Sulphur Times-Democrat 03/06/2014

March 12, 2014 8:23 pm /

Copy Reduced to 55% from original to fit letter page
LOCAL NEWS sclphcrtires.ccr 18A 8clphcr (Dkla.) Tires-0erccrat, Thcrscay, Harch 6, 20!4
LandmarkBank.com (800) 618-5503 MEMBER FDlC
Im a Landmark.
Wirh a SDA loan, Lancmark
rollec rhe resr ol my closin
cosrs inro a lowinreresr home
loan, anc paic only $34.2c ar
closin, wirh no cown paymenr
neecec. never creamec ir
coulc Le rhar simple. Lancmark
mace ir possiLle. Finc our how rhe
Lancmark ream can help you.
"Wbat did it
take to make me
a bomeowner?
Just $34.2 and
Landmark ank."
-Jeremy Dillon
Graphic above shows the route of the proposed water pipeIine to a future SuIphur
water treatment pIant southwest of the city. The proposed pipeIine wouId start at a re-
reguIating reservoir near the existing Wynnewood Aqueduct, continue north to S.H. 7,
then east to a point just west of Cooper MemoriaI Drive and then south a short distance
to the proposed water treatment pIant.
The Final Report concludes
the Appraisal Investigation phase
of the water needs and pipeline
study. This is the frst 'tier of a
four-tier process leading to actual
pipeline construction.
The Reclamation report, Bal-
combe said, is favorable to
Sulphur 'moving ahead to the
feasibility study, which is the
second tier in the process.
The report itself stated that 'the
Sulphur Pipeline Regional Rural
Water Supply Project is viable
and appropriate for more detailed
analysis in a feasibility study.
Commenting on the study`s
positive fndings, Balcombe told
the group that 'many projects
don`t end up like this. They
have no recommendation (to
continue).
Balcombe explained, 'This
study was done at no cost to the
City of Sulphur, who will primar-
ily beneft from it, along with the
rural water districts. The city had
nothing to lose in doing this.
The Appraisal Investigation
cost nearly $200,000, Balcombe
said.
He told the group that 'Sulphur
is entitled to 197,000 acre/feet
per year of Lake of the Arbuckles
water to the city and surrounding
area.
The pipeline project is esti-
mated to cost anywhere from $10
million to $20 million, much of
which is cost of constructing a
new treatment plant and storage
facility in Sulphur. Total project
cost, including a 'regional con-
nection to Rural Water District
#1, and operation and mainte-
nance costs, could total more than
$30 million.
There was good economic
news presented when Balcombe
noted that the cost per 1,000
gallons of water would be about
$2.17, which is considerably
lower than many other communi-
ties pay for water.
Lake History ToId
The meeting began with
Arbuckle Master Conservancy
District (AMCD) Manager Ste-
ven Jolly tracing the history of
the Lake of the Arbuckles dating
back to the conceptual beginnings
in the early 1960s.
The 'Arbuckle Project was
conceived in 1962, and the dam
and Wynnewood aqueduct began
operation in 1967.
He said the AMCD is respon-
sible for operation and mainte-
nance of the dam and 190 acres
downstream. Management of
much of the shoreline and lake
for recreational purposes, Jolly
said, is the responsibility of the
Chickasaw National Recreation
Area (CNRA), part of the National
Park Service.
Jolly completed his remarks
by thanking local bankers Brian
Hollis and Mike Bradley for 'pro-
viding the lunch today.
The next speaker was OWRB`s
J.D. Strong, who called the
meeting 'an update on this great
study.
Strong emphasized threats
to Sulphur`s primary water sup-
ply - the Arbuckle-Simpson
Aquifer.
'You reach a tipping point,
Strong explained, 'where you are
drawing so much water from the
aquifer that it begins to dry up. We
have lost springs over the years.
Strong added that this will have
an impact on tourism.
Another threat to the aquifer,
Strong remembered, was a pro-
posal in 2003 'to transfer roughly
80,000 acre/feet of water from
some of the local ranchers that
have water rights in the area, to
a thirsty west metro (Oklahoma
City) area: Yukon, Mustang and
Piedmont areas.
This threat was met legisla-
tively with Senate Bill 288 that put
(Continued from page 1)
Water Study
a moratorium on water transfers
to another area, until a complete
hydrology study of the aquifer
was completed, and a maximum
annual yield determined by the
water board. Up until that time,
Strong said, an annual yield study
had not been done.
Strong explained that the
OWRB approved the fnal Maxi-
mum Annual Yield (MAY) for
the aquifer in October, 2013.
The new MAY is one-tenth the
amount previously permitted to
be withdrawn. Determining the
MAY was one factor in the timing
of the fnal report`s release.
Strong told the group that the
'OWRB`s charge is to protect the
natural fows from the springs and
streams in the aquifer area.
Strong said implementing the
MAY might take some time. 'We
have several lawsuits fled against
us, as you can imagine, that are
trying to challenge that number,
and overturn it, Strong explained.
'That is not uncommon. Just about
any major move we make at the
water resources board, we face
litigation over it.
Strong estimated that, with
the lawsuits and completion of
the rule-making process, the
MAY will be fully implemented
by 2020.
He introduced Noel Osborn,
CNRA chief of resource manage-
ment, who he said 'was one of
the lead scientists, lead investiga-
tors, on the aquifer study. We are
fortunate to have somebody with
her technical acumen involved
in that.
The stakeholders learned that
there are seven groundwater wells
east of town that serve Sulphur.
