Overview of Water Resources in and Near

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in

Western Oklahoma

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4024

Prepared in cooperation with the

WICHITA AND AFFILIATED TRIBES TRIBAL COUNCIL AND BUREAU

OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Abbott, M.M., and others—Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma—USGS/WRIR 03–4024

Printed on recycled paper
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Overview of Water Resources in and Near

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands

in Western Oklahoma

By M.M. Abbott, R.L. Tortorelli, M.F. Becker, and T.J. Trombley

Prepared in cooperation with the

WICHITA AND AFFILIATED TRIBES TRIBAL COUNCIL AND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4024
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

202 NW 66 St., Bldg. 7

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Information about water resources in Oklahoma is available on the World Wide Web at

http://ok.water.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, it contains copyrighted materials that are noted in the text.

Permission to reproduce those items must be secured from the individual copyright owners.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: OKLAHOMA CITY 2003
iii

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Historical overview of Wichita and Affiliated Tribes and treaty lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Method of investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Physical setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Geology in relation to ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Land cover and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Surface-water characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Seasonal distribution of streamflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Magnitude and frequency of floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Low-flow characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Long-term trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Ground-water availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Major aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Rush Springs Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Canadian and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Minor aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Marlow Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Small stream-valley alluvial aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Water properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Dissolved solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Major ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Water use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figures

Figures 1-2. Maps showing:

1. Location of study area, extent of Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, and hydrologic unit

boundaries in western Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2. Wichita and Affiliated Tribal trust and allotments lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Figure3.Diagramshowingregionalgeologicstructuralfeaturesandnorth-southgeologicsectionacross

western Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
iv

Figured 4. Photograph showing dome-shaped Wichita grass lodge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figures 5-6. Maps showing:

5. Hydrologic soil groups in the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6. Surface geology in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure7.Graphshowingseasonaldistributionofmonthlymeanprecipitation,basedonwateryear

(October 1-September 30), for two selected precipitation stations in and near the Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figures 8-9. Maps showing:

8. Land use in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

9.Locationofstreamflow-gagingstationsandsurface-water-qualitystationsinandneartheWichita

Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figures 10-13. Graphs showing:

10.Seasonaldistributionofmonthlymeanstreamflows,basedonwateryear(October1-September

30), for selected continuous record streamflow-gaging stations in and near the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

11. Total annual precipitation and LOWESS smooth for the entire period of record for two selected

precipitation stations in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . 24

12.TotalannualprecipitationandLOWESSsmoothfortheregulatedstreamflowperiodofrecord

at two selected precipitation stations in and near the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty

lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

13. Meanannual streamflowand LOWESS smoothfor theregulated period ofrecord atthree

selected streamflow-gaging stations in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands,

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 14. Map showing location of wells and ground-water-quality sites in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 15. Geohydrologic systems and associated water-bearing characteristics in and near the

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 16. Map showing altitude and configuration of the potentiometric surface in the Rush Springs Aquifer

in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figures 17-18. Graphs showing:

17. Depth to water recorded in well at 9N-13W-28 D in Caddo County and total annual precipitation

in climatic division 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

18. Annualwater-level measurements inwells inthe RushSprings Aquifer inthe Wichitaand

Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 19. Map showing saturated thickness of the Rush Springs Aquifer in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figures 20-25. Boxplots showing:

20.Dissolved-solidsconcentrationsinsurfacewaterandgroundwater(20a)andbygroundwater

in drainage basin (20b) in the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

21.Calciumconcentrationsinsurfacewaterandgroundwater(21a)andbygroundwater

in drainage basin (21b) in the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

22.Sodiumconcentrationsinsurfacewaterandgroundwater(22a)andbygroundwater

in drainage basin (22b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . 38

23. Sulfate concentrations in surface water and ground water (23a) and by ground

water in drainage basin (23b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands,

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

24.Chlorideconcentrationsinsurfacewaterandgroundwater(24a)andbygroundwater

in drainage basin (24b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . 41

25. Nitriteplus nitrateas nitrogen concentrationsin surfacewater and groundwater (25a)and

by ground water in drainage basin (25b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands,

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
v

Tables

1. Hydrologic characteristics of soils in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma 10

2.Documentedextremepeakdischargesandpeak-streamflowfrequencyestimatesforselectedstreamflow-gaging stations with at least eight years of annual peak-streamflow data from unregulated and

regulated basins in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.Annuallow-flowfrequencyestimatesforselectedcontinuousrecordstreamflow-gagingstationswith

at least 10 years of streamflow data from unregulated and regulated basins in and near the Wichita

and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.Estimatedfreshwaterwithdrawalsin1995,bycounty,use,andsource,inandneartheWichitaandAffiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
vi

Conversion Factors and Datum

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD

88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times

foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

Flow rate

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Transmissivity*

foot squared per day (ft2

/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d)
vii

Explanation of the Site-Numbering System

 The locations of the sample-collection sites and the streamflow-gaging stations are identified by a station-identification number or a local-identification number. The station number is a

downstream order number of 8 digits such as 07325800. The downstream ordering system is used

to identify hydrologic data collection sites in U.S. Geological Survey reports. Station numbers

are unique numbers assigned in a downstream sequence so that numbers become larger downstream. The number is unique in that it applies specifically to a given station and to no other. All

stations on a tributary entering upstream from a main stream are listed before that station. A station on a tributary that enters between two mainstream stations is listed between them.

The local-identification number includes the township and range followed by the section

and a series of letters that designate the quarter-section subdivisions, from the largest to the smallest. The order of the quarter-section subdivisions differs from that used by the Bureau of Land

Management and the public land survey. As illustrated in the figure, the public land survey

description of the site indicated by the dot as SE1/4 NW1/4 NE1/4 sec. 16, T. 09 N., R. 12W., is

denoted by the local identifier number 09N–12W–16 ABD. If the sequence number is 1, the complete identifier number is 09N–12W–16 ABD 1. Sequence numbers are used when more than one

site is located in the smallest subdivision.
Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

By M.M. Abbott, R.L. Tortorelli, M.F. Becker, and T.J. Trombley

Abstract

This report is an overview of water resources in and near

the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands in western Oklahoma. The tribal treaty lands are about 1,140 square miles and

are bordered by the Canadian River on the north, the Washita

River on the south, 98°

 west longitude on the east, and 98° 40′

west longitude on the west. Seventy percent of the study area

lies within the Washita River drainage basin and 30 percent of

the area lies within the Canadian River drainage basin.

March through June are months of greatest average

streamflow, with 49 to 57 percent of the annual streamflow

occurring in these four months. November through February,

July, and August have the least average streamflow with only

26 to 36 percent of the annual streamflow occurring in these six

months.

Two streamflow-gaging stations, Canadian River at

Bridgeport and Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb, indicated peak

streamflows generally decrease with regulation. Two other

streamflow-gaging stations, Washita River at Carnegie and

Washita River at Anadarko, indicated a decrease in peak

streamflows after regulation at less than the 100-year recurrence and an increase in peak streamflows greater than the 100-

year recurrence. Canadian River at Bridgeport and Washita

River at Carnegie had estimated annual low flows that generally

increased with regulation. Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb had a

decrease of estimated annual low flows after regulation.

There are greater than 900 ground-water wells in the tribal

treaty lands. Eighty percent of the wells are in Caddo County.

The major aquifers in the study area are the Rush Springs Aquifer and portions of the Canadian River and Washita River valley

alluvial aquifers. The Rush Springs Aquifer is used extensively

for irrigation as well as industrial and municipal purposes, especially near population centers. The Canadian River and Washita

River valley alluvial aquifers are not used extensively in the

study area. Well yields from the Rush Springs Aquifer ranged

from 11 to greater than 850 gallons per minute. The Rush

Springs Aquifer is recharged by the infiltration of precipitation.

The estimated recharge is about 1.80 inches per year evenly distributed over the outcrop of the aquifer in the study area.

Principal factors affecting the water quality in the study

area include geology, agricultural practices, and oil and gas production. Calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate are the

dominant dissolved constituents in water in the study area.

Interquartile dissolved-solids concentrations in surfacewater samples in the study area generally were greater than

interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples. Median

dissolved-solids concentrations for ground-water samples from

Canadian River, Ionine Creek, Spring Creek, and Washita River

Basins, which ranged from 535 to 1,195 milligrams per liter,

exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 milligrams per liter.

Interquartile sulfate concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area generally were greater than interquartile

concentrations in ground-water samples. Median sulfate concentrations from ground-water samples in the Canadian River,

Ionine Creek, and Spring Creek Basins, which ranged from 385

to 570 milligrams per liter, exceeded the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250

milligrams per liter.

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentrations in surfacewater samples in the study area generally were less than concentrations in ground-water samples. The median nitrite plus

nitrate as nitrogen concentration in ground water was 9.8 milligrams per liter, suggesting almost one-half the ground-water

samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Primary Drinking Water Standard (10 milligrams per liter).

An estimated 100 million gallons of water per day were

withdrawn from surface and ground water for all uses in counties of the study area during 1995. Fifty percent of water use

was for irrigation, and about 83 percent of water withdrawn for

irrigation was from ground water. Livestock use represented 14

percent of the total water withdrawn and was supplied by surface- and ground-water sources. Water-supply for domestic and

commercial uses was 31 percent of the total withdrawn and was

supplied by surface- and ground-water sources.

Introduction

Increased demand for water in west-central Oklahoma has

led to concern about future water resources. As a result, the

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma are interested in

prudent development of the water resources in and near their

treaty lands (fig. 1). The Affiliated Tribes include the Waco,

Keechi, and Tawakoni tribes. The U.S. Geological Survey, in

cooperation with the tribes, conducted a reconnaissance study
2 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

to provide an overview of the availability and quality of water

resources in and near tribal treaty lands in western Oklahoma.

The study area is located in western Oklahoma and

includes most of Caddo County, part of western Grady County,

southwestern Blaine and Canadian Counties, and parts of eastern Custer and Washita Counties. The study-area boundaries

(fig. 1) are the original treaty lands for the tribes encompassing

1,140 square-miles. These boundaries are based on hydrologic

features on the north and south and are based on lines of longitude on the east and west. The area was described as: “Commencing at a point in the middle of the main channel of the

Washita river where the ninety-eighth meridian of W. longitude

crosses the same; thence up the middle of the main channel of

said river to the line of 98° 40′ W. longitude; thence on said line

of 98° 40′ due N. to the middle of the main channel of the main

Canadian river; thence down the middle of said main Canadian

river to where it crosses the ninety-eighth meridian; thence due

S. to the place of beginning.” (Library of Congress, 2002).

Purpose and Scope

This report is an overview of water resources in and near

the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands in western Oklahoma. The primary objectives of the report are to describe surface- and ground-water availability, water quality, and water

use in the study area. The report also includes: (1) physical setting, such as soils, geology, climate, and land use; (2) surfacewater characteristics; (3) water availability from major and

minor aquifers; (4) comparison of water-quality data grouped

by source and by surface-drainage basins; (5) comparison of

water use grouped by source; and (6) presentation of maps of

physical and hydrologic features, such as soils, geology, land

use, surface-drainage basins, and aquifer boundaries. The study

did not include the collection of any new water-resources data.

