public Supply M&I Summary ................................................................. 3-20 Section 4 - Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4.1 Self-Supplied Residential......................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Forecast ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 Oil and Gas ............................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.1 Methodology .............................................................................. 4-6 4.2.2 Future Drilling Activity ............................................................... 4-6 4.2.3 Future Water Use per Activity ................................................. 4-10 4.2.4 Forecast ................................................................................... 4-11 4.3 Thermoelectric Power ............................................................................ 4-15 4.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 4-15 4.3.2 Data ......................................................................................... 4-16 4.3.3 Forecast ................................................................................... 4-17 4.4 Other Large Industry .............................................................................. 4-19 Section 5 - Agriculture 5.1 Livestock ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Livestock Inventories ................................................................ 5-2 5.1.2 Livestock Water Requirements ................................................ 5-7 5.1.3 Livestock Water Demands ....................................................... 5-8 5.2 Crop Irrigation ......................................................................................... 5-10 5.3 Combined Agricultural Water Demands ............................................... 5-19 ii Section 6 - Summary 6.1 Forecast Assumptions ............................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Forecast by County for the State ............................................................. 6-2 Section 7 - References Appendices Appendix A Data Log ........................................................................................ A-1 Appendix B County Demands and Supporting Data ..................................... B-1 Report Addenda Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change iii Figures 1 Driver Times Rate of Use Approach ........................................................ 1-2 2 Total Population ....................................................................................... 3-5 3 Public-Supply Residential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................... 3-11 4 Employment Projections ........................................................................ 3-16 5 Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................... 3-19 6 Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) ................................... 4-5 7 Water Demands from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type .............. 4-15 8 Water Demand from Thermoelectric Power Generation ..................... 4-18 9 Water Demands from Selected Self-Supplied Large Industries (AFY) ........................................................................................................ 4-20 10 Annual Water Demands by Livestock Group (AFY) .............................. 5-10 11 Assignment of Irrigation Data to County Based on Average Annual Precipitation……………............................................................................. 5-13 12 Statewide Gross Crop Irrigation Water Demands including System Losses ..................................................................................................... 5-19 13 Statewide Total Agriculture Water Demand Forecast .......................... 5-21 iv Tables 1 Total Population Projections by County .................................................. 3-3 2 Public-Supplied Population Projections by County................................. 3-6 3 Provider Survey Results for Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day and System Losses .................................................................................. 3-8 4 Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) ................................................................................ 3-9 5 Sample of QCEW Data, Beckham County, Oklahoma, 2006 .............. 3-13 6 Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County ................... 3-14 7 Nonresidential Water Use Coefficients from IWR-MAIN ...................... 3-17 8 Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................... 3-18 9 Summary of Public-Supply M&I Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................................ 3-20 10 Self-Supplied Population Projections by County .................................... 4-2 11 Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) ................................... 4-3 12 Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type ................................ 4-8 13 Estimates of Current Water Use per Well (in Barrels) .......................... 4-11 14 Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) ........................................................................................................ 4-11 15 Estimated Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) .................................................................................... 4-17 16 Estimated Consumptive Use from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) .................................................................................... 4-18 17 Selected Self-Supply Large Industry Water Demand Forecast (AFY) .. 4-19 18 Projected Livestock Inventory ................................................................. 5-4 19 Average Daily Water Requirement per Animal by Livestock Group ...... 5-7 20 Oklahoma: Projected Livestock Water Demand - AFY (All Cattle, Dairy Cows, Sheep/Goats, Chickens, Hogs, and Horses) .................... 5-10 21 Weighted Crop Irrigation Requirement by County in Total AFY Acre-Feet Per Irrigated Acre ........................................................................... 5-13 22 Projection of Irrigated Acres by County ................................................. 5-14 23 Field Application Efficiency by Irrigation Method ................................. 5-16 24 Irrigation Methods by County ................................................................ 5-16 25 Gross Annual Water Demands from Crop Irrigation including Irrigation System Losses (AFY) .............................................................. 5-17 26 Total Agriculture Water Demands including Crop Irrigation and Livestock Requirements ........................................................................ 5-20 27 Summary of Sector Demands, Statewide ............................................... 6-2 28 Summary of Water Demands by County, All Sectors (AFY) .................... 6-2 v Acronyms AEO Annual Energy Outlook AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year AHC American Horse Council BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BOR Bureau of Reclamation CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. EIA Energy Information Administration ged gallons per employee per day ghd gallons per head per day GWh gigawatt-hours M&I municipal and industrial mgd million gallons per day MW megawatts MWh megawatt-hour NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NRW non-revenue water OCC Oklahoma Corporation Commission OCWP Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan ODOC Oklahoma Department of Commerce OESC Oklahoma Employment Security Commission OGE OGE Energy Corporation OIPA Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association OML Oklahoma Municipal League ORWA Oklahoma Rural Water Association OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board PT provisional temporary QCEW Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages rgpcd residential gallons per-capita per day SESAs State Employment Security Agencies SIC Standard Industrial Code UAW unaccounted for water UCFE Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey WFAE weighted field application efficiencies 1-1 Section 1 Introduction In 1974, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted 82 O.S. §1086.2(1), which requires that the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) develop a strategic guide for managing the state's water resources over the next 50 years. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was first published in 1974, with subsequent updates in 1980 and 1995. The Oklahoma Legislature appropriated funds for the current update due in 2011. In accordance with Task 1A.8 of the OCWP Programmatic Work Plan (updated February 2009), a water demand forecast at the county level was prepared and is documented herein. This technical document describes the efforts undertaken to collect data needed for the demand forecast, the methodologies employed to produce a reliable county-level demand forecast, and the results of the county-level forecast. Also required under Task 1 of the OCWP Programmatic Work Plan is a municipal and industrial (M&I) demand forecast estimated for water providers in Oklahoma. This report does not include information on the provider-level forecasts; those forecasts will be documented separately. The demand forecast produced in Task 1 has been allocated to watershed basins to characterize any differences between water supply and water demand, thus identifying areas of potential water surplus and shortfalls, or gaps. This is in accordance with Task 2 of the OCWP Programmatic Work Plan. This report does not include information on the basin-level forecasts. Those forecasts are documented in the Demand/Supply Gap report. 1.1 General Methodology Water demand projections for all major water users throughout the state were developed for the base year, or starting point of the forecast (generally 2007) and then at 10-year intervals from 2010 to 2060. Water users are grouped into four major categories—publically supplied M&I, self-supplied residential, self-supplied nonresidential, and agriculture. The demand forecast is estimated by sub-categories as follows: Publically-supplied M&I – Residential – Nonresidential Self-supplied residential Self-supplied nonresidential – Thermoelectric power – Oil and gas – Other large industries Agriculture – Livestock – Crop irrigation Section 1 Introduction 1-2 The basic methodology is to estimate water demand separately for each water use category, also referred to as a water use sector. The methodology selected to forecast any demand is commonly determined by data availability. This is the case for all sectors of the OCWP forecast. For each sector, the basic methodology for estimating water demand is the driver times rate of use approach. The driver is defined as a countable unit driving water demands up and down, which can be projected in future years, such as number of households and people, number of acres irrigated, number of employees in a business, etc. The rate of use is defined as the quantity of water used by the driving unit, such as gallons per household per day or acre-feet (AF) per irrigated acre. As shown in Figure 1, the driver, or demographic unit, and the corresponding water use rate can be defined independently for each sector. The selection of the appropriate unit and the corresponding water use rate depends upon the data available for each sector. The per unit water use rate, or water use factor, can be developed for most sectors given historical or current water use data and a defined demographic unit. Projection of future water demand then requires having projected values of the defined demographic unit. With this approach, the water use factor of each sector can be assumed to either remain constant into the future, decrease over time due to increases in water use efficiency, or increase over time due to more intensive water use. While trends in future water use can be difficult to know with certainty, reasonable assumptions can be made that provide the DriverTimes Rate of UseApproachper personper householdper employeeper accountper acreper animalper power plantresidents or populationhousing unitsemploymentaccountsacresanimalspower plantsAverage Rate of Use(q = unit use)XNumber of Users(N = drivers)Sector Water Use (Q) = Figure 1 - Driver Times Rate of Use Approach Section 1 Introduction 1-3 foundation for estimating trends in the future and scenarios can be developed that consider demands under potential alternative conditions. For all water users, total withdrawals or diversions are developed and presented in this report. Total withdrawals represents the amount of water pumped or diverted from the source to meet the needs of the user. In nearly all instances, some proportion of water is returned to the stream flow or released back into the ground. The difference between withdrawals and returns are referred to as consumptive use. For the thermoelectric power sector, consumptive demands are a small fraction of total withdrawals; thus, both sets of demands are provided in this report for that sector. 1.2 Document Organization In order to collect data for both the demand projections and the supply gap analysis, a survey was distributed to water providers throughout the state, as discussed in Section 2. The data methodologies and results of the public supply forecast are discussed in Section 3. This is followed by a discussion of the self-supplied residential and self-supplied industrial forecasts in Section 4. This includes forecasts for thermoelectric power generation, oil and gas industry, and other self-supplied large industries. In Section 5, agriculture demands are discussed, including water demands for livestock and crop irrigation. Section 6 presents all forecast assumptions, the aggregated county forecast for all sectors, and a list of recommendations for future demand forecasts. Finally, Appendix A contains a data log that summarizes the data sources used for the demand forecast. Appendix B contains the county-level demands with population and employment projections listed by county. 2-1 Section 2 Public Water Supplier Survey For use in developing the OCWP, a statewide public water supply use and infrastructure survey was developed and distributed to public water systems (both municipal and rural) throughout the state. The purpose of the survey is to provide baseline information for characterizing existing conditions and future supply and infrastructure needs on an individual water provider basis. For each public water supplier, the survey identified the current service area population and demands, conservation activities, current sources of supply, existing and planned water supply and treatment infrastructure, and plans for future water supply sources, as well as other data. The provider survey was created using SurveyMonkey.com, a powerful online survey software that allows surveys to be created, collected, and analyzed in a timely manner. The survey was created and distributed to water providers in May of 2008 through the OWRB, Oklahoma Rural Water Association (ORWA), and the Oklahoma Municipal League (OML). Results were collected through late November of 2008. Results were received online, via postal mail to the OWRB, and through the ORWA and OML. Over 630 responses to the survey were received. While not all respondents fully completed the survey, significant data were received to provide a foundation for estimating current water demands. Responses were received from water providers representing 75 counties and 86 percent of the population across the state. Results of the survey are used to develop the public-supply residential, public-supply nonresidential, and the self-supplied residential forecasts. Survey data used in each sector are discussed in the corresponding sections of this document. The survey is herein referenced as the 'Provider Survey.' 3-1 Section 3 Publically-Supplied Municipal and Industrial 3.1 Introduction An important driver of water demand is population and employment. In Oklahoma, almost 92 percent of the population and nearly all commercial and light industrial establishments are serviced by public water systems. To forecast the publically-supplied M&I water demands with detail and accuracy at the county-level, this sector is grouped into two sub-sectors—public-supplied residential and public-supplied nonresidential. Each sub-sector is estimated separately because the household and businesses are driven by different water use patterns and water users. This section describes the data, methodology, and results of the public-supply residential and nonresidential forecasts. Section 3.2 presents the public-supply residential forecast and the public-supply nonresidential forecast is discussed in Section 3.3. A summary of the publically-supplied M&I forecast is provided in Section 3.4. 3.2 Public-Supply Residential Statewide in Oklahoma, an estimated 3.2 million people get their water from a public water supplier. The public-supplied residential demands represent the water provided to households that is used inside and outside the home for domestic activities. Indoor water uses include water for bathing, flushing, washing, drinking, etc., and capture all indoor water uses. Outdoor uses include water for landscape irrigation, car and home washing, recreation, domestic animal care, etc. Outdoor uses do not include water used for livestock or other agriculture needs, as these demands are included in the agriculture sector. 3.2.1 Methodology For the public-supplied residential sector, the basic methodology developed for estimating future demands for each county is the average residential water use per capita times the projected population served within the county, as shown in Equation 1. Data are needed to estimate current and future water population serviced by water systems, the average per capita residential rate of use, and the percent of water lost during water production and transmission. Equation 1 Where: = Public-supplied residential water demand including system losses in county (c) in year (y) = Weighted average residential per capita in county (c) Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-2 = Population supplied by public system in county (c) in year (y) = Percent system losses in county (c) 3.2.2 Data For the public-supply residential forecast, data were collected and derived for the driver, per unit use, and system loss percentage by county. Population projections are the primary source of the driver. Data collected from the Provider Survey are the basis for developing the per unit use and system loss percent. Population The Oklahoma Department of Commerce (ODOC) prepared a special tabulation of population projections for the OWRB in 2002 that estimates population to the year 2060 for each county, city, and town, and remaining rural area within each county. These county-level projections were calibrated by CDM to match 2007 Census estimates of population. This was done to capture changes in economic growth and demographic patterns since the 2002 release. The calibration adjusted the projections to align with the most recent available data. Both the ODOC and Census data include military populations. However, the ODOC projections do not capture plans for future base-realignments within military installations. Data were provided by Fort Sill in Comanche County on future base-realignments. The base is expecting an increase of 5,550 in soldiers and 1,075 civilian personnel from 2007 to 2014. According to Fort Sill contacts, the average soldier has 0.978 dependents. Thus, population in Comanche County is expected to increase by 13,366 in 2014, in addition to the increase projected by the ODOC. The increase includes soldiers, civilians, and soldier families. The population projections for Comanche County were adjusted accordingly. The ODOC and Census data also capture Tribal populations1 1 Tribal populations do not represent tribal membership but rather the persons living in a given geography that may live on or off tribal lands. For purposes of the demand forecast, it is important that all persons living within a geographic area are counted and included in the forecast driver. ODOC projections of population and Census counts do include persons living on the tribal lands. but not specific plans for economic growth within Tribal Nations. For example, the Chickasaw Nation is planning expansion at two locations—one in Kingston in Marshall County and the other at Thackerville in Love County. The Love County WinStar Casino is expected to employ 6,000 persons and bring 13,970 additional people to the area by 2050. While the plan does not specify a completion date, the build date of the expansion was assumed to be complete between 2010 and 2020. The population projections for Love County were adjusted to capture the future growth of the WinStar Casino. For the Kingston Casino, the employment growth is less and is expected to be absorbed into the county, thus not expanding population projections. The employment projections for both counties were increased to capture the future expansion, as discussed in Section 3.3. Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-3 The resulting population projections, representing all persons living in the given county, are shown in Table 1. Statewide population is projected to increase by 33 percent from 2007 to 2060. The population projections shown in Table 1 are further identified as "self-supplied" and "public-supplied," as shown in Figure 2 and discussed below. Table 1 - Total Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 21,902 22,962 26,773 30,585 34,396 38,301 42,205 Alfalfa 5,593 5,537 5,537 5,537 5,537 5,631 5,724 Atoka 14,512 15,036 16,879 18,722 20,565 22,602 24,639 Beaver 5,380 5,435 5,527 5,620 5,712 5,804 5,896 Beckham 19,700 20,212 22,015 23,913 25,811 27,709 29,797 Blaine 12,475 12,717 13,827 15,039 16,250 17,461 18,773 Bryan 39,563 40,827 45,040 49,353 53,667 57,980 62,394 Caddo 29,296 29,584 30,833 31,793 32,754 33,714 34,579 Canadian 103,559 106,854 117,286 125,413 132,441 138,921 145,510 Carter 47,582 48,254 51,104 53,853 56,500 59,350 62,404 Cherokee 45,393 47,663 54,755 61,753 68,846 75,750 82,842 Choctaw 15,011 15,127 15,515 15,806 16,194 16,582 16,970 Cimarron 2,664 2,664 2,831 2,914 2,914 2,997 3,080 Cleveland 236,452 243,459 261,555 276,180 287,858 296,065 304,061 Coal 5,709 5,869 6,758 7,648 8,626 9,693 10,760 Comanche 113,811 128,490 137,442 144,210 149,473 153,609 156,993 Cotton 6,299 6,357 6,453 6,549 6,646 6,838 6,935 Craig 15,195 15,650 17,358 18,970 20,772 22,574 24,471 Creek 69,073 70,543 75,441 79,262 82,888 86,513 90,432 Custer 26,111 26,571 27,818 28,970 30,121 30,984 31,751 Delaware 40,406 42,276 48,608 54,745 61,077 67,895 75,006 Dewey 4,338 4,338 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,338 4,432 Ellis 3,911 3,850 3,749 3,749 3,648 3,648 3,749 Garfield 57,657 58,128 59,896 61,369 62,743 63,823 65,100 Garvin 27,141 27,260 27,954 28,449 28,945 29,540 30,135 Grady 50,615 51,761 55,473 58,655 61,519 64,382 67,352 Grant 4,497 4,497 4,585 4,673 4,673 4,850 4,938 Greer 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,908 6,007 6,105 Harmon 2,837 2,890 2,890 2,977 3,065 3,152 3,240 Harper 3,254 3,198 3,198 3,198 3,198 3,292 3,292 Haskell 12,059 12,561 14,236 16,004 17,865 19,726 21,773 Hughes 13,680 14,167 15,792 17,416 19,130 21,025 22,920 Jackson 25,778 26,249 27,819 29,127 30,173 31,045 31,743 Jefferson 6,273 6,273 6,368 6,463 6,558 6,748 6,938 Johnston 10,402 10,735 12,031 13,419 14,807 16,288 17,861 Kay 45,638 45,975 47,567 48,784 49,908 51,031 52,249 Kingfisher 14,320 14,784 16,523 18,262 20,002 21,741 23,673 Kiowa 9,456 9,399 9,399 9,494 9,589 9,779 9,969 Latimer 10,508 10,624 11,107 11,686 12,362 13,038 13,811 Le Flore 49,715 50,780 54,724 58,274 61,823 65,373 69,120 Lincoln 32,272 33,073 36,027 38,505 41,079 43,747 46,607 Logan 36,435 37,843 42,537 46,742 50,946 55,053 59,454 Love 9,112 9,606 25,223 26,778 28,425 30,163 31,901 Major 7,190 7,132 7,229 7,229 7,325 7,421 7,518 Marshall 14,830 15,903 19,573 23,337 27,195 31,241 35,475 Mayes 39,627 40,790 44,859 48,734 52,804 56,970 61,233 McClain 31,849 33,434 39,024 44,206 49,389 54,775 60,263 McCurtain 33,539 33,939 35,465 36,704 37,753 38,897 39,946 McIntosh 19,709 20,385 22,828 25,364 28,183 31,377 34,758 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-4 Table 1 - Total Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Murray 12,695 13,035 14,169 15,491 16,719 18,136 19,553 Muskogee 71,116 71,662 74,088 76,311 78,232 80,152 82,072 Noble 11,124 11,293 11,858 12,235 12,611 12,893 13,176 Nowata 10,723 11,170 12,752 14,335 15,917 17,592 19,361 Okfuskee 11,248 11,305 11,590 11,875 12,160 12,445 12,825 Oklahoma 701,807 713,774 748,374 779,107 802,309 819,202 835,892 Okmulgee 39,300 40,100 43,053 45,625 48,292 51,054 53,816 Osage 45,523 46,462 49,788 52,233 54,483 56,733 59,276 Ottawa 32,474 32,984 35,253 37,426 39,789 42,246 44,704 Pawnee 16,447 16,950 18,813 20,489 22,258 24,121 25,984 Payne 79,931 82,684 88,978 95,593 102,101 106,688 111,063 Pittsburg 44,711 45,190 47,285 49,080 51,175 53,569 56,163 Pontotoc 36,571 36,999 38,426 39,751 41,076 42,299 43,522 Pottawatomie 69,038 70,426 75,256 79,783 84,109 88,335 92,762 Pushmataha 11,666 12,055 13,632 15,116 16,692 18,454 20,216 Roger Mills 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 Rogers 83,105 86,272 96,934 106,089 114,598 123,322 132,261 Seminole 24,179 24,353 25,126 25,803 26,479 27,252 28,025 Sequoyah 41,024 42,368 46,946 51,231 55,419 59,705 63,990 Stephens 43,322 43,322 43,827 44,231 44,736 45,443 46,352 Texas 20,032 21,557 26,802 32,130 37,458 42,785 48,031 Tillman 8,148 8,148 8,325 8,502 8,679 8,857 9,122 Tulsa 585,068 595,326 627,632 654,571 673,557 687,970 701,986 Wagoner 67,239 69,679 77,814 84,557 90,765 96,866 103,288 Washington 49,888 50,130 51,240 51,744 52,450 53,156 53,963 Washita 11,667 11,786 12,182 12,479 12,677 12,974 13,172 Woods 8,319 8,374 8,374 8,465 8,556 8,647 8,829 Woodward 19,505 19,752 20,575 21,192 21,604 22,118 22,530 Statewide Total 3,617,316 3,707,936 3,977,882 4,205,238 4,410,513 4,601,768 4,796,019 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-5 For the public-supplied residential forecast, the public-supplied portion of total county population projections is identified and only that portion is used in the forecast. Public-supplied population is the number of persons living in households that have water piped to their home from a water provider (versus households that have private wells). Population is split between public-supplied and self-supplied population using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2005 estimated population on private wells by county for Oklahoma. The USGS preliminary numbers were used to allocate the 2007 population projections between public-supplied and self-supplied. The ratio of public-supplied to self-supplied population for each county is assumed to remain constant into the future. The public-supplied population projections are shown in Table 2. Self-supplied population projections are presented in Section 4.2. Given these assumptions, the statewide public-supplied population is expected to increase by 32 percent from 2007 to 2060. Figure 2 - Total Population Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-6 Table 2 - Public-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 12,762 13,380 15,600 17,821 20,042 22,317 24,592 Alfalfa 4,733 4,685 4,685 4,685 4,685 4,765 4,844 Atoka 11,482 11,896 13,355 14,813 16,271 17,883 19,495 Beaver 2,760 2,788 2,836 2,883 2,930 2,977 3,025 Beckham 17,720 18,181 19,803 21,510 23,217 24,924 26,802 Blaine 11,345 11,565 12,575 13,676 14,778 15,879 17,073 Bryan 36,783 37,958 41,875 45,885 49,896 53,906 58,010 Caddo 17,566 17,739 18,487 19,063 19,639 20,215 20,734 Canadian 103,559 106,854 117,286 125,413 132,441 138,921 145,510 Carter 47,362 48,031 50,868 53,604 56,239 59,076 62,116 Cherokee 37,963 39,861 45,793 51,645 57,577 63,351 69,282 Choctaw 10,311 10,391 10,657 10,857 11,124 11,390 11,656 Cimarron 1,544 1,544 1,641 1,689 1,689 1,737 1,785 Cleveland 223,782 230,414 247,540 261,381 272,434 280,200 287,768 Coal 4,139 4,255 4,900 5,544 6,254 7,027 7,801 Comanche 111,621 126,017 134,797 141,435 146,597 150,653 153,972 Cotton 6,299 6,357 6,453 6,549 6,646 6,838 6,935 Craig 14,395 14,826 16,444 17,971 19,679 21,386 23,183 Creek 62,023 63,343 67,741 71,172 74,428 77,683 81,202 Custer 22,791 23,193 24,281 25,286 26,291 27,044 27,714 Delaware 28,906 30,244 34,774 39,164 43,693 48,572 53,659 Dewey 3,268 3,268 3,197 3,197 3,197 3,268 3,339 Ellis 2,531 2,492 2,426 2,426 2,361 2,361 2,426 Garfield 56,197 56,656 58,379 59,815 61,154 62,207 63,451 Garvin 22,991 23,092 23,680 24,099 24,519 25,023 25,527 Grady 34,875 35,664 38,222 40,415 42,388 44,361 46,407 Grant 3,847 3,847 3,922 3,998 3,998 4,149 4,224 Greer 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,908 6,007 6,105 Harmon 2,837 2,890 2,890 2,977 3,065 3,152 3,240 Harper 2,294 2,254 2,254 2,254 2,254 2,321 2,321 Haskell 6,779 7,061 8,003 8,997 10,043 11,089 12,240 Hughes 12,740 13,194 14,706 16,219 17,816 19,581 21,345 Jackson 24,698 25,149 26,653 27,906 28,909 29,745 30,413 Jefferson 6,133 6,133 6,226 