Lake Hefner at record low water levels, when will city buy Canton water?

[mkjeeves]

Are they some of the users of this lake? Yes.
Does work on the dam allow water to stay in the lake? Yes
Should OKC water users pay for work on the dam? Yes

Do residents of Canton, OKC and all along the river enjoy flood control? Yes.
Shouldn't they all be paying for it? Yes.

OKC currently pays for water use in their water bill AND they pay for flood control through federal taxes. (Others obviously pay federal taxes too.) I don't know if each pays proportionally to cost, do you? Is water for drinking and watering lawns actually a cost of the dam or is it a byproduct of flood control? You decide. What if OKC quit buying the water, would we still need the dam? How would you fund flood control? How much more federal dollars would it take to keep the dam running for flood control and recreation?

I've poked around the net trying to find out what Canton water cost the City of OKC (exclusive of the federal taxes the citizens pay.) Can't find it. Does anyone know?

[Dubya61]

Do residents of Canton, OKC and all along the river enjoy flood control? Yes.
Shouldn't they all be paying for it? Yes.

OKC currently pays for water use in their water bill AND they pay for flood control through federal taxes. (Others obviously pay federal taxes too.) I don't know if each pays proportionally to cost, do you? Is water for drinking and watering lawns actually a cost of the dam or is it a byproduct of flood control? You decide. What if OKC quit buying the water, would we still need the dam? How would you fund flood control? How much more federal dollars would it take to keep the dam running for flood control and recreation?

I've poked around the net trying to find out what Canton water cost the City of OKC (exclusive of the federal taxes the citizens pay.) Can't find it. Does anyone know?

I have a bit of ignorance in this, as well, but I suspect that OKC (the municipality -- not the citizens) pays nothing for the water. If OKC paid the Corps of Engineers something so that they could lay claim to Sardis (something along the lines of the cost of building the dam, IIRC), then shouldn't they have to pay for maintenance on the dams that hold other water they can claim? I would say that if OKC didn't want to pony up money to fund maintenance to the dam, they should lose the right to draw that water on demand.

[mkjeeves]

Enid News reports OKC pays the Feds $200,000 a year for rights to the water. I assume that's for the right, for storage, and we pay either way even on years when there is too much to use and we send it downstream.

I've also looked unsuccessfully for a Corp of Engineers Canton Lake operating budget which should show income from both water and recreational fees.

[jn1780]

With any Sardis water, the city will have to pay for the water rights and the cost associated with pumping it here. As opposed to Canton where the Corp of Engineers pushes a button to release water downstream.

Ok, that engineer that pushes the button probably makes 60,000 per year. lol

[MarkAFuqua]

Enid News reports OKC pays the Feds $200,000 a year for rights to the water. I assume that's for the right, for storage, and we pay either way even on years when there is too much to use and we send it downstream.

I've also looked unsuccessfully for a Corp of Engineers Canton Lake operating budget which should show income from both water and recreational fees.

The avg yearly operating budget at Canton is around $800K plus or minus, that is where the $200K payment figure comes in, the actual contract states that the City will pay 25% of the annual Operations and Maintenance budget. So it's really not set at $200K, it's based on a percentage. You are correct that it is paid on all years no matter if the water is drawn or not. The contract also stipulates that the City is liable for 25.5% of other repairs or improvements. (I'm sorry, but don't remember the actual term used here) When I questioned about the new spilling basin project and it's estimated $205 million budget and OKC's part of that payment, which could be like $50 Mill, I was told it's done on a pro-rated basis according to how much of it is used for water storage and the total payment would be assessed at the end of the project but that it wasn't expected to be anywhere near $50 Million. Which makes sense to me as it's more for flood control than for water storage. They did say however that there should be some fee associated with it but no one knew how much.

[Midtowner]

With any Sardis water, the city will have to pay for the water rights and the cost associated with pumping it here. As opposed to Canton where the Corp of Engineers pushes a button to release water downstream.