Existing data were compiled from various agencies.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their appreciation to the Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes for their assistance with this report. Ira French

provided photographs and detailed information of the tribe's

trust and allotment lands

Historical Overview of Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes and Treaty Lands

This historical overview is from The Texas State Historical Association (2001). Additional information on the Wichita

and Affiliated Tribes can be found in Bell and others (1974);

Elam (1971); Hodge (1959); John (1975); and Newcomb

(1976). A synopsis of the historical accounts follows.

The Wichita were one of several bands that composed the

Wichita confederacy. The name Wichita is first found in the

early 17th century in historical records of French traders, who

used the word Ousitas to identify one band of Indians who lived

near the Arkansas River in present-day Oklahoma. The Wichita

called themselves Kitikiti'sh, meaning “raccoon eyes,” because

the designs of tattoos around the men's eyes resembled the eyes

of the raccoon. The Coronado expedition in 1541 visited Indians in central Kansas whom Coronado called Quiviras and who

have been identified by archeological and historical studies as

Wichitas. The Wichitas had moved south by 1719 to Oklahoma

and were called Ousitas by the French trader Jean Baptiste

Bénard de La Harpe. From the 1750s to 1810, one band of the

Wichita Indians lived along the Red River north of the site of

present-day Nocona, Texas. The Wichitas, during this period,

were prominent middlemen in the trade between the

Comanches on the plains and Louisiana merchants and were at

the zenith of their power and prestige.

The Wichita as a distinct band declined after about 1810,

although until the 1850s villages of Wichita, sometimes called

Towiach or Tawehash, were located on the Wichita and Brazos

Rivers. A United States cavalry unit visited a Wichita village on

the North Fork Red River west of the Wichita Mountains in

Oklahoma in 1834. The Wichita had lived near the mountains

for many years, including the site where Fort Sill was established and the present-day townsite of Rush Springs. Their village near the present-day townsite of Rush Springs was

destroyed in 1858 by a United States military force pursuing

Comanches who were camped nearby. Survivors joined remnants of other bands of the Wichita confederacy on the Washita

River in 1859, and when the Civil War broke out fled with them

to Kansas. The Wichita were relocated in 1872 with their kinsmen, the Wacoes, Tawakonis, and Kichais, and other associated

tribes to the Wichita Reservation near present-day Anadarko,

Oklahoma. The reservation was opened to allotment in an

agreement with the Wichitas and affiliated bands in 1891. The

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes trust and allotment lands are

shown in figure 2 (Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, written commun, 2002). Headquarters of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

is located near Anadarko, Oklahoma (figs. 1, 2).

Significant and continued use of the name Wichita is found

in North Texas in the name of a river, the name of a county, and

the name of a prominent city, Wichita Falls. Wichita, Kansas,

owes its name to the early presence of the tribe in Kansas.

Wichita Mountains, south of the tribal treaty lands (fig. 3) in

Oklahoma, are named for the tribe.

The Wichitas were dependent on both agriculture and

hunting for subsistence. They lived in villages of dome-shaped

grass lodges (fig. 4) and farmed extensive fields of corn,

tobacco, and melons along the streams where they made their

homes. The Wichita left their villages for annual hunts during

which time they cached their stores of agricultural goods in the

ground along the banks of streams.

The Wichita were slightly darker in skin color than other

native people of Texas and were distinguished by their elaborate tattoos and the scalp-lock worn by the men. They had little

ritualistic religion, but were impressed by the natural forces

around them and gave expression to them in an elaborate
Historical Overview of Wichita and Affiliated Tribes and Treaty Lands 3

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

CUSTER COUNTY

Canadian

BLAINE COUNTY

River

River

Washita

CADDO COUNTY Anadarko

WASHITA COUNTY

GRADY COUNTY

CANADIAN COUNTY

KIOWA

COUNTY

Hydro

Chickasha Verden

Carnegie

Fort Cobb

Eakly

Lookeba

Binger

Weatherford

Geary

Minco

Gracemont

Bridgeport

Hinton

Cedar Lake

Dutton

Wichita and Affiliated

Tribal Headquarters

11090202

11130302

Cobb Creek

Fort Cobb

Reservoir

Cobb Creek Drainage Basin

Ionine Creek

Ionine Creek Drainage Basin

Spring Creek 

Drainage Basin

Sugar Creek Drainage Basin

Deer Creek Drainage Basin

Buggy Creek Drainage Basin

Buggy Creek

Spring Creek

Stinking Creek

Sugar Creek

Lake

Chickasha

Deer Creek

11090201

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15' o

o

o

o

o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

Canadian

River

Washita

River

OKLAHOMA

Study Area

Headquarters

Lake

Town

Stream

County boundary

Weather station

Wichita Tribal treaty lands boundary

Major drainage basin boundary and 

 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)

Tributary drainage basin boundary

11090201

 Figure 1. Location of study area, extent of Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, and hydrologic unit boundaries in western

Oklahoma.
4 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Wichita and Affiliated Tribal

trust and allotment lands

Lakes

Drainage basin boundaries

EXPLANATION

Canadian

River

River

Washita

Anadarko

Hydro

Verden

Carnegie

Fort Cobb

Eakly

Lookeba

Binger

Gracemont

Bridgeport

Hinton

Cedar Lake

Headquarters

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

Cobb Creek

Ionine Creek

Buggy Creek

Spring Creek

Stinking Creek

Sugar Creek

Deer Creek

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15'

o

o

o

o

o

Dutton

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

Towns

Streams

 Figure 2. Wichita and Affiliated Tribal trust and allotments lands (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2000).
Historical Overview of Wichita and Affiliated Tribes and Treaty Lands 5

Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes

South North

A A'

A

A'

HOLLIS

BASIN

WICHITA

MOUNTAINS

ANADARKO BASIN

ELEVATION, IN FEET, NAVD 88

-10,000

-20,000

-30,000

-40,000

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

0

Cambrian-age

rocks

Pre-Cambrianage rocks

Cambrianage rocks

Permian-age

rocks

Permian-age

rocks

Pennsylvanianage rocks

Pennsylvanianage rocks

Cambrianage rocks

Pre-Cambrianage rocks

Cambrianage rocks

Cambrianage rocks

Ordovician-Cambrianage rocks

Mississippian-DevonianSilurian-age rocks

Ordovician-Cambrianage rocks

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

VERTICAL SCALE

GREATLY EXAGGERATED

 Figure 3. Regional geologic structural features and north-south geologic section across western Oklahoma (modified

from Johnson and others, 1972).
6 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

 Figure 4. Dome-shaped Wichita grass lodge.
Methods of Investigation 7

mythology. Although warriors by tradition the Wichita tended

to be friendly toward strangers, avoided confrontations unless

provoked, and were noted for their hospitality. Their villages

were landmarks on the southern plains; they were well laid out

and clearly distinguishable by their grass lodges and nearby

fields.

Methods of Investigation

Existing data compiled from the Oklahoma Geological

Survey, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Climatological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other

agencies provided the basis for this overview of waterresources for the study area.

Streamflow characteristics for selected streamflow-gaging

stations in the study area are presented. Seasonal distribution of

streamflows are shown by the monthly mean streamflows.

Magnitude and frequency of floods are shown by documented

extreme peak discharges and peak-streamflow frequency estimates. Low-flow characteristics are shown by annual low-flow

frequency estimates. Long-term trends are shown for the entire

period of record and post-regulation periods of record for total

annual precipitation and mean annual streamflow.

Ground-water availability was summarized by describing

aquifer location, extent, geometry, geology, and potentiometric

surfaces. Hydraulic properties of the aquifers were estimated

using published results of aquifer tests. Where water-level data

were available, hydrograph comparison and analysis afforded a

method to evaluate long-term effects of withdrawals from the

aquifers.

Data from 20 surface-water sites and 160 ground-water

wells were used to describe water quality in the study area. This

report characterizes water quality by drainage basin using summary statistics and graphical methods for dissolved-solids concentrations; dissolved concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, and nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen.

Boxplots were used to provide an overview of concentration distributions within each of eight drainage basins (six tributaries and two major drainage basins). Boxplots are a useful

method to qualitatively compare the statistical characteristics of

several data sets (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). Median value, the

center line on the boxplot, represents the central tendency of

water quality within each basin. The length of the box, the distance between the 25th and 75th percentiles of the data, gives an

indication of the variation in values. Relative skewness of the

data is indicated by the difference between the sizes of the box

parts and the lengths of the “whiskers” above and below the

box. The presence or absence of outlying values is indicated by

plotting those values individually. “Outside” values, which are

plotted as “∗”, are present in less than 1 of 100 values that are

normally distributed. The term “interquartile” is used in this

report to indicate values between the 25th and 75th percentiles

(interquartile range).

Areal distribution of water-quality constituents within the

study area were calculated using one value for each site sampled within the drainage basin to eliminate biasing by sites with

larger numbers of analyses. For sites with one analysis, the

value for that analysis was used. For sites with multiple analyses, the median value for that site was used. Water-quality

trends through time were not evaluated because the analysis

requires a minimum of 10 years of incremental data. Very few

sites in the study area met the requirements; therefore, waterquality time trends could not be determined.

Physical Setting

Physiography

Gould (1905) and Fenneman (1938) have described the

physiography of the study area to be of the Gypsum Hills Province, a region west of the Red Bed Plains physiographic province. The Gypsum Hills Province is characterized by erosionresistant strata composed of sandstone, dolomite, limestone,

and gypsum interbedded with silts and clays. The interbeds of

resistant and erodible material create topographic features such

as escarpments and level plains. Discontinuous gypsum beds

form caprocks that, where present, result in small cuestas, pronounced ledges overlooking river valleys, and small steep-sided

canyons with 150 feet or more of relief incising the Rush

Springs Aquifer (Becker, 1998). Land-surface altitudes range

from approximately 1,115 feet where the Washita River leaves

the tribal treaty lands east of Verden, to greater than 1,720 feet

northwest of Hydro (fig. 1).