6,319 6,412 6,598 6,783 Johnston 10,292 10,622 11,904 13,277 14,651 16,116 17,672 Kay 43,398 43,719 45,232 46,390 47,458 48,527 49,684 Kingfisher 10,310 10,644 11,896 13,148 14,401 15,653 17,044 Kiowa 9,456 9,399 9,399 9,494 9,589 9,779 9,969 Latimer 9,188 9,289 9,712 10,218 10,809 11,401 12,076 Le Flore 43,355 44,284 47,723 50,819 53,914 57,010 60,277 Lincoln 14,622 14,985 16,323 17,446 18,612 19,821 21,117 Logan 25,175 26,148 29,391 32,296 35,202 38,040 41,080 Love 8,802 9,279 24,365 25,867 27,458 29,137 30,816 Major 5,100 5,059 5,127 5,127 5,196 5,264 5,332 Marshall 14,180 15,206 18,715 22,314 26,003 29,872 33,920 Mayes 39,627 40,790 44,859 48,734 52,804 56,970 61,233 McClain 24,419 25,634 29,920 33,894 37,867 41,997 46,204 McCurtain 26,049 26,360 27,545 28,507 29,322 30,210 31,025 McIntosh 19,709 20,385 22,828 25,364 28,183 31,377 34,758 Murray 12,695 13,035 14,169 15,491 16,719 18,136 19,553 Muskogee 64,266 64,759 66,951 68,961 70,696 72,432 74,167 Noble 9,604 9,750 10,238 10,563 10,888 11,132 11,375 Nowata 10,033 10,451 11,932 13,412 14,893 16,460 18,115 Okfuskee 10,148 10,199 10,457 10,714 10,971 11,228 11,571 Oklahoma 687,767 699,495 733,403 763,521 786,259 802,814 819,169 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-7 Table 2 - Public-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Okmulgee 39,300 40,100 43,053 45,625 48,292 51,054 53,816 Osage 38,763 39,563 42,394 44,477 46,392 48,308 50,474 Ottawa 25,484 25,885 27,665 29,370 31,225 33,153 35,081 Pawnee 11,797 12,158 13,494 14,696 15,965 17,301 18,637 Payne 72,011 74,491 80,162 86,121 91,984 96,117 100,058 Pittsburg 44,711 45,190 47,285 49,080 51,175 53,569 56,163 Pontotoc 31,081 31,445 32,658 33,784 34,910 35,949 36,989 Pottawatomie 48,208 49,177 52,550 55,711 58,732 61,683 64,774 Pushmataha 10,126 10,464 11,832 13,120 14,489 16,018 17,547 Roger Mills 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 Rogers 77,525 80,479 90,426 98,966 106,903 115,042 123,381 Seminole 20,199 20,344 20,990 21,555 22,120 22,766 23,412 Sequoyah 40,204 41,521 46,007 50,207 54,312 58,512 62,711 Stephens 36,702 36,702 37,130 37,472 37,900 38,499 39,269 Texas 17,432 18,759 23,324 27,960 32,596 37,232 41,797 Tillman 7,478 7,478 7,641 7,803 7,966 8,128 8,372 Tulsa 576,128 586,230 618,042 644,569 663,265 677,458 691,260 Wagoner 67,239 69,679 77,814 84,557 90,765 96,866 103,288 Washington 49,888 50,130 51,240 51,744 52,450 53,156 53,963 Washita 9,467 9,563 9,885 10,126 10,287 10,528 10,689 Woods 7,209 7,256 7,256 7,335 7,414 7,493 7,651 Woodward 16,005 16,208 16,883 17,389 17,727 18,149 18,487 Statewide Total 3,322,626 3,405,974 3,651,204 3,856,335 4,039,962 4,209,587 4,381,585 Water Use and System Losses The Provider Survey collected data on annual water demand, percent of that demand that services residential homes, and retail service area population for each provider for 2007. For each utility that responded to the survey, this information was used to derive an average residential per capita water use factor, or residential gallons per capita per day (rgpcd). A weighted average of the known rgpcd was calculated for each county based on serviced population. For the two counties with no utility participation in the Provider Survey, the weighted rgpcd from an adjacent county was assumed (implying similar regional water use patterns). Additionally, the survey collected information on the amount of water lost through system leaks. This information allows for an adjustment to the county public supply forecast that includes water lost during water production and distribution to residential homes. Specifically, the Provider Survey requested the non-revenue water (NRW) percentage for each provider. NRW is calculated as the difference between water produced and water sold as identified by billed sales. It is then divided by total water production to provide a measure of NRW as a percent of total production. The term "non-revenue water" has replaced the older term "unaccounted-for water" (UAW). The difference between water produced and billed water sales includes authorized meter water usage that is not billed, unauthorized water use, billing errors, metering errors, line breaks, and system losses. NRW is often further separated to distinguish real water loss, such as line breaks, storage overflow, and system losses, from apparent loss, such as unmetered use, billing errors, and metering errors. Authorized unmetered water uses Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-8 include uses such as fire training, fire fighting, water line and reservoir flushing, and water used for street cleaning. Real loss as a percent of total production can usually be maintained at less than about 10 percent through system leak detection and line replacement programs. Survey results for NRW ranged from 1 percent to over 40 percent. For purposes of the survey, any reported NRW over 15 percent was assumed to be un-metered consumption, thus the percentage was capped at 15 percent and referred to as system losses. Results of the rgpcd and system losses percentage for each county are shown in Table 3. Table 3 - Provider Survey Results for Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day and System Losses County Residential GPCD 2007 System Losses 2007 Adair 69 15% Alfalfa 121 10% Atoka 160 15% Beaver 118 10% Beckham 141 7% Blaine 147 5% Bryan 115 13% Caddo 108 10% Canadian 84 10% Carter 90 14% Cherokee 91 15% Choctaw 62 15% Cimarron 269 15% Cleveland 91 14% Coal 84 15% Comanche 70 11% Cotton 60 15% Craig 75 15% Creek 67 15% Custer 118 13% Delaware 74 15% Dewey 219 13% Ellis 176 15% Garfield 114 15% Garvin 100 15% Grady 67 15% Grant 107 15% Greer 120 7% Harmon 178 15% Harper 253 15% Haskell 76 15% Hughes 79 15% Jackson 91 15% Jefferson 75 15% Johnston 93 15% Kay 73 15% Kingfisher 119 15% Kiowa 66 15% Latimer 129 15% Le Flore 76 15% Lincoln 69 15% Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-9 Table 3 - Provider Survey Results for Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day and System Losses County Residential GPCD 2007 System Losses 2007 Logan 110 15% Love 78 15% Major 89 13% Marshall 78 15% Mayes 73 15% McClain 91 15% McCurtain 83 15% McIntosh 68 15% Murray 114 14% Muskogee 86 5% Noble 74 13% Nowata 63 15% Okfuskee 77 15% Oklahoma 69 13% Okmulgee 177 15% Osage 129 15% Ottawa 88 15% Pawnee 113 15% Payne 73 15% Pittsburg 89 15% Pontotoc 92 11% Pottawatomie 54 7% Pushmataha 50 15% Roger Mills 136 15% Rogers 93 14% Seminole 50 15% Sequoyah 109 15% Stephens 112 15% Texas 117 15% Tillman 106 13% Tulsa 90 9% Wagoner 80 15% Washington 116 15% Washita 58 11% Woods 283 15% Woodward 184 9% 3.2.3 Forecast Results of the public-supplied residential forecast are shown in Table 4 for each county. Growth in counties is directly attributable to projected population growth. Statewide water demands from the public-supplied residential population are estimated to increase by 32 percent from 2007 to 2060, assuming per-capita usage and system losses remain constant for purposes of this baseline demand forecast. Table 4 - Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 1,153 1,209 1,409 1,610 1,811 2,016 2,222 Alfalfa 713 706 706 706 706 718 730 Atoka 2,424 2,512 2,820 3,128 3,436 3,776 4,116 Beaver 405 409 416 423 430 437 444 Beckham 3,001 3,079 3,354 3,643 3,932 4,222 4,540 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-10 Table 4 - Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Blaine 1,964 2,002 2,176 2,367 2,558 2,748 2,955 Bryan 5,439 5,613 6,192 6,785 7,378 7,971 8,577 Caddo 2,365 2,389 2,489 2,567 2,645 2,722 2,792 Canadian 10,892 11,239 12,336 13,191 13,930 14,612 15,305 Carter 5,514 5,592 5,922 6,241 6,547 6,878 7,231 Cherokee 4,429 4,651 5,343 6,026 6,718 7,391 8,084 Choctaw 834 840 862 878 899 921 942 Cimarron 547 547 581 598 598 615 632 Cleveland 26,529 27,315 29,345 30,986 32,296 33,217 34,114 Coal 461 473 545 617 696 782 868 Comanche 9,865 11,137 11,913 12,499 12,956 13,314 13,607 Cotton 502 507 514 522 530 545 553 Craig 1,429 1,472 1,632 1,784 1,954 2,123 2,302 Creek 5,510 5,627 6,018 6,323 6,612 6,901 7,214 Custer 3,463 3,525 3,690 3,843 3,995 4,110 4,212 Delaware 2,820 2,950 3,392 3,820 4,262 4,738 5,234 Dewey 928 928 907 907 907 928 948 Ellis 587 578 563 563 548 548 563 Garfield 8,423 8,492 8,750 8,965 9,166 9,324 9,511 Garvin 3,044 3,058 3,136 3,191 3,247 3,314 3,380 Grady 3,064 3,134 3,358 3,551 3,724 3,898 4,078 Grant 542 542 552 563 563 584 595 Greer 841 841 841 841 855 870 884 Harmon 667 679 679 700 721 741 762 Harper 765 752 752 752 752 774 774 Haskell 675 703 797 896 1,000 1,104 1,219 Hughes 1,327 1,374 1,531 1,689 1,855 2,039 2,223 Jackson 2,960 3,015 3,195 3,345 3,465 3,565 3,645 Jefferson 603 603 612 621 630 649 667 Johnston 1,264 1,305 1,462 1,631 1,799 1,979 2,171 Kay 4,203 4,234 4,381 4,493 4,597 4,700 4,812 Kingfisher 1,620 1,672 1,869 2,066 2,263 2,459 2,678 Kiowa 825 820 820 829 837 853 870 Latimer 1,558 1,576 1,647 1,733 1,833 1,934 2,048 Le Flore 4,342 4,435 4,779 5,089 5,399 5,709 6,037 Lincoln 1,325 1,358 1,479 1,581 1,687 1,797 1,914 Logan 3,651 3,792 4,263 4,684 5,106 5,517 5,958 Love 900 948 2,490 2,643 2,806 2,978 3,149 Major 580 576 584 584 591 599 607 Marshall 1,454 1,559 1,919 2,288 2,666 3,063 3,478 Mayes 3,788 3,899 4,288 4,658 5,047 5,445 5,853 McClain 2,925 3,071 3,584 4,060 4,536 5,031 5,535 McCurtain 2,841 2,875 3,004 3,109 3,198 3,295 3,384 McIntosh 1,768 1,829 2,048 2,276 2,529 2,815 3,119 Murray 1,883 1,933 2,102 2,298 2,480 2,690 2,900 Muskogee 6,483 6,533 6,754 6,957 7,132 7,307 7,482 Noble 914 928 974 1,005 1,036 1,059 1,082 Nowata 832 867 990 1,113 1,236 1,366 1,503 Okfuskee 1,028 1,034 1,060 1,086 1,112 1,138 1,173 Oklahoma 61,028 62,069 65,078 67,750 69,768 71,237 72,688 Okmulgee 9,176 9,363 10,053 10,653 11,276 11,921 12,566 Osage 6,595 6,731 7,213 7,567 7,893 8,219 8,587 Ottawa 2,949 2,996 3,202 3,399 3,614 3,837 4,060 Pawnee 1,764 1,818 2,018 2,198 2,388 2,587 2,787 Payne 6,935 7,174 7,720 8,294 8,858 9,256 9,636 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-11 Table 4 - Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Pittsburg 5,227 5,283 5,528 5,738 5,983 6,262 6,566 Pontotoc 3,605 3,647 3,787 3,918 4,049 4,169 4,290 Pottawatomie 3,129 3,191 3,410 3,616 3,812 4,003 4,204 Pushmataha 667 689 780 865 955 1,055 1,156 Roger Mills 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 Rogers 9,389 9,746 10,951 11,985 12,947 13,932 14,942 Seminole 1,331 1,341 1,383 1,420 1,458 1,500 1,543 Sequoyah 5,797 5,987 6,634 7,239 7,831 8,436 9,042 Stephens 5,435 5,435 5,498 5,549 5,612 5,701 5,815 Texas 2,678 2,882 3,583 4,295 5,007 5,719 6,421 Tillman 1,023 1,023 1,046 1,068 1,090 1,112 1,146 Tulsa 64,076 65,199 68,737 71,687 73,767 75,345 76,880 Wagoner 7,121 7,379 8,241 8,955 9,612 10,259 10,939 Washington 7,603 7,639 7,809 7,885 7,993 8,101 8,224 Washita 691 698 721 739 750 768 780 Woods 2,692 2,709 2,709 2,739 2,768 2,798 2,857 Woodward 3,617 3,663 3,815 3,930 4,006 4,101 4,178 Statewide Total 371,870 380,868 408,215 431,284 452,118 471,620 491,449 3.3 Public-Supply Nonresidential Closely related to the public-supply residential forecast is the public-supply nonresidential forecast. Nonresidential refers to all properties other than residential housing such as office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, etc. Public-supply refers to establishments receiving water from public water systems. For purposes Figure 3 - Public Supply Residential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-12 of the OCWP water demand forecast, the public-supply nonresidential forecast captures water use from all nonresidential establishments other than those identified and represented in the self-supplied sector in Section 4.4. Establishments identified for the self-supplied industrial sector are removed from the public supply nonresidential forecast to avoid double-counting. The public-supply nonresidential forecast relies on several data—employment by group and county, water use per employee by group, employment projections for Oklahoma, and the population projections previously discussed. The data, methodology, and results of the forecast are discussed in the following sections. 3.3.1 Methodology County nonresidential water use is estimated by multiplying county employment by water use per employee. Projections of employment and water use are obtained at the most detailed level available. Both employment and water use per employee are available at the 2-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)2 level. System loss percentages, as discussed in Section 3.2.2, are also captured in the forecast. Water use per employee is assumed to remain constant while employment grows in the future. Equation 2 provides the detailed formula for estimating water use for the public-supplied nonresidential sector. Equation 2 Where: = Public-supplied nonresidential water demand including system losses in county (c) in year (y) = Employment by NAICS group in county (c) and year (y) = Water use per employee by NAICS group, which may be adjusted for a specific county (c) = Percent system losses in county (c) 3.3.2 Data The public-supply nonresidential forecast is driven by economic activity, which can be difficult to predict. Thus, a typical measure of nonresidential water use in forecasting is employment, which is more foreseeable. Employment projections were developed for Oklahoma by county and by employment group. The rate of water use per employee is unique to the type of establishment, e.g., water use per employee would be significantly 2 NAICS is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-13 higher at a restaurant where water is being used to wash dishes and prepare food than at a bank where water use is for sanitary purposes. To account for this, per unit use factors were developed by employment group from an existing database. Employment County level employment data for 2006 were collected by NAICS levels from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS, along with the U.S. Department of Labor and the State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs), manage the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. This program produces a comprehensive tabulation of employment and wage information for workers covered by state unemployment insurance laws and Federal workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program. Publicly available files include data on the number of establishments, monthly employment, and quarterly wages, by NAICS industry, by county, by ownership sector, for the entire United States3 Table 5 - Sample of QCEW Data, Beckham County, Oklahoma, 2006 . QCEW data include all government and private employees. These data were used as the starting point for the employment projections. A sample of the QCEW data used in the employment projections is shown in Table 5 for Beckham County. Ownership Title NAICS Description Annual Average Establishment Count Annual Average Employment Total Covered 10 Total, all industries 767 8,599 Federal Government 10 Total, all industries 10 50 State Government 10 Total, all industries 10 156 Local Government 10 Total, all industries 32 917 Private 10 Total, all industries 715 7,476 Private 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 9 52 Private 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 82 1,295 Local Government 22 Utilities 4 27 Private 22 Utilities 9 75 Local Government 23 Construction 2 a Private 23 Construction 61 380 Private 31-33 Manufacturing 16 344 Private 42 Wholesale trade 31 336 Private 44-45 Retail trade 128 1,374 Federal Government 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 6 38 Private 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 30 347 Local Government 51 Information 1 a Private 51 Information 11 70 Private 52 Finance and insurance 37 313 Private 53 Real estate and rental and leasing 28 276 Private 54 Professional and technical services 53 a Private 55 Management of companies and enterprises 1 a Local Government 56 Administrative and waste services 1 a Private 56 Administrative and waste services 35 301 State Government 61 Educational services 1 0 Local Government 61 Educational services 5 560 Private 61 Educational services 1 a 3 http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewover.htm Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-14 Table 5 - Sample of QCEW Data, Beckham County, Oklahoma, 2006 Ownership Title NAICS Description Annual Average Establishment Count Annual Average Employment Private 62 Health care and social assistance 78 a Local Government 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1 a Private 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 7 26 Private 72 Accommodation and food services 56 852 Private 81 Other services, except public administration 41 164 Federal Government 92 Public Administration 4 12 State Government 92 Public Administration 9 a Local Government 92 Public Administration 18 233 Private 99 Unclassified 3 7 (a) Withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies; data are included in higher level totals As shown in Table 5, not all of the QCEW data are released for public review. Some data are withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies. Thus, a methodology was developed to estimate the unknown employment numbers. The average number of employees per establishment type were developed for the state and used to fill in the gaps. Because the withheld data were included in the total employment count, estimated values were scaled up or down according to the ratio of the estimated total to the actual total. Next, the employment counts for 2006 by NAICS and county were projected to 2060. The most recent available Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) 10-year projections of statewide employment by 2- and 3-digit NAICS were used to project demands to 2016. Specifically, the rate of change for each 2-digit NAICS level from the OESC state-level projections was applied to the BLS 2006 county employment to project employment by 2-digit NAICS to 2016 for each county. Beyond 2016 (to 2060), employment was assumed to grow in direct proportion to county population projections. That is, the ratio of 2-digit NAICS employment to county population remains constant after 2016. When better information regarding the future employment of Oklahoma was available, it was used to adjust the employment projections. The only such information provided was from the Chickasaw Nation Report. The employment increases planned for both Love and Marshall Counties, as shown in Table 2.3 of the Chickasaw Report, were added to the employment growth for these counties to account for the future expansion. Projections of total employment by county are shown in Table 6. Employment projections by 2-digit NAICS code for each county are presented in Appendix B. Statewide employment is estimated to increase by 31 percent from 2006 to 2060 as illustrated in Figure 4. Table 6 - Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 5,376 5,537 5,864 6,699 7,533 8,389 9,244 Alfalfa 1,237 1,286 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,382 1,405 Atoka 3,368 3,497 3,730 4,138 4,545 4,995 5,445 Beaver 1,425 1,484 1,579 1,605 1,631 1,658 1,684 Beckham 8,599 8,951 9,562 10,387 11,211 12,036 12,942 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-15 Table 6 - Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Blaine 3,094 3,228 3,453 3,756 4,058 4,361 4,688 Bryan 15,939 16,662 17,914 19,629 21,345 23,060 24,816 Caddo 6,988 7,286 7,766 8,008 8,250 8,492 8,710 Canadian 24,751 25,717 27,401 29,299 30,941 32,455 33,994 Carter 21,926 22,762 24,160 25,459 26,711 28,058 29,502 Cherokee 14,680 15,362 16,598 18,719 20,869 22,962 25,112 Choctaw 4,353 4,555 4,871 4,962 5,084 5,205 5,327 Cimarron 713 739 782 805 805 829 852 Cleveland 70,643 74,043 79,643 84,096 87,652 90,151 92,585 Coal 1,049 1,096 1,183 1,338 1,509 1,696 1,883 Comanche 40,220 41,929 44,742 46,946 48,659 50,006 51,107 Cotton 1,449 1,513 1,614 1,638 1,662 1,710 1,734 Craig 5,925 6,147 6,544 7,152 7,832 8,511 9,227 Creek 16,962 17,558 18,569 19,509 20,402 21,294 22,258 Custer 11,128 11,585 12,314 12,824 13,333 13,715 14,055 Delaware 7,900 8,276 8,954 10,084 11,250 12,506 13,816 Dewey 1,248 1,298 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,402 1,433 Ellis 1,007 1,050 1,109 1,109 1,079 1,079 1,109 Garfield 24,152 25,169 26,774 27,432 28,047 28,530 29,100 Garvin 9,007 9,334 9,844 10,019 10,193 10,403 10,612 Grady 12,885 13,352 14,145 14,956 15,687 16,417 17,174 Grant 1,105 1,148 1,217 1,241 1,241 1,288 1,311 Greer 1,492 1,557 1,655 1,655 1,683 1,711 1,739 Harmon 819 855 910 938 965 993 1,020 Harper 1,270 1,319 1,393 1,393 1,393 1,434 1,434 Haskell 3,714 3,895 4,216 4,740 5,291 5,842 6,449 Hughes 2,847 2,972 3,196 3,525 3,872 4,255 4,639 Jackson 10,886 11,293 11,972 12,535 12,985 13,361 13,661 Jefferson 1,249 1,299 1,377 1,398 1,418 1,459 1,501 Johnston 2,968 3,060 3,232 3,605 3,978 4,376 4,799 Kay 19,688 20,464 21,697 22,253 22,765 23,278 23,833 Kingfisher 5,908 6,090 6,431 7,108 7,785 8,462 9,215 Kiowa 2,429 2,540 2,706 2,733 2,760 2,815 2,870 Latimer 3,870 4,058 4,362 4,590 4,856 5,121 5,425 Le Flore 12,767 13,211 13,977 14,883 15,790 16,697 17,654 Lincoln 7,085 7,390 7,911 8,455 9,020 9,606 10,234 Logan 6,690 7,013 7,581 8,331 9,080 9,812 10,596 Love 3,370 3,531 9,875 10,484 11,129 11,809 12,490 Major 2,260 2,352 2,491 2,491 2,524 2,557 2,590 Marshall 4,308 4,426 7,490 8,930 10,406 11,954 13,575 Mayes 11,189 11,545 12,189 13,242 14,348 15,480 16,638 McClain 7,228 7,554 8,157 9,240 10,323 11,449 12,596 McCurtain 10,216 10,618 11,268 11,662 11,995 12,359 12,692 McIntosh 4,258 4,442 4,768 5,298 5,886 6,553 7,260 Murray 5,089 5,337 5,754 6,291 6,789 7,365 7,940 Muskogee 28,350 29,508 31,349 32,289 33,102 33,915 34,727 Noble 4,290 4,469 4,760 4,911 5,063 5,176 5,289 Nowata 1,788 1,852 1,974 2,219 2,464 2,723 2,997 Okfuskee 2,282 2,384 2,545 2,608 2,670 2,733 2,816 Oklahoma 420,127 438,854 469,036 488,298 502,840 513,427 523,887 Okmulgee 9,995 10,371 11,012 11,670 12,352 13,059 13,765 Osage 5,924 6,185 6,619 6,944 7,243 7,542 7,880 Ottawa 11,346 11,825 12,624 13,403 14,249 15,129 16,009 Pawnee 3,377 3,528 3,791 4,129 4,486 4,861 5,237 Payne 34,260 35,721 38,151 40,987 43,777 45,744 47,620 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-16 Table 6 - Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Pittsburg 16,912 17,570 18,643 19,351 20,177 21,121 22,144 Pontotoc 18,407 19,243 20,573 21,282 21,992 22,647 23,301 Pottawatomie 20,480 21,292 22,649 24,011 25,313 26,585 27,917 Pushmataha 3,127 3,266 3,513 3,895 4,301 4,755 5,209 Roger Mills 826 858 906 906 906 906 906 Rogers 23,822 24,667 26,219 28,695 30,996 33,356 35,774 Seminole 7,549 7,827 8,269 8,491 8,714 8,968 9,223 Sequoyah 9,156 9,577 10,306 11,247 12,167 13,108 14,048 Stephens 15,505 16,032 16,846 17,002 17,196 17,467 17,817 Texas 6,475 6,741 7,283 8,730 10,178 11,626 13,051 Tillman 2,173 2,259 2,393 2,444 2,495 2,546 2,622 Tulsa 341,500 355,930 379,487 395,775 407,255 415,969 424,444 Wagoner 6,804 7,057 7,512 8,163 8,763 9,352 9,972 Washington 19,510 20,352 21,659 21,872 22,170 22,469 22,810 Washita 2,287 2,380 2,528 2,589 2,630 2,692 2,733 Woods 3,110 3,242 3,439 3,477 3,514 3,552 3,626 Woodward 9,378 9,756 10,364 10,675 10,882 11,141 11,348 Statewide Total 1,477,489 1,540,129 1,652,122 1,736,384 1,809,199 1,873,906 1,939,148 Water Use Coefficients The per employee water use rates were developed from the IWR-MAIN Water Demand Management Software Nonresidential Database. IWR-MAIN is proprietary software developed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) used in the development of water demand forecasts. The software is often used for planning by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The nonresidential database contains average gallons of water use per employee per day (ged) at the 2-digit and 3-digit Standard Industrial Code (SIC). A Figure 4 - Employment Projections Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-17 special tabulation was computed to transform the data to 2-digit NAICS code. The resulting water use factors are summarized by major employment groups in Table 7. Table 7 - Nonresidential Water Use Coefficients from IWR-MAIN NAICS GED* 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 111.8 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 488.4 22 Utilities 28.4 23 Construction 66.6 31-33 Manufacturing 144.5 42 Wholesale trade 44.1 44-45 Retail trade 46.4 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 57.2 51 Information 28.0 52 Finance and insurance 59.8 53 Real estate and rental and leasing 163.5 54 Professional and technical services 68.6 55 Management of companies and enterprises 64.0 56 Administrative and waste services 41.2 61 Educational services 103.6 62 Health care and social assistance 84.7 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 446.6 72 Accommodation and food services 185.5 81 Other services, except public administration 271.3 92 Public Administration 125.4 99 Unclassified 122.9 * GED-gallons per employee per day The water use coefficients represent all water used at a given establishment on an average day divided by the number of employees. Establishments that generally only use water for sanitary use, such as retail trade shops and offices, have lower water use rates than establishments using water for additional services, such as for food preparation at schools or laundry washing at hotels. Supplemental information for Pittsburg County was obtained and used to replace the standard employment water use factor for manufacturing through data collected from the McAlester Ammunition Plant4 4 McAlester is included in the public supply nonresidential sector even though it is a self-supplied industrial establishment because McAlester provides water to rural water districts and experiences systems losses. . 3.3.3 Forecast Results of the public-supplied nonresidential forecast including system losses for each county are shown in Table 8. Growth in county water demand is directly attributable to projected employment growth. Statewide water demands from the public supplied nonresidential sector are estimated to increase by 33 percent from 2007 to 2060 as illustrated in Figure 5. Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-18 Table 8 – Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 765 785 827 945 1,063 1,183 1,304 Alfalfa 160 167 176 176 176 179 182 Atoka 493 512 546 606 665 731 797 Beaver 293 305 324 329 335 340 346 Beckham 1,598 1,659 1,766 1,918 2,071 2,223 2,390 Blaine 453 473 506 551 595 639 688 Bryan 2,405 2,533 2,751 3,014 3,277 3,541 3,810 Caddo 876 916 981 1,011 1,042 1,072 1,100 Canadian 4,043 4,209 4,497 4,809 5,078 5,326 5,579 Carter 3,299 3,416 3,613 3,807 3,994 4,196 4,412 Cherokee 2,126 2,233 2,424 2,734 3,048 3,354 3,668 Choctaw 684 720 775 789 809 828 847 Cimarron 95 98 104 107 107 110 113 Cleveland 9,866 10,369 11,193 11,818 12,318 12,669 13,012 Coal 145 153 166 188 212 238 264 Comanche 5,313 5,545 5,926 6,218 6,445 6,623 6,769 Cotton 264 276 295 299 303 312 317 Craig 793 822 874 955 1,046 1,137 1,232 Creek 2,685 2,772 2,921 3,069 3,209 3,349 3,501 Custer 1,743 1,815 1,929 2,009 2,089 2,149 2,202 Delaware 1,208 1,273 1,389 1,564 1,745 1,940 2,143 Dewey 218 226 238 238 238 244 249 Ellis 151 158 167 167 163 163 167 Garfield 3,611 3,756 3,986 4,084 4,175 4,247 4,332 Garvin 1,646 1,702 1,791 1,822 1,854 1,892 1,930 Grady 1,986 2,055 2,172 2,297 2,409 2,521 2,638 Grant 168 175 185 188 188 196 199 Greer 187 195 208 208 212 215 219 Harmon 105 110 118 121 125 128 132 Harper 202 210 221 221 221 228 228 Haskell 595 621 669 753 840 928 1,024 Hughes 395 412 443 489 537 590 644 Jackson 1,545 1,605 1,704 1,784 1,848 1,902 1,945 Jefferson 167 173 183 186 189 194 200 Johnston 470 483 507 566 624 686 753 Kay 3,345 3,477 3,685 3,779 3,866 3,953 4,048 Kingfisher 1,219 1,255 1,324 1,463 1,603 1,742 1,897 Kiowa 408 426 454 459 463 472 481 Latimer 654 685 734 773 817 862 913 Le Flore 2,087 2,151 2,263 2,410 2,557 2,704 2,859 Lincoln 976 1,018 1,089 1,164 1,241 1,322 1,408 Logan 955 1,005 1,091 1,199 1,306 1,412 1,525 Love 548 576 2,648 2,811 2,984 3,166 3,349 Major 394 408 430 430 436 441 447 Marshall 679 698 1,715 2,044 2,382 2,737 3,108 Mayes 1,590 1,636 1,720 1,868 2,024 2,184 2,347 McClain 1,072 1,119 1,208 1,368 1,528 1,695 1,865 McCurtain 1,385 1,437 1,523 1,576 1,621 1,670 1,715 McIntosh 624 656 711 790 878 978 1,083 Murray 742 779 840 918 991 1,075 1,159 Muskogee 3,454 3,598 3,826 3,941 4,040 4,139 4,239 Noble 704 735 785 810 835 854 872 Nowata 242 250 266 299 333 368 405 Okfuskee 357 374 401 411 421 431 444 Oklahoma 59,203 61,862 66,147 68,863 70,914 72,407 73,882 Okmulgee 1,510 1,566 1,663 1,762 1,865 1,972 2,079 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-19 Table 8 – Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Osage 1,114 1,164 1,248 1,309 1,365 1,422 1,486 Ottawa 2,068 2,184 2,373 2,519 2,678 2,844 3,009 Pawnee 510 532 570 621 674 731 787 Payne 5,259 5,515 5,936 6,377 6,811 7,118 7,409 Pittsburg 3,088 3,162 3,288 3,412 3,558 3,725 3,905 Pontotoc 2,326 2,428 2,589 2,678 2,767 2,850 2,932 Pottawatomie 2,761 2,869 3,049 3,233 3,408 3,579 3,759 Pushmataha 405 424 457 507 560 619 678 Roger Mills 140 145 153 153 153 153 153 Rogers 3,503 3,630 3,862 4,227 4,566 4,914 5,270 Seminole 1,411 1,461 1,540 1,582 1,623 1,671 1,718 Sequoyah 1,325 1,393 1,509 1,647 1,782 1,919 2,057 Stephens 3,037 3,135 3,287 3,317 3,355 3,408 3,476 Texas 898 938 1,016 1,218 1,420 1,622 1,821 Tillman 309 322 343 350 357 364 375 Tulsa 43,051 44,846 47,779 49,830 51,275 52,372 53,439 Wagoner 987 1,023 1,088 1,182 1,269 1,354 1,444 Washington 4,136 4,300 4,556 4,600 4,663 4,726 4,798 Washita 391 406 430 440 447 458 465 Woods 433 452 480 485 490 496 506 Woodward 1,982 2,055 2,174 2,239 2,282 2,337 2,380 Statewide Total 212,031 221,023 238,823 251,108 261,864 271,539 281,325 Figure 5 - Public Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-20 3.4 Public-Supply M&I Summary Table 9 provides a summary of the public-supplied M&I water demands by county that include residential demands, nonresidential demands, and system-losses. Table 9 - Summary of Public-Supply M&I Demands Including System Losses (AFY) COUNTY 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 1,918 1,994 2,237 2,555 2,874 3,200 3,526 Alfalfa 873 873 882 882 882 897 912 Atoka 2,917 3,024 3,366 3,733 4,101 4,507 4,913 Beaver 698 714 740 752 765 777 789 Beckham 4,599 4,739 5,120 5,562 6,003 6,444 6,930 Blaine 2,416 2,474 2,683 2,918 3,153 3,388 3,642 Bryan 7,844 8,145 8,942 9,799 10,655 11,511 12,388 Caddo 3,242 3,305 3,470 3,578 3,686 3,794 3,892 Canadian 14,935 15,448 16,833 18,000 19,008 19,938 20,884 Carter 8,813 9,008 9,535 10,048 10,541 11,073 11,643 Cherokee 6,555 6,884 7,767 8,760 9,766 10,745 11,751 Choctaw 1,518 1,560 1,637 1,667 1,708 1,749 1,790 Cimarron 642 645 685 705 705 726 746 Cleveland 36,395 37,683 40,538 42,804 44,614 45,886 47,126 Coal 606 626 711 805 908 1,020 1,132 Comanche 15,177 16,682 17,839 18,717 19,400 19,937 20,376 Cotton 766 783 809 821 833 857 869 Craig 2,223 2,294 2,507 2,739 3,000 3,260 3,534 Creek 8,195 8,399 8,939 9,391 9,821 10,250 10,715 Custer 5,207 5,339 5,619 5,852 6,084 6,259 6,414 Delaware 4,027 4,223 4,781 5,384 6,007 6,678 7,377 Dewey 1,146 1,154 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,171 1,197 Ellis 738 736 730 730 711 711 730 Garfield 12,034 12,248 12,736 13,049 13,341 13,571 13,842 Garvin 4,690 4,760 4,926 5,014 5,101 5,206 5,311 Grady 5,050 5,188 5,531 5,848 6,133 6,419 6,715 Grant 710 716 737 752 752 780 794 Greer 1,028 1,037 1,049 1,049 1,067 1,085 1,103 Harmon 772 789 797 821 845 870 894 Harper 967 961 973 973 973 1,001 1,001 Haskell 1,270 1,324 1,466 1,648 1,840 2,032 2,243 Hughes 1,721 1,786 1,975 2,178 2,392 2,629 2,866 Jackson 4,505 4,619 4,899 5,129 5,314 5,467 5,590 Jefferson 769 776 795 807 819 843 866 Johnston 1,734 1,787 1,969 2,196 2,423 2,666 2,923 Kay 7,549 7,711 8,066 8,272 8,463 8,654 8,860 Kingfisher 2,839 2,928 3,193 3,529 3,865 4,202 4,575 Kiowa 1,233 1,247 1,274 1,287 1,300 1,326 1,351 Latimer 2,213 2,260 2,382 2,506 2,651 2,796 2,961 Le Flore 6,429 6,586 7,043 7,499 7,956 8,413 8,895 Lincoln 2,301 2,376 2,568 2,745 2,928 3,119 3,322 Logan 4,607 4,797 5,354 5,883 6,412 6,929 7,483 Love 1,447 1,524 5,138 5,455 5,790 6,144 6,498 Major 974 984 1,013 1,013 1,027 1,040 1,054 Marshall 2,133 2,257 3,634 4,333 5,049 5,800 6,586 Mayes 5,377 5,534 6,007 6,526 7,071 7,629 8,200 McClain 3,997 4,190 4,792 5,428 6,065 6,726 7,400 McCurtain 4,225 4,312 4,527 4,685 4,819 4,965 5,099 McIntosh 2,393 2,485 2,760 3,066 3,407 3,793 4,202 Murray 2,625 2,712 2,941 3,216 3,471 3,765 4,059 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-21 Table 9 - Summary of Public-Supply M&I Demands Including System Losses (AFY) COUNTY 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Muskogee 9,937 10,130 10,580 10,898 11,172 11,446 11,720 Noble 1,617 1,662 1,759 1,815 1,871 1,913 1,955 Nowata 1,075 1,118 1,256 1,412 1,568 1,733 1,907 Okfuskee 1,385 1,408 1,461 1,497 1,533 1,569 1,616 Oklahoma 120,231 123,931 131,224 136,613 140,682 143,644 146,570 Okmulgee 10,686 10,930 11,716 12,415 13,141 13,893 14,645 Osage 7,708 7,895 8,460 8,876 9,258 9,640 10,073 Ottawa 5,017 5,179 5,575 5,918 6,292 6,681 7,069 Pawnee 2,274 2,350 2,588 2,818 3,062 3,318 3,574 Payne 12,193 12,688 13,656 14,671 15,670 16,374 17,045 Pittsburg 8,315 8,445 8,815 9,150 9,541 9,987 10,471 Pontotoc 5,931 6,074 6,376 6,596 6,816 7,019 7,222 Pottawatomie 5,890 6,060 6,460 6,848 7,220 7,583 7,963 Pushmataha 1,073 1,114 1,237 1,371 1,514 1,674 1,834 Roger Mills 613 618 626 626 626 626 626 Rogers 12,891 13,376 14,813 16,213 17,513 18,846 20,212 Seminole 2,742 2,801 2,923 3,002 3,081 3,171 3,261 Sequoyah 7,122 7,380 8,143 8,886 9,612 10,356 11,099 Stephens 8,472 8,570 8,785 8,866 8,967 9,109 9,291 Texas 3,576 3,819 4,599 5,513 6,427 7,342 8,242 Tillman 1,332 1,345 1,388 1,418 1,447 1,477 1,521 Tulsa 107,126 110,045 116,516 121,517 125,042 127,717 130,319 Wagoner 8,108 8,402 9,329 10,137 10,881 11,613 12,383 Washington 11,739 11,940 12,364 12,486 12,656 12,827 13,021 Washita 1,082 1,103 1,151 1,179 1,197 1,225 1,244 Woods 3,124 3,161 3,189 3,224 3,259 3,293 3,363 Woodward 5,599 5,718 5,989 6,169 6,288 6,438 6,558 Statewide Total 583,901 601,891 647,038 682,391 713,982 743,158 772,773 4-1 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands The self-supplied sector represents establishments that obtain their water from privately owned sources, such as wells or surface diversions. This sector includes water use from self-supplied households, pulp mills, refineries, meat packing plants, thermoelectric power plants, and activities from oil and gas exploration and drilling, for example. While agriculture demands are often self-supplied, these demands are treated separately and are discussed in Section 5. Water demand sectors discussed here include self-supplied residential, oil and gas, thermoelectric power, and self-supplied large industries. 4.1 Self-Supplied Residential The self-supplied residential sector captures water use from households not connected to a public water supply system. It is assumed that these households are located in rural areas of the state. While it may be true that some self-supplied residential homes use well water for livestock care, the demands for the self-supplied residential sector only represent water use inside the home and outside for gardening, car washing, domestic animal care, recreation, etc. Livestock demands are captured in the agriculture demands. The basic methodology employed to estimate future water demands for the self-supplied residential sector is: Equation 3 Where: = Self-supplied residential water demand in county (c) in year (y) in acre-feet per year (AFY) = Weighted average residential per capita daily water use in county (c) from Provider Survey = Population self-supplied in county (c) in year (y) The data used to develop the self-supplied residential forecast are similar to the data used in the public supply residential forecast, as discussed in Section 3.2.2. Population projections serve as a basis for the forecast. The population projections were allocated among public-supplied and self-supplied households using 2005 USGS estimates. The USGS preliminary numbers were used to divide county population projections into public-supplied and self-supplied for 2007. The ratio of public-supplied to self-supplied for each county is assumed to remain constant into the future. The self-supplied population projections are shown in Table 10. As shown, some counties have no self-supplied households. Given the assumptions, the statewide population of self-supplied households is expected to increase almost 41 percent from 2007 to 2060, but remains less than a half million in 2060. Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-2 Table 10 - Self-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 9,140 9,582 11,173 12,763 14,354 15,983 17,613 Alfalfa 860 851 851 851 851 866 880 Atoka 3,030 3,139 3,524 3,909 4,294 4,719 5,145 Beaver 2,620 2,647 2,692 2,737 2,782 2,826 2,871 Beckham 1,980 2,032 2,213 2,403 2,594 2,785 2,995 Blaine 1,130 1,152 1,253 1,362 1,472 1,582 1,700 Bryan 2,780 2,869 3,165 3,468 3,771 4,074 4,384 Caddo 11,730 11,845 12,345 12,730 13,115 13,499 13,845 Canadian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carter 220 223 236 249 261 274 289 Cherokee 7,430 7,802 8,962 10,108 11,269 12,399 13,560 Choctaw 4,700 4,736 4,858 4,949 5,070 5,192 5,313 Cimarron 1,120 1,120 1,190 1,225 1,225 1,260 1,295 Cleveland 12,670 13,045 14,015 14,799 15,425 15,864 16,293 Coal 1,570 1,614 1,859 2,103 2,372 2,666 2,959 Comanche 2,190 2,236 2,388 2,518 2,619 2,699 2,764 Cotton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Craig 800 824 914 999 1,094 1,189 1,288 Creek 7,050 7,200 7,700 8,090 8,460 8,830 9,230 Custer 3,320 3,379 3,537 3,683 3,830 3,940 4,037 Delaware 11,500 12,032 13,834 15,581 17,383 19,324 21,348 Dewey 1,070 1,070 1,047 1,047 1,047 1,070 1,093 Ellis 1,380 1,359 1,323 1,323 1,287 1,287 1,323 Garfield 1,460 1,472 1,517 1,554 1,589 1,616 1,648 Garvin 4,150 4,168 4,274 4,350 4,426 4,517 4,608 Grady 15,740 16,096 17,251 18,240 19,131 20,021 20,945 Grant 650 650 663 675 675 701 714 Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harper 960 943 943 943 943 971 971 Haskell 5,280 5,500 6,233 7,007 7,822 8,637 9,533 Hughes 940 973 1,085 1,197 1,315 1,445 1,575 Jackson 1,080 1,100 1,165 1,220 1,264 1,301 1,330 Jefferson 140 140 142 144 146 151 155 Johnston 110 114 127 142 157 172 189 Kay 2,240 2,257 2,335 2,394 2,450 2,505 2,564 Kingfisher 4,010 4,140 4,627 5,114 5,601 6,088 6,629 Kiowa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latimer 1,320 1,335 1,395 1,468 1,553 1,638 1,735 Le Flore 6,360 6,496 7,001 7,455 7,909 8,363 8,842 Lincoln 17,650 18,088 19,704 21,059 22,466 23,926 25,490 Logan 11,260 11,695 13,146 14,445 15,745 17,014 18,374 Love 310 327 901 954 1,010 1,069 1,129 Major 2,090 2,073 2,101 2,101 2,129 2,157 2,185 Marshall 650 697 858 1,023 1,192 1,369 1,555 Mayes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McClain 7,430 7,800 9,104 10,313 11,522 12,778 14,059 McCurtain 7,490 7,579 7,920 8,197 8,431 8,687 8,921 McIntosh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muskogee 6,850 6,903 7,136 7,350 7,535 7,720 7,905 Noble 1,520 1,543 1,620 1,672 1,723 1,762 1,800 Nowata 690 719 821 922 1,024 1,132 1,246 Okfuskee 1,100 1,106 1,133 1,161 1,189 1,217 1,254 Oklahoma 14,040 14,279 14,972 15,586 16,051 16,389 16,722 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-3 Table 10 - Self-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Okmulgee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Osage 6,760 6,899 7,393 7,756 8,091 8,425 8,802 Ottawa 6,990 7,100 7,588 8,056 8,565 9,094 9,622 Pawnee 4,650 4,792 5,319 5,793 6,293 6,820 7,346 Payne 7,920 8,193 8,816 9,472 10,117 10,571 11,005 Pittsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pontotoc 5,490 5,554 5,768 5,967 6,166 6,350 6,534 Pottawatomie 20,830 21,249 22,706 24,072 25,377 26,652 27,988 Pushmataha 1,540 1,591 1,800 1,995 2,203 2,436 2,669 Roger Mills 680 680 680 680 680 680 680 Rogers 5,580 5,793 6,509 7,123 7,695 8,280 8,881 Seminole 3,980 4,009 4,136 4,247 4,359 4,486 4,613 Sequoyah 820 847 938 1,024 1,108 1,193 1,279 Stephens 6,620 6,620 6,697 6,759 6,836 6,944 7,083 Texas 2,600 2,798 3,479 4,170 4,862 5,553 6,234 Tillman 670 670 685 699 714 728 750 Tulsa 8,940 9,097 9,590 10,002 10,292 10,512 10,727 Wagoner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washita 2,200 2,222 2,297 2,353 2,390 2,447 2,484 Woods 1,110 1,117 1,117 1,129 1,142 1,154 1,178 Woodward 3,500 3,544 3,692 3,803 3,877 3,969 4,043 Statewide Total 294,690 301,725 326,721 348,946 370,595 392,224 414,477 Population projections are used as the driver of the self-supplied residential forecast. The average daily use of the self-supplied households is assumed to be similar to publically-supplied households in a given county. Thus, the rgpcd developed from the Provider Survey is used as the per unit use for the self-supplied residential sector. 4.1.1 Forecast Results of the self-supplied residential forecast are shown in Table 11 for each county. Growth in county water demand is directly attributable to projected growth in self-supplied population. Figure 6 shows statewide water demands from the self-supplied residential sector, which are estimated to increase by 39 percent from 2007 to 2060. Table 11 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 702 736 858 980 1,102 1,227 1,353 Alfalfa 117 115 115 115 115 117 119 Atoka 544 563 632 702 771 847 923 Beaver 346 350 355 361 367 373 379 Beckham 313 321 349 380 410 440 473 Blaine 186 189 206 224 242 260 280 Bryan 357 369 407 446 485 524 564 Caddo 1,422 1,436 1,496 1,543 1,589 1,636 1,678 Canadian - - - - - - - Carter 22 22 24 25 26 28 29 Cherokee 755 793 911 1,028 1,146 1,260 1,378 Choctaw 324 326 335 341 349 358 366 Cimarron 337 337 358 369 369 379 390 Cleveland 1,291 1,329 1,428 1,508 1,571 1,616 1,660 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-4 Table 11 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Coal 148 153 176 199 224 252 280 Comanche 171 175 187 197 205 211 216 Cotton - - - - - - - Craig 68 70 77 84 92 100 109 Creek 532 544 581 611 639 667 697 Custer 440 447 468 488 507 522 535 Delaware 954 998 1,147 1,292 1,441 1,602 1,770 Dewey 263 263 257 257 257 263 269 Ellis 272 268 261 261 254 254 261 Garfield 186 188 193 198 202 206 210 Garvin 467 469 481 490 498 508 519 Grady 1,176 1,202 1,288 1,362 1,429 1,495 1,564 Grant 78 78 80 81 81 84 86 Greer - - - - - - - Harmon - - - - - - - Harper 272 267 267 267 267 275 275 Haskell 447 465 528 593 662 731 807 Hughes 83 86 96 106 116 128 139 Jackson 110 112 119 124 129 133 135 Jefferson 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 Johnston 11 12 13 15 16 18 20 Kay 184 186 192 197 202 206 211 Kingfisher 536 553 618 683 748 813 885 Kiowa - - - - - - - Latimer 190 192 201 212 224 236 250 Le Flore 541 553 596 635 673 712 753 Lincoln 1,360 1,393 1,518 1,622 1,731 1,843 1,964 Logan 1,388 1,442 1,621 1,781 1,941 2,097 2,265 Love 27 28 78 83 88 93 98 Major 208 206 209 209 212 215 217 Marshall 57 61 75 89 104 119 136 Mayes - - - - - - - McClain 757 794 927 1,050 1,173 1,301 1,432 McCurtain 694 703 734 760 782 805 827 McIntosh - - - - - - - Murray - - - - - - - Muskogee 658 663 686 706 724 742 759 Noble 126 128 134 138 143 146 149 Nowata 49 51 58 65 72 80 88 Okfuskee 95 95 98 100 102 105 108 Oklahoma 1,079 1,098 1,151 1,198 1,234 1,260 1,286 Okmulgee - - - - - - - Osage 978 998 1,069 1,122 1,170 1,218 1,273 Ottawa 688 698 746 792 842 895 947 Pawnee 591 609 676 736 800 867 934 Payne 648 671 722 775 828 865 901 Pittsburg - - - - - - - Pontotoc 565 572 594 615 635 654 673 Pottawatomie 1,253 1,279 1,366 1,449 1,527 1,604 1,684 Pushmataha 86 89 101 112 123 136 149 Roger Mills 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 Rogers 579 601 675 739 798 859 922 Seminole 223 225 232 238 244 251 258 Sequoyah 100 104 115 126 136 146 157 Stephens 833 833 843 851 860 874 892 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-5 Table 11 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Texas 339 365 454 545 635 725 814 Tillman 80 80 81 83 85 87 89 Tulsa 903 919 969 1,010 1,040 1,062 1,084 Wagoner - - - - - - - Washington - - - - - - - Washita 142 144 148 152 154 158 161 Woods 352 355 355 358 362 366 374 Woodward 723 732 763 786 801 820 835 Statewide Total 29,543 30,236 32,636 34,799 36,897 39,013 41,193 4.2 Oil and Gas The oil and gas industry is a major contributor to the economic structure in Oklahoma. One in seven jobs in Oklahoma is directly or indirectly supported by the oil and natural gas industry5 Water is used in association with many oil and gas activities, including use as a supplemental fluid in enhanced recovery of petroleum resources; during drilling and . Water availability is key to oil and gas drilling and exploration activities thus water use by this important sector is estimated for the OCWP. 5 Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 2007 Report on Crude Oil and Natural Gas Activity within the State of Oklahoma, August 2008. Figure 6 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-6 completion of an oil or gas well; during workover of an oil or gas well; as rig wash water; as coolant for internal combustion engines for rigs, compressors, and other equipment; and for sanitary purposes. Unconventional drilling techniques require more water use per completion than conventional drilling techniques. Oil from shale deposits are often drilled using unconventional techniques and require even more water to penetrate through the shale deposits. There are challenges in estimating both current and future water demands from the oil and gas industry. While Oklahoma law requires that oil and gas companies apply for a 90-day provisional temporary (PT) water use permit for oil and gas drilling activities, water amounts requested on the PT permit is not necessarily representative of actual use. Future trends in the oil and gas industry rely on many factors, such as economy, price, and technology. Future trends, if anything, are uncertain. Thus, the forecast for the oil and gas sector makes use of the best available data for both the present and future. Estimated water use per drilling activity has been increased to a level considered adequate to cover uncertainties related to future developments in technology and other contingencies that may require more water per activity. 4.2.1 Methodology Given the statewide variance in recent drilling activities, water demands for the oil and gas industry are estimated by drilling type, or sub-sector: conventional, horizontal, and Woodford Shale. The basic methodology for estimating demands by drilling category is number of drilling activities times water used per activity in AF, as shown in Equation 4. Sub-sector demands are then summed to estimate total demands from all oil and gas activities. Equation 4 Where: = Oil and gas drilling water demand for sub-sector (s) in county (c) in year (y) in AFY = Number of estimated drilling activities for sub-sector (s) in county (c) in year (y) = Water use per drilling activity for sub-sector (s) in county (c) and in year (y) in AF Two key pieces of information were developed for the oil and gas forecast by sub-sector: drilling activity and water use per activity. 4.2.2 Future Drilling Activity For each sub-sector, an estimate of drilling activity in the future was developed using data collected from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) website. Oil and gas drilling Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-7 data were collected from 1983 through 2008 for the entire State of Oklahoma by county. The data include oil, gas, dry and total wells, footage, average depth, and success ratio. Additionally, conventional drilling data for Osage County, Oklahoma were provided by Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) and Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association from 1989–2003. These data were originally collected via permitting information by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The data were used to replace the original OCC data because the BIA has well permitting authority in Osage County. The OCC and BIA data were identified as conventional, horizontal, or Woodford Shale drilling and each dataset was stored in a separate database. Data from the following counties were considered to be Woodford Shale drilling—Atoka, Canadian, Carter, Coal, Hughes, Marshall, and Pittsburg. Because the Woodford Shale is a recent play, analysis was conducted on data for these counties from 2001–2008. Linear regression analysis was conducted on the sum of statewide drilling data (by sub-sector) to estimate a trend in future drilling activities. For conventional drilling, statewide data were analyzed using linear regression from 1989–2008. Prior years were excluded to avoid a negative slope in the regression line. For horizontal and Woodford Shale drilling, data were analyzed using linear regressions from 2001–2008, as there was very little non-conventional drilling prior to 2001. Results of the regression analysis were used to estimate statewide conventional drilling activities in 5 year increments to 2060. In order to develop a forecast representative of reasonable maximum future drilling activities, the standard error from the regression analysis was added to the model. This addition serves to address potential real-world variability associated with this industry. The statewide estimate of future conventional drilling activity was then allocated to counties based on the ratio of average county activity to statewide average activity during the historical dataset (1989–2008). This process was replicated to estimate future horizontal drilling activities statewide and for counties (county to state ratios were developed based on 2001–2008 dataset). Slight but necessary alterations were made to the methodology for estimating Woodford Shale drilling activities in future years. Linear regression was conducted to estimate a trend line for future activity. Standard error was added to the resulting regression model to account for uncertainty. The regression model was used to estimate statewide totals for Woodford Shale drilling activity to 2020. Close coordination with industry leaders reveals that while Woodford Shale activity is expected to increase over the next decade, it is likely that drilling resources within the Woodford Shale will be exhausted following an estimated peak in activity near 2020. Thus, 2030 demands are assumed to decline to 2010 conditions and then decline to nearly zero from 2030 to 2060. Linear interpolation was used to estimate drilling from 2035 to 2060. The statewide estimate of future Woodford Shale drilling activity was allocated to counties based on the ratio of average county activity to total average activity during the historical dataset (2001–2008). Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-8 Estimates of future drilling activity by drilling type are provided in Table 12. Conventional and horizontal drilling is estimated to be 74 and 26 percent of 2060 drilling, respectively. Woodford Shale drilling peaks at about 1,600 activities in 2020. Table 12 - Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type County Type 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair No drilling activity Alfalfa Conventional 23 31 35 40 45 50 54 Horizontal 5 7 12 18 24 29 35 Atoka Woodford Shale 19 27 43 27 18 9 0 Beaver Conventional 114 153 177 201 225 248 272 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Beckham Conventional 57 77 89 101 113 125 136 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Blaine Conventional 50 67 77 88 98 108 119 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bryan Conventional 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caddo Conventional 64 86 100 113 127 140 153 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Canadian Woodford Shale 112 156 255 156 105 53 2 Carter Woodford Shale 111 156 253 156 104 53 2 Cherokee Conventional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Choctaw No drilling activity Cimarron Conventional 11 15 17 19 22 24 26 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cleveland Conventional 9 12 14 16 18 20 22 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Coal Woodford Shale 55 76 124 76 51 26 1 Comanche Conventional 9 12 14 16 18 19 21 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cotton Conventional 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Craig Conventional 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creek Conventional 36 49 56 64 72 79 87 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Custer Conventional 57 77 89 100 112 124 136 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Delaware No drilling activity Dewey Conventional 43 59 68 77 86 95 104 Horizontal 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 Ellis Conventional 50 68 78 89 99 110 120 Horizontal 26 39 70 102 134 166 198 Garfield Conventional 29 39 45 51 57 63 69 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Garvin Conventional 81 109 126 143 160 177 194 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Grady Conventional 94 127 147 166 186 206 225 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Grant Conventional 27 36 42 47 53 58 64 Horizontal 3 4 8 11 15 18 22 Greer Conventional 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-9 Table 12 - Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type County Type 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Harmon Conventional 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harper Conventional 49 67 77 87 97 108 118 Horizontal 3 5 9 13 18 22 26 Haskell Conventional 50 67 78 88 99 109 119 Horizontal 43 64 116 169 221 274 326 Hughes Woodford Shale 108 151 245 151 101 51 2 Jackson Conventional 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Jefferson Conventional 6 8 10 11 12 13 15 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnston Conventional 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Horizontal 5 8 14 20 26 33 39 Kay Conventional 27 36 42 48 53 59 65 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kingfisher Conventional 33 44 51 58 65 72 79 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Kiowa Conventional 7 9 10 12 13 14 16 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latimer Conventional 77 105 121 137 153 169 186 Horizontal 3 5 9 13 17 21 25 Le Flore Conventional 42 57 66 75 83 92 101 Horizontal 39 58 107 155 203 251 299 Lincoln Conventional 41 56 64 73 82 90 99 Horizontal 13 20 36 53 69 86 102 Logan Conventional 39 53 61 70 78 86 94 Horizontal 9 13 24 35 45 56 67 Love Conventional 7 10 11 13 14 16 17 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Conventional 103 139 161 182 204 225 247 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Marshall Woodford Shale 15 21 33 21 14 7 0 Mayes Conventional 4 6 7 7 8 9 10 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McClain Conventional 27 37 42 48 54 60 65 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 McCurtain Conventional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McIntosh Conventional 30 40 47 53 59 66 72 Horizontal 24 35 64 93 122 150 179 Murray Conventional 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muskogee Conventional 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Noble Conventional 60 81 93 106 118 130 143 Horizontal 2 2 4 6 8 10 12 Nowata Conventional 67 90 104 118 132 145 159 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Okfuskee Conventional 31 41 48 54 61 67 73 Horizontal 4 6 10 15 20 24 29 Oklahoma Conventional 39 52 61 69 77 85 93 Horizontal 3 4 7 10 14 17 20 Okmulgee Conventional 29 39 45 51 57 63 69 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-10 Table 12 - Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type County Type 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Osage Conventional 87 117 135 153 171 190 208 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ottawa No drilling activity Pawnee Conventional 8 11 13 15 16 18 20 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Payne Conventional 30 41 48 54 60 67 73 Horizontal 3 5 8 12 16 20 24 Pittsburg Woodford Shale 287 401 652 401 269 136 4 Pontotoc Conventional 28 37 43 49 55 61 67 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Pottawatomie Conventional 23 31 36 40 45 50 55 Horizontal 10 15 27 40 52 64 77 Pushmataha Conventional 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roger Mills Conventional 114 154 178 201 225 249 273 Horizontal 5 7 12 18 24 29 35 Rogers Conventional 18 25 29 32 36 40 44 Horizontal 3 4 7 10 14 17 20 Seminole Conventional 45 61 71 80 90 99 109 Horizontal 9 14 25 36 47 58 69 Sequoyah Conventional 10 13 15 17 19 21 23 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stephens Conventional 110 148 171 194 217 240 263 Horizontal 3 4 8 11 15 18 22 Texas Conventional 119 160 185 210 234 259 284 Horizontal 9 13 24 35 46 57 68 Tillman Conventional 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Tulsa Conventional 15 21 24 27 30 33 37 Horizontal 2 3 6 8 11 13 16 Wagoner Conventional 13 17 20 23 25 28 31 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Washington Conventional 57 77 89 101 113 124 136 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washita Conventional 45 61 70 80 89 99 108 Horizontal 22 33 60 87 115 142 169 Woods Conventional 82 111 128 145 162 179 196 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Woodward Conventional 102 138 159 181 202 223 245 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Statewide Total Conventional 2,459 3,320 3,834 4,349 4,863 5,378 5,892 Horizontal 274 408 745 1,081 1,417 1,754 2,090 Woodford Shale 706 987 1,606 987 661 336 10 4.2.3 Future Water Use per Activity Estimates of water use per drilling activity by sub-sector were developed based on input from industry leaders at OIPA and Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Water use per activity captures water used for drilling and cementing as well as completion. Unique values are estimated for each county by sub-sector based on average well depth, i.e., deeper wells are assumed to require more water for drilling. Table 13 provides a summary Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-11 of estimated current water use per drilled well for conventional, horizontal, and Woodford Shale drilling. Table 13 – Estimates of Current Water Use per Well (in Barrels) Operation Conventional Horizontal Woodford Shale Drilling & Cementing < 12,000 feet 8,000 12,000 (incl. horizontal 8,000 and vertical sections) >12,000 feet 21,000 23,000 (incl. horizontal 21,000 and vertical sections) Completion 25,000 78,000 150,000 Unconventional drilling techniques require more water use per well. Hydraulic fracturing ("fracing") is reported to require substantially more water per well. This technique is common in the Woodford Shale region of the state, resulting in higher water use factors and therefore higher water demand for drilling activities in these counties. Based on the above table, water use for conventional drilling ranges from 4.3–5.9 AF per well, horizontal drilling ranges from 12–13 AF per well, and drilling in the Woodford Shale region ranges from 20–22 AF per well. To account for uncertainty in future water use per drilled well, an increasing trend is applied to the water use per well from 2010 to 2060. This is based on the assumption that the accessibility of remaining oil and gas deposits in the future will decline. For conventional and Woodford Shale drilling, water use factors are multiplied by a factor of 2 in 2060, moving linearly from current values to the 2060 value. For horizontal drilling, water use factors are multiplied by a factor of 2.5 in 2060, moving linearly from current values to the 2060 value. 