Ok, that engineer that pushes the button probably makes 60,000 per year. lol

The tribal claims aren't as solid as they make them out to be.

[jn1780]

The tribal claims aren't as solid as they make them out to be.

I wasn't really speaking about the tribes specifically. It was more to highlight that the water will cost a little bit more if their having to use more electricity and to maintain a pumping infrastructure to bring the water to us as oppose to relying on gravity. This could apply to any eastern water source.

[MarkAFuqua]

I wasn't really speaking about the tribes specifically. It was more to highlight that the water will cost a little bit more if their having to use more electricity and to maintain a pumping infrastructure to bring the water to us as oppose to relying on gravity. This could apply to any eastern water source.

Yes, but 30,000 acre feet or several billion gallons wouldn't be lost to saturation in a dry river bed either, and electricity is easier to come by than water in a drought. Just a thought. (Before anyone gets smart, yes I know some water is used to create electricity at some dams.) :-)

[TAlan CB]

I wasn't really speaking about the tribes specifically. It was more to highlight that the water will cost a little bit more if their having to use more electricity and to maintain a pumping infrastructure to bring the water to us as oppose to relying on gravity. This could apply to any eastern water source.

DFW is willing to pay for the pipe and the pumping - not to mention the cost of the water. OKC needs to wise up and move fast or it will be too late. There is already a pipe from Atoka and McGee Creek - Sardis and Hugo are only 40 - 50 miles from Atoka. Since pumping and distrubution is established out of Hefner, another pipe from Draper to Hefner would complete a secondary source decreasing the demand on Canton as an option during times of drought. There are several untaped sources in the east - Hugo and Sardis are both several times the size of Thunderbird. The trick is not to depend too much on a singular source in addition to promoting wise use of water.

[Snowman]

DFW is willing to pay for the pipe and the pumping - not to mention the cost of the water. OKC needs to wise up and move fast or it will be too late. There is already a pipe from Atoka and McGee Creek - Sardis and Hugo are only 40 - 50 miles from Atoka. Since pumping and distrubution is established out of Hefner, another pipe from Draper to Hefner would complete a secondary source decreasing the demand on Canton as an option during times of drought. There are several untaped sources in the east - Hugo and Sardis are both several times the size of Thunderbird. The trick is not to depend too much on a singular source in addition to promoting wise use of water.

The pipe from Atoka is at capacity, that is why in the next couple years they are building one parallel to it that will get water from Sardis

[SSEiYah]

How is the water treated from lake hefner for drinking? I was walking around in the lake bed on the southwest side the other day and noticed dozens of tires, oil jugs, and batteries embedded in the lake floor.

[ljbab728]

So do the OKC water customers see the price of this reflected in their bill?

Maybe not directly but there is this.

Drought puts Lake Hefner boating season in jeopardy | News OK

Use more, pay more

With preparations under way to address the slip leases at Lake Hefner, the Water Utilities Trust board on Tuesday studied a proposal to increase rates for customers who use lots of water at home.

A plan presented by Bret Weingart, the utilities department assistant director, would have the intended effect of discouraging outdoor watering.

Water customers in Oklahoma City typically use about 7,000 gallons per month, officials said.

Chairman Pete White said he favored a simple approach that would reward people for using less water while maintaining — but not increasing — city revenues and making sure customers who use more pay more.

The city already has adopted a plan to limit water use by restricting outdoor watering to a maximum of every other day — known as odd-even because watering is tied to addresses.

New water rates could be coming soon, after the Water Utilities Trust makes a recommendation and the city council conducts public hearings and a vote.

[mkjeeves]

A plan presented by Bret Weingart, the utilities department assistant director, would have the intended effect of discouraging outdoor watering.

Perfect. Write an ordinance requiring greenspace and outdoor watering. Then write a second one discouraging and penalizing those who do. Make them pay!

Our bipolar city government at work.

Guess I need to highlight a copy of the landscape ordinance and send copies to the mayor and my councilman.

