Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Should Legislators Sell Water to Save Water in Oklahoma?

Oklahoma may soon upgrade its dated water infrastructure – with a hefty price tag.

A legislative panel studying nationwide water systems at the state level, recommended the Sooner Sate invest $82 billion over the next 50 years for infrastructure improvements to both drinking and wastewater systems. That averages out to be roughly $2 billion a year. The much needed improvements will aide the state in retaining water for residents and rural usage. In times of extreme drought – like the one experienced during the scorching 2011 summer – water conservation is crucial. Along with infrastructure costs another $3.75 million a year would be added on to the price tag for additional  recommended repairs.

“Oklahoma has some pretty dramatic aging infrastructure,” said Joe Freeman, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s chief of financial assistance.

The water issues continue in Oklahoma with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) insisting that water infrastructure is in need of a serious overhaul. However, OWRB Executive Director J.D. Strong stated that by leveraging bonds for water infrastructure improvements, the price tag would fall below $82 billion. Strong also pointed out that the OWRB has financed $2.6 billion in water-related projects over the past 25 years with only $20 million from the state level. The money put into past projects is dramatically lower than the $82 billion suggested, but how will the state generate this money?

Oklahoma water leaders are considering various options to not lose the state’s water supply – even mandates ordering the state to sell off water. Sell water to save water is the question. This proposition would make the state money to repair faulty infrastructure, but lose some of the state’s precious natural resources in the process.

In 2011, Oklahoma experienced one of the driest summers since 1921; along with much of the Central United States, no thanks to global warming and wildfire threats. The state can’t afford to hustle water to other parts of the nation when it’s already experiencing a water shortage. The potential water buyers would be states experiencing extreme drought, in the same classification as Oklahoma. 

The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) stated that global warming has caused more than 1,100 counties in the lower 48 states at higher risk of water shortages by mid-century and more than 400 at extremely high risk. The study pointed out 14 states – Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas – face an extreme or high risk to water sustainability and will likely see limitations on water availability as demand exceeds supply by 2050. 

Apparently, Oklahoma isn’t the only state that has to face the water shortage reality. Nonetheless, Oklahoma is now stuck in a lose, lose situation with few options. So, should the state implement mandates to sell water to pay for infrastructure repairs that could save water? You decide.

Posted by Christina Miralla on Oct 19, 2011 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Fri, Oct 21, 2011 Brad Daugherty New Jersey

at a recent Marcellus Shale Gas conference, it was noted that "clean" water isn't necessary for to frac the shale formation- they are even considering using mine acid waste water from the region. The above commenter has a good point - why should potable water be used for toilet flushing, car washes, lawn or golf course watering - reuse of treated wastewater holds potential to reduce potable water uses in these areas, and some regions are already on board with reuse.

Wed, Oct 19, 2011 GNACDAK

Why introduce "Global Warming" at several points in the story? The basis for improving the infrastructure should not be affected by natural cycles - but is really driven by human needs (growing food, sanitation, etc.). Coming out of an Ice Age is Global Warming by definition. What is the temperature you would pick for a target and how do you arrive at it? Regardless of your answers - the need for water resources and reliability of them doesn't really change much - does it?

Wed, Oct 19, 2011

This matter is further complicated by the Indian Tribes claim that they own the water rights per Federal treaty, and the State (OWRB) doesn't have the authority to regulate tribe owned resources. Local tv commercials sponsored by the tribes clearly state that the water belongs to the Native Americans.

Wed, Oct 19, 2011 Jerry San Diego, CA

NO ! as long as they have more options in promoting new technologies in water savings, and reducing the "commercial influence" on drinking water supply, they should be MORE concerned with helping small business' to bring the technologies forward.. especially in the 3rd year of a bad-policies-induced recession.. Grant money and other direct support of entrepeneurs WILL BRING FORTH the technologies that will save our water. Example 1: the cleaning industry has new ways to reclaim, recycle and filter for re-use their wash water, but marketing funds aka lines of credit "went away" 3 years ago abruptly. We need more cities, counties, and EPA to show-up at the "green trade shows". Example 2: Economy-minded rainwater and wash water catchment and recycling systems are available with sterilization, and UPC approved for flushing toilets.. These will eliminate the need for drinking water to be "flushed away". Green technology will pave the way of our environmental furure.. as soon as our government starts supporting small business' especially up-start entrepeneurs. Can you say "green jobs" ?

Wed, Oct 19, 2011

Likely No. However, there are many more questions that would need to be answered/addressed. Oklahoma is another state where oil and gas exploration occurs and uses millions of gallons of water in their operations as well as impacting groundwater/surface water along with other industries. If we consider water a precious natural resource, then it should be protected first and foremost before the any "selling" of water should be considered. State and federal agencys need to enforce current CWA rules which would then go a long way in ensuring water for residential and rural use.

Wed, Oct 19, 2011

NO. Water is a critical natural resource and Oklahoma needs to store and keep as much as possible for use within the state. OK needs to find other ways to finance infrastructure improvements.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above