4.2.4 Forecast Results of the oil and gas forecast are provided in Table 14 for each county. Figure 7 shows the increase in statewide oil demand from 2008-2060. In the base year, water demands from the oil and gas industry are estimated at 29,107 AF, representing 1.6 percent of the total water used in Oklahoma. Under the conditions outlined herein, statewide demands are estimated to reach 115,570 AF by 2060, or 4.8 percent of total demands from all sectors. Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair No drilling activity Alfalfa Conventional 96 135 185 242 308 381 462 Horizontal 53 83 193 340 525 747 1,006 Atoka Woodford Shale 420 610 1,177 836 636 361 12 Beaver Conventional 483 677 927 1,215 1,543 1,909 2,314 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Beckham Conventional 338 473 648 850 1,079 1,335 1,618 Horizontal 15 23 54 95 147 210 282 Blaine Conventional 211 296 405 531 674 834 1,011 Horizontal Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-12 Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Bryan Conventional 17 24 33 43 54 67 82 Horizontal Caddo Conventional 380 532 729 956 1,213 1,501 1,820 Horizontal 15 23 54 95 147 210 282 Canadian Woodford Shale 2,466 3,581 6,905 4,908 3,733 2,120 70 Carter Woodford Shale 2,266 3,291 6,344 4,509 3,430 1,948 64 Cherokee Conventional 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 Horizontal Choctaw Conventional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horizontal Cimarron Conventional 47 65 90 117 149 185 224 Horizontal Cleveland Conventional 39 54 74 97 124 153 185 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Coal Woodford Shale 1,206 1,750 3,375 2,399 1,825 1,036 34 Comanche Conventional 38 53 73 95 121 150 181 Horizontal Cotton Conventional 7 10 14 18 23 28 34 Horizontal Craig Conventional 21 30 41 54 68 84 102 Horizontal Creek Conventional 154 216 295 387 492 608 737 Horizontal Custer Conventional 337 472 647 848 1,076 1,332 1,615 Horizontal 30 47 108 191 295 419 565 Delaware No drilling activity Dewey Conventional 185 259 355 465 590 731 886 Horizontal 20 31 72 128 197 280 377 Ellis Conventional 214 300 410 538 683 845 1,025 Horizontal 301 474 1,101 1,940 2,992 4,257 5,736 Garfield Conventional 122 172 235 308 391 484 586 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Garvin Conventional 345 483 662 868 1,101 1,363 1,652 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Grady Conventional 558 782 1,070 1,403 1,781 2,204 2,672 Horizontal 30 47 108 191 295 419 565 Grant Conventional 113 159 217 285 362 448 543 Horizontal 33 52 121 213 328 467 629 Greer Conventional 4 6 8 10 13 16 19 Horizontal Harmon Conventional 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 Horizontal Harper Conventional 210 294 402 528 670 829 1,005 Horizontal 40 62 145 255 394 560 755 Haskell Conventional 212 297 407 534 677 838 1,016 Horizontal 496 783 1,816 3,201 4,938 7,025 9,465 Hughes Woodford Shale 2,194 3,185 6,141 4,365 3,320 1,886 62 Jackson Conventional 6 8 12 15 19 24 29 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Jefferson Conventional 26 36 50 65 83 103 125 Horizontal Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-13 Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Johnston Conventional 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 Horizontal 59 94 217 383 591 840 1,132 Kay Conventional 115 161 220 289 366 453 550 Horizontal Kingfisher Conventional 140 196 268 351 446 552 669 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Kiowa Conventional 39 55 75 99 125 155 188 Horizontal Latimer Conventional 329 462 632 829 1,052 1,302 1,578 Horizontal 38 59 138 243 375 533 719 Le Flore Conventional 179 251 344 451 573 709 859 Horizontal 455 718 1,665 2,935 4,527 6,442 8,679 Lincoln Conventional 176 246 337 442 561 694 841 Horizontal 155 244 567 1,000 1,542 2,194 2,956 Logan Conventional 168 235 322 422 536 663 804 Horizontal 102 160 372 656 1,012 1,440 1,941 Love Conventional 30 43 58 77 97 120 146 Horizontal Major Conventional 438 614 841 1,102 1,399 1,732 2,099 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Marshall Woodford Shale 299 434 836 594 452 257 8 Mayes Conventional 18 25 34 45 57 71 86 Horizontal McClain Conventional 116 162 222 291 370 458 555 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 McCurtain Conventional 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Horizontal McIntosh Conventional 128 179 245 321 407 504 611 Horizontal 273 430 998 1,758 2,712 3,859 5,199 Murray Conventional 26 36 49 65 82 102 123 Horizontal Muskogee Conventional 29 40 55 72 91 113 137 Horizontal 26 42 97 170 262 373 503 Noble Conventional 254 356 487 639 811 1,003 1,216 Horizontal 18 28 64 113 175 249 335 Nowata Conventional 283 397 543 712 904 1,118 1,356 Horizontal Okfuskee Conventional 130 183 250 328 417 516 625 Horizontal 44 69 161 284 437 622 839 Oklahoma Conventional 165 232 317 416 528 654 792 Horizontal 31 49 113 199 306 436 587 Okmulgee Conventional 123 173 237 310 394 488 591 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Osage Conventional 369 517 708 928 1,178 1,458 1,767 Horizontal Ottawa No drilling activity Pawnee Conventional 35 49 67 89 112 139 169 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Payne Conventional 130 182 249 326 414 513 621 Horizontal 36 56 131 231 356 507 683 Pittsburg Woodford Shale 5,838 8,477 16,343 11,617 8,836 5,019 165 Pontotoc Conventional 118 166 227 297 377 467 566 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-14 Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Pottawatomie Conventional 97 136 187 245 311 385 467 Horizontal 117 184 426 752 1,159 1,649 2,222 Pushmataha Conventional 10 14 19 25 32 39 48 Horizontal Roger Mills Conventional 675 947 1,296 1,700 2,157 2,670 3,236 Horizontal 59 93 217 382 589 838 1,129 Rogers Conventional 78 109 150 196 249 308 374 Horizontal 31 49 113 199 306 436 587 Seminole Conventional 193 271 371 486 617 764 926 Horizontal 106 166 386 681 1,050 1,494 2,012 Sequoyah Conventional 40 57 78 102 129 160 194 Horizontal Stephens Conventional 467 655 896 1,175 1,492 1,846 2,237 Horizontal 33 52 121 213 328 467 629 Texas Conventional 504 707 967 1,269 1,611 1,993 2,416 Horizontal 103 163 378 666 1,028 1,463 1,971 Tillman Conventional 14 20 27 36 45 56 68 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Tulsa Conventional 65 91 124 163 207 256 311 Horizontal 24 37 87 153 236 336 453 Wagoner Conventional 54 76 104 137 174 215 260 Horizontal 26 42 97 170 262 373 503 Washington Conventional 242 339 464 609 773 957 1,160 Horizontal Washita Conventional 267 375 513 673 854 1,057 1,282 Horizontal 289 455 1,056 1,862 2,872 4,086 5,505 Woods Conventional 348 488 668 876 1,113 1,377 1,669 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Woodward Conventional 434 609 834 1,093 1,388 1,717 2,081 Horizontal Statewide Total Conventional 11,192 15,691 21,479 28,168 35,758 44,248 53,640 Horizontal 3,226 5,086 11,803 20,805 32,090 45,660 61,514 Woodford Shale 14,689 21,329 41,120 29,229 22,231 12,627 416 Total All Drilling 29,107 42,107 74,403 78,202 90,080 102,536 115,570 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-15 4.3 Thermoelectric Power The generation of electricity at thermoelectric power plants requires the use of water for cooling the equipment and condensing steam. Both withdrawal and consumption rates vary by plant because of variations in heat source, prime mover, cooling system type, evaporation rates, and thermal efficiency6 6 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Regional Water Demand Scenarios for Northeastern Illinois, Chapter 3, June 2008. . For example, close-looped cooling systems require less water to be withdrawn than what is required for once-through cooling; however, nearly all water is consumed in the close-looped process and very little withdrawn water is consumed in once-through cooling. For completeness in the OCWP, all thermoelectric power plants are included in this sector, even though several power plants receive water from municipal sources. The M&I forecast does not include water provided to thermoelectric power plants, as water use factors for NAICS code 22 (Utilities) captures water used for employee sanitary purposes only. See Section 3.3 for additional information on the nonresidential M&I forecast. Several data sources were combined to produce the thermoelectric power water demand forecast for Oklahoma, as discussed in the following sections. Figure 7 - Water Demands from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-16 4.3.1 Methodology Estimates of the gallons per day needed by thermoelectric power plants per megawatt-hour (MWh) are developed for both consumptive use and total withdrawal. The unit use (gallons per MWh) is multiplied by the MWh generated to provide an estimate of water needs for power generation for those counties with power generating facilities. The Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2008 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) estimates that U.S. electric consumption will increase at a rate of 1.1 percent per year to the year 2030. "In comparison, electricity consumption grew by annual rates of 4.2 percent, 2.6 percent, and 2.3 percent in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, respectively. The reduced rate of growth in the AEO 2008 results from slower economic growth, the imposition of new efficiency standards in EISA2007, and higher electricity prices" (AEO 2008, pg 11). CDM assumed (1) a linear relationship between the amount of electricity generated and the amount of water used (i.e., the rate of water use will be constant) and (2) an annual growth rate of 1.1 percent to project future water use from thermoelectric power plants in Oklahoma. 4.3.2 Data In Oklahoma, there are 58 power-producing plants—11 hydroelectric, 5 wind, 26 natural gas, 6 distillate fuels, 7 coal, and 3 miscellaneous (municipal solid waste, black liquor, and wood). Net electricity generation from natural gas-fired and coal-fired plants is nearly 95 percent of the total generation7 EIA information also included the water source and the operating status (i.e., retired, pending) of each facility. OWRB permit data for power generation (purpose code 04) included plant name, county, operating status (i.e., active, inactive), water code (i.e., groundwater, surface water source) and permitted water withdrawal in AF for 2004 through 2007. In addition, USGS 2005 data provides estimates of water use for thermoelectric power which includes surface water million gallons per day (mgd), groundwater mgd, total mgd withdrawals, and gigawatt hours (GWh) generated by county. . Information obtained from the Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Energy (http://energy.ok.gov) included the plant name, owning utility, and rated generating capacity in megawatts (MW). Information obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy, (EIA) included the plant name, location, 2004 net MWh generated, and 2007 net MWh generated. Comparison of the 2004 generated MWh with the rated generating capacity of each plant indicated a statewide weighted-average operation at 24.8 percent of rated capacity. Comparison of the 2007 generated MWh indicated an average operation of facilities at 34.2 percent of capacity. 7 Obtained from the EIA website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm? sid=OK#related_reports Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-17 Power plants were grouped by county in order to provide a county-level estimate of water demand for power generation. Information for retired facilities was included in the computation of average rate of water use per MWh generated but not in projected water use. Data for two facilities included permitted water withdrawals from different counties. The Seminole plant located in Seminole County also has permit rights to withdraw water from Pontotoc County and Atoka County. However, the permitted withdrawal amounts for Pontotoc and Atoka Counties are minimal. Thus, these withdrawals were combined and listed collectively under Seminole County. The Sooner plant in Noble County draws water from Sooner Lake in Pawnee County and is listed under Pawnee County. A recent study on water needs for energy development in northwest Colorado (Energy Development Water Needs Assessment, Phase I Report, URS Corporation, September 2008) identifies a unit water demand of 0.48 gallons per kilowatt hour (or 480 gallons per MWh) for electric power generation. This estimate represents the water demand for consumptive water use in a power facility. A study by LimnoTech, Inc. (John R. Wolfe, presented at Hydrovison 2008 Conference, Sacramento, California) also reported that water consumption for cooling towers at fossil-fuel thermoelectric power facilities was 480 gallons per MWh. A review of the mgd withdrawal per gigawatt generated as estimated by the USGS 2005 data for Oklahoma indicates a statewide average of 773 gallons per MWh. CDM assumed 775 gallons per MWh for total water withdrawal for all facilities except for OGE Energy Corporation's (OGE) facilities in Muskogee, Pawnee, and Seminole Counties. OGE requested that annual water use reported to the OWRB be used in order to include water used to maintain lake levels and for cleaning purposes at these facilities. Due to substantial fluctuations in reported water use for years 2005 through 2008, the average of these years was used for purposes of this report. 4.3.3 Forecast Results by county for water withdrawals and water consumption by thermoelectric power plants are shown in Table 15 and Table 16, respectively. Statewide water withdrawals and consumption are estimated to increase by 79 percent over the forecast period. The statewide totals are shown in Figure 8. It should be noted that this forecast does not include water demands for three pending power facilities. The generating capacity of these facilities is not known at this time. These facilities are located in Grady County, Stephens County, and Pittsburg County. Table 15 - Estimated Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Caddo 5,010 5,178 5,776 6,444 7,189 8,020 8,947 Canadian 2,288 2,364 2,637 2,942 3,282 3,662 4,085 Choctaw 7,069 7,304 8,149 9,091 10,142 11,314 12,623 Comanche 2,484 2,566 2,863 3,194 3,563 3,975 4,435 Le Flore 5,695 5,885 6,565 7,324 8,171 9,116 10,170 Logan 242 250 279 312 348 388 433 Mayes 4,346 4,491 5,010 5,589 6,236 6,956 7,761 McClain 6,329 6,540 7,296 8,139 9,080 10,130 11,301 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-18 Table 15 - Estimated Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 McCurtain 956 988 1,103 1,230 1,372 1,531 1,708 Muskogee 100,057 103,395 115,348 128,683 143,560 160,157 178,672 Oklahoma 9,727 10,051 11,213 12,510 13,956 15,569 17,369 Pawnee 36,650 37,872 42,251 47,135 52,584 58,663 65,445 Pittsburg 12,886 13,316 14,855 16,572 18,488 20,626 23,010 Rogers 22,905 23,669 26,405 29,458 32,863 36,662 40,901 Seminole 17,320 17,898 19,967 22,275 24,851 27,723 30,929 Tulsa 13,071 13,507 15,069 16,811 18,754 20,922 23,341 Wagoner 4,580 4,733 5,280 5,891 6,572 7,332 8,179 Woodward 514 531 593 661 738 823 918 Statewide Total 252,127 260,539 290,660 324,262 361,750 403,571 450,227 Table 16 - Estimated Consumptive Use from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Caddo 3,103 3,207 3,578 3,991 4,453 4,967 5,542 Canadian 1,417 1,464 1,633 1,822 2,033 2,268 2,530 Choctaw 4,378 4,524 5,047 5,631 6,281 7,008 7,818 Comanche 1,538 1,590 1,773 1,978 2,207 2,462 2,747 Le Flore 3,527 3,645 4,066 4,536 5,061 5,646 6,299 Logan 150 155 173 193 215 240 268 Mayes 2,692 2,782 3,103 3,462 3,862 4,309 4,807 McClain 3,920 4,051 4,519 5,041 5,624 6,274 7,000 McCurtain 592 612 683 762 850 948 1,058 Muskogee 61,970 64,038 71,441 79,701 88,915 99,194 110,661 Oklahoma 6,024 6,225 6,945 7,748 8,644 9,643 10,758 Pawnee 22,699 23,456 26,168 29,193 32,568 36,334 40,534 Pittsburg 7,981 8,247 9,201 10,264 11,451 12,775 14,251 Rogers 14,186 14,659 16,354 18,245 20,354 22,707 25,332 Seminole 10,727 11,085 12,367 13,796 15,391 17,171 19,156 Tulsa 8,096 8,366 9,333 10,412 11,615 12,958 14,456 Wagoner 2,837 2,932 3,270 3,648 4,070 4,541 5,066 Woodward 318 329 367 410 457 510 569 Statewide Total 156,156 161,366 180,022 200,833 224,051 249,953 278,850 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-19 4.4 Other Large Industry A sector was added to the OCWP demand forecast to represent water use from large self-supplied industrial users, such as sand companies, gypsum production plants, quarry mines, concrete producing plants, petroleum refineries, paper mills, sawmills, bottling and distributing plants, chemical plants, tire manufacturing plants, lime production, natural gas plants, and meat packing plants. The data used in this sector were obtained from OWRB annual surface and groundwater reports. Two pieces of information were needed to include a large industry in this forecast sector—water use and employment. Water use reporting was needed to have an accurate estimate of current use at the given establishment. Employment numbers were needed in order to subtract employment from the employment projections used in the public-supply nonresidential forecast, to avoid double-counting. Twenty-seven industries reported the needed data to the OWRB and are included in this forecast sector. In order to maintain privacy of these establishments, individual information is withheld in this report. Because future conditions at these establishments is unknown, this sector was forecasted into the future using the growth rates of the employment projections developed for the public supply nonresidential forecast. Growth rates were specified by industry type. Results of the demand forecast are shown in Table 17 and illustrated in Figure 9. Water use among these large industries is projected to increase by about 20 percent by 2060. Figure 8 - Water Demand from Thermoelectric Power Generation Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-20 Table 17 - Selected Self-Supply Large Industry Water Demand Forecast (AFY) County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Beaver 364 375 393 400 406 413 419 Blaine 317 311 304 330 357 383 412 Canadian 118 115 113 121 127 134 140 Carter 61 63 66 70 73 77 81 Choctaw 92 95 99 101 104 101 99 Comanche 362 355 346 363 377 387 396 Custer 24 23 23 23 24 25 26 Garvin 230 225 219 223 227 232 236 Jackson 613 601 586 614 636 654 669 Johnston 1,425 1,397 1,359 1,380 1,400 1,440 1,481 Kay 11,004 11,340 11,880 12,184 12,465 12,746 13,050 Logan 1,200 1,176 1,154 1,268 1,382 1,493 1,612 McCurtain 34,739 34,058 33,179 34,339 35,320 36,390 37,371 Muskogee 22,068 21,658 21,112 21,746 22,293 22,841 23,388 Oklahoma 249 244 238 247 255 260 265 Osage 587 576 562 590 615 640 669 Pottawatomie 651 639 623 661 697 732 768 Sequoyah 1,742 1,708 1,672 1,825 1,974 2,127 2,280 Texas 10,938 10,724 10,612 12,722 14,831 16,941 19,018 Woodward 3,159 3,097 3,016 3,106 3,167 3,242 3,303 Statewide Total 89,942 88,780 87,558 92,313 96,730 101,258 105,683 Figure 9 - Water Demands from Selected Self-Supplied Large Industries (AFY) 5-1 Section 5 Agriculture Oklahoma is the fifth largest cattle producing state in the nation and the third largest producer of wheat. In recent years, crops and livestock that were once relatively small in terms of production have grown dramatically, such as poultry and swine (Oklahoma Department of Agriculture). Agricultural water demands represent a significant percent of statewide water withdrawals and support an important economic sector. For the OCWP, current and future agriculture demands are estimated by county for two sub-sectors: livestock and crop irrigation. The forecast presented in this chapter represent the base agriculture forecast. That is, a forecast that represents current water use patterns and attitudes, current market conditions, and average weather from the base year throughout the forecast. The 2060 demands represent a reasonable maximum estimate of water requirements under base conditions. Alterations in the base conditions have the potential to greatly impact the future of agriculture water requirements. Conservation practices that replace inefficient irrigation systems with low-waste irrigation systems can reduce irrigation water demands. Potential climate change can alter the type of crops irrigated, reduce or increase rainfall amounts, and affect crop yields. Future energy policies may encourage a switch to biofuel crops that require varying amounts of irrigation water and bring new industries that use high volumes of water. An impact assessment of conservation, climate change, and other factors on the base forecast will be addressed for the OCWP in a later task. The Census of Agriculture (Ag Census) is the main source of data utilized for the agriculture water demand forecast. Taken every 5 years by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Ag Census is a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. The most recent Ag Census was conducted in 2007 and reports on land use and ownership; operator characteristics; production practices including irrigation, income, and expenditures; livestock counts; and many other areas. 5.1 Livestock Livestock require water for animal nutrition, animal cooling, sanitation, and waste removal. Oklahoma ranks 13th in the U.S. for live animal and meat exports and produces 5 percent of U.S. cattle and calves inventory (United 2008). Poultry and swine, respectively, are Oklahoma's second and third largest agricultural industries and Oklahoma is now one of the top states in poultry and swine production (Oklahoma 2009). Current estimates of livestock water demands were developed based on the major livestock groups in Oklahoma and their respective daily water requirements. Major Section 5 Agriculture 5-2 livestock groups evaluated are: cattle, dairy cows, sheep, hogs, horses, and poultry.8 The annual livestock water demand was calculated by multiplying the daily water requirement for each group by the number of livestock and then the number of days in a year. The annual demand in gallons is then converted to AFY. This computation is shown in Equation 5. Equation 5 Where: = Livestock water demand in AFY in county (c) in year (y) = Livestock count for animal group (n) in county (c) and year (y) = Daily water requirement per animal (n) 5.1.1 Livestock Inventories Base year livestock numbers at the county level were obtained from the 2007 Ag Census. Due to disclosure obligations in hog data, some county hog numbers were not reported in the Ag Census. In these instances, 2007 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) district values were used to determine hog numbers. These 2007 district values were distributed to withheld counties by using the county ratios from 1992 to determine 2007 county/district ratios. 1992 ratios were used as 1992 was the last census to contain a data set with no undisclosed data. It should be noted that 2007 is the first year for horse counts in the Ag Census and the values are known to be low. The American Horse Council (AHC) reports a statewide total nearly three times what is reported in the Ag Census and is considered to have greater accuracy. However, the AHC does not provide horse estimates by county, as needed for the OCWP. Through contact with the Oklahoma State University horse specialist, it was determined that the 2007 Ag Census was the best source for county horse counts. Also, because cattle for beef and dairy cows have differing water requirements, these livestock groups were estimated separately. Dairy cow inventory estimates were subtracted from total cattle counts to obtain the estimated beef cattle inventory. Therefore, beef cattle values in this analysis represent all cattle other than dairy cows. Once current livestock inventories by county were collected, a methodology was developed to project livestock inventories by county to 2060. In order to estimate a reasonable maximum projection for livestock, an analysis was conducted from the three most recent Ag Census years. The Ag Census data from 1997, 2002, and 2007 were analyzed to obtain the highest reported number of livestock by livestock group in each county. It is 8 Poultry includes: broilers, layers, and pullets for replacement. Section 5 Agriculture 5-3 believed that using the highest reported number allows for maximum future fluctuations due to unforeseen circumstances. The historical maximum was then assumed to be the build-out inventory for 2060. Linear interpolation was applied to obtain the inventory for forecast years between 2007 and 2060. In some instances, 2007 represents the highest livestock count for a given county and animal group, in which case no growth is assumed. A modified methodology was used to estimate the build-out inventory for poultry because many county values were withheld in the three census datasets. For instance, in the 1997 census, data on layers were withheld totaling 1.8 million birds across 15 counties. In general, the highest poultry count by type was obtained for these counties and used as build-out. Overall, data problems experienced in the chicken livestock group has little effect on the livestock water demand forecast due to the low water requirement for chickens. Also, 2007 was the first year that data were collected on equine, thus no historical maximum data exist to estimate future build-out inventories for horses. To project the number of horses into the future, a 2 percent growth rate over the study period was assumed. Results of the 2007 Ag Census and the 2060 build-out assumptions for each livestock group are shown in Table 18. Statewide, growth in cattle and hog production could potentially increase by 5.8 and 6.3 percent, respectively. Growth in dairy cows has the potential to increase by 65.3 percent. The poultry and sheep/goat livestock groups could increase by 5.0 and 10.1 percent by 2060, respectively. The horse inventory shows the assumed 2 percent growth. Section 5 Agriculture 5-4 Table 18 - Projected Livestock Inventory CATTLE DAIRY COWS SHEEP & GOATS HOGS CHICKEN HORSES County 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 Adair 57,391 57,650 3,541 7,526 2,103 2,103 372 406 4,789,544 5,029,021 2,330 2,377 Alfalfa 91,893 103,937 632 632 934 1,703 469 8,154 440 462 810 826 Atoka 80,155 79,988 167 221 2,354 2,354 91 341 1,447 2,315 1,954 1,993 Beaver 101,119 120,597 70 430 545 729 332,088 332,088 207 403 1,085 1,107 Beckham 53,256 63,154 632 632 1,054 1,518 365 390 456 479 1,271 1,296 Blaine 112,977 112,112 865 865 1,323 1,323 65 507 0 0 742 757 Bryan 100,684 101,561 4,080 4,188 4,087 5,455 926 926 1,571 2,705 2,616 2,668 Caddo 141,988 141,725 263 355 3,807 3,807 65,162 65,162 2,090 2,195 1,851 1,888 Canadian 106,430 107,208 322 1,361 2,486 3,402 3,476 8,772 2,491 2,616 2,898 2,956 Carter 53,862 60,442 58 124 2,213 2,213 520 748 4,067 4,270 2,948 3,007 Cherokee 47,048 46,612 2,436 2,528 3,862 3,862 266 901 527,221 548,214 2,803 2,859 Choctaw 70,402 70,338 64 242 1,696 1,696 243 383 158,038 165,940 2,966 3,025 Cimarron 126,552 134,887 632 2,318 445 445 32,309 32,309 166 174 523 533 Cleveland 24,481 26,938 231 410 5,141 5,141
Object Description
Description
Title | Water demand forecast report 2011 |