[Just the facts]

Thanks for that quote ljbab728 because it really underscores the root problem. It says the average OKC water customer uses 7000 gallons and
I assume that is for residential customers only. The City is trying to discourage water use but at the same time they keep allowing new homes with large and larger yards which have to be maintained. When a new suburban home is built it requires more than the average amount of water to maintain which results in average usage going up by design.

If OKC really wanted to fix this problem they would have a minimum building density of 4 units per acre and a minimum impervious surface ratio (not a maximum) of something like 70%. That means each lot could at most be 30% grass. Homes with larger yards would instantly become more valuable because those couldn't be built anymore and new homes would become much more affordable because they require less land to build on.

[Just the facts]

You beat me to it mkjeeves.

[mkjeeves]

You beat me to it mkjeeves.

You offered some possible solutions at least.

This issue underscores something I've been thinking about lately that's too big for this thread. OKC does not have a comprehensive plan for the future. Sure, we have some plans to subsidize improving downtown and that's about it. (Some people have read into that it means to ignore and abandon the rest of the city and its residents when they have been milked of taxes to accomplish this goal. That's neither vision nor leadership.) What is the long term vision and resulting plan for the entire metro as we move forward?

[Midtowner]

If OKC really wanted to fix this problem they would have a minimum building density of 4 units per acre and a minimum impervious surface ratio (not a maximum) of something like 70%. That means each lot could at most be 30% grass. Homes with larger yards would instantly become more valuable because those couldn't be built anymore and new homes would become much more affordable because they require less land to build on.

The trouble is, some of us like our suburban lifestyle, large back yards, etc. It works out for the city because our houses are worth more per square foot than crappy apartments and condos, except those downtown (but the market won't be able to sustain the current prices for downtown homes IMHO). Your idea pretends that OKC competes with no one for finding good homeowners. Decrease the options here and Edmond, Moore, etc. will be happy to have those property tax dollars.

Also, decreasing the value of new development does two things: it stunts new development and leads to lower prices, which invite lower quality building and in 20-30 years, you have dilapidated, crime-ridden neighborhoods.

[Just the facts]

This is the wrong thread for this discussion but you couldn't be more wrong Midtowner.

1) Residential property taxes don't come close to paying for connecting those properties to public utilities and roads.
2) Downtown housing units cost more per sq foot because demand says they can.
3) Low density urban sprawl causes property devaluation and dilapidated crime-ridden neighborhoods.

But the real question is - where is the water going to come from to keep building homes with 1/2 acre yards? Someone could build a levee around the entire state but if water usage exceeds the average amount mother nature can supply what good does it do? Over a 10 year period if we are only getting sufficient rainfall in 4 of those years what do you do for the other 6? What happens in 10 years when we have increased demand so that sufficient rainfall only occurs in 3 of the 10 years?

Funny thing about defining 'drought', it is based on the rainfall provided by nature, not how much water us humans need/want. We are rapidly approaching the point that every year will be a drought year no matter how much rain we get because we demand more than can be supplied. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will kick in and that will be that. So we can either prepare for that now or stick our head in the sand - literally - by putting in low-flow shower heads and building yards that require 10,000 gallons of water every month.

[CitySlickR]

Amen

This is the wrong thread for this discussion but you couldn't be more wrong Midtowner.

1) Residential property taxes don't come close to paying for connecting those properties to public utilities and roads.
2) Downtown housing units cost more per sq foot because demand says they can.
3) Low density urban sprawl causes property devaluation and dilapidated crime-ridden neighborhoods.

But the real question is - where is the water going to come from to keep building homes with 1/2 acre yards? Someone could build a levee around the entire state but if water usage exceeds the average amount mother nature can supply what good does it do? Over a 10 year period if we are only getting sufficient rainfall in 4 of those years what do you do for the other 6? What happens in 10 years when we have increased demand so that sufficient rainfall only occurs in 3 of the 10 years?

