Folks, I have a question regarding the lakes around OKC. I noticed that there is no swimming allowed in Hefner, Overholser, or Draper. Why is that? I also noticed some lakes allow you to use jet skis and ski, so how can you do those things without swimming??

What if I take a pontoon out on draper, and we need to cool off? Would we get a big fine if we jumped off the back for a few minutes?

I don't have an answer for you but I've always wondered about this myself.


UPDATE: I found someone else who had asked a similar question on another forum.... http://www.triokc.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3408

I just read through that thread and the cities response is dumb. It's not like they can't have some kind of signal to get out of the water if they are about to withdraw a bunch. Frankly, if they allow boats with the potential for oil/fuel leaks, jet skis, wind surfers, skiers, etc, then people should be allowed to swim at their own risk. I do agree with them though about draper. It looks pretty sketchy from the recent google maps image. That water is pretty low. I don't know if I would want to get in there unless I'm way out in the middle, but at the same time, the water is so low that it looks like their boat ramps are unusable.

Last time I drove by Draper the water elevation had raised significantly and boaters were back on the water.

That's good. I've been looking for another lake to go to. Arcadia has been disappointing this year. I haven't caught a single fish out there in 8 tries now...grrr...

Thunderbird is an option, but that is pretty far away (although it isn't too much further than draper)...

I wanted to post the response from the City for others to see. Hard to understand the reasoning:


There are several reasons we don't allow swimming in our water supply lakes. As water supply lakes, they were built without swimming beaches or sloped ground to support safe swimming, they are subject to sudden currents as we withdraw and add water to the lake, and they are too murky to support swimmer rescue. Draper Lake is currently 16 feet below its normal water depth, so additional unknown hazards are closer to the surface.

I wanted to post the response from the City for others to see. Hard to understand the reasoning:

It should probably also be noted that the quote from the city is from Aug 2010. It helps to clarify that last sentence because Draper is no longer that low.

We used to go to Draper a lot in the 80s and 90s. Always to water ski. We would get in the water just like we would at any other lake that didn't restrict swimming. Lots of times just shutting off the motor and drifting getting in and out of the water to cool off. We were never bothered by the lake patrol either. This would be all from the boat. We would never get in the water from the shore. I never beached my boat at Draper. I never put my boat on Hefner or Overholser because you couldn't ski on those lakes.

I used to jet ski all the time at Draper, and would occasionally fall off and just swim for a moment to cool off. My thoughts were if lake patrol came by I'd just say I'd fallen off and was taking a moment to catch my breath to get back on. I think their biggest reason for the no swimming is so the shores aren't crowded with tons of people swimming. The simple solution would have been to add swimming only areas like most small lakes and the perfect time to do this would have been when it was drained for the previous couple years. Opportunity missed IMO.

I'm glad they don't allow swimming in our water supply lakes. Frankly, most swim beaches at lakes are quite dirty.

I go to Hefner almost daily; enough to see the creative litter that pops up. Cathode ray tube televisions, the usual assortment of tires that failed as swings and dock bumpers, ALL THAT GLASS, and so on. I wouldn't WANT to swim in there. As far as what we use it for, I'm sure it's as diluted as the air we breath every second, but to come across that stuff in close range....

Consider coming to Canton Lake. While we are 12 ft low, you can swim. We have 2 ramps available, I understand the tubing is very good, the fishing is great, we're about 1.5 to 2 hrs NW of OKC, depending on where you are. Not many people so lots of room on the lake. OKC lake users are very welcome.

Just don't tell the locals you're from the metro.

I stick a body part in Hefner about once a week, usually getting in and out of a boat. Never saw a TV or much glass that I can recall but it's not what I would consider a great place to go swimming, even if you could.

Lake Ouachita in Arkansas moved near the top of my lake list after a recent visit.

Draper is still down, but having been by there twice in the last week, it isn't still way, way down like it was a few years back when work was being done at the lake/dam a few years back. Not so very long ago, all the floating docks were sitting in sand and water was no where near them at all. This is no longer the case, though it is still not full.

While there is no swimming at Draper, there is little doubt there is a lot of wading, floating and other wise resting in water mainly from the face down that takes place there. And then of course there are also the numerous live folk that enjoy the water at the lake.
(I keed. It isn't nearly the body dump it used to be.)

Hefner gets fairly deep, pretty quickly and much of the area around the shore are large, jagged rocks (boulders), not exactly conducive to walking from the shore out to the water. The area around Hobie Point is probably the closest thing to a beach to make it easier to launch the smaller catamarans or dinghy's. When I sailed out there the only time we would really get in was to unfoul a line or sail from the keel. Overholser is usually full of silt.

"(I keed. It isn't nearly the body dump it used to be.)" Funny you said that. I had a former "friend" and her boyfriend were executed back in the late 70's, early 80's. She kept hanging with the wrong people. OT a bit but the memory just popped up with your post.

"(I keed. It isn't nearly the body dump it used to be.)" Funny you said that. I had a former "friend" and her boyfriend were executed back in the late 70's, early 80's. She kept hanging with the wrong people. OT a bit but the memory just popped up with your post.