The study area lies within two major drainage basins —

the Washita River drainage basin and the Canadian River drainage basin (fig. 1). Six tributary drainage basins lie within the

major drainage basins (fig. 1). Tributaries of the Washita River

in the tribal treaty lands, from west to east, include Cobb Creek,

Sugar Creek, Spring Creek, and Ionine Creek. Cobb Creek and

Sugar Creek are perennial streams that are maintained by discharge from the Rush Springs Aquifer (Tanaka and Davis,

1963). Principal tributaries of the Canadian River are Deer

Creek and Buggy Creek. Deer Creek is a perennial stream maintained by discharge from the Rush Springs Aquifer. The percentages of the tribal trust and allotment lands within each of

these surface drainage basins are as follows: Buggy Creek, 5

percent; Canadian River, 1 percent; Cobb Creek, 9 percent;

Deer Creek, 3 percent; Ionine Creek, 2 percent; Spring Creek,

10 percent; Sugar Creek, 40 percent; and Washita River, 30 percent (fig. 2).
8 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Soils

There are 12 general soil groups in the study area (fig. 5,

table 1). The discussion of soils in this report is from the

detailed soil information, published county soil-survey maps

available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for counties in the study area (Bogard and others,

1978; Fisher, 1968; Fisher and Swafford, 1976; Henson, 1978;

Moffatt, 1973; and Moffatt and Conradi, 1979).

Certain physical characteristics of soils affect the rate at

which precipitation infiltrates or is transmitted through the soil,

thereby affecting the water resources of an area. These physical

characteristics help determine the rates of both ground-water

recharge and surface-water runoff. Soil formation is a continuing process affected by environmental factors, including climate and biota, especially natural vegetation. Materials from

which the soil is formed have a substantial effect on certain primary characteristics of the soil, such as texture; but climate,

biotic factors, topographic position, and time determine the

final character of the soil. The degree of weathering of the parent materials dictates the depth of soil development and the

prevalence of clay and organic materials.

Six soil characteristics that indicate the relation between

soil and water were used to describe the hydrologic responses

of soil. Those six characteristics are:

(1) Average profile permeability is a measure of the rate at

which water moves down through the saturated soil profile. It is

affected by soil texture, structure, and porosity.

(2) Depth to bedrock is a measure of the depth to the parent

material for the soil.

(3) Average profile of available water capacity is the difference between the field capacity, which is the quantity of

water held by unsaturated soil against the pull of gravity; and

the wilting point, which is the point at which the water content

of the soil becomes too low to prevent the permanent wilting of

plants.

(4) Average maximum soil slope is the difference in elevation of the soil surface within a given horizontal distance

expressed as a percentage.

(5) Depth below land surface to the seasonal high water

table is the normal annual minimum depth to the water table and

does not include any perched water tables. Long periods of saturation can change the structure of soils, which in turn, can

affect other hydrologic soil characteristics, such as available

water capacity and permeability.

(6) Soil profile thickness is used to distinguish between

relatively thin soils, less than 60 inches thick, forming a veneer

over bedrock, and thicker soils, greater than 60 inches thick,

overlying unconsolidated or weakly consolidated parent material that is easily weathered. This soil characteristic can indicate

the potential volume of water stored within the soil profile and

its rate of movement through this profile.

The rate of soil development is affected by the physical

characteristics of the parent material. Typical parent materials

for soils in the study area are loess, alluvium, colluvium, eolian

sand, shale, and limestone. These physical characteristics

include average profile permeability, depth to bedrock, and

average profile of available water capacity. Consolidated sedimentary and crystalline bedrock usually weathers more slowly

than unconsolidated materials, such as alluvium or loess, which

already have certain characteristics similar to mature soils.

Climatic variations substantially affect soil development.

The study area has a dry, subhumid, continental climate (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1973, p. 60). Strong winds and high

temperatures result in high evaporation rates. Therefore, little

water moves through the soils, except in more permeable sandy

soils, and results in less leaching of basic elements (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, p. 60, 1973).

Natural vegetation in the study area is diverse and related

to the amount of water available. The organic matter in the soil

is largely dependent on the decay of root systems. Grasslands,

particularly tall-grass prairie, add large amounts of organic matter to the soil. Short-grass prairie produces less organic matter,

therefore soils are lighter in color. Woodland soils usually have

only a thin surface layer of organic material, mostly from leaf

decay. Under warm, moist conditions, leaching prevents the

accumulation of organic material in the upper soil horizons.

Topographic position of a soil is an important but passive

factor in soil-forming process. Steep slopes tend to promote

rapid runoff of precipitation, decreasing the time available for

infiltration, thus limiting the amount of water available to

weather parent materials. Also, steep slopes tend to erode easily, thus resulting in thin, poorly developed soils. The degree to

which topographic position affects soil development is

inversely dependent on the angle of the slope. In the study area,

topography ranges from nearly flat, relatively large, continuous

areas along and near divides or in the valley bottoms to steep

slopes along the highly dissected bluffs adjacent to the large

river valleys.

The degree of soil development also depends on the length

of time that geologic parent materials have been exposed to climatic elements and to the intensity of weathering. The age of

soils in the study area ranges from very young for flood-plain

soils to very mature for soils long exposed on relatively flat

uplands. The more mature soils are the most deeply developed,

with accumulations of clayey materials from leaching and redepositing. It is nearly impossible to quantify the time involved in

soil-forming processes at any particular place because of continuous addition of wind- or water-transported organic material

to the soil surface.

Geology in Relation to Ground Water

The ground-water hydrology of an area is dependent on the

geology of that area. Knowledge of the geology, including the

stratigraphy and geologic structure, leads to an improved understanding of the occurrence and availability of ground water. A

brief description of the geology of the study area, as it relates to

ground water, follows.

The study area lies within the stable interior of the North

American continent. Since Precambrian time (about 600 mil-
Physical Setting 9

p

Amber

Canadian

Darnell

Dougherty

Gracemore

Grant

Lucien

Minco

Pond Creek

Pratt

St. Paul

Zaneis

Lakes

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

Canadian

River

River

Washita

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15'

Lucien

Gracemore

Pond Creek

Lucien

Canadian

Canadian

Pratt

Pratt

St. Paul

St. Paul

Pond Creek

Pond Creek

Pond Creek

Pond Creek

Pond Creek

Pond Creek

Grant

Grant Grant

Grant

Dougherty

Dougherty Dougherty

Dougherty Amber

Minco

Minco

Zaneis

o

o

o

o

o

Darnell

Canadian

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

Figure 5. Hydrologic soil groups in the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, 1994).
10 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

 Table 1. Hydrologic characteristics of soils in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Hydrologic

soil group

(numbers)

Average

profile

permeability

(inch per

hour)

Depth to

bedrock

(inches)

Average

profile of

available

water

capacity

(inch per

inch)

Average

maximum

soil slope

(percent)

Depth

below

land

surface to

seasonal

high

water

table

(feet)

Soil

profile

thickness

(inches)

Description

Amber

OK124

OK031

0.6-2.0

moderate1

no data 0.07-

0.20

1-3 >6.0 0-36 Very gently sloping soils on flood plains

but is rarely flooded. These soils are well

drained and water capacity is high.2

Canadian

OK130

2.0-6.3

moderately

rapid3, 4

no data 0.12 nearly

level

>6.0 0-60 Nearly level soils on flood plains, formed

from friable loamy alluvium. These soils

are well drained and water capacity is moderate.5, 6

Darnell

OK149

2.0-6.3

moderately

rapid1, 3, 7

4-20 0.12 3-12 >6.0 0-14 Shallow, gently sloping to hilly soils on

uplands, formed under mid grasses and oak

forest in weathered sandstone. These soils

are well drained and water capacity is

low.1, 3, 8

Dougherty

OK142

2.0-6.3

moderately

rapid1, 4

<30-

>120

0.07 3-8 >6.0 0-27 Very gently sloping soils on uplands,

formed under oak forests and mid and tall

grasses. These soils are well drained and

water capacity is low to medium.1, 4

Gracemore

OK051

0.2-6.0

moderately

rapid1, 3

10 0.05-

0.13

nearly

level

0.5-3.0 0-12 Nearly level soils on flood plains and are

frequently flooded for brief periods of

time. Water capacity is medium.1, 3

Grant

OK088

0.63-2.0

moderate1, 2,

3, 4

>40 0.14 1-8 >6.0 0-20 Deep, very gently sloping soils on uplands,

formed under mid and tall grasses. These

soils are well drained and water capacity is

high.1, 2, 3, 4

Lucien

OK096

2.0-6.3

moderately

rapid1, 2, 4

7-20 0.12 3-30 >6.0 0-17 Deep, gently sloping to steep soils on

uplands, formed from fine-grained sandstones under short, mid, and tall grasses.

These soils are well drained and water

capacity is low.1, 2, 4

Minco

OK100

OK10

0.63-2.0

moderate1, 2,

3, 4

70->120 0.14 0-30 >6.0 0-72 Deep, gently sloping soils on uplands,

formed under mid and tall grasses in alkaline, calcareous, loamy sediments. These

soils are well drained and water capacity is

high.1, 2, 3, 4

Pond

Creek

OK107

OK109

OK110

0.63-2.0

moderate1, 3,

4

10->60 0.12 0-3 >6.0 0-9 Nearly level or very gently sloping soils on

uplands, formed under mid and tall grasses

on alkaline loamy sediments. These soils

are well drained and water capacity is

high.1, 3, 4
Physical Setting 11

Pratt

OK057

2.5-5.0

moderately

rapid2

no data 0.07 0-2 >6.0 0-8 Nearly level to very gently sloping soils on

sandy uplands. These soils are very well

drained and water capacity is very low.2

St. Paul

OK063

0.2-0.8

moderately

slow2

no data 0.14-

0.17

0-3 >6.0 0-121 Nearly level to very gently sloping soils on

uplands. These soils are well drained and

water capacity is moderate.2

Zaneis

OK103

0.2-2.0

moderate1

50 0.11-

0.20

1-8 >6.0 50 Deep, very gently sloping soils on uplands.

These soils are well drained and water

capacity is high.1

1

Moffatt (1973)

2

Moffatt (1973)

3

Bogard and others (1978)

4

Fisher (1968)

5

Bogard and others (1978)

6

Fisher (1968)

7

Fisher and Swafford (1976)

8

Fisher and Swafford (1976)

 Table 1. Hydrologic characteristics of soils in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma—Continued

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Hydrologic

soil group

(numbers)

Average

profile

permeability

(inch per

hour)

Depth to

bedrock

(inches)

Average

profile of

available

water

capacity

(inch per

inch)

Average

maximum

soil slope

(percent)

Depth

below

land

surface to

seasonal

high

water

table

(feet)

Soil

profile

thickness

(inches)

Description

lion years ago), most of this part of the continent has undergone

deformation with downwarping of the Earth's crust over a large

area known as the Anadarko Basin, a broad deep basin covering

most of western Oklahoma (fig. 3). It is the deepest sedimentary

and structural basin on the North American craton (Johnson,

1989).

Precambrian-age basement rocks are deeply buried in the

study area (fig. 3). The Anadarko Basin is asymmetric in shape,

with the deepest part near the southern boundary of the study

area. The axis of the basin crosses the study area between Carnegie and Fort Cobb Reservoir (fig. 1) (Carr and Bergman,

1976). The basin contains approximately 40,000 feet of Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks and 20,000 feet of Cambrian-age

igneous rocks in this area (Johnson, 1989). As shown in the

north-south schematic-geologic section (fig. 3), the Paleozoicage sedimentary rock units in the basin are of Cambrian through

Permian age (Johnson and others, 1972). Paleozoic-age rocks in

the study area include limestone, dolomite, sandstone, shale,

and gypsum beds (Carr and Bergman, 1976).