Sulphur has prior rights to this
aquifer water. Prior rights are
unaffected by the MAY.
The MAY affects temporary
rights. Sulphur has about 300 to
400 acre/feet per year of tempo-
rary rights vs. 1,100 acre/feet a
year of prior rights. Sulphur could
experience a 90 percent reduction
in the amount of water taken from
the temporary rights.
Balcombe explained the ter-
ritory served and activities of
the BOR, Great Plains Region,
saying, 'We are a Federal water
resource agency within the De-
partment of the Interior. We have
jurisdiction over the 17 western
United States. In Oklahoma we
have currently seven reservoirs
across the state, including Lake
of the Arbuckles.
StakehoIders
Several entities that might ben-
eft from a Sulphur water pipeline
were identifed and consulted with
throughout the investigation, Bal-
combe said. Stakeholders in the
pipeline project include:
AMCD
National Park Service -
CNRA
Chickasaw Nation
OWRB
Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation
Murray County Rural Water
District No. 1
Buckhorn Rural Water Dis-
trict
Citizens for the Protection of
the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer
He added that the BOR also
consulted with representatives
from the offces of Fourth District
U.S. House Representative Tom
Cole (R-Norman). Amber Savage
represented Cole at the meeting.
Balcombe noted that Wyn-
newood and Ardmore currently
have water pipelines from the lake.
Sulphur chose originally to defer
their right to construct a pipeline
to a time when the City of Sulphur
needed the water.
'There is a standing authority
to build the pipeline, Balcombe
said. He added that the current
pipeline study 'fts in with get-
ting a new authority (to build).
He explained that there are issues
about 'whether the water treat-
ment plant is even authorized in
the existing authority.
Balcombe summed up the two
main purposes of the pipeline
study, as:
1. determine the feasibility
of building a pipeline to Sulphur
2. to determine some costs.
The study was done at the re-
quest of the City of Sulphur.
The next tier in the process is a
Feasibility Study, Balcombe said,
that would be funded 50/50 by the
city and the federal government.
He went on to discuss con-
veyance options, something he
had done in detail in previous
meetings.
Balcombe said, of 10 convey-
ance (route) alternatives, the
recommended pipeline route,
according to the report, is through
the existing intake structure at
the lake and pumped through the
existing Wynnewood Aqueduct to
the existing regulating reservoir.
Then pump water through a new
pipeline to a new treatment and
storage facility at the southwest
corner of Sulphur`s municipal
water system along Chickasaw
Trail and State Highway 7.
Other surface water source
options were considered in the
report, including the Washita
River and Veterans Lake in the
park. Most of these were deemed
not very viable.
Low-cost options include
conservation and water reuse, the
report states. Balcombe added,
'When you start peeling the onion,
it starts to reveal other issues that
are out there: water conservation
and reuse for example. How viable
is acquiring additional ground
water rights?
'There are questions that re-
main as to how far the city and
others want to pursue looking at
these other options as you move
forward to secure a long-term
water supply for the city and the
region.
Strong also supports looking
at conservation measures, say-
ing that conservation should be a
'priority for Sulphur.
Benefts of the project include
economic advantages of maintain-
ing tourism in the park and area,
Balcombe said.
He added the cost/beneft ratio
is favorable, saying, 'A positive
cost/beneft ratio to an agency like
us means we feel comfortable to
make a recommendation to go to
the next level of the study.
The meeting educated the
stakeholders to the fact that the
issue of groundwater (aquifer)
vs. surface water (lake, stream,
springs) is not an 'either/or
issue.
The group learned that the
aquifer feeds the springs and
streams that feed the lake. So if
surface water is prioritized, there
still will be an effect on ground
water.
CNRA`s Noel Osborn ex-
plained, 'You can use the (water)
sources conjunctively. Think of
your aquifer as your savings ac-
count; you don`t want to deplete
it. When you have a lot of rain,
use your surface water; when in
extreme drought, tap into your
aquifer. It is a timing decision.
Allard said, 'We call that Con-
junctive Use Management. We see
a lot of that now. It is like having
a (water) portfolio.
Further Study Funding
Balcombe had bad news when
it comes to funding further steps
on the study. 'The chances of
getting federal funding moving
forward are slim to none right
now. Funding from the Rural
Water Program doesn`t look good.
The budget included zero for the
program.
This could change 'as politics
change he added.
Balcombe said the rural
program is intended for com-
munities with fewer than 50,000
populations.
There is some money avail-
able through the Bureau of In-
dian Affairs to work with tribes,
Balcombe said. He added that
the BOR has a Native American
program. 'We have money in
the budget this year, and the
Chickasaws have put in for that,
he said.
Local construction contractor
Don Brown questioned why the
rural water districts` boards were
not at this meeting.
Jolly explained that they were
not invited. 'This meeting is
mainly for the City of Sulphur, the
City Manager, the City Council,
and some other guests, just to
bring them up to speed on this.
Jolly agreed with Brown that
we need to have the rural water
districts on board with Sulphur
to get the pipeline done.
One of the RWDs has ex-
pressed negative feelings about
working with Sulphur these
issues.
City Manager Mann asked
for email addresses of board
members of the RWDs. He said
he was going to try to 'help heal
this.
Commenting on the strained
relationships with rural water
districts, Strong said, 'These
disagreements are not unique to
Sulphur; it is happening all over
the state. It always works out
better if it is a partnership. You
don`t want one entity to be totally
in control of it, and another entity
is subservient.