OkDocs Class# | W1700.8 C737w/f 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/WaterDemandForecastReport.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 2012 Update Water Demand Forecast Report Revised March 2011 Prepared by CDM under a cooperative agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board i Contents Section 1 - Introduction 1.1 General Methodology ............................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Document Organization ........................................................................... 1-3 Section 2 - Public Water Supplier Survey Section 3 - Publically-Supplied Municipal and Industrial 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Public-Supply Residential ........................................................................ 3-1 3.2.1 Methodology .............................................................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Data ........................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 Forecast ..................................................................................... 3-9 3.3 Public-Supply Nonresidential ................................................................ 3-11 3.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 3-12 3.3.2 Data ......................................................................................... 3-12 3.3.3 Forecast ................................................................................... 3-17 3.4 Public Supply M&I Summary ................................................................. 3-20 Section 4 - Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4.1 Self-Supplied Residential......................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Forecast ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 Oil and Gas ............................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.1 Methodology .............................................................................. 4-6 4.2.2 Future Drilling Activity ............................................................... 4-6 4.2.3 Future Water Use per Activity ................................................. 4-10 4.2.4 Forecast ................................................................................... 4-11 4.3 Thermoelectric Power ............................................................................ 4-15 4.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 4-15 4.3.2 Data ......................................................................................... 4-16 4.3.3 Forecast ................................................................................... 4-17 4.4 Other Large Industry .............................................................................. 4-19 Section 5 - Agriculture 5.1 Livestock ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Livestock Inventories ................................................................ 5-2 5.1.2 Livestock Water Requirements ................................................ 5-7 5.1.3 Livestock Water Demands ....................................................... 5-8 5.2 Crop Irrigation ......................................................................................... 5-10 5.3 Combined Agricultural Water Demands ............................................... 5-19 ii Section 6 - Summary 6.1 Forecast Assumptions ............................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Forecast by County for the State ............................................................. 6-2 Section 7 - References Appendices Appendix A Data Log ........................................................................................ A-1 Appendix B County Demands and Supporting Data ..................................... B-1 Report Addenda Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change iii Figures 1 Driver Times Rate of Use Approach ........................................................ 1-2 2 Total Population ....................................................................................... 3-5 3 Public-Supply Residential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................... 3-11 4 Employment Projections ........................................................................ 3-16 5 Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................... 3-19 6 Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) ................................... 4-5 7 Water Demands from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type .............. 4-15 8 Water Demand from Thermoelectric Power Generation ..................... 4-18 9 Water Demands from Selected Self-Supplied Large Industries (AFY) ........................................................................................................ 4-20 10 Annual Water Demands by Livestock Group (AFY) .............................. 5-10 11 Assignment of Irrigation Data to County Based on Average Annual Precipitation……………............................................................................. 5-13 12 Statewide Gross Crop Irrigation Water Demands including System Losses ..................................................................................................... 5-19 13 Statewide Total Agriculture Water Demand Forecast .......................... 5-21 iv Tables 1 Total Population Projections by County .................................................. 3-3 2 Public-Supplied Population Projections by County................................. 3-6 3 Provider Survey Results for Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day and System Losses .................................................................................. 3-8 4 Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) ................................................................................ 3-9 5 Sample of QCEW Data, Beckham County, Oklahoma, 2006 .............. 3-13 6 Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County ................... 3-14 7 Nonresidential Water Use Coefficients from IWR-MAIN ...................... 3-17 8 Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................... 3-18 9 Summary of Public-Supply M&I Demands Including System Losses (AFY) ........................................................................................................ 3-20 10 Self-Supplied Population Projections by County .................................... 4-2 11 Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) ................................... 4-3 12 Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type ................................ 4-8 13 Estimates of Current Water Use per Well (in Barrels) .......................... 4-11 14 Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) ........................................................................................................ 4-11 15 Estimated Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) .................................................................................... 4-17 16 Estimated Consumptive Use from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) .................................................................................... 4-18 17 Selected Self-Supply Large Industry Water Demand Forecast (AFY) .. 4-19 18 Projected Livestock Inventory ................................................................. 5-4 19 Average Daily Water Requirement per Animal by Livestock Group ...... 5-7 20 Oklahoma: Projected Livestock Water Demand - AFY (All Cattle, Dairy Cows, Sheep/Goats, Chickens, Hogs, and Horses) .................... 5-10 21 Weighted Crop Irrigation Requirement by County in Total AFY Acre-Feet Per Irrigated Acre ........................................................................... 5-13 22 Projection of Irrigated Acres by County ................................................. 5-14 23 Field Application Efficiency by Irrigation Method ................................. 5-16 24 Irrigation Methods by County ................................................................ 5-16 25 Gross Annual Water Demands from Crop Irrigation including Irrigation System Losses (AFY) .............................................................. 5-17 26 Total Agriculture Water Demands including Crop Irrigation and Livestock Requirements ........................................................................ 5-20 27 Summary of Sector Demands, Statewide ............................................... 6-2 28 Summary of Water Demands by County, All Sectors (AFY) .................... 6-2 v Acronyms AEO Annual Energy Outlook AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year AHC American Horse Council BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BOR Bureau of Reclamation CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. EIA Energy Information Administration ged gallons per employee per day ghd gallons per head per day GWh gigawatt-hours M&I municipal and industrial mgd million gallons per day MW megawatts MWh megawatt-hour NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NRW non-revenue water OCC Oklahoma Corporation Commission OCWP Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan ODOC Oklahoma Department of Commerce OESC Oklahoma Employment Security Commission OGE OGE Energy Corporation OIPA Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association OML Oklahoma Municipal League ORWA Oklahoma Rural Water Association OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board PT provisional temporary QCEW Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages rgpcd residential gallons per-capita per day SESAs State Employment Security Agencies SIC Standard Industrial Code UAW unaccounted for water UCFE Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey WFAE weighted field application efficiencies 1-1 Section 1 Introduction In 1974, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted 82 O.S. §1086.2(1), which requires that the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) develop a strategic guide for managing the state's water resources over the next 50 years. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was first published in 1974, with subsequent updates in 1980 and 1995. The Oklahoma Legislature appropriated funds for the current update due in 2011. In accordance with Task 1A.8 of the OCWP Programmatic Work Plan (updated February 2009), a water demand forecast at the county level was prepared and is documented herein. This technical document describes the efforts undertaken to collect data needed for the demand forecast, the methodologies employed to produce a reliable county-level demand forecast, and the results of the county-level forecast. Also required under Task 1 of the OCWP Programmatic Work Plan is a municipal and industrial (M&I) demand forecast estimated for water providers in Oklahoma. This report does not include information on the provider-level forecasts; those forecasts will be documented separately. The demand forecast produced in Task 1 has been allocated to watershed basins to characterize any differences between water supply and water demand, thus identifying areas of potential water surplus and shortfalls, or gaps. This is in accordance with Task 2 of the OCWP Programmatic Work Plan. This report does not include information on the basin-level forecasts. Those forecasts are documented in the Demand/Supply Gap report. 1.1 General Methodology Water demand projections for all major water users throughout the state were developed for the base year, or starting point of the forecast (generally 2007) and then at 10-year intervals from 2010 to 2060. Water users are grouped into four major categories—publically supplied M&I, self-supplied residential, self-supplied nonresidential, and agriculture. The demand forecast is estimated by sub-categories as follows: Publically-supplied M&I – Residential – Nonresidential Self-supplied residential Self-supplied nonresidential – Thermoelectric power – Oil and gas – Other large industries Agriculture – Livestock – Crop irrigation Section 1 Introduction 1-2 The basic methodology is to estimate water demand separately for each water use category, also referred to as a water use sector. The methodology selected to forecast any demand is commonly determined by data availability. This is the case for all sectors of the OCWP forecast. For each sector, the basic methodology for estimating water demand is the driver times rate of use approach. The driver is defined as a countable unit driving water demands up and down, which can be projected in future years, such as number of households and people, number of acres irrigated, number of employees in a business, etc. The rate of use is defined as the quantity of water used by the driving unit, such as gallons per household per day or acre-feet (AF) per irrigated acre. As shown in Figure 1, the driver, or demographic unit, and the corresponding water use rate can be defined independently for each sector. The selection of the appropriate unit and the corresponding water use rate depends upon the data available for each sector. The per unit water use rate, or water use factor, can be developed for most sectors given historical or current water use data and a defined demographic unit. Projection of future water demand then requires having projected values of the defined demographic unit. With this approach, the water use factor of each sector can be assumed to either remain constant into the future, decrease over time due to increases in water use efficiency, or increase over time due to more intensive water use. While trends in future water use can be difficult to know with certainty, reasonable assumptions can be made that provide the DriverTimes Rate of UseApproachper personper householdper employeeper accountper acreper animalper power plantresidents or populationhousing unitsemploymentaccountsacresanimalspower plantsAverage Rate of Use(q = unit use)XNumber of Users(N = drivers)Sector Water Use (Q) = Figure 1 - Driver Times Rate of Use Approach Section 1 Introduction 1-3 foundation for estimating trends in the future and scenarios can be developed that consider demands under potential alternative conditions. For all water users, total withdrawals or diversions are developed and presented in this report. Total withdrawals represents the amount of water pumped or diverted from the source to meet the needs of the user. In nearly all instances, some proportion of water is returned to the stream flow or released back into the ground. The difference between withdrawals and returns are referred to as consumptive use. For the thermoelectric power sector, consumptive demands are a small fraction of total withdrawals; thus, both sets of demands are provided in this report for that sector. 1.2 Document Organization In order to collect data for both the demand projections and the supply gap analysis, a survey was distributed to water providers throughout the state, as discussed in Section 2. The data methodologies and results of the public supply forecast are discussed in Section 3. This is followed by a discussion of the self-supplied residential and self-supplied industrial forecasts in Section 4. This includes forecasts for thermoelectric power generation, oil and gas industry, and other self-supplied large industries. In Section 5, agriculture demands are discussed, including water demands for livestock and crop irrigation. Section 6 presents all forecast assumptions, the aggregated county forecast for all sectors, and a list of recommendations for future demand forecasts. Finally, Appendix A contains a data log that summarizes the data sources used for the demand forecast. Appendix B contains the county-level demands with population and employment projections listed by county. 2-1 Section 2 Public Water Supplier Survey For use in developing the OCWP, a statewide public water supply use and infrastructure survey was developed and distributed to public water systems (both municipal and rural) throughout the state. The purpose of the survey is to provide baseline information for characterizing existing conditions and future supply and infrastructure needs on an individual water provider basis. For each public water supplier, the survey identified the current service area population and demands, conservation activities, current sources of supply, existing and planned water supply and treatment infrastructure, and plans for future water supply sources, as well as other data. The provider survey was created using SurveyMonkey.com, a powerful online survey software that allows surveys to be created, collected, and analyzed in a timely manner. The survey was created and distributed to water providers in May of 2008 through the OWRB, Oklahoma Rural Water Association (ORWA), and the Oklahoma Municipal League (OML). Results were collected through late November of 2008. Results were received online, via postal mail to the OWRB, and through the ORWA and OML. Over 630 responses to the survey were received. While not all respondents fully completed the survey, significant data were received to provide a foundation for estimating current water demands. Responses were received from water providers representing 75 counties and 86 percent of the population across the state. Results of the survey are used to develop the public-supply residential, public-supply nonresidential, and the self-supplied residential forecasts. Survey data used in each sector are discussed in the corresponding sections of this document. The survey is herein referenced as the 'Provider Survey.' 3-1 Section 3 Publically-Supplied Municipal and Industrial 3.1 Introduction An important driver of water demand is population and employment. In Oklahoma, almost 92 percent of the population and nearly all commercial and light industrial establishments are serviced by public water systems. To forecast the publically-supplied M&I water demands with detail and accuracy at the county-level, this sector is grouped into two sub-sectors—public-supplied residential and public-supplied nonresidential. Each sub-sector is estimated separately because the household and businesses are driven by different water use patterns and water users. This section describes the data, methodology, and results of the public-supply residential and nonresidential forecasts. Section 3.2 presents the public-supply residential forecast and the public-supply nonresidential forecast is discussed in Section 3.3. A summary of the publically-supplied M&I forecast is provided in Section 3.4. 3.2 Public-Supply Residential Statewide in Oklahoma, an estimated 3.2 million people get their water from a public water supplier. The public-supplied residential demands represent the water provided to households that is used inside and outside the home for domestic activities. Indoor water uses include water for bathing, flushing, washing, drinking, etc., and capture all indoor water uses. Outdoor uses include water for landscape irrigation, car and home washing, recreation, domestic animal care, etc. Outdoor uses do not include water used for livestock or other agriculture needs, as these demands are included in the agriculture sector. 3.2.1 Methodology For the public-supplied residential sector, the basic methodology developed for estimating future demands for each county is the average residential water use per capita times the projected population served within the county, as shown in Equation 1. Data are needed to estimate current and future water population serviced by water systems, the average per capita residential rate of use, and the percent of water lost during water production and transmission. Equation 1 Where: = Public-supplied residential water demand including system losses in county (c) in year (y) = Weighted average residential per capita in county (c) Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-2 = Population supplied by public system in county (c) in year (y) = Percent system losses in county (c) 3.2.2 Data For the public-supply residential forecast, data were collected and derived for the driver, per unit use, and system loss percentage by county. Population projections are the primary source of the driver. Data collected from the Provider Survey are the basis for developing the per unit use and system loss percent. Population The Oklahoma Department of Commerce (ODOC) prepared a special tabulation of population projections for the OWRB in 2002 that estimates population to the year 2060 for each county, city, and town, and remaining rural area within each county. These county-level projections were calibrated by CDM to match 2007 Census estimates of population. This was done to capture changes in economic growth and demographic patterns since the 2002 release. The calibration adjusted the projections to align with the most recent available data. Both the ODOC and Census data include military populations. However, the ODOC projections do not capture plans for future base-realignments within military installations. Data were provided by Fort Sill in Comanche County on future base-realignments. The base is expecting an increase of 5,550 in soldiers and 1,075 civilian personnel from 2007 to 2014. According to Fort Sill contacts, the average soldier has 0.978 dependents. Thus, population in Comanche County is expected to increase by 13,366 in 2014, in addition to the increase projected by the ODOC. The increase includes soldiers, civilians, and soldier families. The population projections for Comanche County were adjusted accordingly. The ODOC and Census data also capture Tribal populations1 1 Tribal populations do not represent tribal membership but rather the persons living in a given geography that may live on or off tribal lands. For purposes of the demand forecast, it is important that all persons living within a geographic area are counted and included in the forecast driver. ODOC projections of population and Census counts do include persons living on the tribal lands. but not specific plans for economic growth within Tribal Nations. For example, the Chickasaw Nation is planning expansion at two locations—one in Kingston in Marshall County and the other at Thackerville in Love County. The Love County WinStar Casino is expected to employ 6,000 persons and bring 13,970 additional people to the area by 2050. While the plan does not specify a completion date, the build date of the expansion was assumed to be complete between 2010 and 2020. The population projections for Love County were adjusted to capture the future growth of the WinStar Casino. For the Kingston Casino, the employment growth is less and is expected to be absorbed into the county, thus not expanding population projections. The employment projections for both counties were increased to capture the future expansion, as discussed in Section 3.3. Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-3 The resulting population projections, representing all persons living in the given county, are shown in Table 1. Statewide population is projected to increase by 33 percent from 2007 to 2060. The population projections shown in Table 1 are further identified as "self-supplied" and "public-supplied," as shown in Figure 2 and discussed below. Table 1 - Total Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 21,902 22,962 26,773 30,585 34,396 38,301 42,205 Alfalfa 5,593 5,537 5,537 5,537 5,537 5,631 5,724 Atoka 14,512 15,036 16,879 18,722 20,565 22,602 24,639 Beaver 5,380 5,435 5,527 5,620 5,712 5,804 5,896 Beckham 19,700 20,212 22,015 23,913 25,811 27,709 29,797 Blaine 12,475 12,717 13,827 15,039 16,250 17,461 18,773 Bryan 39,563 40,827 45,040 49,353 53,667 57,980 62,394 Caddo 29,296 29,584 30,833 31,793 32,754 33,714 34,579 Canadian 103,559 106,854 117,286 125,413 132,441 138,921 145,510 Carter 47,582 48,254 51,104 53,853 56,500 59,350 62,404 Cherokee 45,393 47,663 54,755 61,753 68,846 75,750 82,842 Choctaw 15,011 15,127 15,515 15,806 16,194 16,582 16,970 Cimarron 2,664 2,664 2,831 2,914 2,914 2,997 3,080 Cleveland 236,452 243,459 261,555 276,180 287,858 296,065 304,061 Coal 5,709 5,869 6,758 7,648 8,626 9,693 10,760 Comanche 113,811 128,490 137,442 144,210 149,473 153,609 156,993 Cotton 6,299 6,357 6,453 6,549 6,646 6,838 6,935 Craig 15,195 15,650 17,358 18,970 20,772 22,574 24,471 Creek 69,073 70,543 75,441 79,262 82,888 86,513 90,432 Custer 26,111 26,571 27,818 28,970 30,121 30,984 31,751 Delaware 40,406 42,276 48,608 54,745 61,077 67,895 75,006 Dewey 4,338 4,338 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,338 4,432 Ellis 3,911 3,850 3,749 3,749 3,648 3,648 3,749 Garfield 57,657 58,128 59,896 61,369 62,743 63,823 65,100 Garvin 27,141 27,260 27,954 28,449 28,945 29,540 30,135 Grady 50,615 51,761 55,473 58,655 61,519 64,382 67,352 Grant 4,497 4,497 4,585 4,673 4,673 4,850 4,938 Greer 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,908 6,007 6,105 Harmon 2,837 2,890 2,890 2,977 3,065 3,152 3,240 Harper 3,254 3,198 3,198 3,198 3,198 3,292 3,292 Haskell 12,059 12,561 14,236 16,004 17,865 19,726 21,773 Hughes 13,680 14,167 15,792 17,416 19,130 21,025 22,920 Jackson 25,778 26,249 27,819 29,127 30,173 31,045 31,743 Jefferson 6,273 6,273 6,368 6,463 6,558 6,748 6,938 Johnston 10,402 10,735 12,031 13,419 14,807 16,288 17,861 Kay 45,638 45,975 47,567 48,784 49,908 51,031 52,249 Kingfisher 14,320 14,784 16,523 18,262 20,002 21,741 23,673 Kiowa 9,456 9,399 9,399 9,494 9,589 9,779 9,969 Latimer 10,508 10,624 11,107 11,686 12,362 13,038 13,811 Le Flore 49,715 50,780 54,724 58,274 61,823 65,373 69,120 Lincoln 32,272 33,073 36,027 38,505 41,079 43,747 46,607 Logan 36,435 37,843 42,537 46,742 50,946 55,053 59,454 Love 9,112 9,606 25,223 26,778 28,425 30,163 31,901 Major 7,190 7,132 7,229 7,229 7,325 7,421 7,518 Marshall 14,830 15,903 19,573 23,337 27,195 31,241 35,475 Mayes 39,627 40,790 44,859 48,734 52,804 56,970 61,233 McClain 31,849 33,434 39,024 44,206 49,389 54,775 60,263 McCurtain 33,539 33,939 35,465 36,704 37,753 38,897 39,946 McIntosh 19,709 20,385 22,828 25,364 28,183 31,377 34,758 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-4 Table 1 - Total Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Murray 12,695 13,035 14,169 15,491 16,719 18,136 19,553 Muskogee 71,116 71,662 74,088 76,311 78,232 80,152 82,072 Noble 11,124 11,293 11,858 12,235 12,611 12,893 13,176 Nowata 10,723 11,170 12,752 14,335 15,917 17,592 19,361 Okfuskee 11,248 11,305 11,590 11,875 12,160 12,445 12,825 Oklahoma 701,807 713,774 748,374 779,107 802,309 819,202 835,892 Okmulgee 39,300 40,100 43,053 45,625 48,292 51,054 53,816 Osage 45,523 46,462 49,788 52,233 54,483 56,733 59,276 Ottawa 32,474 32,984 35,253 37,426 39,789 42,246 44,704 Pawnee 16,447 16,950 18,813 20,489 22,258 24,121 25,984 Payne 79,931 82,684 88,978 95,593 102,101 106,688 111,063 Pittsburg 44,711 45,190 47,285 49,080 51,175 53,569 56,163 Pontotoc 36,571 36,999 38,426 39,751 41,076 42,299 43,522 Pottawatomie 69,038 70,426 75,256 79,783 84,109 88,335 92,762 Pushmataha 11,666 12,055 13,632 15,116 16,692 18,454 20,216 Roger Mills 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 Rogers 83,105 86,272 96,934 106,089 114,598 123,322 132,261 Seminole 24,179 24,353 25,126 25,803 26,479 27,252 28,025 Sequoyah 41,024 42,368 46,946 51,231 55,419 59,705 63,990 Stephens 43,322 43,322 43,827 44,231 44,736 45,443 46,352 Texas 20,032 21,557 26,802 32,130 37,458 42,785 48,031 Tillman 8,148 8,148 8,325 8,502 8,679 8,857 9,122 Tulsa 585,068 595,326 627,632 654,571 673,557 687,970 701,986 Wagoner 67,239 69,679 77,814 84,557 90,765 96,866 103,288 Washington 49,888 50,130 51,240 51,744 52,450 53,156 53,963 Washita 11,667 11,786 12,182 12,479 12,677 12,974 13,172 Woods 8,319 8,374 8,374 8,465 8,556 8,647 8,829 Woodward 19,505 19,752 20,575 21,192 21,604 22,118 22,530 Statewide Total 3,617,316 3,707,936 3,977,882 4,205,238 4,410,513 4,601,768 4,796,019 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-5 For the public-supplied residential forecast, the public-supplied portion of total county population projections is identified and only that portion is used in the forecast. Public-supplied population is the number of persons living in households that have water piped to their home from a water provider (versus households that have private wells). Population is split between public-supplied and self-supplied population using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2005 estimated population on private wells by county for Oklahoma. The USGS preliminary numbers were used to allocate the 2007 population projections between public-supplied and self-supplied. The ratio of public-supplied to self-supplied population for each county is assumed to remain constant into the future. The public-supplied population projections are shown in Table 2. Self-supplied population projections are presented in Section 4.2. Given these assumptions, the statewide public-supplied population is expected to increase by 32 percent from 2007 to 2060. Figure 2 - Total Population Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-6 Table 2 - Public-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 12,762 13,380 15,600 17,821 20,042 22,317 24,592 Alfalfa 4,733 4,685 4,685 4,685 4,685 4,765 4,844 Atoka 11,482 11,896 13,355 14,813 16,271 17,883 19,495 Beaver 2,760 2,788 2,836 2,883 2,930 2,977 3,025 Beckham 17,720 18,181 19,803 21,510 23,217 24,924 26,802 Blaine 11,345 11,565 12,575 13,676 14,778 15,879 17,073 Bryan 36,783 37,958 41,875 45,885 49,896 53,906 58,010 Caddo 17,566 17,739 18,487 19,063 19,639 20,215 20,734 Canadian 103,559 106,854 117,286 125,413 132,441 138,921 145,510 Carter 47,362 48,031 50,868 53,604 56,239 59,076 62,116 Cherokee 37,963 39,861 45,793 51,645 57,577 63,351 69,282 Choctaw 10,311 10,391 10,657 10,857 11,124 11,390 11,656 Cimarron 1,544 1,544 1,641 1,689 1,689 1,737 1,785 Cleveland 223,782 230,414 247,540 261,381 272,434 280,200 287,768 Coal 4,139 4,255 4,900 5,544 6,254 7,027 7,801 Comanche 111,621 126,017 134,797 141,435 146,597 150,653 153,972 Cotton 6,299 6,357 6,453 6,549 6,646 6,838 6,935 Craig 14,395 14,826 16,444 17,971 19,679 21,386 23,183 Creek 62,023 63,343 67,741 71,172 74,428 77,683 81,202 Custer 22,791 23,193 24,281 25,286 26,291 27,044 27,714 Delaware 28,906 30,244 34,774 39,164 43,693 48,572 53,659 Dewey 3,268 3,268 3,197 3,197 3,197 3,268 3,339 Ellis 2,531 2,492 2,426 2,426 2,361 2,361 2,426 Garfield 56,197 56,656 58,379 59,815 61,154 62,207 63,451 Garvin 22,991 