Oklahoma comprehensive water plan 2012 update. Water demand forecast report

              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 UseApproachper personper householdper employeeper accountper acreper animalper power plantresidents or populationhousing unitsemploymentaccountsacresanimalspower 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