Unconsolidated alluvial and eolian terrace deposits of

Quaternary age unconformably overlie the erosional surface of

the Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks (Carr and Bergman,

1976). The deposits include sediments of both Pleistocene and

Holocene age. The deposits are present throughout much of the

study area along and adjacent to rivers and streams (fig. 6).

Alluvial and terrace deposits are generally thin along minor

streams and upland areas (20 to 50 feet). Along the major rivers,

the deposits may be as thick as 120 to 170 feet (Carr and Bergman, 1976). The lithology of the deposits varies horizontally

and vertically and ranges from fine-grained silts and clays to

coarse-grained sands and gravels (Carr and Bergman, 1976).

Climate

Western Oklahoma has a typical continental climate that is

characterized by large variations in temperature and precipitation throughout the year and from year to year. The study area

is classified as dry subhumid by Thornthwaite (1941), but can

range from semiarid to humid in any given year. In a dry subhumid climate, there is a precipitation deficit and evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation. During intervals of high temperatures, evapotranspiration can remove large quantities of surface

water and shallow soil water resulting in drought conditions.

Average annual precipitation in the tribal treaty lands

ranged from 28 inches in the west to greater than 32 inches in

the east, based upon records from 1961 to 1990 (Johnson and
12 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

EXPLANATION

Lakes

Streams

Surface drainage basins

Surface geology

Alluvial deposits

Eolian/Terrace deposits

Cloud Chief Formation

Weatherford Gypsum

Rush Springs Sandstone

Marlow Formation

Dog Creek Shale

Canadian

River

River

Washita

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15'

o

o

o

o

o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

 Figure 6. Surface geology in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma (Cederstrand, 1996).
Surface-Water Characteristics 13

Duchon, 1995). The wettest month was May, with an average

monthly rainfall of greater than 5 inches. The minimum mean

monthly precipitation was in January with 1 inch. Greater than

80 percent of the annual precipitation fell from March through

October. Most rainfall tends to be localized and intense, resulting in rapid runoff and local flash floods (Tanaka and Davis,

1963). Small amounts of snow fall in January and February and

may remain for a brief period of time.

Climatological data are available for weather stations in or

near Anadarko, Carnegie, Chickasha, Geary, Lookeba, and

Weatherford near the tribal treaty lands (fig. 1). Averaging the

30-year statistical data from 1961 to 1990 for five of the stations, one year out of five will have less than 24 inches of precipitation, and one out of five will have more than 34 inches of

precipitation (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 200a).

Long-term climatological data are available for weather

stations in Carnegie and Lookeba. These data begin in 1941 and

1915, respectively. Thirty-five to 40 percent of the annual precipitation typically falls during the April-to-June growing season (fig. 7) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Climatic Data Center, 2001).

The statewide average precipitation for Oklahoma is 33.38

inches (Johnson and Duchon, 1995). The driest year on record

was 1910 when the statewide average precipitation was only

18.95 inches, and the wettest year was 1957 with 48.21 inches

of precipitation. Smoothed precipitation data using a 10-year

moving average for annual precipitation for Oklahoma was

least in 1918 and most 1950. The 10-year moving average for

the state ranges from 30 inches to 37 inches for the period 1901

to 1990.

Monthly mean maximum temperature average for the five

weather stations, ranged from 49°

F in January to 95°F in July.

Monthly mean minimum temperatures ranged from 24°F in January to 70°

F in July (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000).

The lowest temperature for the five weather stations for the

years 1961-1990 was –17°F in Anadarko, and the highest temperature was 114°

F in Geary (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

2000). An average of about 85 days have a minimum temperature of 32°

F or less (Johnson and Duchon, 1995). There are an

average of nine days annually with a maximum temperature of

32°

F or less for the five weather stations. The average date of

the earliest freeze for the five weather stations is between October 28 and November 4. The average date of the latest freeze is

between April 1 and April 8. The average year has about 30

frost-free weeks (Johnson and Duchon, 1995). There are about

85 days annually with maximum temperatures 90°F or greater,

and about 19 days with maximum temperatures 100°F or

greater.

There is a negative relation between average summer

(June-August) precipitation and average summer temperatures,

and this relation is common to the central part of the United

States (Trombley and others, 1996). This relation explains the

likelihood of drought conditions developing during hot summers because warmer temperatures increase evapotranspiration. Total average-monthly-pan evaporation for the tribal

treaty lands is about 59 inches for the period from May to October (Johnson and Duchon, 1995).

Land Cover and Land Use

Land cover in the study area is very different from the original vegetative cover that existed prior to the influx of native

tribes in the early to middle 1800s followed by the influx of

non-native settlers in the late 19th century. These changes in

land cover were due to: (1) massive conversion of native vegetative cover to agricultural uses, (2) wildfire suppression, which

favored woodland cover over prairie cover, and (3) introduction

of non-native plant and animal species to the region. Land use

in the study area (fig. 8) is dominantly agricultural (mostly

cropland or pasture and rangeland, and confined feeding operations).

Tribal treaty lands occupy a portion of six counties in

western Oklahoma (fig. 1). These include about 800 square

miles of northern Caddo County or about 62 percent of the

county; 100 square miles of northwestern Grady County, about

9 percent of the county; 84 square miles of southwestern Canadian County, about 9 percent of the county; 61 square miles in

eastern Washita County, about 6 percent of the county; 55

square miles of southwestern Blaine County, about 6 percent of

the county; and 43 square miles in eastern Custer County, about

4 percent of the county.

Land use in the tribal treaty lands are as follows: cropland

(46 percent), pasture (38 percent), forest and shrub lands (11

percent), rangeland (3 percent), and lakes with wetlands (2 percent) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2000). Cropland is generally situated on land underlain by the Rush Springs Aquifer, where

water is available for irrigation, or along creeks and rivers. Pasture, rangeland, and forest are more prevalent land uses where

land slopes are steep. Small urban areas (towns), farm houses,

ranches, and confined animal feeding operations are scattered

throughout the tribal treaty lands. Two reservoirs, Fort Cobb

Reservoir and Lake Chickasha are in the Washita River drainage basin within the study area (fig. 1). Most wetland areas

within the study area have been drained by ditching and tilling

to provide agriculture fields for crops.

Surface-Water Characteristics

The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands are a part of

two major drainage basins the Canadian River Basin (hydrologic units 11090201 and 11090202) and the Washita River

Basin (hydrologic unit 11130302). The Canadian River Basin

drains the area along the northern boundary with two major tributary creeks (Seaber and others, 1987). The Deer Creek Basin

is in the west, flowing into the Canadian River just east of

Hydro. The Buggy Creek Basin is in the east, flowing into the

Canadian River just east of Minco. Flow in the Canadian River

main stem is regulated by Lake Meredith in Texas. The Washita

River Basin drains most of the tribal treaty lands and is along
14 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

0

25

5

10

15

20

PERCENT OF ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

Water Year 1915-61

Water Year 1962-99

Carnegie 5NE Precipitation Station

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.

MONTH

0

25

5

10

15

20

Water Year 1941-61

Water Year 1962-99 

Lookeba 2 ENE Precipitation Station

Figure 7. Seasonal distribution of monthly mean precipitation, based on water year (October 1–September 30), for two selected

precipitation stations in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
Surface-Water Characteristics 15

River

Canadian

River

98 15' o

35 30' o

98 00 o

3

98 30' o

Washita

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Confined animal feeding operations

Water and wetlands

Urban and roads

Pasture and range lands

Crop lands

Forest and shrub lands

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

 Figure 8. Land use in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma (U.S. Geologic Survey, 2000)
16 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

the southern boundary with three major tributary creeks. The

Cobb Creek Basin is in the west, flowing into the Washita River

at Fort Cobb. Fort Cobb Reservoir, with a surface-area of 4,100

acres and a capacity of 80,010 acre-feet at normal pool (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1990) is the principal reservoir in

the tribal treaty lands. The Sugar Creek Basin is in the center of

the treaty lands, flowing into the Washita River just east of Anadarko. This basin is heavily regulated by Natural Resources

Conservation Service floodwater retarding structures. The

Spring Creek Basin is in the east, flowing into the Washita River

just northwest of Verden. Lake Chickasha, having a surface area

of 820 acres and a capacity of 41,080 acre-feet at normal pool

(Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1990), is located in this

basin. Flow in the Washita River main stem is regulated by Foss

Reservoir in western Custer County (not shown) and numerous

floodwater retarding structures. The streamflow characteristics

in the study area can be summarized by the seasonal distribution

of streamflow, magnitude and frequency of floods, annual lowflow frequency estimates, and long-term trends.

Seasonal Distribution of Streamflow

Many of the streams in the study area do not flow

during low rainfall periods in late summer, late fall, and

winter in some years. Seasonal changes in streamflow

reflect the quantity and frequency of rainfall and differences in evapotranspiration. Seasonal distribution of

streamflow in the tribal treaty lands is shown by monthly

mean streamflows, expressed as percent of annual flow,

for six selected continuous record streamflow gaging

stations (figs. 9, 10). Both unregulated and regulated

periods of record are shown. A stream was considered

regulated when 20 percent or more of the contributing

drainage basin area is controlled by reservoirs (Heimann

and Tortorelli, 1988). For the unregulated conditions,

March through June are months of greatest average

streamflow with 46 to 63 percent of the annual flow

occurring in these four months (fig. 10). November

through February, July, and August have the least average

streamflow; with 25 to 37 percent of the annual flow

occurring in these six months. For the present regulated

conditions, March through June are months of greatest

average streamflow with 49 to 57 percent of annual

streamflow occurring in these four months. November

through February, July, and August have the least average

streamflow with 26 to 36 percent of the annual streamflow occurring in these six months.

Magnitude and Frequency of Floods

A knowledge of the magnitude and frequency of

floods is required for the safe and economical design of

highway bridges, culverts, dams, levees, and other structures on and near streams. Flood plain management

programs and flood-insurance rates also are based on

flood magnitude and frequency information. The documented extreme peak discharges and peak-streamflow

frequency estimates for nine selected streamflow-gaging

stations (fig. 9) are shown in table 2. Frequencies of those

peak discharges are expressed as recurrence intervals in

years. Both unregulated and regulated periods of record

are shown. Canadian River at Bridgeport (07228500) and

Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb (07326000), with both

unregulated and regulated periods of record, indicated

peak streamflows generally decrease with regulation.

