Water transfer opponents seek to block permit

Staff Writer wcrum@oklahoman.com

Opponents of Oklahoma City's permit for water from southeast Oklahoma's Kiamichi River basin say a state agency lacked sufficient evidence to make an informed decision before granting the permit.

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board voted in October to grant Oklahoma City a permit for up to 115,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Kiamichi basin, where the city has storage rights in the Sardis Lake reservoir.

“We believe there is a lot of evidence that exists with the state of Oklahoma that ought to be considered by the board,” said Kevin Kemper, an attorney challenging the permit.

Kiamichi basin residents who oppose the transfer of water intend for Oklahoma City to get “not one drop of southeast Oklahoma water, and if they do get it, that they don’t kill the river,” he said.

Kemper has filed a petition in Pushmataha County District Court, asking a judge to invalidate the permit or order the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to reopen the permit hearing.

After a five-day hearing in August, hearing examiner Lyn Martin-Diehl concluded Oklahoma City was entitled to a permit.

Attorneys for the city said all requirements under state law had been met.

Oklahoma City first filed for a permit to appropriate water from the basin in 2007.

The city plans to divert water from the Kiamichi River at Moyers Crossing in Pushmataha County. Pipelines will carry water to Lake Stanley Draper.

Oklahoma City depends on water from two other southeast Oklahoma reservoirs: Lake Atoka and McGee Creek.

The Atoka pipeline has carried water to central Oklahoma for more than 50 years.

When the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, the state of Oklahoma and the city of Oklahoma City reached a water settlement last year, City Manager Jim Couch characterized the Sardis water as “generational water” to sustain growth until 2060 or beyond.

Demand for water in central Oklahoma is projected to nearly double to 353,000 acre-feet per year by 2060 as population grows and economic activity concentrates in the metro area.

In their petition, permit opponents say the Oklahoma Water Resources Board's decision granting the permit was unconstitutional because the city failed to provide sufficient notice to those living along the Kiamichi River.

They also contend the model used to determine the availability of water for transfer out of the basin was based on outdated information and that environmental effects were not considered.

They also said the board was unduly influenced by pressure associated with the water settlement, which was intended to end litigation over water resource management in traditional tribal homelands.

Attorneys for Oklahoma City argue opponents failed to name the city as a defendant in their petition, and that it should be dismissed because the city has “valuable interests separate from those” of the Water Resources Board and should have been included as a party in the litigation.