I seem to vaguely recall what a "body dump" (based on local newspaper and primitive television) Draper used to be . . . Mostly not right in the lake, rather in the semi-unspoiled, pristine wilderness (except for the volunteer dirt bike paths, pioneered by scofflaws and their carbon footprints) that once surrounded it. Plus it was close to that bastion of civility known, then, as far SE 29th St. . . . so it didn't involve burning a lot of gasoline to get there . . .

But that was then, and this is now, and The Rules about swimming or not swimming in those lakes still sort of confound me. I thought The Rules all had something to do with the "purity" of the water (for drinking purposes) . . . yet then, if that is the case, They shouldn't allow any aquatic entertainment machinery, that requires fossil fuel, to pollute it (the water) or them (the lakes).

I think the only watercraft that should be allowed on local lakes are sailboats powered by gossamer wings comprised of solar cells. With extra good batteries in case you want to "walk across water" at night. In the name of preservation. of nature. =)

Wasn't it W.C. Fields who once quipped: "Water???? I don't drink water! Fish fu*k in water!"

[Thanks for the Memory Nudge, Mel. =) ]

btw: Bro. Midtowner ought to be able to pick up a lot of dollars translating THAT post. =)
[I keed . . . I keed . . . =) ]

Would it be unfair and/or unkind to suggest that even Urbanistas need a fair share of semi-unspoiled "wilderness"?
Like . . . For the rest of us?

(apologies, in advance, to the OP, for any digressions--implied and/or unintended--from the topic: Regarding Area Lakes.)

Your right. They weren't found in the lake, just around the body dump area. Minus a few bits.

Apparently that punk from down around Blanchard or wherever--fairly recently, in the news--didn't study history. =)

With suburban sprawl it's hard to find a place to dump bodies. I don't like getting into lakes much anymore because of all the flora and fauna that seem to multiply in the summer.

With suburban sprawl it's hard to find a place to dump bodies.

Just means you got to drive a little further. :Smiley122 We still got plenty of country in this state.

With this coming up now, I'm wondering why we're spending money piping water from way the crap down in Atoka instead of starting to work on filling the extended reservoir from Draper? If you look at a satellite map, there is very little development in the basin since it's been designated for the reservoir. It just seems like it would be easier and cheaper to use existing nearby infrastructure than to go way the crap to Atoka...

Oklahoma City Council sets public hearing on water rate increases | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-sets-public-hearing-on-water-rate-increases/article/5171260)

I wonder if the 2.1 billion in work needed is just the pipeline from Atoka or if it includes connecting Hefner to Draper? They did a study on that not too long ago.

2.1 billion is right up there with the total spend on all three MAPS combined.

I wonder if the 2.1 billion in work needed is just the pipeline from Atoka or if it includes connecting Hefner to Draper? They did a study on that not too long ago.

They get water from Atoka for the same reason robbers hit banks and not garage sales ... that's where a lot of treasure can be snatched up at one time.

That wasn't my question but feel free to speak about whatever you desire. Hefner and everyone supplied from Hefner are isolated from Draper and all those easy but expensive pickings at Atoka. There has been a study to connect all the OKC supplies together, so, if Hefner is low and lets assume they can't or don't want to take water from Canton, they could move water from Atoka/Draper to Hefner. Same with water treatment plants needing relief or maintenance. They could shift the load.

So my question, does this stated goal and cost estimate of 2.1 billion include that work?

Cite: http://www.okc.gov/agendapub/cache/2/k2txit55on1pgqm5punlqu3q/172400408122014044442195.PDF

sorry mkleeves. replied on wrong post. Not one of my better days.

Tried to look at that link, but only reached an error page.

I'll try again. http://www.okc.gov/agendapub/cache/2/3nxulyypruftsw45dichcd55/172400408122014091027543.PDF

Can't seem to make a link work. Google search for Presentation on Evaluation of Connecting Draper Water System to Hefner Water System, Project WC - 0600

I would think the discussion about the Atoka pipeline is related to the executive session about the Sardis lawsuit. If they reached an agreement for the Sardis water, they'll start working on the 2nd Atoka pipeline. OKC needs to keep their dependent water districts in line to help pay for all the upgrades. Until these last rains, Hefner only had a few weeks of water.

I would think the discussion about the Atoka pipeline is related to the executive session about the Sardis lawsuit. If they reached an agreement for the Sardis water, they'll start working on the 2nd Atoka pipeline. OKC needs to keep their dependent water districts in line to help pay for all the upgrades. Until these last rains, Hefner only had a few weeks of water.

Not wanting to disagree, but I don't think this statement is even close to being correct. It would have been all over the news if the supply was that low.

I went and found this - this is old and it's from the city, but it states that if Hefner is down 10 feet, (which it hasn't been down that much this year) then there is still a years supply left in the lake.

Yes. Even though Lake Hefner is down 10 feet, there is still about a year’s worth of water in the lake. This is the water we pump to the Hefner Water Treatment Plant. We have a team of professionals there that treat the water and make it safe for drinking.

Not wanting to disagree, but I don't think this statement is even close to being correct. It would have been all over the news if the supply was that low.

Could 52 weeks be considered a few?

Could 52 weeks be considered a few?

lol. The lake was not 10 feet down this year, and it's darn near full right now. 52 weeks.....let me think about this...

Its for reasons like this and many others that Ive never been much of a fan of city lakes, I prefer lakes out in the country,..out in the woods....more freedom, more recreation, less regulations.