Funny thing about defining 'drought', it is based on the rainfall provided by nature, not how much water us humans need/want. We are rapidly approaching the point that every year will be a drought year no matter how much rain we get because we demand more than can be supplied. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will kick in and that will be that. So we can either prepare for that now or stick our head in the sand - literally - by putting in low-flow shower heads and building yards that require 10,000 gallons of water every month.

[Midtowner]

This is the wrong thread for this discussion but you couldn't be more wrong Midtowner.

1) Residential property taxes don't come close to paying for connecting those properties to public utilities and roads.
2) Downtown housing units cost more per sq foot because demand says they can.
3) Low density urban sprawl causes property devaluation and dilapidated crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Residential property taxes fund our schools. Which do you think will retain its value better and pay more taxes over time? Block 42 or Heritage Hills?

But the real question is - where is the water going to come from to keep building homes with 1/2 acre yards? Someone could build a levee around the entire state but if water usage exceeds the average amount mother nature can supply what good does it do? Over a 10 year period if we are only getting sufficient rainfall in 4 of those years what do you do for the other 6? What happens in 10 years when we have increased demand so that sufficient rainfall only occurs in 3 of the 10 years?

Funny thing about defining 'drought', it is based on the rainfall provided by nature, not how much water us humans need/want. We are rapidly approaching the point that every year will be a drought year no matter how much rain we get because we demand more than can be supplied. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will kick in and that will be that. So we can either prepare for that now or stick our head in the sand - literally - by putting in low-flow shower heads and building yards that require 10,000 gallons of water every month.

I think your alarmist views are a little over the top. We just drained Canton and have plenty of water in Hefner to survive at least another serious year of drought, a drought which will eventually end, at which point, the lakes will again become flood control tools rather than primarily being used for water storage. Further, OKC does have long range plans. We're going to tap the water at Sardis as soon as the tribal rights issues are figured out and there's a long term plan for a massive expansion of Lake Stanley Draper. That there's no long term planning is pure fiction.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...reservoir.html

[SoonerDave]

The trouble is, some of us like our suburban lifestyle, large back yards, etc. It works out for the city because our houses are worth more per square foot than crappy apartments and condos, except those downtown (but the market won't be able to sustain the current prices for downtown homes IMHO). Your idea pretends that OKC competes with no one for finding good homeowners. Decrease the options here and Edmond, Moore, etc. will be happy to have those property tax dollars.

Also, decreasing the value of new development does two things: it stunts new development and leads to lower prices, which invite lower quality building and in 20-30 years, you have dilapidated, crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Amen, Midtowner. This notion that "everyone" wants to live in the the urban hipster areas conveniently ignores the explosive growth being seen in outer OKC areas such as Newcastle, Tuttle, Yukon, etc. Moore is already welcoming sales tax dollars in their new shopping district, and those dollars are being spent by folks in those evil SW OKC suburbs, Norman, Tuttle, et al.

It is astonishing to me (and, at the same time, it isn't) that people don't get the notion that if you start building crap, more crap comes in. They either don't get it, or they're just being intellectually dishonest in pursuit of a broader agenda of imposing their own kind of economic will on the masses, but that's another thread entirely.

[Just the facts]

Great, what are they going to fill the lake with, flood water every 4 or 5 years? What happens in the other non-flood years?

[Anonymous.]

Any new photos of Canton or Hefner as the waters fluctuate?

[Just the facts]

Soonerdave - no one is saying to get rid of current homes. Just build new ones that are consistent with the limits of nature and the reasonable modifications of man.

[ou48A]

Great, what are they going to fill the lake with, flood water every 4 or 5 years? What happens in the other non-flood years?

Oh I don’t know….
I grew up in a town that had one hundred year floods about 3 or 4 times a year just about every year for decades.
I witness Kaw Lake pretty much fill up in 2 days when they said it would take many months.
I have seen the river that feeds Canton Lake in full flood near Woodward.