Washita River at Carnegie (07325500), and Washita

River at Anadarko (07326500) indicated a decrease in

peak streamflows after regulation at less than the 100-

year recurrence and an increase in peak streamflows

greater than the 100-year recurrence. Estimates of peak

streamflows at Sugar Creek near Gracemont (07327000)

were greater after regulation. This difference in the

effects of regulation on peak streamflows may be due to

analysis of different periods of record, different climatic

conditions, the effects of reservoir operations of the

major dams, and sites with small drainage basins that

may have peak streamflows from very small, intense

localized storms. The magnitude and frequency of peak

flow may be estimated for streams where streamflowgaging stations are not available by use of regression

equations (Tortorelli, 1997).

Low-Flow Characteristics

Information on low-flow characteristics of streams is

essential for water-management agencies charged with regulation of irrigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, fish

and wildlife conservation, and assessment of stream capabilities

to receive and assimilate treated wastewater. Annual low-flow

frequency estimates for six selected continuous record streamflow-gaging stations (fig. 9) are shown in table 3. Frequency of

annual low flow is expressed as recurrence interval in years.

Both unregulated and regulated periods of record are shown in

table 3. The small streams in the study area do not flow during

periods in late summer, late fall, and in winter during drier years

and, therefore, the unregulated annual low-flow frequency estimates are zero or near zero for a few days. Three sites had both

unregulated and regulated periods of record, Canadian River at

Bridgeport (07228500), Washita River at Carnegie (07325500),

and Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb (07326000). Canadian River at

Bridgeport (07228500) and Washita River at Carnegie

(07325500) had estimated annual low flows that generally

increased with regulation. Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb

(07326000) had estimated annual low flows that decreased with

regulation. This station is immediately downstream of Fort
Surface-Water Characteristics 17

Figure 9. Location of streamflow-gaging stations and surface-water-quality stations in and near the Wichita Affiliated Tribes

treaty lands, Oklahoma.
18 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

0

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

PERCENT OF ANNUAL FLOW

Unregulated 1945-64

Regulated 1970-99

Canadian River at Bridgeport

07228500

Unregulated 1938-60

Regulated 1962-99

Washita River at Carnegie 

07325500

0

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

PERCENT OF ANNUAL FLOW

Regulated 1969-99

Cobb Creek near Eakly

07325800

Unregulated 1940-58

Regulated 1960-99

Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb

07326000

O N D J F M A M J J A S

MONTH

0

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

PERCENT OF ANNUAL FLOW

Regulated 1964-99

Washita River at Anadarko 

07326500

O N D J F M A M J J A S

MONTH

Unregulated 1956-62

Regulated 1963-74

Sugar Creek near Gracemont

07327000

 Figure 10. Seasonal distribution of monthly mean streamflows, based on water year (October 1-September 30), for selected

continuous record streamflow-gaging stations in and near the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
Ground-Water Availability 19

Cobb Reservoir dam, therefore streamflow is dependent upon

reservoir operations.

Long-Term Trends

Available streamflow records in the study area are not adequate for a study of time trends for more than a few decades.

Data from two precipitation stations in and near the study area

enabled determination of long-term trends. The two National

Weather Service precipitation stations are located near Carnegie (1915-1999) and Lookeba (1941-1999) (fig. 1). The seasonal distribution of precipitation at these stations (fig. 7) was

plotted to approximate the unregulated and regulated periods of

streamflow in figure 10. The seasonal distribution of precipitation generally matches that of regulated streamflow in the area.

There has not been a change in the seasonal distribution of precipitation for the two periods in figure 7.

A common statistical exploratory technique is to look at

trends of data smoothed with a LOWESS smooth or LOcally

WEighted Scatterplot Smoothing (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). A

LOWESS smooth performed on the entire period of record of

the precipitation shows a slight upward trend toward the end of

the century (fig. 11). A LOWESS smooth performed on the regulated period of record of the precipitation shows a slight

upward trend, with a dip downward coinciding with droughts in

the 1990s (fig. 12). A LOWESS smooth of the regulated period

of record for the streamflow at Canadian River at Bridgeport

(07228500), Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb (07326000), and

Washita River at Anadarko (07326500) shows general upward

trends (fig. 13). This upward trend in streamflow may be due to

the variability of large storm events, effects of reservoir operations of the major dams, and gradual sediment filling of the hundreds of Natural Resources Conservation Service floodwater

retarding structures in the Washita River Basin (Kennon, 1966).

Ground-Water Availability

There are greater than 900 ground-water wells in the tribal

treaty lands (fig. 14). Eighty percent of the wells are in Caddo

County (fig. 1).

Availability of ground water can be considered in two categories on the basis of well capacities. Major aquifers, in this

report, are those that are capable of sustaining pumping rates

greater than 100 gallons per minute to individual wells, as typically required for irrigation, large industrial, or municipal uses.

Conversely, minor aquifers are those with sustained pumping

rates as much as, but not exceeding, 100 gallons per minute.

Major Aquifers

The major aquifers in the study area of the tribal treaty

lands are the Rush Springs Aquifer and portions of the Canadian River and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers (fig. 15).

The Rush Springs Aquifer is used extensively for irrigation as

well as industrial and municipal purposes, especially near population centers. The Canadian River and Washita River valley

alluvial aquifers are not used extensively in the study area

because of the limited areal extent of the aquifers (fig. 15).

Rush Springs Aquifer

The term “Rush Springs Aquifer” as used in this report is

composed of the Rush Springs Formation1 of late Permian,

Guadalupian age (fig. 15) (Fay and Hart, 1978). The Rush

Springs Aquifer can be greater than 300 feet thick. However, it

is truncated in most areas and generally is less than 250 feet

thick through the central part of the study area (Becker and

Runkle, 1998).

Observations of cores and outcrops within the study area

indicate that the Rush Springs Aquifer generally is a homogeneous sandstone throughout most of the study area, with variable amounts and types of cementation. Cements in the Rush

Springs Aquifer comprise either calcite or gypsum, with most

of the cementation occurring in the upper and lower parts of the

sandstone. Cores of the Rush Springs Aquifer taken within the

study area comprise primarily very fine to fine-grained quartz

that tend to be subround to subangular, moderately to poorly

sorted, and frosted (Davis, 1955; Tanaka and Davis, 1963;

O'Brien, 1963; and Allen, 1980).

The hydrologic boundaries of the Rush Springs Aquifer

are the erosional extent and the Canadian River and the Washita

River. The Rush Springs Aquifer over most of the tribal treaty

land is a water-table aquifer. Water levels measured in wells

from 1986 to 1991 and altitudes of perennial streams were used

to prepare a potentiometric-surface map of the Rush Springs

Aquifer (fig. 16). Perennial streams are streams that flow during

periods of no surface runoff. Ground water flows perpendicular

to the water-level contours from highest altitudes to lowest altitudes until the flow path intersects the land surface and discharges as base flow for streams, springs, and seeps. Locally,

ground-water flows to streams that incise the Rush Springs

Aquifer and intersect the water table.

Water-level measurements in wells indicate that climatic

conditions such as droughts and periods of greater than normal

precipitation affect the water levels in the Rush Springs Aquifer. Daily average water levels from 1947 through 1996 plotted

with total annual precipitation (fig. 17) show the effects of daily

changes in water levels in response to precipitation for a well in

Caddo County. The hydrographs in figure 18 show the magnitude of annual water-level changes in selected wells in the Rush

1

Geologic names and stratigraphic ages in this report are accepted by the Oklahoma Geological Survey and not necessarily the same as those used by the U.S.

Geological Survey.
20 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Table 2. Documented extreme peak discharges and peak-streamflow frequency estimates for selected streamflow-gaging stations with

lands, Oklahoma

[CONT, continuous record site; dms, degrees, minutes, seconds; CSG, crest-stage partial record site; mi2, square miles; H, historic; N, unregulated; R, regulated;

Siteidentification

number

(figure 9)

Station name

Type of

station

(CONT/

CSG)

Latitude

(dms)

Longitude

(dms)

Contributin

g drainage

area

(mi2)

Period of record1

1Based on water year starting October 1 and ending September 30

a Record according to operation of continuous record site, earlier historic peak dates not included

07228290 Rough Creek near Thomas CSG 354808 0984715 10.4 1964-85

07228450 Deer Creek Tributary near Hydro CSG 353210 0982850 2.31 1964-75

07228500 Canadian River at Bridgeport CONT 353237 0981903 20,475 1945-64a

1970-99

07325500 Washita River at Carnegie CONT 350702 0983349 3,129 1938-60a

1962-99

07325800 Cobb Creek near Eakly CONT 351726 0983538 132 1969-99

07325850 Lake Creek near Eakly CONT 351727 0983144 52.0 1970-78

07326000 Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb CONT 350837 0982633 307

1940-58a

1960-99

07326500 Washita River at Anadarko CONT 350503 0981435 3,656 1903-08, 36-37a

1964-99

07327000 Sugar Creek near Gracemont CONT 351030 0981520 208

1956-62a

1963-74
Ground-Water Availability 21

at least eight years of annual peak-streamflow data from unregulated and regulated basins in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

ft3/s, cubic feet per second; LPIII, Log-Pearson Type III; yr, year]

Siteidentification

number

Type of

record

(H,N,R)

Documented extreme

peak discharge

Peak-streamflow LPIII frequency estimates

Peak discharge for indicated recurrence interval (ft3/s)

Date Discharge

(ft3/s) 2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 500 yr

07228290 N 05/23/81 6,270 794 2,170 3,690 6,500 9,390 13,100 25,600

07228450 N 09/21/65 1,050 304 539 741 1,060 1,340 1,670 2,640

07228500 N 06/23/48 150,000 26,200 45,300 60,000 80,900 97,900 116,000 164,000

R 05/17/82 86,100 16,200 31,400 43,800 61,700 76,600 92,700 135,000

07325500 N 05/19/49 50,000 9,210 17,000 23,600 33,700 42,600 52,700 81,500

R 10/20/83 40,600 5,740 12,000 18,500 30,000 41,900 57,200 111,000

07325800 R 06/04/95 12,000 2,060 4,490 7,060 11,800 16,800 23,300 47,000

07325850 N 05/20/77 7,000 707 1,850 3,160 5,740 8,560 12,400 26,900

07326000 HN 06/15/37 51,000

N 05/17/49 35,000 4,420 10,500 16,900 28,700 40,800 56,500 112,000

R 06/23/87 1,280 535 1,020 1,340 1,680 1,900 2,100 2,440

07326500 N 05/25/03 29,000 8,720 18,300 27,400 42,600 57,200 74,700 130,000

HN 05/18/49 45,000

R 06/06/95 52,800 4,640 10,400 17,300 31,800 49,000 72,200 186,000

07327000 HN 05/17/49 32,000

N 10/04/59 1,260 1,260 2,930 4,690 7,910 11,200 15,400 30,200

R 09/21/65 8,500 1,480 3,520 5,730 9,940 14,400 20,300 42,100
22 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

 Table 3. Annual low-flow frequency estimates for selected continuous record streamflow-gaging stations with at least 10 years of

streamflow data from unregulated and regulated basins in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma

1

[mi2, square miles; N, unregulated; R, regulated; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; LPIII, Log-Pearson Type III; yr, year]

Siteidentification

number

Station name

Contributing

drainage

area

(mi2)

Period of

record1

Type of

record

(N/R)

Consecutive

days

Annual low flow LPIII frequency

estimates

Discharge for indicated recurrence

interval (ft3/s)

2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 20 yr

07228500 Canadian River at Bridgeport 20,475 1946-64 N 1 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00

1971-99 R 1 6.37 1.41 0.00 0.00

3 6.90 1.53 0.00 0.00

7 7.76 1.81 0.00 0.00

10 8.55 2.10 0.00 0.00

07325500 Washita River at Carnegie 3,129 1939-60 N 1 21.2 6.21 2.33 0.85

3 21.5 6.60 2.91 1.31

7 22.0 7.38 3.79 2.01

10 23.0 7.84 4.04 2.15

1963-99 R 1 33.6 7.51 2.49 0.70

3 34.2 8.19 2.95 0.93

7 36.5 9.73 3.87 1.39

10 37.9 11.2 4.96 2.04

07325800 Cobb Creek near Eakly 132 1970-99 R 1 3.34 0.85 0.24 0.00

3 3.72 0.96 0.36 0.09

7 4.10 1.13 0.45 0.19

10 4.13 1.35 0.65 0.33

07326000 Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb 307 1941-58 N 1 7.68 3.11 1.51 0.72

3 7.97 3.23 1.56 0.74

7 8.41 3.39 1.68 0.82

10 8.74 3.52 1.75 0.86

1961-99 R 1 1.59 0.92 0.63 0.44

3 1.69 1.02 0.70 0.48

7 1.82 1.13 0.78 0.54
Ground-Water Availability 23

10 1.90 1.19 0.94 0.76

07326500 Washita River at Anadarko 3,656 1965-99 R 1 57.2 11.7 3.42 0.76

3 58.5 12.9 4.93 1.99

7 59.0 15.3 6.56 2.99

10 59.3 16.9 7.60 3.64

07327000 Sugar Creek near Gracemont 208 1964-74 R 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1

Based on climatic year starting April 1 and ending March 31

 Table 3. Annual low-flow frequency estimates for selected continuous record streamflow-gaging stations with at least 10 years of

streamflow data from unregulated and regulated basins in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma—Continued

1

[mi2, square miles; N, unregulated; R, regulated; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; LPIII, Log-Pearson Type III; yr, year]

Siteidentification

number

Station name

Contributing

drainage

area

(mi2

)

Period of

record1

Type of

record

(N/R)

Consecutive

days

Annual low flow LPIII frequency

estimates

Discharge for indicated recurrence

interval (ft3/s)

2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 20 yr
24 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma TOTAL ANNAUL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lookeba 2 ENE Precipitation Station

Water Year 1941-99

LOWESS Smooth

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

WATER YEAR 

10

20

30

40

50

60

Carnegie 5 NE Precipitation Station

Water Year 1915-99

LOWESS Smooth

 Figure 11. Total annual precipitation and LOWESS smooth for the entire period of record for two selected precipitation stations in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
Ground-Water Availability 25

TOTAL ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lookeba 2 ENE Precipitation Station

Water Year 1962-99

LOWESS Smooth

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

WATER YEAR

10

20

30

40

50

60

Carnegie 5 NE Precipitation Station

Water Year 1962-99

LOWESS Smooth

 Figure 12. Total annual precipitation and LOWESS smooth for the regulated streamflow period of record at

two selected precipitation stations in and near the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
26 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma MEAN ANNUAL STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

WATER YEAR

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Canadian River at Bridgeport

 07228500

Regulated 1970-99

LOWESS Smooth

0

40

80

120

160

200

Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb

 07326000

Regulated 1960-99

LOWESS Smooth

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Washita River at Anadarko

 07326500

Regulated 1964-99

LOWESS Smooth

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Figure 13. Mean annual streamflow and LOWESS smooth for the regulated period of record at three selected streamflowgaging stations in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
Ground-Water Availability 27

EXPLANATION

Ground-water-quality sites

Ground-water wells

Surface drainage basins Canadian

River

River

Washita

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15'

o

o

o

o

o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

Figure 14. Location of wells and ground-water-quality sites in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
28 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Era

(geologic

time

scale)1

1

Geologic time scale from Holmes (1959).

Geologic

system/

series

Stratigraphic unit Geohydrologic

unit2

2

Modified from Carr and Bergman, (1976).

Character and

distribution2 Aquifer or confining unit and waterbearing characteristics

Cenozoic

QUATERNARY

Alluvial deposits

Alluvial

aquifer

system

Includes sand, gravel, silt, and

clay. These deposits are most continuous and thickest beneath flood

plains of major streams. Along the

smaller stream valleys, alluvial

deposits may be capable of yielding moderate water supplies.

Thickness ranges from 0 to about

170 feet.

Canadian River Valley alluvial

aquifer—well yields generally are

150 to 300 gallons per minute.

Restricted to deposits underlying

the flood plain along the Canadian

River.

Washita River Valley alluvial

aquifer—well yields generally are

25 to 150 gallons per minute.

Restricted to deposits underlying

the flood plain along the Washita

River.

In smaller stream-valley alluvial

aquifers well yields are generally

less than 25 gallons per minute.

Terrace deposits

Terrace aquifer

system

Include sand, gravel, silt, clay, and

volcanic ash deposits that make up

the surficial materials in the

upland areas and are thickest near

the larger streams. Thickness

ranges from 0 to about 120 feet.

Restricted to unconsolidated

deposits out of the flood plain.

Well yields generally are 25 to 150

gallons per minute.

PERMIAN

OCHOAN

Cloud Chief

Formation

Cloud Chief

Confining Unit

Interbedded with siltsone and

sandstone in the middle part and

some dolomite and much gypsum

in lower part. Thickness is about

400 feet, thinning northward to

about 175 feet.

Confining unit

Paleozoic

GUADALUPIAN

Rush Springs

Formation

Rush Springs

Aquifer

Predominately massive to highly

cross-bedded fine-grained sandstone with some dolomite and

gypsum beds. Thickness ranges

from 0 to more than 300 feet.

Well yields generally are greater

than 300 gallons per minute, in

areas where the aquifer is thickest.

Well yields are 25 to 150 gallons

per minute, near the eroded edge

of the aquifer.

Marlow Formation Marlow Aquifer

Predominately fine-grained sandstone with much gypsum and

shale beds. Thickness ranges from

0 to about 100 feet.

Well yields are 1 to 2 gallons per

minute.

Figure 15. Geohydrologic systems and associated water-bearing characteristics in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

treaty lands, Oklahoma.

Weatherford Bed

Verden Sandstone
Ground-Water Availability 29

EXPLANATION

Rush Springs Aquifer boundary

Streams

Lakes

Canadian

River

River

Washita

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15'

1,600

1,600

1,500

1,600

1,500

1,400

1,400

1,400

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,200

1,200

1,400

1,300

1,400

1,400

o

o

o

o

o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

Potentiometric contour -- shows altitude at

 which water level would have stood in

 tightly cased wells, 1986-91. Contour

 interval is 100 feet. Datum is NAVD 88.

1,600

 Figure 16. Altitude and configuration of the potentiometric surface in the Rush Springs Aquifer in the Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma (Becker and others, 1998).
30 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1995

YEAR

45403530252015

TOTAL ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

3436384042444648505254

DEPTH TO WATER, IN FEET

Depth to waterPrecipitation

1990

 Figure 17. Depth to water recorded in well at 9N-13W-28 D in Caddo County and average annual precipitation in climatic division 4.
Ground-Water Availability 31

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

60

130

70

80

90

100

110

120

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

25

55

30

35

40

45

50

60

100

70

80

90

60

100

70

80

90

DEPTH TO WATER, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

YEAR

09N-13W-12 AAC 1

09N-12W-14 DDB 1 09N-12W-23 BAC 1

10N-12W-31 DDB 2

 Figure 18. Annual water-level measurements in wells in the Rush Springs Aquifer in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

treaty lands, Oklahoma.
32 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Springs Aquifer. Water-level changes measured in well 10N12W-31 DDB2 from 1979-1992 (fig. 18) are based on quarterly

measurements, and the steep declines and recoveries are possibly the result of seasonal irrigation withdrawals (Becker and

Runkle, 1998).

Well yields from the Rush Springs Aquifer vary, but the

most productive irrigation wells produce more than 1,000 gallons per minute (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). Drillers' logs for 89

wells in the Rush Springs Aquifer report discharges that ranged

from 11 to 850 gallons per minute, with a mean discharge of

209 gallons per minute.

Specific capacity is the pumping rate divided by the waterlevel drawdown within the well as a result of the pumping. Specific capacities calculated for the 89 wells ranged from 0.7 to 15

gallons per minute per foot of drawdown, with a mean of 2.3

gallons per minute per foot.

Transmissivity, defined by Lohman and others (1972), is

the rate at which water of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is

transmitted through a unit width of the aquifer under a unit

hydraulic gradient. Transmissivities estimated from four aquifer tests conducted by Tanaka and Davis (1963) ranged from

670 to 1,740 feet squared per day. Davis (1955) reported transmissivities ranging from 670 to 1,870 feet squared per day.

The storage coefficient is the volume of water an aquifer

releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area of the

aquifer per unit change in head (Lohman and others, 1972).

Storage coefficient is a term usually used when describing storage in confined aquifers. Calculated storage coefficients ranged

from 0.0035 to 0.02.

The specific yield of a rock or soil is the ratio of the volume of water that the rock or soil, after being saturated, will

yield by gravity to its own volume (Lohman and others, 1972).

Tanaka and Davis (1963) reported that specific yields, from

core samples of the Rush Springs Aquifer, ranged from 0.13 to

0.34, with a mean of 0.25.

The 3M Company conducted a hydrologic investigation at

a site in the town of Weatherford (U. S. Geological Survey files,

Oklahoma City, OK, written commun., 1991). The investigation included slug and pumping tests in wells completed in the

Rush Springs Aquifer. Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of

how quickly water moves through an aquifer. Hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug tests ranged from 1.05 to 5.62

feet per day with a mean of 2.30 feet per day. Hydraulic conductivities estimated from pumping tests ranged from 3.84 to 4.41

feet per day.

Local variations of hydraulic conductivity are due to the

degree of cementation present in the Rush Springs Aquifer. One

example is the area south of the tribal treaty lands, where the

Rush Springs Aquifer has been diagenetically altered. The Rush

Springs Aquifer has a high degree of cementation resulting in

lower estimated hydraulic conductivities. No aquifer tests for

this area were available, but based on specific capacities calculated from drillers' logs, hydraulic conductivities in this area

were estimated to be less than 1 foot per day in some cases.