23,092 23,680 24,099 24,519 25,023 25,527 Grady 34,875 35,664 38,222 40,415 42,388 44,361 46,407 Grant 3,847 3,847 3,922 3,998 3,998 4,149 4,224 Greer 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,810 5,908 6,007 6,105 Harmon 2,837 2,890 2,890 2,977 3,065 3,152 3,240 Harper 2,294 2,254 2,254 2,254 2,254 2,321 2,321 Haskell 6,779 7,061 8,003 8,997 10,043 11,089 12,240 Hughes 12,740 13,194 14,706 16,219 17,816 19,581 21,345 Jackson 24,698 25,149 26,653 27,906 28,909 29,745 30,413 Jefferson 6,133 6,133 6,226 6,319 6,412 6,598 6,783 Johnston 10,292 10,622 11,904 13,277 14,651 16,116 17,672 Kay 43,398 43,719 45,232 46,390 47,458 48,527 49,684 Kingfisher 10,310 10,644 11,896 13,148 14,401 15,653 17,044 Kiowa 9,456 9,399 9,399 9,494 9,589 9,779 9,969 Latimer 9,188 9,289 9,712 10,218 10,809 11,401 12,076 Le Flore 43,355 44,284 47,723 50,819 53,914 57,010 60,277 Lincoln 14,622 14,985 16,323 17,446 18,612 19,821 21,117 Logan 25,175 26,148 29,391 32,296 35,202 38,040 41,080 Love 8,802 9,279 24,365 25,867 27,458 29,137 30,816 Major 5,100 5,059 5,127 5,127 5,196 5,264 5,332 Marshall 14,180 15,206 18,715 22,314 26,003 29,872 33,920 Mayes 39,627 40,790 44,859 48,734 52,804 56,970 61,233 McClain 24,419 25,634 29,920 33,894 37,867 41,997 46,204 McCurtain 26,049 26,360 27,545 28,507 29,322 30,210 31,025 McIntosh 19,709 20,385 22,828 25,364 28,183 31,377 34,758 Murray 12,695 13,035 14,169 15,491 16,719 18,136 19,553 Muskogee 64,266 64,759 66,951 68,961 70,696 72,432 74,167 Noble 9,604 9,750 10,238 10,563 10,888 11,132 11,375 Nowata 10,033 10,451 11,932 13,412 14,893 16,460 18,115 Okfuskee 10,148 10,199 10,457 10,714 10,971 11,228 11,571 Oklahoma 687,767 699,495 733,403 763,521 786,259 802,814 819,169 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-7 Table 2 - Public-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Okmulgee 39,300 40,100 43,053 45,625 48,292 51,054 53,816 Osage 38,763 39,563 42,394 44,477 46,392 48,308 50,474 Ottawa 25,484 25,885 27,665 29,370 31,225 33,153 35,081 Pawnee 11,797 12,158 13,494 14,696 15,965 17,301 18,637 Payne 72,011 74,491 80,162 86,121 91,984 96,117 100,058 Pittsburg 44,711 45,190 47,285 49,080 51,175 53,569 56,163 Pontotoc 31,081 31,445 32,658 33,784 34,910 35,949 36,989 Pottawatomie 48,208 49,177 52,550 55,711 58,732 61,683 64,774 Pushmataha 10,126 10,464 11,832 13,120 14,489 16,018 17,547 Roger Mills 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 2,628 Rogers 77,525 80,479 90,426 98,966 106,903 115,042 123,381 Seminole 20,199 20,344 20,990 21,555 22,120 22,766 23,412 Sequoyah 40,204 41,521 46,007 50,207 54,312 58,512 62,711 Stephens 36,702 36,702 37,130 37,472 37,900 38,499 39,269 Texas 17,432 18,759 23,324 27,960 32,596 37,232 41,797 Tillman 7,478 7,478 7,641 7,803 7,966 8,128 8,372 Tulsa 576,128 586,230 618,042 644,569 663,265 677,458 691,260 Wagoner 67,239 69,679 77,814 84,557 90,765 96,866 103,288 Washington 49,888 50,130 51,240 51,744 52,450 53,156 53,963 Washita 9,467 9,563 9,885 10,126 10,287 10,528 10,689 Woods 7,209 7,256 7,256 7,335 7,414 7,493 7,651 Woodward 16,005 16,208 16,883 17,389 17,727 18,149 18,487 Statewide Total 3,322,626 3,405,974 3,651,204 3,856,335 4,039,962 4,209,587 4,381,585 Water Use and System Losses The Provider Survey collected data on annual water demand, percent of that demand that services residential homes, and retail service area population for each provider for 2007. For each utility that responded to the survey, this information was used to derive an average residential per capita water use factor, or residential gallons per capita per day (rgpcd). A weighted average of the known rgpcd was calculated for each county based on serviced population. For the two counties with no utility participation in the Provider Survey, the weighted rgpcd from an adjacent county was assumed (implying similar regional water use patterns). Additionally, the survey collected information on the amount of water lost through system leaks. This information allows for an adjustment to the county public supply forecast that includes water lost during water production and distribution to residential homes. Specifically, the Provider Survey requested the non-revenue water (NRW) percentage for each provider. NRW is calculated as the difference between water produced and water sold as identified by billed sales. It is then divided by total water production to provide a measure of NRW as a percent of total production. The term "non-revenue water" has replaced the older term "unaccounted-for water" (UAW). The difference between water produced and billed water sales includes authorized meter water usage that is not billed, unauthorized water use, billing errors, metering errors, line breaks, and system losses. NRW is often further separated to distinguish real water loss, such as line breaks, storage overflow, and system losses, from apparent loss, such as unmetered use, billing errors, and metering errors. Authorized unmetered water uses Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-8 include uses such as fire training, fire fighting, water line and reservoir flushing, and water used for street cleaning. Real loss as a percent of total production can usually be maintained at less than about 10 percent through system leak detection and line replacement programs. Survey results for NRW ranged from 1 percent to over 40 percent. For purposes of the survey, any reported NRW over 15 percent was assumed to be un-metered consumption, thus the percentage was capped at 15 percent and referred to as system losses. Results of the rgpcd and system losses percentage for each county are shown in Table 3. Table 3 - Provider Survey Results for Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day and System Losses County Residential GPCD 2007 System Losses 2007 Adair 69 15% Alfalfa 121 10% Atoka 160 15% Beaver 118 10% Beckham 141 7% Blaine 147 5% Bryan 115 13% Caddo 108 10% Canadian 84 10% Carter 90 14% Cherokee 91 15% Choctaw 62 15% Cimarron 269 15% Cleveland 91 14% Coal 84 15% Comanche 70 11% Cotton 60 15% Craig 75 15% Creek 67 15% Custer 118 13% Delaware 74 15% Dewey 219 13% Ellis 176 15% Garfield 114 15% Garvin 100 15% Grady 67 15% Grant 107 15% Greer 120 7% Harmon 178 15% Harper 253 15% Haskell 76 15% Hughes 79 15% Jackson 91 15% Jefferson 75 15% Johnston 93 15% Kay 73 15% Kingfisher 119 15% Kiowa 66 15% Latimer 129 15% Le Flore 76 15% Lincoln 69 15% Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-9 Table 3 - Provider Survey Results for Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day and System Losses County Residential GPCD 2007 System Losses 2007 Logan 110 15% Love 78 15% Major 89 13% Marshall 78 15% Mayes 73 15% McClain 91 15% McCurtain 83 15% McIntosh 68 15% Murray 114 14% Muskogee 86 5% Noble 74 13% Nowata 63 15% Okfuskee 77 15% Oklahoma 69 13% Okmulgee 177 15% Osage 129 15% Ottawa 88 15% Pawnee 113 15% Payne 73 15% Pittsburg 89 15% Pontotoc 92 11% Pottawatomie 54 7% Pushmataha 50 15% Roger Mills 136 15% Rogers 93 14% Seminole 50 15% Sequoyah 109 15% Stephens 112 15% Texas 117 15% Tillman 106 13% Tulsa 90 9% Wagoner 80 15% Washington 116 15% Washita 58 11% Woods 283 15% Woodward 184 9% 3.2.3 Forecast Results of the public-supplied residential forecast are shown in Table 4 for each county. Growth in counties is directly attributable to projected population growth. Statewide water demands from the public-supplied residential population are estimated to increase by 32 percent from 2007 to 2060, assuming per-capita usage and system losses remain constant for purposes of this baseline demand forecast. Table 4 - Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 1,153 1,209 1,409 1,610 1,811 2,016 2,222 Alfalfa 713 706 706 706 706 718 730 Atoka 2,424 2,512 2,820 3,128 3,436 3,776 4,116 Beaver 405 409 416 423 430 437 444 Beckham 3,001 3,079 3,354 3,643 3,932 4,222 4,540 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-10 Table 4 - Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Blaine 1,964 2,002 2,176 2,367 2,558 2,748 2,955 Bryan 5,439 5,613 6,192 6,785 7,378 7,971 8,577 Caddo 2,365 2,389 2,489 2,567 2,645 2,722 2,792 Canadian 10,892 11,239 12,336 13,191 13,930 14,612 15,305 Carter 5,514 5,592 5,922 6,241 6,547 6,878 7,231 Cherokee 4,429 4,651 5,343 6,026 6,718 7,391 8,084 Choctaw 834 840 862 878 899 921 942 Cimarron 547 547 581 598 598 615 632 Cleveland 26,529 27,315 29,345 30,986 32,296 33,217 34,114 Coal 461 473 545 617 696 782 868 Comanche 9,865 11,137 11,913 12,499 12,956 13,314 13,607 Cotton 502 507 514 522 530 545 553 Craig 1,429 1,472 1,632 1,784 1,954 2,123 2,302 Creek 5,510 5,627 6,018 6,323 6,612 6,901 7,214 Custer 3,463 3,525 3,690 3,843 3,995 4,110 4,212 Delaware 2,820 2,950 3,392 3,820 4,262 4,738 5,234 Dewey 928 928 907 907 907 928 948 Ellis 587 578 563 563 548 548 563 Garfield 8,423 8,492 8,750 8,965 9,166 9,324 9,511 Garvin 3,044 3,058 3,136 3,191 3,247 3,314 3,380 Grady 3,064 3,134 3,358 3,551 3,724 3,898 4,078 Grant 542 542 552 563 563 584 595 Greer 841 841 841 841 855 870 884 Harmon 667 679 679 700 721 741 762 Harper 765 752 752 752 752 774 774 Haskell 675 703 797 896 1,000 1,104 1,219 Hughes 1,327 1,374 1,531 1,689 1,855 2,039 2,223 Jackson 2,960 3,015 3,195 3,345 3,465 3,565 3,645 Jefferson 603 603 612 621 630 649 667 Johnston 1,264 1,305 1,462 1,631 1,799 1,979 2,171 Kay 4,203 4,234 4,381 4,493 4,597 4,700 4,812 Kingfisher 1,620 1,672 1,869 2,066 2,263 2,459 2,678 Kiowa 825 820 820 829 837 853 870 Latimer 1,558 1,576 1,647 1,733 1,833 1,934 2,048 Le Flore 4,342 4,435 4,779 5,089 5,399 5,709 6,037 Lincoln 1,325 1,358 1,479 1,581 1,687 1,797 1,914 Logan 3,651 3,792 4,263 4,684 5,106 5,517 5,958 Love 900 948 2,490 2,643 2,806 2,978 3,149 Major 580 576 584 584 591 599 607 Marshall 1,454 1,559 1,919 2,288 2,666 3,063 3,478 Mayes 3,788 3,899 4,288 4,658 5,047 5,445 5,853 McClain 2,925 3,071 3,584 4,060 4,536 5,031 5,535 McCurtain 2,841 2,875 3,004 3,109 3,198 3,295 3,384 McIntosh 1,768 1,829 2,048 2,276 2,529 2,815 3,119 Murray 1,883 1,933 2,102 2,298 2,480 2,690 2,900 Muskogee 6,483 6,533 6,754 6,957 7,132 7,307 7,482 Noble 914 928 974 1,005 1,036 1,059 1,082 Nowata 832 867 990 1,113 1,236 1,366 1,503 Okfuskee 1,028 1,034 1,060 1,086 1,112 1,138 1,173 Oklahoma 61,028 62,069 65,078 67,750 69,768 71,237 72,688 Okmulgee 9,176 9,363 10,053 10,653 11,276 11,921 12,566 Osage 6,595 6,731 7,213 7,567 7,893 8,219 8,587 Ottawa 2,949 2,996 3,202 3,399 3,614 3,837 4,060 Pawnee 1,764 1,818 2,018 2,198 2,388 2,587 2,787 Payne 6,935 7,174 7,720 8,294 8,858 9,256 9,636 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-11 Table 4 - Water Demands from Public-Supply Residential Sector Including System Losses (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Pittsburg 5,227 5,283 5,528 5,738 5,983 6,262 6,566 Pontotoc 3,605 3,647 3,787 3,918 4,049 4,169 4,290 Pottawatomie 3,129 3,191 3,410 3,616 3,812 4,003 4,204 Pushmataha 667 689 780 865 955 1,055 1,156 Roger Mills 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 Rogers 9,389 9,746 10,951 11,985 12,947 13,932 14,942 Seminole 1,331 1,341 1,383 1,420 1,458 1,500 1,543 Sequoyah 5,797 5,987 6,634 7,239 7,831 8,436 9,042 Stephens 5,435 5,435 5,498 5,549 5,612 5,701 5,815 Texas 2,678 2,882 3,583 4,295 5,007 5,719 6,421 Tillman 1,023 1,023 1,046 1,068 1,090 1,112 1,146 Tulsa 64,076 65,199 68,737 71,687 73,767 75,345 76,880 Wagoner 7,121 7,379 8,241 8,955 9,612 10,259 10,939 Washington 7,603 7,639 7,809 7,885 7,993 8,101 8,224 Washita 691 698 721 739 750 768 780 Woods 2,692 2,709 2,709 2,739 2,768 2,798 2,857 Woodward 3,617 3,663 3,815 3,930 4,006 4,101 4,178 Statewide Total 371,870 380,868 408,215 431,284 452,118 471,620 491,449 3.3 Public-Supply Nonresidential Closely related to the public-supply residential forecast is the public-supply nonresidential forecast. Nonresidential refers to all properties other than residential housing such as office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, etc. Public-supply refers to establishments receiving water from public water systems. For purposes Figure 3 - Public Supply Residential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-12 of the OCWP water demand forecast, the public-supply nonresidential forecast captures water use from all nonresidential establishments other than those identified and represented in the self-supplied sector in Section 4.4. Establishments identified for the self-supplied industrial sector are removed from the public supply nonresidential forecast to avoid double-counting. The public-supply nonresidential forecast relies on several data—employment by group and county, water use per employee by group, employment projections for Oklahoma, and the population projections previously discussed. The data, methodology, and results of the forecast are discussed in the following sections. 3.3.1 Methodology County nonresidential water use is estimated by multiplying county employment by water use per employee. Projections of employment and water use are obtained at the most detailed level available. Both employment and water use per employee are available at the 2-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)2 level. System loss percentages, as discussed in Section 3.2.2, are also captured in the forecast. Water use per employee is assumed to remain constant while employment grows in the future. Equation 2 provides the detailed formula for estimating water use for the public-supplied nonresidential sector. Equation 2 Where: = Public-supplied nonresidential water demand including system losses in county (c) in year (y) = Employment by NAICS group in county (c) and year (y) = Water use per employee by NAICS group, which may be adjusted for a specific county (c) = Percent system losses in county (c) 3.3.2 Data The public-supply nonresidential forecast is driven by economic activity, which can be difficult to predict. Thus, a typical measure of nonresidential water use in forecasting is employment, which is more foreseeable. Employment projections were developed for Oklahoma by county and by employment group. The rate of water use per employee is unique to the type of establishment, e.g., water use per employee would be significantly 2 NAICS is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-13 higher at a restaurant where water is being used to wash dishes and prepare food than at a bank where water use is for sanitary purposes. To account for this, per unit use factors were developed by employment group from an existing database. Employment County level employment data for 2006 were collected by NAICS levels from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS, along with the U.S. Department of Labor and the State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs), manage the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. This program produces a comprehensive tabulation of employment and wage information for workers covered by state unemployment insurance laws and Federal workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program. Publicly available files include data on the number of establishments, monthly employment, and quarterly wages, by NAICS industry, by county, by ownership sector, for the entire United States3 Table 5 - Sample of QCEW Data, Beckham County, Oklahoma, 2006 . QCEW data include all government and private employees. These data were used as the starting point for the employment projections. A sample of the QCEW data used in the employment projections is shown in Table 5 for Beckham County. Ownership Title NAICS Description Annual Average Establishment Count Annual Average Employment Total Covered 10 Total, all industries 767 8,599 Federal Government 10 Total, all industries 10 50 State Government 10 Total, all industries 10 156 Local Government 10 Total, all industries 32 917 Private 10 Total, all industries 715 7,476 Private 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 9 52 Private 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 82 1,295 Local Government 22 Utilities 4 27 Private 22 Utilities 9 75 Local Government 23 Construction 2 a Private 23 Construction 61 380 Private 31-33 Manufacturing 16 344 Private 42 Wholesale trade 31 336 Private 44-45 Retail trade 128 1,374 Federal Government 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 6 38 Private 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 30 347 Local Government 51 Information 1 a Private 51 Information 11 70 Private 52 Finance and insurance 37 313 Private 53 Real estate and rental and leasing 28 276 Private 54 Professional and technical services 53 a Private 55 Management of companies and enterprises 1 a Local Government 56 Administrative and waste services 1 a Private 56 Administrative and waste services 35 301 State Government 61 Educational services 1 0 Local Government 61 Educational services 5 560 Private 61 Educational services 1 a 3 http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewover.htm Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-14 Table 5 - Sample of QCEW Data, Beckham County, Oklahoma, 2006 Ownership Title NAICS Description Annual Average Establishment Count Annual Average Employment Private 62 Health care and social assistance 78 a Local Government 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1 a Private 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 7 26 Private 72 Accommodation and food services 56 852 Private 81 Other services, except public administration 41 164 Federal Government 92 Public Administration 4 12 State Government 92 Public Administration 9 a Local Government 92 Public Administration 18 233 Private 99 Unclassified 3 7 (a) Withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies; data are included in higher level totals As shown in Table 5, not all of the QCEW data are released for public review. Some data are withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies. Thus, a methodology was developed to estimate the unknown employment numbers. The average number of employees per establishment type were developed for the state and used to fill in the gaps. Because the withheld data were included in the total employment count, estimated values were scaled up or down according to the ratio of the estimated total to the actual total. Next, the employment counts for 2006 by NAICS and county were projected to 2060. The most recent available Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) 10-year projections of statewide employment by 2- and 3-digit NAICS were used to project demands to 2016. Specifically, the rate of change for each 2-digit NAICS level from the OESC state-level projections was applied to the BLS 2006 county employment to project employment by 2-digit NAICS to 2016 for each county. Beyond 2016 (to 2060), employment was assumed to grow in direct proportion to county population projections. That is, the ratio of 2-digit NAICS employment to county population remains constant after 2016. When better information regarding the future employment of Oklahoma was available, it was used to adjust the employment projections. The only such information provided was from the Chickasaw Nation Report. The employment increases planned for both Love and Marshall Counties, as shown in Table 2.3 of the Chickasaw Report, were added to the employment growth for these counties to account for the future expansion. Projections of total employment by county are shown in Table 6. Employment projections by 2-digit NAICS code for each county are presented in Appendix B. Statewide employment is estimated to increase by 31 percent from 2006 to 2060 as illustrated in Figure 4. Table 6 - Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 5,376 5,537 5,864 6,699 7,533 8,389 9,244 Alfalfa 1,237 1,286 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,382 1,405 Atoka 3,368 3,497 3,730 4,138 4,545 4,995 5,445 Beaver 1,425 1,484 1,579 1,605 1,631 1,658 1,684 Beckham 8,599 8,951 9,562 10,387 11,211 12,036 12,942 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-15 Table 6 - Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Blaine 3,094 3,228 3,453 3,756 4,058 4,361 4,688 Bryan 15,939 16,662 17,914 19,629 21,345 23,060 24,816 Caddo 6,988 7,286 7,766 8,008 8,250 8,492 8,710 Canadian 24,751 25,717 27,401 29,299 30,941 32,455 33,994 Carter 21,926 22,762 24,160 25,459 26,711 28,058 29,502 Cherokee 14,680 15,362 16,598 18,719 20,869 22,962 25,112 Choctaw 4,353 4,555 4,871 4,962 5,084 5,205 5,327 Cimarron 713 739 782 805 805 829 852 Cleveland 70,643 74,043 79,643 84,096 87,652 90,151 92,585 Coal 1,049 1,096 1,183 1,338 1,509 1,696 1,883 Comanche 40,220 41,929 44,742 46,946 48,659 50,006 51,107 Cotton 1,449 1,513 1,614 1,638 1,662 1,710 1,734 Craig 5,925 6,147 6,544 7,152 7,832 8,511 9,227 Creek 16,962 17,558 18,569 19,509 20,402 21,294 22,258 Custer 11,128 11,585 12,314 12,824 13,333 13,715 14,055 Delaware 7,900 8,276 8,954 10,084 11,250 12,506 13,816 Dewey 1,248 1,298 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,402 1,433 Ellis 1,007 1,050 1,109 1,109 1,079 1,079 1,109 Garfield 24,152 25,169 26,774 27,432 28,047 28,530 29,100 Garvin 9,007 9,334 9,844 10,019 10,193 10,403 10,612 Grady 12,885 13,352 14,145 14,956 15,687 16,417 17,174 Grant 1,105 1,148 1,217 1,241 1,241 1,288 1,311 Greer 1,492 1,557 1,655 1,655 1,683 1,711 1,739 Harmon 819 855 910 938 965 993 1,020 Harper 1,270 1,319 1,393 1,393 1,393 1,434 1,434 Haskell 3,714 3,895 4,216 4,740 5,291 5,842 6,449 Hughes 2,847 2,972 3,196 3,525 3,872 4,255 4,639 Jackson 10,886 11,293 11,972 12,535 12,985 13,361 13,661 Jefferson 1,249 1,299 1,377 1,398 1,418 1,459 1,501 Johnston 2,968 3,060 3,232 3,605 3,978 4,376 4,799 Kay 19,688 20,464 21,697 22,253 22,765 23,278 23,833 Kingfisher 5,908 6,090 6,431 7,108 7,785 8,462 9,215 Kiowa 2,429 2,540 2,706 2,733 2,760 2,815 2,870 Latimer 3,870 4,058 4,362 4,590 4,856 5,121 5,425 Le Flore 12,767 13,211 13,977 14,883 15,790 16,697 17,654 Lincoln 7,085 7,390 7,911 8,455 9,020 9,606 10,234 Logan 6,690 7,013 7,581 8,331 9,080 9,812 10,596 Love 3,370 3,531 9,875 10,484 11,129 11,809 12,490 Major 2,260 2,352 2,491 2,491 2,524 2,557 2,590 Marshall 4,308 4,426 7,490 8,930 10,406 11,954 13,575 Mayes 11,189 11,545 12,189 13,242 14,348 15,480 16,638 McClain 7,228 7,554 8,157 9,240 10,323 11,449 12,596 McCurtain 10,216 10,618 11,268 11,662 11,995 12,359 12,692 McIntosh 4,258 4,442 4,768 5,298 5,886 6,553 7,260 Murray 5,089 5,337 5,754 6,291 6,789 7,365 7,940 Muskogee 28,350 29,508 31,349 32,289 33,102 33,915 34,727 Noble 4,290 4,469 4,760 4,911 5,063 5,176 5,289 Nowata 1,788 1,852 1,974 2,219 2,464 2,723 2,997 Okfuskee 2,282 2,384 2,545 2,608 2,670 2,733 2,816 Oklahoma 420,127 438,854 469,036 488,298 502,840 513,427 523,887 Okmulgee 9,995 10,371 11,012 11,670 12,352 13,059 13,765 Osage 5,924 6,185 6,619 6,944 7,243 7,542 7,880 Ottawa 11,346 11,825 12,624 13,403 14,249 15,129 16,009 Pawnee 3,377 3,528 3,791 4,129 4,486 4,861 5,237 Payne 34,260 35,721 38,151 40,987 43,777 45,744 47,620 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-16 Table 6 - Projection of Total Employment for Oklahoma by County County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Pittsburg 16,912 17,570 18,643 19,351 20,177 21,121 22,144 Pontotoc 18,407 19,243 20,573 21,282 21,992 22,647 23,301 Pottawatomie 20,480 21,292 22,649 24,011 25,313 26,585 27,917 Pushmataha 3,127 3,266 3,513 3,895 4,301 4,755 5,209 Roger Mills 826 858 906 906 906 906 906 Rogers 23,822 24,667 26,219 28,695 30,996 33,356 35,774 Seminole 7,549 7,827 8,269 8,491 8,714 8,968 9,223 Sequoyah 9,156 9,577 10,306 11,247 12,167 13,108 14,048 Stephens 15,505 16,032 16,846 17,002 17,196 17,467 17,817 Texas 6,475 6,741 7,283 8,730 10,178 11,626 13,051 Tillman 2,173 2,259 2,393 2,444 2,495 2,546 2,622 Tulsa 341,500 355,930 379,487 395,775 407,255 415,969 424,444 Wagoner 6,804 7,057 7,512 8,163 8,763 9,352 9,972 Washington 19,510 20,352 21,659 21,872 22,170 22,469 22,810 Washita 2,287 2,380 2,528 2,589 2,630 2,692 2,733 Woods 3,110 3,242 3,439 3,477 3,514 3,552 3,626 Woodward 9,378 9,756 10,364 10,675 10,882 11,141 11,348 Statewide Total 1,477,489 1,540,129 1,652,122 1,736,384 1,809,199 1,873,906 1,939,148 Water Use Coefficients The per employee water use rates were developed from the IWR-MAIN Water Demand Management Software Nonresidential Database. IWR-MAIN is proprietary software developed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) used in the development of water demand forecasts. The software is often used for planning by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The nonresidential database contains average gallons of water use per employee per day (ged) at the 2-digit and 3-digit Standard Industrial Code (SIC). A Figure 4 - Employment Projections Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-17 special tabulation was computed to transform the data to 2-digit NAICS code. The resulting water use factors are summarized by major employment groups in Table 7. Table 7 - Nonresidential Water Use Coefficients from IWR-MAIN NAICS GED* 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 111.8 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 488.4 22 Utilities 28.4 23 Construction 66.6 31-33 Manufacturing 144.5 42 Wholesale trade 44.1 44-45 Retail trade 46.4 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 57.2 51 Information 28.0 52 Finance and insurance 59.8 53 Real estate and rental and leasing 163.5 54 Professional and technical services 68.6 55 Management of companies and enterprises 64.0 56 Administrative and waste services 41.2 61 Educational services 103.6 62 Health care and social assistance 84.7 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 446.6 72 Accommodation and food services 185.5 81 Other services, except public administration 271.3 92 Public Administration 125.4 99 Unclassified 122.9 * GED-gallons per employee per day The water use coefficients represent all water used at a given establishment on an average day divided by the number of employees. Establishments that generally only use water for sanitary use, such as retail trade shops and offices, have lower water use rates than establishments using water for additional services, such as for food preparation at schools or laundry washing at hotels. Supplemental information for Pittsburg County was obtained and used to replace the standard employment water use factor for manufacturing through data collected from the McAlester Ammunition Plant4 4 McAlester is included in the public supply nonresidential sector even though it is a self-supplied industrial establishment because McAlester provides water to rural water districts and experiences systems losses. . 3.3.3 Forecast Results of the public-supplied nonresidential forecast including system losses for each county are shown in Table 8. Growth in county water demand is directly attributable to projected employment growth. Statewide water demands from the public supplied nonresidential sector are estimated to increase by 33 percent from 2007 to 2060 as illustrated in Figure 5. Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-18 Table 8 – Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 765 785 827 945 1,063 1,183 1,304 Alfalfa 160 167 176 176 176 179 182 Atoka 493 512 546 606 665 731 797 Beaver 293 305 324 329 335 340 346 Beckham 1,598 1,659 1,766 1,918 2,071 2,223 2,390 Blaine 453 473 506 551 595 639 688 Bryan 2,405 2,533 2,751 3,014 3,277 3,541 3,810 Caddo 876 916 981 1,011 1,042 1,072 1,100 Canadian 4,043 4,209 4,497 4,809 5,078 5,326 5,579 Carter 3,299 3,416 3,613 3,807 3,994 4,196 4,412 Cherokee 2,126 2,233 2,424 2,734 3,048 3,354 3,668 Choctaw 684 720 775 789 809 828 847 Cimarron 95 98 104 107 107 110 113 Cleveland 9,866 10,369 11,193 11,818 12,318 12,669 13,012 Coal 145 153 166 188 212 238 264 Comanche 5,313 5,545 5,926 6,218 6,445 6,623 6,769 Cotton 264 276 295 299 303 312 317 Craig 793 822 874 955 1,046 1,137 1,232 Creek 2,685 2,772 2,921 3,069 3,209 3,349 3,501 Custer 1,743 1,815 1,929 2,009 2,089 2,149 2,202 Delaware 1,208 1,273 1,389 1,564 1,745 1,940 2,143 Dewey 218 226 238 238 238 244 249 Ellis 151 158 167 167 163 163 167 Garfield 3,611 3,756 3,986 4,084 4,175 4,247 4,332 Garvin 1,646 1,702 1,791 1,822 1,854 1,892 1,930 Grady 1,986 2,055 2,172 2,297 2,409 2,521 2,638 Grant 168 175 185 188 188 196 199 Greer 187 195 208 208 212 215 219 Harmon 105 110 118 121 125 128 132 Harper 202 210 221 221 221 228 228 Haskell 595 621 669 753 840 928 1,024 Hughes 395 412 443 489 537 590 644 Jackson 1,545 1,605 1,704 1,784 1,848 1,902 1,945 Jefferson 167 173 183 186 189 194 200 Johnston 470 483 507 566 624 686 753 Kay 3,345 3,477 3,685 3,779 3,866 3,953 4,048 Kingfisher 1,219 1,255 1,324 1,463 1,603 1,742 1,897 Kiowa 408 426 454 459 463 472 481 Latimer 654 685 734 773 817 862 913 Le Flore 2,087 2,151 2,263 2,410 2,557 2,704 2,859 Lincoln 976 1,018 1,089 1,164 1,241 1,322 1,408 Logan 955 1,005 1,091 1,199 1,306 1,412 1,525 Love 548 576 2,648 2,811 2,984 3,166 3,349 Major 394 408 430 430 436 441 447 Marshall 679 698 1,715 2,044 2,382 2,737 3,108 Mayes 1,590 1,636 1,720 1,868 2,024 2,184 2,347 McClain 1,072 1,119 1,208 1,368 1,528 1,695 1,865 McCurtain 1,385 1,437 1,523 1,576 1,621 1,670 1,715 McIntosh 624 656 711 790 878 978 1,083 Murray 742 779 840 918 991 1,075 1,159 Muskogee 3,454 3,598 3,826 3,941 4,040 4,139 4,239 Noble 704 735 785 810 835 854 872 Nowata 242 250 266 299 333 368 405 Okfuskee 357 374 401 411 421 431 444 Oklahoma 59,203 61,862 66,147 68,863 70,914 72,407 73,882 Okmulgee 1,510 1,566 1,663 1,762 1,865 1,972 2,079 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-19 Table 8 – Public-Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Osage 1,114 1,164 1,248 1,309 1,365 1,422 1,486 Ottawa 2,068 2,184 2,373 2,519 2,678 2,844 3,009 Pawnee 510 532 570 621 674 731 787 Payne 5,259 5,515 5,936 6,377 6,811 7,118 7,409 Pittsburg 3,088 3,162 3,288 3,412 3,558 3,725 3,905 Pontotoc 2,326 2,428 2,589 2,678 2,767 2,850 2,932 Pottawatomie 2,761 2,869 3,049 3,233 3,408 3,579 3,759 Pushmataha 405 424 457 507 560 619 678 Roger Mills 140 145 153 153 153 153 153 Rogers 3,503 3,630 3,862 4,227 4,566 4,914 5,270 Seminole 1,411 1,461 1,540 1,582 1,623 1,671 1,718 Sequoyah 1,325 1,393 1,509 1,647 1,782 1,919 2,057 Stephens 3,037 3,135 3,287 3,317 3,355 3,408 3,476 Texas 898 938 1,016 1,218 1,420 1,622 1,821 Tillman 309 322 343 350 357 364 375 Tulsa 43,051 44,846 47,779 49,830 51,275 52,372 53,439 Wagoner 987 1,023 1,088 1,182 1,269 1,354 1,444 Washington 4,136 4,300 4,556 4,600 4,663 4,726 4,798 Washita 391 406 430 440 447 458 465 Woods 433 452 480 485 490 496 506 Woodward 1,982 2,055 2,174 2,239 2,282 2,337 2,380 Statewide Total 212,031 221,023 238,823 251,108 261,864 271,539 281,325 Figure 5 - Public Supply Nonresidential Water Demands Including System Losses (AFY) Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-20 3.4 Public-Supply M&I Summary Table 9 provides a summary of the public-supplied M&I water demands by county that include residential demands, nonresidential demands, and system-losses. Table 9 - Summary of Public-Supply M&I Demands Including System Losses (AFY) COUNTY 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 1,918 1,994 2,237 2,555 2,874 3,200 3,526 Alfalfa 873 873 882 882 882 897 912 Atoka 2,917 3,024 3,366 3,733 4,101 4,507 4,913 Beaver 698 714 740 752 765 777 789 Beckham 4,599 4,739 5,120 5,562 6,003 6,444 6,930 Blaine 2,416 2,474 2,683 2,918 3,153 3,388 3,642 Bryan 7,844 8,145 8,942 9,799 10,655 11,511 12,388 Caddo 3,242 3,305 3,470 3,578 3,686 3,794 3,892 Canadian 14,935 15,448 16,833 18,000 19,008 19,938 20,884 Carter 8,813 9,008 9,535 10,048 10,541 11,073 11,643 Cherokee 6,555 6,884 7,767 8,760 9,766 10,745 11,751 Choctaw 1,518 1,560 1,637 1,667 1,708 1,749 1,790 Cimarron 642 645 685 705 705 726 746 Cleveland 36,395 37,683 40,538 42,804 44,614 45,886 47,126 Coal 606 626 711 805 908 1,020 1,132 Comanche 15,177 16,682 17,839 18,717 19,400 19,937 20,376 Cotton 766 783 809 821 833 857 869 Craig 2,223 2,294 2,507 2,739 3,000 3,260 3,534 Creek 8,195 8,399 8,939 9,391 9,821 10,250 10,715 Custer 5,207 5,339 5,619 5,852 6,084 6,259 6,414 Delaware 4,027 4,223 4,781 5,384 6,007 6,678 7,377 Dewey 1,146 1,154 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,171 1,197 Ellis 738 736 730 730 711 711 730 Garfield 12,034 12,248 12,736 13,049 13,341 13,571 13,842 Garvin 4,690 4,760 4,926 5,014 5,101 5,206 5,311 Grady 5,050 5,188 5,531 5,848 6,133 6,419 6,715 Grant 710 716 737 752 752 780 794 Greer 1,028 1,037 1,049 1,049 1,067 1,085 1,103 Harmon 772 789 797 821 845 870 894 Harper 967 961 973 973 973 1,001 1,001 Haskell 1,270 1,324 1,466 1,648 1,840 2,032 2,243 Hughes 1,721 1,786 1,975 2,178 2,392 2,629 2,866 Jackson 4,505 4,619 4,899 5,129 5,314 5,467 5,590 Jefferson 769 776 795 807 819 843 866 Johnston 1,734 1,787 1,969 2,196 2,423 2,666 2,923 Kay 7,549 7,711 8,066 8,272 8,463 8,654 8,860 Kingfisher 2,839 2,928 3,193 3,529 3,865 4,202 4,575 Kiowa 1,233 1,247 1,274 1,287 1,300 1,326 1,351 Latimer 2,213 2,260 2,382 2,506 2,651 2,796 2,961 Le Flore 6,429 6,586 7,043 7,499 7,956 8,413 8,895 Lincoln 2,301 2,376 2,568 2,745 2,928 3,119 3,322 Logan 4,607 4,797 5,354 5,883 6,412 6,929 7,483 Love 1,447 1,524 5,138 5,455 5,790 6,144 6,498 Major 974 984 1,013 1,013 1,027 1,040 1,054 Marshall 2,133 2,257 3,634 4,333 5,049 5,800 6,586 Mayes 5,377 5,534 6,007 6,526 7,071 7,629 8,200 McClain 3,997 4,190 4,792 5,428 6,065 6,726 7,400 McCurtain 4,225 4,312 4,527 4,685 4,819 4,965 5,099 McIntosh 2,393 2,485 2,760 3,066 3,407 3,793 4,202 Murray 2,625 2,712 2,941 3,216 3,471 3,765 4,059 Section 3 Public-Supply Residential and Nonresidential 3-21 Table 9 - Summary of Public-Supply M&I Demands Including System Losses (AFY) COUNTY 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Muskogee 9,937 10,130 10,580 10,898 11,172 11,446 11,720 Noble 1,617 1,662 1,759 1,815 1,871 1,913 1,955 Nowata 1,075 1,118 1,256 1,412 1,568 1,733 1,907 Okfuskee 1,385 1,408 1,461 1,497 1,533 1,569 1,616 Oklahoma 120,231 123,931 131,224 136,613 140,682 143,644 146,570 Okmulgee 10,686 10,930 11,716 12,415 13,141 13,893 14,645 Osage 7,708 7,895 8,460 8,876 9,258 9,640 10,073 Ottawa 5,017 5,179 5,575 5,918 6,292 6,681 7,069 Pawnee 2,274 2,350 2,588 2,818 3,062 3,318 3,574 Payne 12,193 12,688 13,656 14,671 15,670 16,374 17,045 Pittsburg 8,315 8,445 8,815 9,150 9,541 9,987 10,471 Pontotoc 5,931 6,074 6,376 6,596 6,816 7,019 7,222 Pottawatomie 5,890 6,060 6,460 6,848 7,220 7,583 7,963 Pushmataha 1,073 1,114 1,237 1,371 1,514 1,674 1,834 Roger Mills 613 618 626 626 626 626 626 Rogers 12,891 13,376 14,813 16,213 17,513 18,846 20,212 Seminole 2,742 2,801 2,923 3,002 3,081 3,171 3,261 Sequoyah 7,122 7,380 8,143 8,886 9,612 10,356 11,099 Stephens 8,472 8,570 8,785 8,866 8,967 9,109 9,291 Texas 3,576 3,819 4,599 5,513 6,427 7,342 8,242 Tillman 1,332 1,345 1,388 1,418 1,447 1,477 1,521 Tulsa 107,126 110,045 116,516 121,517 125,042 127,717 130,319 Wagoner 8,108 8,402 9,329 10,137 10,881 11,613 12,383 Washington 11,739 11,940 12,364 12,486 12,656 12,827 13,021 Washita 1,082 1,103 1,151 1,179 1,197 1,225 1,244 Woods 3,124 3,161 3,189 3,224 3,259 3,293 3,363 Woodward 5,599 5,718 5,989 6,169 6,288 6,438 6,558 Statewide Total 583,901 601,891 647,038 682,391 713,982 743,158 772,773 4-1 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands The self-supplied sector represents establishments that obtain their water from privately owned sources, such as wells or surface diversions. This sector includes water use from self-supplied households, pulp mills, refineries, meat packing plants, thermoelectric power plants, and activities from oil and gas exploration and drilling, for example. While agriculture demands are often self-supplied, these demands are treated separately and are discussed in Section 5. Water demand sectors discussed here include self-supplied residential, oil and gas, thermoelectric power, and self-supplied large industries. 4.1 Self-Supplied Residential The self-supplied residential sector captures water use from households not connected to a public water supply system. It is assumed that these households are located in rural areas of the state. While it may be true that some self-supplied residential homes use well water for livestock care, the demands for the self-supplied residential sector only represent water use inside the home and outside for gardening, car washing, domestic animal care, recreation, etc. Livestock demands are captured in the agriculture demands. The basic methodology employed to estimate future water demands for the self-supplied residential sector is: Equation 3 Where: = Self-supplied residential water demand in county (c) in year (y) in acre-feet per year (AFY) = Weighted average residential per capita daily water use in county (c) from Provider Survey = Population self-supplied in county (c) in year (y) The data used to develop the self-supplied residential forecast are similar to the data used in the public supply residential forecast, as discussed in Section 3.2.2. Population projections serve as a basis for the forecast. The population projections were allocated among public-supplied and self-supplied households using 2005 USGS estimates. The USGS preliminary numbers were used to divide county population projections into public-supplied and self-supplied for 2007. The ratio of public-supplied to self-supplied for each county is assumed to remain constant into the future. The self-supplied population projections are shown in Table 10. As shown, some counties have no self-supplied households. Given the assumptions, the statewide population of self-supplied households is expected to increase almost 41 percent from 2007 to 2060, but remains less than a half million in 2060. Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-2 Table 10 - Self-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 9,140 9,582 11,173 12,763 14,354 15,983 17,613 Alfalfa 860 851 851 851 851 866 880 Atoka 3,030 3,139 3,524 3,909 4,294 4,719 5,145 Beaver 2,620 2,647 2,692 2,737 2,782 2,826 2,871 Beckham 1,980 2,032 2,213 2,403 2,594 2,785 2,995 Blaine 1,130 1,152 1,253 1,362 1,472 1,582 1,700 Bryan 2,780 2,869 3,165 3,468 3,771 4,074 4,384 Caddo 11,730 11,845 12,345 12,730 13,115 13,499 13,845 Canadian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carter 220 223 236 249 261 274 289 Cherokee 7,430 7,802 8,962 10,108 11,269 12,399 13,560 Choctaw 4,700 4,736 4,858 4,949 5,070 5,192 5,313 Cimarron 1,120 1,120 1,190 1,225 1,225 1,260 1,295 Cleveland 12,670 13,045 14,015 14,799 15,425 15,864 16,293 Coal 1,570 1,614 1,859 2,103 2,372 2,666 2,959 Comanche 2,190 2,236 2,388 2,518 2,619 2,699 2,764 Cotton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Craig 800 824 914 999 1,094 1,189 1,288 Creek 7,050 7,200 7,700 8,090 8,460 8,830 9,230 Custer 3,320 3,379 3,537 3,683 3,830 3,940 4,037 Delaware 11,500 12,032 13,834 15,581 17,383 19,324 21,348 Dewey 1,070 1,070 1,047 1,047 1,047 1,070 1,093 Ellis 1,380 1,359 1,323 1,323 1,287 1,287 1,323 Garfield 1,460 1,472 1,517 1,554 1,589 1,616 1,648 Garvin 4,150 4,168 4,274 4,350 4,426 4,517 4,608 Grady 15,740 16,096 17,251 18,240 19,131 20,021 20,945 Grant 650 650 663 675 675 701 714 Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harper 960 943 943 943 943 971 971 Haskell 5,280 5,500 6,233 7,007 7,822 8,637 9,533 Hughes 940 973 1,085 1,197 1,315 1,445 1,575 Jackson 1,080 1,100 1,165 1,220 1,264 1,301 1,330 Jefferson 140 140 142 144 146 151 155 Johnston 110 114 127 142 157 172 189 Kay 2,240 2,257 2,335 2,394 2,450 2,505 2,564 Kingfisher 4,010 4,140 4,627 5,114 5,601 6,088 6,629 Kiowa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latimer 1,320 1,335 1,395 1,468 1,553 1,638 1,735 Le Flore 6,360 6,496 7,001 7,455 7,909 8,363 8,842 Lincoln 17,650 18,088 19,704 21,059 22,466 23,926 25,490 Logan 11,260 11,695 13,146 14,445 15,745 17,014 18,374 Love 310 327 901 954 1,010 1,069 1,129 Major 2,090 2,073 2,101 2,101 2,129 2,157 2,185 Marshall 650 697 858 1,023 1,192 1,369 1,555 Mayes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McClain 7,430 7,800 9,104 10,313 11,522 12,778 14,059 McCurtain 7,490 7,579 7,920 8,197 8,431 8,687 8,921 McIntosh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muskogee 6,850 6,903 7,136 7,350 7,535 7,720 7,905 Noble 1,520 1,543 1,620 1,672 1,723 1,762 1,800 Nowata 690 719 821 922 1,024 1,132 1,246 Okfuskee 1,100 1,106 1,133 1,161 1,189 1,217 1,254 Oklahoma 14,040 14,279 14,972 15,586 16,051 16,389 16,722 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-3 Table 10 - Self-Supplied Population Projections by County County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Okmulgee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Osage 6,760 6,899 7,393 7,756 8,091 8,425 8,802 Ottawa 6,990 7,100 7,588 8,056 8,565 9,094 9,622 Pawnee 4,650 4,792 5,319 5,793 6,293 6,820 7,346 Payne 7,920 8,193 8,816 9,472 10,117 10,571 11,005 Pittsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pontotoc 5,490 5,554 5,768 5,967 6,166 6,350 6,534 Pottawatomie 20,830 21,249 22,706 24,072 25,377 26,652 27,988 Pushmataha 1,540 1,591 1,800 1,995 2,203 2,436 2,669 Roger Mills 680 680 680 680 680 680 680 Rogers 5,580 5,793 6,509 7,123 7,695 8,280 8,881 Seminole 3,980 4,009 4,136 4,247 4,359 4,486 4,613 Sequoyah 820 847 938 1,024 1,108 1,193 1,279 Stephens 6,620 6,620 6,697 6,759 6,836 6,944 7,083 Texas 2,600 2,798 3,479 4,170 4,862 5,553 6,234 Tillman 670 670 685 699 714 728 750 Tulsa 8,940 9,097 9,590 10,002 10,292 10,512 10,727 Wagoner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washita 2,200 2,222 2,297 2,353 2,390 2,447 2,484 Woods 1,110 1,117 1,117 1,129 1,142 1,154 1,178 Woodward 3,500 3,544 3,692 3,803 3,877 3,969 4,043 Statewide Total 294,690 301,725 326,721 348,946 370,595 392,224 414,477 Population projections are used as the driver of the self-supplied residential forecast. The average daily use of the self-supplied households is assumed to be similar to publically-supplied households in a given county. Thus, the rgpcd developed from the Provider Survey is used as the per unit use for the self-supplied residential sector. 4.1.1 Forecast Results of the self-supplied residential forecast are shown in Table 11 for each county. Growth in county water demand is directly attributable to projected growth in self-supplied population. Figure 6 shows statewide water demands from the self-supplied residential sector, which are estimated to increase by 39 percent from 2007 to 2060. Table 11 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair 702 736 858 980 1,102 1,227 1,353 Alfalfa 117 115 115 115 115 117 119 Atoka 544 563 632 702 771 847 923 Beaver 346 350 355 361 367 373 379 Beckham 313 321 349 380 410 440 473 Blaine 186 189 206 224 242 260 280 Bryan 357 369 407 446 485 524 564 Caddo 1,422 1,436 1,496 1,543 1,589 1,636 1,678 Canadian - - - - - - - Carter 22 22 24 25 26 28 29 Cherokee 755 793 911 1,028 1,146 1,260 1,378 Choctaw 324 326 335 341 349 358 366 Cimarron 337 337 358 369 369 379 390 Cleveland 1,291 1,329 1,428 1,508 1,571 1,616 1,660 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-4 Table 11 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Coal 148 153 176 199 224 252 280 Comanche 171 175 187 197 205 211 216 Cotton - - - - - - - Craig 68 70 77 84 92 100 109 Creek 532 544 581 611 639 667 697 Custer 440 447 468 488 507 522 535 Delaware 954 998 1,147 1,292 1,441 1,602 1,770 Dewey 263 263 257 257 257 263 269 Ellis 272 268 261 261 254 254 261 Garfield 186 188 193 198 202 206 210 Garvin 467 469 481 490 498 508 519 Grady 1,176 1,202 1,288 1,362 1,429 1,495 1,564 Grant 78 78 80 81 81 84 86 Greer - - - - - - - Harmon - - - - - - - Harper 272 267 267 267 267 275 275 Haskell 447 465 528 593 662 731 807 Hughes 83 86 96 106 116 128 139 Jackson 110 112 119 124 129 133 135 Jefferson 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 Johnston 11 12 13 15 16 18 20 Kay 184 186 192 197 202 206 211 Kingfisher 536 553 618 683 748 813 885 Kiowa - - - - - - - Latimer 190 192 201 212 224 236 250 Le Flore 541 553 596 635 673 712 753 Lincoln 1,360 1,393 1,518 1,622 1,731 1,843 1,964 Logan 1,388 1,442 1,621 1,781 1,941 2,097 2,265 Love 27 28 78 83 88 93 98 Major 208 206 209 209 212 215 217 Marshall 57 61 75 89 104 119 136 Mayes - - - - - - - McClain 757 794 927 1,050 1,173 1,301 1,432 McCurtain 694 703 734 760 782 805 827 McIntosh - - - - - - - Murray - - - - - - - Muskogee 658 663 686 706 724 742 759 Noble 126 128 134 138 143 146 149 Nowata 49 51 58 65 72 80 88 Okfuskee 95 95 98 100 102 105 108 Oklahoma 1,079 1,098 1,151 1,198 1,234 1,260 1,286 Okmulgee - - - - - - - Osage 978 998 1,069 1,122 1,170 1,218 1,273 Ottawa 688 698 746 792 842 895 947 Pawnee 591 609 676 736 800 867 934 Payne 648 671 722 775 828 865 901 Pittsburg - - - - - - - Pontotoc 565 572 594 615 635 654 673 Pottawatomie 1,253 1,279 1,366 1,449 1,527 1,604 1,684 Pushmataha 86 89 101 112 123 136 149 Roger Mills 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 Rogers 579 601 675 739 798 859 922 Seminole 223 225 232 238 244 251 258 Sequoyah 100 104 115 126 136 146 157 Stephens 833 833 843 851 860 874 892 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-5 Table 11 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Texas 339 365 454 545 635 725 814 Tillman 80 80 81 83 85 87 89 Tulsa 903 919 969 1,010 1,040 1,062 1,084 Wagoner - - - - - - - Washington - - - - - - - Washita 142 144 148 152 154 158 161 Woods 352 355 355 358 362 366 374 Woodward 723 732 763 786 801 820 835 Statewide Total 29,543 30,236 32,636 34,799 36,897 39,013 41,193 4.2 Oil and Gas The oil and gas industry is a major contributor to the economic structure in Oklahoma. One in seven jobs in Oklahoma is directly or indirectly supported by the oil and natural gas industry5 Water is used in association with many oil and gas activities, including use as a supplemental fluid in enhanced recovery of petroleum resources; during drilling and . Water availability is key to oil and gas drilling and exploration activities thus water use by this important sector is estimated for the OCWP. 5 Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 2007 Report on Crude Oil and Natural Gas Activity within the State of Oklahoma, August 2008. Figure 6 - Self-Supplied Residential Water Demands (AFY) Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-6 completion of an oil or gas well; during workover of an oil or gas well; as rig wash water; as coolant for internal combustion engines for rigs, compressors, and other equipment; and for sanitary purposes. Unconventional drilling techniques require more water use per completion than conventional drilling techniques. Oil from shale deposits are often drilled using unconventional techniques and require even more water to penetrate through the shale deposits. There are challenges in estimating both current and future water demands from the oil and gas industry. While Oklahoma law requires that oil and gas companies apply for a 90-day provisional temporary (PT) water use permit for oil and gas drilling activities, water amounts requested on the PT permit is not necessarily representative of actual use. Future trends in the oil and gas industry rely on many factors, such as economy, price, and technology. Future trends, if anything, are uncertain. Thus, the forecast for the oil and gas sector makes use of the best available data for both the present and future. Estimated water use per drilling activity has been increased to a level considered adequate to cover uncertainties related to future developments in technology and other contingencies that may require more water per activity. 4.2.1 Methodology Given the statewide variance in recent drilling activities, water demands for the oil and gas industry are estimated by drilling type, or sub-sector: conventional, horizontal, and Woodford Shale. The basic methodology for estimating demands by drilling category is number of drilling activities times water used per activity in AF, as shown in Equation 4. Sub-sector demands are then summed to estimate total demands from all oil and gas activities. Equation 4 Where: = Oil and gas drilling water demand for sub-sector (s) in county (c) in year (y) in AFY = Number of estimated drilling activities for sub-sector (s) in county (c) in year (y) = Water use per drilling activity for sub-sector (s) in county (c) and in year (y) in AF Two key pieces of information were developed for the oil and gas forecast by sub-sector: drilling activity and water use per activity. 4.2.2 Future Drilling Activity For each sub-sector, an estimate of drilling activity in the future was developed using data collected from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) website. Oil and gas drilling Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-7 data were collected from 1983 through 2008 for the entire State of Oklahoma by county. The data include oil, gas, dry and total wells, footage, average depth, and success ratio. Additionally, conventional drilling data for Osage County, Oklahoma were provided by Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) and Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association from 1989–2003. These data were originally collected via permitting information by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The data were used to replace the original OCC data because the BIA has well permitting authority in Osage County. The OCC and BIA data were identified as conventional, horizontal, or Woodford Shale drilling and each dataset was stored in a separate database. Data from the following counties were considered to be Woodford Shale drilling—Atoka, Canadian, Carter, Coal, Hughes, Marshall, and Pittsburg. Because the Woodford Shale is a recent play, analysis was conducted on data for these counties from 2001–2008. Linear regression analysis was conducted on the sum of statewide drilling data (by sub-sector) to estimate a trend in future drilling activities. For conventional drilling, statewide data were analyzed using linear regression from 1989–2008. Prior years were excluded to avoid a negative slope in the regression line. For horizontal and Woodford Shale drilling, data were analyzed using linear regressions from 2001–2008, as there was very little non-conventional drilling prior to 2001. Results of the regression analysis were used to estimate statewide conventional drilling activities in 5 year increments to 2060. In order to develop a forecast representative of reasonable maximum future drilling activities, the standard error from the regression analysis was added to the model. This addition serves to address potential real-world variability associated with this industry. The statewide estimate of future conventional drilling activity was then allocated to counties based on the ratio of average county activity to statewide average activity during the historical dataset (1989–2008). This process was replicated to estimate future horizontal drilling activities statewide and for counties (county to state ratios were developed based on 2001–2008 dataset). Slight but necessary alterations were made to the methodology for estimating Woodford Shale drilling activities in future years. Linear regression was conducted to estimate a trend line for future activity. Standard error was added to the resulting regression model to account for uncertainty. The regression model was used to estimate statewide totals for Woodford Shale drilling activity to 2020. Close coordination with industry leaders reveals that while Woodford Shale activity is expected to increase over the next decade, it is likely that drilling resources within the Woodford Shale will be exhausted following an estimated peak in activity near 2020. Thus, 2030 demands are assumed to decline to 2010 conditions and then decline to nearly zero from 2030 to 2060. Linear interpolation was used to estimate drilling from 2035 to 2060. The statewide estimate of future Woodford Shale drilling activity was allocated to counties based on the ratio of average county activity to total average activity during the historical dataset (2001–2008). Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-8 Estimates of future drilling activity by drilling type are provided in Table 12. Conventional and horizontal drilling is estimated to be 74 and 26 percent of 2060 drilling, respectively. Woodford Shale drilling peaks at about 1,600 activities in 2020. Table 12 - Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type County Type 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair No drilling activity Alfalfa Conventional 23 31 35 40 45 50 54 Horizontal 5 7 12 18 24 29 35 Atoka Woodford Shale 19 27 43 27 18 9 0 Beaver Conventional 114 153 177 201 225 248 272 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Beckham Conventional 57 77 89 101 113 125 136 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Blaine Conventional 50 67 77 88 98 108 119 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bryan Conventional 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caddo Conventional 64 86 100 113 127 140 153 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Canadian Woodford Shale 112 156 255 156 105 53 2 Carter Woodford Shale 111 156 253 156 104 53 2 Cherokee Conventional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Choctaw No drilling activity Cimarron Conventional 11 15 17 19 22 24 26 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cleveland Conventional 9 12 14 16 18 20 22 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Coal Woodford Shale 55 76 124 76 51 26 1 Comanche Conventional 9 12 14 16 18 19 21 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cotton Conventional 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Craig Conventional 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creek Conventional 36 49 56 64 72 79 87 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Custer Conventional 57 77 89 100 112 124 136 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Delaware No drilling activity Dewey Conventional 43 59 68 77 86 95 104 Horizontal 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 Ellis Conventional 50 68 78 89 99 110 120 Horizontal 26 39 70 102 134 166 198 Garfield Conventional 29 39 45 51 57 63 69 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Garvin Conventional 81 109 126 143 160 177 194 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Grady Conventional 94 127 147 166 186 206 225 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Grant Conventional 27 36 42 47 53 58 64 Horizontal 3 4 8 11 15 18 22 Greer Conventional 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-9 Table 12 - Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type County Type 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Harmon Conventional 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harper Conventional 49 67 77 87 97 108 118 Horizontal 3 5 9 13 18 22 26 Haskell Conventional 50 67 78 88 99 109 119 Horizontal 43 64 116 169 221 274 326 Hughes Woodford Shale 108 151 245 151 101 51 2 Jackson Conventional 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Jefferson Conventional 6 8 10 11 12 13 15 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnston Conventional 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Horizontal 5 8 14 20 26 33 39 Kay Conventional 27 36 42 48 53 59 65 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kingfisher Conventional 33 44 51 58 65 72 79 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Kiowa Conventional 7 9 10 12 13 14 16 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latimer Conventional 77 105 121 137 153 169 186 Horizontal 3 5 9 13 17 21 25 Le Flore Conventional 42 57 66 75 83 92 101 Horizontal 39 58 107 155 203 251 299 Lincoln Conventional 41 56 64 73 82 90 99 Horizontal 13 20 36 53 69 86 102 Logan Conventional 39 53 61 70 78 86 94 Horizontal 9 13 24 35 45 56 67 Love Conventional 7 10 11 13 14 16 17 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Conventional 103 139 161 182 204 225 247 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Marshall Woodford Shale 15 21 33 21 14 7 0 Mayes Conventional 4 6 7 7 8 9 10 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McClain Conventional 27 37 42 48 54 60 65 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 McCurtain Conventional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McIntosh Conventional 30 40 47 53 59 66 72 Horizontal 24 35 64 93 122 150 179 Murray Conventional 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muskogee Conventional 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Noble Conventional 60 81 93 106 118 130 143 Horizontal 2 2 4 6 8 10 12 Nowata Conventional 67 90 104 118 132 145 159 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Okfuskee Conventional 31 41 48 54 61 67 73 Horizontal 4 6 10 15 20 24 29 Oklahoma Conventional 39 52 61 69 77 85 93 Horizontal 3 4 7 10 14 17 20 Okmulgee Conventional 29 39 45 51 57 63 69 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-10 Table 12 - Estimate of Future Drilling Activity by Drilling Type County Type 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Osage Conventional 87 117 135 153 171 190 208 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ottawa No drilling activity Pawnee Conventional 8 11 13 15 16 18 20 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Payne Conventional 30 41 48 54 60 67 73 Horizontal 3 5 8 12 16 20 24 Pittsburg Woodford Shale 287 401 652 401 269 136 4 Pontotoc Conventional 28 37 43 49 55 61 67 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Pottawatomie Conventional 23 31 36 40 45 50 55 Horizontal 10 15 27 40 52 64 77 Pushmataha Conventional 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roger Mills Conventional 114 154 178 201 225 249 273 Horizontal 5 7 12 18 24 29 35 Rogers Conventional 18 25 29 32 36 40 44 Horizontal 3 4 7 10 14 17 20 Seminole Conventional 45 61 71 80 90 99 109 Horizontal 9 14 25 36 47 58 69 Sequoyah Conventional 10 13 15 17 19 21 23 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stephens Conventional 110 148 171 194 217 240 263 Horizontal 3 4 8 11 15 18 22 Texas Conventional 119 160 185 210 234 259 284 Horizontal 9 13 24 35 46 57 68 Tillman Conventional 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Tulsa Conventional 15 21 24 27 30 33 37 Horizontal 2 3 6 8 11 13 16 Wagoner Conventional 13 17 20 23 25 28 31 Horizontal 2 3 6 9 12 15 17 Washington Conventional 57 77 89 101 113 124 136 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washita Conventional 45 61 70 80 89 99 108 Horizontal 22 33 60 87 115 142 169 Woods Conventional 82 111 128 145 162 179 196 Horizontal 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 Woodward Conventional 102 138 159 181 202 223 245 Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Statewide Total Conventional 2,459 3,320 3,834 4,349 4,863 5,378 5,892 Horizontal 274 408 745 1,081 1,417 1,754 2,090 Woodford Shale 706 987 1,606 987 661 336 10 4.2.3 Future Water Use per Activity Estimates of water use per drilling activity by sub-sector were developed based on input from industry leaders at OIPA and Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Water use per activity captures water used for drilling and cementing as well as completion. Unique values are estimated for each county by sub-sector based on average well depth, i.e., deeper wells are assumed to require more water for drilling. Table 13 provides a summary Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-11 of estimated current water use per drilled well for conventional, horizontal, and Woodford Shale drilling. Table 13 – Estimates of Current Water Use per Well (in Barrels) Operation Conventional Horizontal Woodford Shale Drilling & Cementing < 12,000 feet 8,000 12,000 (incl. horizontal 8,000 and vertical sections) >12,000 feet 21,000 23,000 (incl. horizontal 21,000 and vertical sections) Completion 25,000 78,000 150,000 Unconventional drilling techniques require more water use per well. Hydraulic fracturing ("fracing") is reported to require substantially more water per well. This technique is common in the Woodford Shale region of the state, resulting in higher water use factors and therefore higher water demand for drilling activities in these counties. Based on the above table, water use for conventional drilling ranges from 4.3–5.9 AF per well, horizontal drilling ranges from 12–13 AF per well, and drilling in the Woodford Shale region ranges from 20–22 AF per well. To account for uncertainty in future water use per drilled well, an increasing trend is applied to the water use per well from 2010 to 2060. This is based on the assumption that the accessibility of remaining oil and gas deposits in the future will decline. For conventional and Woodford Shale drilling, water use factors are multiplied by a factor of 2 in 2060, moving linearly from current values to the 2060 value. For horizontal drilling, water use factors are multiplied by a factor of 2.5 in 2060, moving linearly from current values to the 2060 value. 