An estimate of the saturated thickness (fig. 19) was generated, using the geographic information system software ARC/

INFO, by subtracting the elevation of the base of the aquifer

from the potentiometric surface. The map (fig. 19) illustrates

general trends of saturated thickness and should not be used to

derive the saturated thickness for a specific location.

The Rush Springs Aquifer is recharged by the infiltration

of precipitation. The estimated recharge is about 1.80 inches per

year evenly distributed over the outcrop of the aquifer in the

study area (Becker and Runkle, 1998).

Canadian and Washita River Valley Alluvial Aquifers

The Canadian and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers,

which are restricted to the flood plains and terraces along the

rivers, also are potential water resources in the study area.

Water availability from the aquifer is directly affected by variations in aquifer lithology, which consists of Quaternary-age

sand, gravel, silt, and clay. Large-capacity wells are possible in

these aquifers where thick sequences of coarse material are

present. Coarse materials have greater hydraulic conductivity

that increase the possibility of induced recharge from the surface water in the rivers to pumping wells. Thicknesses of the

sediments range from zero at the valley walls to as much as 170

feet in the deepest part of the buried channel (fig. 15) (Carr and

Bergman, 1976). Reported hydraulic conductivity, 10 miles

north of the tribal treaty lands, for the North Canadian River

alluvial aquifer was 38.9 feet per day (Christenson, 1983).

The Canadian River valley alluvial aquifer in the tribal

treaty lands has 10 wells reported for irrigation usage (Mark

Beldon, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, written commun.,

2000). Some of these wells have reported yields greater than

300 gallons per minute. The Washita River valley alluvial aquifer has six wells in the tribal treaty lands and one was reported

to yield greater than 300 gallons per minute.

The water supplies of the Canadian and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers in the tribal treaty lands are not used extensively because of potential problems from flooding. Much of

these aquifers lie in flood-prone areas where well-head protection and water-supply facilities need to be elevated or otherwise

protected from surface contamination during flooding.

Minor Aquifers

Minor aquifers that occur throughout the study

area include the Marlow Aquifer and small stream-valley

alluvial aquifers (fig. 15).

Marlow Aquifer

The Marlow Aquifer is part of the Marlow Formation of

late Permian, Guadalupian age (fig. 15) (Fay and Hart, 1978).

The Marlow Aquifer underlies the Rush Springs Aquifer and is

composed of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, gypsum-anhydrite, and dolomite. The Marlow Formation is about

90 to 100 feet thick, and has been interpreted as being deposited
Ground-Water Availability 33

EXPLANATION

Rush Springs Aquifer boundary

Line of equal saturated thickness, 

 1986-91 -- Interval 50 feet

Streams

Lakes Canadian

River

River

Washita

0 5 10

0 5 10

MILES

KILOMETERS

98 30'

98 15'

98 00'

35 30'

35 15'

0

100

50

150 200

250

300 350

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

250

250

250

50

150

100

200

50

50

50

50

50

150

100

200

100

50 0

200

o

o

o

o

o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:1,00,000,

1983 Albers Equal Area Conic projection, NAD83 datum

50

 Figure 19. Saturated thickness of the Rush Springs Aquifer in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma (Becker

and others, 1998).
34 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

in a near-shore marine environment that includes (1) a brackishwater to near-shore-marine setting (Fay, 1962) and (2) a tidal

flat bordering an open marine environment (MacLachlan,

1967). The Verden Sandstone within the Marlow Formation

(fig. 15) has been interpreted as a near-shore strandline deposit

(Bass, 1939), whereas Evans (1948) interpreted the Verden

Sandstone as a channel deposit. Cores show that the primary

cement in the Marlow Formation is gypsum with minor

amounts of carbonate. The Marlow Formation is moderately to

well-cemented, with extremely low primary permeability, generally retarding downward movement of water from the Rush

Springs Aquifer to underlying units (Becker and Runkle, 1998).

Selenite crystals in the mudstone and siltstone units, as well as

bedded gypsum ranging in thickness from paper-thin to one foot

indicate that waters in the Marlow Formation probably were saturated with gypsum.

Water from the Marlow Aquifer, where potable, is used

primarily for domestic use. Well yields are much less than those

from the Rush Springs Aquifer, ranging from 1 to 2 gallons per

minute (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). Water from the Marlow

Aquifer, where it is overlain by a thin section of the Rush

Springs Aquifer or exposed at land surface, is generally potable.

However, in areas where the Marlow Aquifer is deeply buried,

it is not used for drinking water because of the large concentrations of dissolved sulfate from gypsum.

Small Stream-Valley Alluvial Aquifers

Small stream-valley alluvial aquifers in this report refer to

all stream-valley alluvial aquifers except the Canadian River

and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers. Although most of

the small stream-valley alluvial aquifers in the study area contain clayey or silty alluvium, the alluvial deposits commonly

have some coarser material near the deepest parts of the valleys

capable of yielding small water supplies to wells. Test drilling

is necessary to delineate the deepest parts of the valleys where

the coarser materials are frequently found.

Water Quality

Principal factors affecting the water quality in the study

area include geology, agricultural practices, and oil and gas production. Calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate are the

dominant dissolved constituents in water in the study area due

to dissolution of bedrock and sediment, which consist primarily

of sandstone, shales, gypsum, and anhydrites. Agricultural

practices may result in increased pesticide, fertilizer, and fecal

bacteria concentrations in surface-water runoff and ground

water.

There are 181 water-quality analyses available, during

1947-2000, for 160 ground-water wells in the area. There are

3,138 water-quality analyses available for 20 surface-water

sites in the study area. Ninety-five percent of the analyses are

from seven surface-water sites that were monitoring select constituents for 1942-1999. The ground-water data used in figures

20a through 25a also are used in figures 20b through 25b.

Water Properties

Acidity of water is measured by pH. According to Hem

(1985), the pH of river water in areas not affected by contamination generally ranges from 6.5 to 8.5 standard units. In areas

where photosynthesis by aquatic organisms take up carbon

dioxide during daylight and releases carbon dioxide at night, pH

fluctuations may occur, and the maximum pH value may be as

great as 9.0. In contrast, other factors such as oxidation of dissolved ferrous iron, decrease the pH. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2001) recommends a Secondary Drinking

Water Standard for pH from 6.5 to 8.5 for drinking-water supplies. On the basis of available water-quality analyses, pH in

surface-water samples in the study area ranged between 4.0 and

9.6 standard units. In ground-water samples, pH ranged from

6.5 to 8.4.

Alkalinity is the capacity of a solute to neutralize acid

(Hem, 1985) and is expressed as milligrams per liter of calcium

carbonate (CaCO3). Bicarbonate is the dominate carbonate species for the pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 for surface water and ground

water in the study area. Bicarbonate concentrations in water are

calculated by dividing alkalinity, as calcium carbonate, by

0.8202 (Hem, 1985). Alkalinities in surface- and ground-water

samples in the study area were similar. Alkalinities in surface

water ranged from 25 to 388 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile between 118 and 218 milligrams

per liter. The interquartile represents half of the sampled values

and is between the 25th and 75th percentiles (Ott, 1993, p. 82).

Alkalinities in surface water generally were proportional to the

concentrations of calcium and magnesium. Alkalinities in

ground water ranged from 10 to 472 milligrams per liter, with

concentrations for the interquartile between 132 and 232 milligrams per liter.

Dissolved Solids

Dissolved solids in water consist primarily of the cations

calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium and the anions

bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001), excess dissolved solids

are objectionable in drinking water because of possible physiological effects, unpalatable mineral tastes, and greater costs

because of corrosion or the necessity for additional treatment.

The USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard for dissolved

solids is 500 milligrams per liter (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

Interquartile dissolved-solids concentrations in surfacewater samples in the study area were greater than interquartile

concentrations in ground-water samples (fig. 20a). Dissolvedsolids concentrations in surface water ranged from 15 to 2,460

milligrams per liter, with the interquartile between 579 and

1,620 milligrams per liter. Concentrations of dissolved solids in
Water Quality 35

Surface

Water

Ground

Water

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

(1560) (142)

SDWS

100

1,000

10,000

DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

Ground water

DRAINAGE BASINS

SDWS

Buggy Creek

Canadian River

Cobb Creek

Deer Creek

Ionine Creek

Spring Creek

Sugar Creek

Washita River

(7) (14) (52) (11) (5) (6) (28) (19)

10

Data values outside 1.5 times the

interquartile range

Largest concentration less than or

equal to 75th percentile plus 1.5

times the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Interquartile

range

Smallest concentration greater than or

equal to 25th percentile minus 1.5

times the interquartile range

(7) Number of analyses

SDWS (Secondary Drinking Water Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001)

(20a)

(20b)

Figure 20. Dissolved-solids concentrations in surface water and ground water (20a) and by ground water in drainage

basin (20b) in the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
36 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

ground water ranged from 52 to 9,040 milligrams per liter, with

the interquartile between 264 and 574 milligrams per liter (fig.

20a). Median dissolved-solids concentrations for ground-water

samples from Canadian River, Ionine Creek, Spring Creek, and

Washita River Basins exceeded the USEPA Secondary Drinking

Water Standard of 500 milligrams per liter (fig. 20b).

Major Ions

Calcium is a major constituent of rocks (Hem, 1985) such

as limestone, dolomite, gypsum, anhydrite and sandstones. It

dissolves readily in water; therefore, the calcium concentrations

in water from areas with these type of rocks and sediments tend

to be greater than in other areas. Interquartile calcium concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area were greater

than interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples (fig.

21a). Calcium concentrations in surface water in the study area

ranged between about 27 and 440 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile between 100 and 248 milligrams per liter. Calcium concentrations in ground water ranged

between 7.0 and 600 milligrams per liter, with the interquartile

between 46 and 110 milligrams per liter (fig. 21a). Greater

median concentrations were detected in ground water from

wells in the Canadian River, Ionine Creek, Spring Creek, and

Washita River Basins (fig. 21b) than from the other basins.

Magnesium is a common alkaline-earth metal and is essential in plant and animal nutrition (Hem, 1985). The principal

sources for magnesium in the study area are similar to those for

calcium. As with calcium, interquartile magnesium concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area generally were

greater than interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples. Magnesium concentrations in surface water area ranged

between about 3.9 and 139 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile between 25 and 82 milligrams per

liter. Magnesium concentrations in ground water were similar

to those in surface water. Magnesium concentrations in ground

water ranged between 2.9 and 130 milligrams per liter, with

concentrations for the interquartile between 9.5 and 26 milligrams per liter. Greater concentrations of magnesium were

detected in ground water from wells in the Canadian River, Ionine Creek, and Spring Creek Basins than from the other basins.

Sodium is the most abundant member of the alkali-metal

group of elements, and when dissolved, it tends to remain in

solution (Hem, 1985). Natural sources of sodium include the

weathering of plagioclase feldspar and the dissolution of

sodium salts from sedimentary rocks. Human-related sources

include septic systems and as a by-product of water treatment (it

is discharged by water softeners and reverse-osmosis units).