4.2.4 Forecast Results of the oil and gas forecast are provided in Table 14 for each county. Figure 7 shows the increase in statewide oil demand from 2008-2060. In the base year, water demands from the oil and gas industry are estimated at 29,107 AF, representing 1.6 percent of the total water used in Oklahoma. Under the conditions outlined herein, statewide demands are estimated to reach 115,570 AF by 2060, or 4.8 percent of total demands from all sectors. Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Adair No drilling activity Alfalfa Conventional 96 135 185 242 308 381 462 Horizontal 53 83 193 340 525 747 1,006 Atoka Woodford Shale 420 610 1,177 836 636 361 12 Beaver Conventional 483 677 927 1,215 1,543 1,909 2,314 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Beckham Conventional 338 473 648 850 1,079 1,335 1,618 Horizontal 15 23 54 95 147 210 282 Blaine Conventional 211 296 405 531 674 834 1,011 Horizontal Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-12 Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Bryan Conventional 17 24 33 43 54 67 82 Horizontal Caddo Conventional 380 532 729 956 1,213 1,501 1,820 Horizontal 15 23 54 95 147 210 282 Canadian Woodford Shale 2,466 3,581 6,905 4,908 3,733 2,120 70 Carter Woodford Shale 2,266 3,291 6,344 4,509 3,430 1,948 64 Cherokee Conventional 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 Horizontal Choctaw Conventional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horizontal Cimarron Conventional 47 65 90 117 149 185 224 Horizontal Cleveland Conventional 39 54 74 97 124 153 185 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Coal Woodford Shale 1,206 1,750 3,375 2,399 1,825 1,036 34 Comanche Conventional 38 53 73 95 121 150 181 Horizontal Cotton Conventional 7 10 14 18 23 28 34 Horizontal Craig Conventional 21 30 41 54 68 84 102 Horizontal Creek Conventional 154 216 295 387 492 608 737 Horizontal Custer Conventional 337 472 647 848 1,076 1,332 1,615 Horizontal 30 47 108 191 295 419 565 Delaware No drilling activity Dewey Conventional 185 259 355 465 590 731 886 Horizontal 20 31 72 128 197 280 377 Ellis Conventional 214 300 410 538 683 845 1,025 Horizontal 301 474 1,101 1,940 2,992 4,257 5,736 Garfield Conventional 122 172 235 308 391 484 586 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Garvin Conventional 345 483 662 868 1,101 1,363 1,652 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Grady Conventional 558 782 1,070 1,403 1,781 2,204 2,672 Horizontal 30 47 108 191 295 419 565 Grant Conventional 113 159 217 285 362 448 543 Horizontal 33 52 121 213 328 467 629 Greer Conventional 4 6 8 10 13 16 19 Horizontal Harmon Conventional 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 Horizontal Harper Conventional 210 294 402 528 670 829 1,005 Horizontal 40 62 145 255 394 560 755 Haskell Conventional 212 297 407 534 677 838 1,016 Horizontal 496 783 1,816 3,201 4,938 7,025 9,465 Hughes Woodford Shale 2,194 3,185 6,141 4,365 3,320 1,886 62 Jackson Conventional 6 8 12 15 19 24 29 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Jefferson Conventional 26 36 50 65 83 103 125 Horizontal Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-13 Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Johnston Conventional 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 Horizontal 59 94 217 383 591 840 1,132 Kay Conventional 115 161 220 289 366 453 550 Horizontal Kingfisher Conventional 140 196 268 351 446 552 669 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Kiowa Conventional 39 55 75 99 125 155 188 Horizontal Latimer Conventional 329 462 632 829 1,052 1,302 1,578 Horizontal 38 59 138 243 375 533 719 Le Flore Conventional 179 251 344 451 573 709 859 Horizontal 455 718 1,665 2,935 4,527 6,442 8,679 Lincoln Conventional 176 246 337 442 561 694 841 Horizontal 155 244 567 1,000 1,542 2,194 2,956 Logan Conventional 168 235 322 422 536 663 804 Horizontal 102 160 372 656 1,012 1,440 1,941 Love Conventional 30 43 58 77 97 120 146 Horizontal Major Conventional 438 614 841 1,102 1,399 1,732 2,099 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Marshall Woodford Shale 299 434 836 594 452 257 8 Mayes Conventional 18 25 34 45 57 71 86 Horizontal McClain Conventional 116 162 222 291 370 458 555 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 McCurtain Conventional 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Horizontal McIntosh Conventional 128 179 245 321 407 504 611 Horizontal 273 430 998 1,758 2,712 3,859 5,199 Murray Conventional 26 36 49 65 82 102 123 Horizontal Muskogee Conventional 29 40 55 72 91 113 137 Horizontal 26 42 97 170 262 373 503 Noble Conventional 254 356 487 639 811 1,003 1,216 Horizontal 18 28 64 113 175 249 335 Nowata Conventional 283 397 543 712 904 1,118 1,356 Horizontal Okfuskee Conventional 130 183 250 328 417 516 625 Horizontal 44 69 161 284 437 622 839 Oklahoma Conventional 165 232 317 416 528 654 792 Horizontal 31 49 113 199 306 436 587 Okmulgee Conventional 123 173 237 310 394 488 591 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Osage Conventional 369 517 708 928 1,178 1,458 1,767 Horizontal Ottawa No drilling activity Pawnee Conventional 35 49 67 89 112 139 169 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Payne Conventional 130 182 249 326 414 513 621 Horizontal 36 56 131 231 356 507 683 Pittsburg Woodford Shale 5,838 8,477 16,343 11,617 8,836 5,019 165 Pontotoc Conventional 118 166 227 297 377 467 566 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-14 Table 14 – Estimated Demand from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type (AFY) County Drilling Type Estimated Water Demand (AFY) 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Pottawatomie Conventional 97 136 187 245 311 385 467 Horizontal 117 184 426 752 1,159 1,649 2,222 Pushmataha Conventional 10 14 19 25 32 39 48 Horizontal Roger Mills Conventional 675 947 1,296 1,700 2,157 2,670 3,236 Horizontal 59 93 217 382 589 838 1,129 Rogers Conventional 78 109 150 196 249 308 374 Horizontal 31 49 113 199 306 436 587 Seminole Conventional 193 271 371 486 617 764 926 Horizontal 106 166 386 681 1,050 1,494 2,012 Sequoyah Conventional 40 57 78 102 129 160 194 Horizontal Stephens Conventional 467 655 896 1,175 1,492 1,846 2,237 Horizontal 33 52 121 213 328 467 629 Texas Conventional 504 707 967 1,269 1,611 1,993 2,416 Horizontal 103 163 378 666 1,028 1,463 1,971 Tillman Conventional 14 20 27 36 45 56 68 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Tulsa Conventional 65 91 124 163 207 256 311 Horizontal 24 37 87 153 236 336 453 Wagoner Conventional 54 76 104 137 174 215 260 Horizontal 26 42 97 170 262 373 503 Washington Conventional 242 339 464 609 773 957 1,160 Horizontal Washita Conventional 267 375 513 673 854 1,057 1,282 Horizontal 289 455 1,056 1,862 2,872 4,086 5,505 Woods Conventional 348 488 668 876 1,113 1,377 1,669 Horizontal 13 21 48 85 131 187 252 Woodward Conventional 434 609 834 1,093 1,388 1,717 2,081 Horizontal Statewide Total Conventional 11,192 15,691 21,479 28,168 35,758 44,248 53,640 Horizontal 3,226 5,086 11,803 20,805 32,090 45,660 61,514 Woodford Shale 14,689 21,329 41,120 29,229 22,231 12,627 416 Total All Drilling 29,107 42,107 74,403 78,202 90,080 102,536 115,570 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-15 4.3 Thermoelectric Power The generation of electricity at thermoelectric power plants requires the use of water for cooling the equipment and condensing steam. Both withdrawal and consumption rates vary by plant because of variations in heat source, prime mover, cooling system type, evaporation rates, and thermal efficiency6 6 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Regional Water Demand Scenarios for Northeastern Illinois, Chapter 3, June 2008. . For example, close-looped cooling systems require less water to be withdrawn than what is required for once-through cooling; however, nearly all water is consumed in the close-looped process and very little withdrawn water is consumed in once-through cooling. For completeness in the OCWP, all thermoelectric power plants are included in this sector, even though several power plants receive water from municipal sources. The M&I forecast does not include water provided to thermoelectric power plants, as water use factors for NAICS code 22 (Utilities) captures water used for employee sanitary purposes only. See Section 3.3 for additional information on the nonresidential M&I forecast. Several data sources were combined to produce the thermoelectric power water demand forecast for Oklahoma, as discussed in the following sections. Figure 7 - Water Demands from Oil and Gas Activities by Drilling Type Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-16 4.3.1 Methodology Estimates of the gallons per day needed by thermoelectric power plants per megawatt-hour (MWh) are developed for both consumptive use and total withdrawal. The unit use (gallons per MWh) is multiplied by the MWh generated to provide an estimate of water needs for power generation for those counties with power generating facilities. The Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2008 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) estimates that U.S. electric consumption will increase at a rate of 1.1 percent per year to the year 2030. "In comparison, electricity consumption grew by annual rates of 4.2 percent, 2.6 percent, and 2.3 percent in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, respectively. The reduced rate of growth in the AEO 2008 results from slower economic growth, the imposition of new efficiency standards in EISA2007, and higher electricity prices" (AEO 2008, pg 11). CDM assumed (1) a linear relationship between the amount of electricity generated and the amount of water used (i.e., the rate of water use will be constant) and (2) an annual growth rate of 1.1 percent to project future water use from thermoelectric power plants in Oklahoma. 4.3.2 Data In Oklahoma, there are 58 power-producing plants—11 hydroelectric, 5 wind, 26 natural gas, 6 distillate fuels, 7 coal, and 3 miscellaneous (municipal solid waste, black liquor, and wood). Net electricity generation from natural gas-fired and coal-fired plants is nearly 95 percent of the total generation7 EIA information also included the water source and the operating status (i.e., retired, pending) of each facility. OWRB permit data for power generation (purpose code 04) included plant name, county, operating status (i.e., active, inactive), water code (i.e., groundwater, surface water source) and permitted water withdrawal in AF for 2004 through 2007. In addition, USGS 2005 data provides estimates of water use for thermoelectric power which includes surface water million gallons per day (mgd), groundwater mgd, total mgd withdrawals, and gigawatt hours (GWh) generated by county. . Information obtained from the Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Energy (http://energy.ok.gov) included the plant name, owning utility, and rated generating capacity in megawatts (MW). Information obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy, (EIA) included the plant name, location, 2004 net MWh generated, and 2007 net MWh generated. Comparison of the 2004 generated MWh with the rated generating capacity of each plant indicated a statewide weighted-average operation at 24.8 percent of rated capacity. Comparison of the 2007 generated MWh indicated an average operation of facilities at 34.2 percent of capacity. 7 Obtained from the EIA website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm? sid=OK#related_reports Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-17 Power plants were grouped by county in order to provide a county-level estimate of water demand for power generation. Information for retired facilities was included in the computation of average rate of water use per MWh generated but not in projected water use. Data for two facilities included permitted water withdrawals from different counties. The Seminole plant located in Seminole County also has permit rights to withdraw water from Pontotoc County and Atoka County. However, the permitted withdrawal amounts for Pontotoc and Atoka Counties are minimal. Thus, these withdrawals were combined and listed collectively under Seminole County. The Sooner plant in Noble County draws water from Sooner Lake in Pawnee County and is listed under Pawnee County. A recent study on water needs for energy development in northwest Colorado (Energy Development Water Needs Assessment, Phase I Report, URS Corporation, September 2008) identifies a unit water demand of 0.48 gallons per kilowatt hour (or 480 gallons per MWh) for electric power generation. This estimate represents the water demand for consumptive water use in a power facility. A study by LimnoTech, Inc. (John R. Wolfe, presented at Hydrovison 2008 Conference, Sacramento, California) also reported that water consumption for cooling towers at fossil-fuel thermoelectric power facilities was 480 gallons per MWh. A review of the mgd withdrawal per gigawatt generated as estimated by the USGS 2005 data for Oklahoma indicates a statewide average of 773 gallons per MWh. CDM assumed 775 gallons per MWh for total water withdrawal for all facilities except for OGE Energy Corporation's (OGE) facilities in Muskogee, Pawnee, and Seminole Counties. OGE requested that annual water use reported to the OWRB be used in order to include water used to maintain lake levels and for cleaning purposes at these facilities. Due to substantial fluctuations in reported water use for years 2005 through 2008, the average of these years was used for purposes of this report. 4.3.3 Forecast Results by county for water withdrawals and water consumption by thermoelectric power plants are shown in Table 15 and Table 16, respectively. Statewide water withdrawals and consumption are estimated to increase by 79 percent over the forecast period. The statewide totals are shown in Figure 8. It should be noted that this forecast does not include water demands for three pending power facilities. The generating capacity of these facilities is not known at this time. These facilities are located in Grady County, Stephens County, and Pittsburg County. Table 15 - Estimated Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Caddo 5,010 5,178 5,776 6,444 7,189 8,020 8,947 Canadian 2,288 2,364 2,637 2,942 3,282 3,662 4,085 Choctaw 7,069 7,304 8,149 9,091 10,142 11,314 12,623 Comanche 2,484 2,566 2,863 3,194 3,563 3,975 4,435 Le Flore 5,695 5,885 6,565 7,324 8,171 9,116 10,170 Logan 242 250 279 312 348 388 433 Mayes 4,346 4,491 5,010 5,589 6,236 6,956 7,761 McClain 6,329 6,540 7,296 8,139 9,080 10,130 11,301 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-18 Table 15 - Estimated Total Withdrawals from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 McCurtain 956 988 1,103 1,230 1,372 1,531 1,708 Muskogee 100,057 103,395 115,348 128,683 143,560 160,157 178,672 Oklahoma 9,727 10,051 11,213 12,510 13,956 15,569 17,369 Pawnee 36,650 37,872 42,251 47,135 52,584 58,663 65,445 Pittsburg 12,886 13,316 14,855 16,572 18,488 20,626 23,010 Rogers 22,905 23,669 26,405 29,458 32,863 36,662 40,901 Seminole 17,320 17,898 19,967 22,275 24,851 27,723 30,929 Tulsa 13,071 13,507 15,069 16,811 18,754 20,922 23,341 Wagoner 4,580 4,733 5,280 5,891 6,572 7,332 8,179 Woodward 514 531 593 661 738 823 918 Statewide Total 252,127 260,539 290,660 324,262 361,750 403,571 450,227 Table 16 - Estimated Consumptive Use from Thermoelectric Power Generation (AFY) County 2007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Caddo 3,103 3,207 3,578 3,991 4,453 4,967 5,542 Canadian 1,417 1,464 1,633 1,822 2,033 2,268 2,530 Choctaw 4,378 4,524 5,047 5,631 6,281 7,008 7,818 Comanche 1,538 1,590 1,773 1,978 2,207 2,462 2,747 Le Flore 3,527 3,645 4,066 4,536 5,061 5,646 6,299 Logan 150 155 173 193 215 240 268 Mayes 2,692 2,782 3,103 3,462 3,862 4,309 4,807 McClain 3,920 4,051 4,519 5,041 5,624 6,274 7,000 McCurtain 592 612 683 762 850 948 1,058 Muskogee 61,970 64,038 71,441 79,701 88,915 99,194 110,661 Oklahoma 6,024 6,225 6,945 7,748 8,644 9,643 10,758 Pawnee 22,699 23,456 26,168 29,193 32,568 36,334 40,534 Pittsburg 7,981 8,247 9,201 10,264 11,451 12,775 14,251 Rogers 14,186 14,659 16,354 18,245 20,354 22,707 25,332 Seminole 10,727 11,085 12,367 13,796 15,391 17,171 19,156 Tulsa 8,096 8,366 9,333 10,412 11,615 12,958 14,456 Wagoner 2,837 2,932 3,270 3,648 4,070 4,541 5,066 Woodward 318 329 367 410 457 510 569 Statewide Total 156,156 161,366 180,022 200,833 224,051 249,953 278,850 Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-19 4.4 Other Large Industry A sector was added to the OCWP demand forecast to represent water use from large self-supplied industrial users, such as sand companies, gypsum production plants, quarry mines, concrete producing plants, petroleum refineries, paper mills, sawmills, bottling and distributing plants, chemical plants, tire manufacturing plants, lime production, natural gas plants, and meat packing plants. The data used in this sector were obtained from OWRB annual surface and groundwater reports. Two pieces of information were needed to include a large industry in this forecast sector—water use and employment. Water use reporting was needed to have an accurate estimate of current use at the given establishment. Employment numbers were needed in order to subtract employment from the employment projections used in the public-supply nonresidential forecast, to avoid double-counting. Twenty-seven industries reported the needed data to the OWRB and are included in this forecast sector. In order to maintain privacy of these establishments, individual information is withheld in this report. Because future conditions at these establishments is unknown, this sector was forecasted into the future using the growth rates of the employment projections developed for the public supply nonresidential forecast. Growth rates were specified by industry type. Results of the demand forecast are shown in Table 17 and illustrated in Figure 9. Water use among these large industries is projected to increase by about 20 percent by 2060. Figure 8 - Water Demand from Thermoelectric Power Generation Section 4 Self-Supplied, Non-Agricultural Demands 4-20 Table 17 - Selected Self-Supply Large Industry Water Demand Forecast (AFY) County 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Beaver 364 375 393 400 406 413 419 Blaine 317 311 304 330 357 383 412 Canadian 118 115 113 121 127 134 140 Carter 61 63 66 70 73 77 81 Choctaw 92 95 99 101 104 101 99 Comanche 362 355 346 363 377 387 396 Custer 24 23 23 23 24 25 26 Garvin 230 225 219 223 227 232 236 Jackson 613 601 586 614 636 654 669 Johnston 1,425 1,397 1,359 1,380 1,400 1,440 1,481 Kay 11,004 11,340 11,880 12,184 12,465 12,746 13,050 Logan 1,200 1,176 1,154 1,268 1,382 1,493 1,612 McCurtain 34,739 34,058 33,179 34,339 35,320 36,390 37,371 Muskogee 22,068 21,658 21,112 21,746 22,293 22,841 23,388 Oklahoma 249 244 238 247 255 260 265 Osage 587 576 562 590 615 640 669 Pottawatomie 651 639 623 661 697 732 768 Sequoyah 1,742 1,708 1,672 1,825 1,974 2,127 2,280 Texas 10,938 10,724 10,612 12,722 14,831 16,941 19,018 Woodward 3,159 3,097 3,016 3,106 3,167 3,242 3,303 Statewide Total 89,942 88,780 87,558 92,313 96,730 101,258 105,683 Figure 9 - Water Demands from Selected Self-Supplied Large Industries (AFY) 5-1 Section 5 Agriculture Oklahoma is the fifth largest cattle producing state in the nation and the third largest producer of wheat. In recent years, crops and livestock that were once relatively small in terms of production have grown dramatically, such as poultry and swine (Oklahoma Department of Agriculture). Agricultural water demands represent a significant percent of statewide water withdrawals and support an important economic sector. For the OCWP, current and future agriculture demands are estimated by county for two sub-sectors: livestock and crop irrigation. The forecast presented in this chapter represent the base agriculture forecast. That is, a forecast that represents current water use patterns and attitudes, current market conditions, and average weather from the base year throughout the forecast. The 2060 demands represent a reasonable maximum estimate of water requirements under base conditions. Alterations in the base conditions have the potential to greatly impact the future of agriculture water requirements. Conservation practices that replace inefficient irrigation systems with low-waste irrigation systems can reduce irrigation water demands. Potential climate change can alter the type of crops irrigated, reduce or increase rainfall amounts, and affect crop yields. Future energy policies may encourage a switch to biofuel crops that require varying amounts of irrigation water and bring new industries that use high volumes of water. An impact assessment of conservation, climate change, and other factors on the base forecast will be addressed for the OCWP in a later task. The Census of Agriculture (Ag Census) is the main source of data utilized for the agriculture water demand forecast. Taken every 5 years by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Ag Census is a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. The most recent Ag Census was conducted in 2007 and reports on land use and ownership; operator characteristics; production practices including irrigation, income, and expenditures; livestock counts; and many other areas. 5.1 Livestock Livestock require water for animal nutrition, animal cooling, sanitation, and waste removal. Oklahoma ranks 13th in the U.S. for live animal and meat exports and produces 5 percent of U.S. cattle and calves inventory (United 2008). Poultry and swine, respectively, are Oklahoma's second and third largest agricultural industries and Oklahoma is now one of the top states in poultry and swine production (Oklahoma 2009). Current estimates of livestock water demands were developed based on the major livestock groups in Oklahoma and their respective daily water requirements. Major Section 5 Agriculture 5-2 livestock groups evaluated are: cattle, dairy cows, sheep, hogs, horses, and poultry.8 The annual livestock water demand was calculated by multiplying the daily water requirement for each group by the number of livestock and then the number of days in a year. The annual demand in gallons is then converted to AFY. This computation is shown in Equation 5. Equation 5 Where: = Livestock water demand in AFY in county (c) in year (y) = Livestock count for animal group (n) in county (c) and year (y) = Daily water requirement per animal (n) 5.1.1 Livestock Inventories Base year livestock numbers at the county level were obtained from the 2007 Ag Census. Due to disclosure obligations in hog data, some county hog numbers were not reported in the Ag Census. In these instances, 2007 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) district values were used to determine hog numbers. These 2007 district values were distributed to withheld counties by using the county ratios from 1992 to determine 2007 county/district ratios. 1992 ratios were used as 1992 was the last census to contain a data set with no undisclosed data. It should be noted that 2007 is the first year for horse counts in the Ag Census and the values are known to be low. The American Horse Council (AHC) reports a statewide total nearly three times what is reported in the Ag Census and is considered to have greater accuracy. However, the AHC does not provide horse estimates by county, as needed for the OCWP. Through contact with the Oklahoma State University horse specialist, it was determined that the 2007 Ag Census was the best source for county horse counts. Also, because cattle for beef and dairy cows have differing water requirements, these livestock groups were estimated separately. Dairy cow inventory estimates were subtracted from total cattle counts to obtain the estimated beef cattle inventory. Therefore, beef cattle values in this analysis represent all cattle other than dairy cows. Once current livestock inventories by county were collected, a methodology was developed to project livestock inventories by county to 2060. In order to estimate a reasonable maximum projection for livestock, an analysis was conducted from the three most recent Ag Census years. The Ag Census data from 1997, 2002, and 2007 were analyzed to obtain the highest reported number of livestock by livestock group in each county. It is 8 Poultry includes: broilers, layers, and pullets for replacement. Section 5 Agriculture 5-3 believed that using the highest reported number allows for maximum future fluctuations due to unforeseen circumstances. The historical maximum was then assumed to be the build-out inventory for 2060. Linear interpolation was applied to obtain the inventory for forecast years between 2007 and 2060. In some instances, 2007 represents the highest livestock count for a given county and animal group, in which case no growth is assumed. A modified methodology was used to estimate the build-out inventory for poultry because many county values were withheld in the three census datasets. For instance, in the 1997 census, data on layers were withheld totaling 1.8 million birds across 15 counties. In general, the highest poultry count by type was obtained for these counties and used as build-out. Overall, data problems experienced in the chicken livestock group has little effect on the livestock water demand forecast due to the low water requirement for chickens. Also, 2007 was the first year that data were collected on equine, thus no historical maximum data exist to estimate future build-out inventories for horses. To project the number of horses into the future, a 2 percent growth rate over the study period was assumed. Results of the 2007 Ag Census and the 2060 build-out assumptions for each livestock group are shown in Table 18. Statewide, growth in cattle and hog production could potentially increase by 5.8 and 6.3 percent, respectively. Growth in dairy cows has the potential to increase by 65.3 percent. The poultry and sheep/goat livestock groups could increase by 5.0 and 10.1 percent by 2060, respectively. The horse inventory shows the assumed 2 percent growth. Section 5 Agriculture 5-4 Table 18 - Projected Livestock Inventory CATTLE DAIRY COWS SHEEP & GOATS HOGS CHICKEN HORSES County 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 2007 2060 Adair 57,391 57,650 3,541 7,526 2,103 2,103 372 406 4,789,544 5,029,021 2,330 2,377 Alfalfa 91,893 103,937 632 632 934 1,703 469 8,154 440 462 810 826 Atoka 80,155 79,988 167 221 2,354 2,354 91 341 1,447 2,315 1,954 1,993 Beaver 101,119 120,597 70 430 545 729 332,088 332,088 207 403 1,085 1,107 Beckham 53,256 63,154 632 632 1,054 1,518 365 390 456 479 1,271 1,296 Blaine 112,977 112,112 865 865 1,323 1,323 65 507 0 0 742 757 Bryan 100,684 101,561 4,080 4,188 4,087 5,455 926 926 1,571 2,705 2,616 2,668 Caddo 141,988 141,725 263 355 3,807 3,807 65,162 65,162 2,090 2,195 1,851 1,888 Canadian 106,430 107,208 322 1,361 2,486 3,402 3,476 8,772 2,491 2,616 2,898 2,956 Carter 53,862 60,442 58 124 2,213 2,213 520 748 4,067 4,270 2,948 3,007 Cherokee 47,048 46,612 2,436 2,528 3,862 3,862 266 901 527,221 548,214 2,803 2,859 Choctaw 70,402 70,338 64 242 1,696 1,696 243 383 158,038 165,940 2,966 3,025 Cimarron 126,552 134,887 632 2,318 445 445 32,309 32,309 166 174 523 533 Cleveland 24,481 26,938 231 410 5,141 5,141 |
Date created | 2011-12-08 |
Date modified | 2011-12-08 |