Water from oil and gas production in the study area is composed

of sodium and chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2001) established a health advisory level of 20 milligrams per liter for people who are on very restricted sodium

diets.

Interquartile sodium concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area were greater than interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples (fig. 22a). Sodium concentrations in surface water in the study area ranged from 1.6 to 215

milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile

between 31 and 100 milligrams per liter (fig. 22a). The median

concentration in surface-water samples was 57 milligrams per

liter, which exceeds the USEPA health advisory level. Sodium

concentrations in ground-water samples (fig. 22a) ranged from

4.2 to 1,500 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the

interquartile between 17 and 44 milligrams per liter. The greater

concentrations in surface water than in ground water were probably from the dissolution of sodium salts from sedimentary

rocks. The median values for ground water from Cobb Creek

and Sugar Creek Basins were less than the health advisory level

(fig. 22b).

Potassium concentrations generally were much less than

sodium concentrations in most natural water (Hem, 1985).

Although the sodium concentrations generally exceeded 10 milligrams per liter in water samples collected in the study area, the

potassium concentrations commonly were one-half to one-tenth

that of sodium concentrations. Potassium concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area ranged from 0.6 to 9.6 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile

between 4.2 and 6.2 milligrams per liter. Potassium concentrations in ground-water samples ranged from 0.1 to 11.0 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile

between 0.7 and 2.0 milligrams per liter. There is no USEPA

Secondary Drinking Water Standard for potassium.

Natural sources of sulfate (Hem, 1985) in water include

the weathering of sulfur-bearing minerals, such as pyrite and

gypsum-anhydrite, volcanic discharges to the atmosphere, and

biologic and biochemical processes. Human-related sources

include industrial discharges to both streams and the atmosphere and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline.

Gypsum, the most probable source of sulfate, is present in the

Marlow Formation and Rush Springs Formation and in the

overlying Cloud Chief Formation (Becker, 1998). The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (2001) established a Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250 milligrams per liter for sulfate to because of laxative effects. Interquartile sulfate concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area were greater

than interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples (fig.

23a). Sulfate concentrations in surface water in the study area

ranged from 1.0 to 1,700 milligrams per liter, with the interquartile between 270 and 825 milligrams per liter. Sulfate concentrations in ground water (fig. 23a) ranged from 4.1 to 4,600

milligrams per liter, with the interquartile concentrations

between 12 and 190 milligrams per liter. Median sulfate concentrations from ground-water samples in the Canadian River,

Ionine Creek, and Spring Creek Basins exceeded the USEPA

Secondary Drinking Water Standard and ranged from 385 to

570 milligrams per liter (fig. 23b).

The most important natural source of chloride in the study

area is dissolution of halite from sedimentary rocks. The

USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250 milligrams

per liter was established for chloride on the basis of taste (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Interquartile chloride
Water Quality 37

Surface

Water

Ground

Water

10

100

CALCIUM, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

(832) (123)

Buggy Creek

Canadian River

Cobb Creek

Deer Creek

Ionine Creek

Spring Creek

Sugar Creek

Washita River

10

100

1000

1000

CALCIUM DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DRAINAGE BASINS

Ground water

(7) (13) (43) (8) (3) (5) (25) (19)

Data values outside 1.5 times the

interquartile range

Largest concentration less than or

equal to 75th percentile plus 1.5

times the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Interquartile

range

Smallest concentration greater than or

equal to 25th percentile minus 1.5

times the interquartile range

(7) Number of analyses

(21a)

(21b)

Figure 21. Calcium concentrations in surface water and ground water (21a) and by ground water in drainage basin (21b) in the Wichita Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
38 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Surface

Water

Ground

Water

1

1

10

100

1,000

SODIUM, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DRAINAGE BASINS

Buggy Creek

Canadian River

Cobb Creek

Deer Creek

Ionine Creek

Spring Creek

Sugar Creek

Washita River

10

100

1,000

SODIUM, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Ground water

Health Advisory Level

(4) (11) (31) (6) (1) (5) (17) (18)

Data values outside 1.5 times the

interquartile range

Largest concentration less than or

equal to 75th percentile plus 1.5

times the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Interquartile

range

Smallest concentration greater than or

equal to 25th percentile minus 1.5

times the interquartile range

(7) Number of analyses

Health Advisory Level, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1986

Health Advisory Level

(1212) (93)

(22a)

(22b)

 Figure 22. Sodium concentrations in surface water and ground water (22a) and by ground water in

drainage basin (22b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
Water Quality 39

Surface

Water

Ground

Water

1

10

100

1,000

SULFATE, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SDWS

Buggy Creek

Canadian River

Cobb Creek

Deer Creek

Ionine Creek

Spring Creek

Sugar Creek

Washita River

10

100

1,000

SULFATE, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SDWS

Ground Water

DRAINAGE BASINS

(7) (18) (64) (12) (5) (6) (31) (27)

Data values outside 1.5 times the

interquartile range

Largest concentration less than or

equal to 75th percentile plus 1.5

times the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Interquartile

range

Smallest concentration greater than or

equal to 25th percentile minus 1.5

times the interquartile range

(7) Number of analyses

SDWS (Secondary Drinking Water Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001)

(1613) (170)

7,000

7,000 (23a)

(23b)

 Figure 23. Sulfate concentrations in surface water and ground water (23a) and by ground water in drainage basin (23b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
40 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area generally were greater than interquartile concentrations in groundwater samples (fig. 24a). Chloride concentrations in surface

water ranged from 0.3 to 400 milligrams per liter, with the interquartile between 22 and 100 milligrams per liter. Chloride concentrations in ground water (fig. 24) ranged from 0.49 to 900

milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile

between 6.5 and 30 milligrams per liter. Greater interquartile

concentrations were detected in water from wells in the Canadian River Basin (fig. 24b) than from the other basins.

Nutrients

Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients for plant

growth. Dense algal growths or blooms occur in lakes and

streams that receive increased concentrations of nitrogen or

phosphorus. These growths cause problems for other aquatic

life when the dissolved oxygen is removed from the water by

decaying organic matter, resulting from sudden dieback of

algae and plants (Hem, 1985).

Nitrate is formed by complete oxidation of ammonium

ions by micro-organisms in soil or water, and nitrite is formed

from the nitrate or ammonium ions by micro-organisms in soil,

water, sewage, and the digestive tract (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). Major point sources for nitrogen entry

into water are municipal and industrial wastewater outfalls, septic tanks, feedlot discharges, and leachate from waste disposal

in dumps or sanitary landfills. Diffuse or non-point sources

include farm-site fertilizer and animal wastes, lawn fertilizer,

and atmospheric deposition. A Primary Drinking Water Regulation of 10 milligrams per liter was established by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (2001) for nitrite plus nitrate

as nitrogen because of possible toxic effects to infants.

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentrations in surfacewater samples in the study area generally were less than concentrations in ground-water samples (fig. 25a). Nitrite plus

nitrate as nitrogen concentrations in surface water in the study

area ranged from less than 0.10 to about 4.8 milligrams per liter,

with concentrations for the interquartile between 0.78 and 1.5

milligrams per liter (fig. 25a). Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen

concentrations in ground water in the study area ranged from

0.25 to 63 milligrams per liter, with concentrations for the interquartile between 5.9 and 19 milligrams per liter (fig. 25a). The

median nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentration in ground

water was 9.8 milligrams per liter, indicating almost one-half

the ground-water samples exceeded the USEPA Primary Drinking Water Regulation. The sparse existing data indicate that

water from wells in the Canadian and Washita River Basins

may have greater nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentrations

(fig. 25b) than water from wells in the other basins.

The USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard (1986)

for total phosphorus as phosphate is 0.10 milligram per liter.

Greater concentrations may interfere with coagulation in watertreatment plants. To prevent excessive algal growth, the concentration should not exceed 0.05 milligram per liter in any

stream at the point where it enters a lake or reservoir nor should

it exceed 0.025 milligram per liter within the lake or reservoir

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). Phosphorous

concentrations in streams in the study area ranged from less

than 0.01 to about 3.0 milligrams per liter, with concentrations

for the interquartile between 0.01 and 0.46 milligram per liter.

No ground-water analyses were available for phosphorus.

Metals

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) has

established a Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 300

micrograms per liter for iron. These limits are for drinking

water that has been treated. If source water contains iron concentrations that are greater than 300 micrograms per liter, the

iron generally can be removed during the treatment process.

High concentrations of iron in ground water generally are

caused by reducing conditions, where there is little or no dissolved oxygen. If iron is present in water in excessive amounts,

it forms a red iron-oxide precipitate that stains laundry and

plumbing fixtures and, therefore, is an objectionable constituent

in domestic and industrial water supplies (Hem 1985). Total

iron concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area

ranged from 5 to 170 micrograms per liter, with concentrations

for the interquartile between 10 and 60 micrograms per liter.

Total iron concentrations in ground-water samples within the

study area ranged from 5 to 1,600 micrograms per liter, with

concentrations for the interquartile between 5 and 20 micrograms per liter. Greater concentrations were detected in water

from wells in the alluvial aquifer in the Canadian River Basin,

with concentrations for the interquartile between 10 and 110

micrograms per liter and a median concentration of 30 micrograms per liter, than in water from wells in the other basins.

Water Use

The data presented here are for 1995, the most recent

water-use compilation effort by the U.S. Geological Survey for

Oklahoma (Solley and others, 1998; Tortorelli, 1998). Estimated freshwater withdrawals (in millions of gallons per day)

for Blaine, Caddo, Canadian, Custer, Grady, and Washita

Counties by use and source (surface or ground water) are listed

in table 4. The tribal treaty lands include only portions of these

counties (fig.1). The amount of water withdrawn and percentages for each category will be different for tribal treaty lands.

Annual amounts of surface- and ground-water withdrawals are reported for irrigation, water supply, livestock, thermoelectric-power generation, domestic and commercial, and

industrial and mining. Withdrawal in this report is the amount

of water withdrawn or diverted from a surface- or ground-water

source. Use is the amount of water that is brought into a facility

(or to an irrigation area) for use, and is equal to the withdrawal

plus delivery from water suppliers minus any loss that occurred

prior to use. Fresh water is defined as water containing less than
Water Use 41

Surface

Water

Ground

Water

1

10

100

CHLORIDE, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SDWS

Buggy Creek

Canadian River

Cobb Creek

Deer Creek

Ionine Creek

Spring Creek

Sugar Creek

Washita River

CHLORIDE, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DRAINAGE BASINS

SDWS

Ground Water

(8) (20) (67) (12) (5) (6) (31) (27)

1,000

1

0.1

0.1

10

100

1,000

Data values outside 1.5 times the

interquartile range

Largest concentration less than or

equal to 75th percentile plus 1.5

times the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Interquartile

range

Smallest concentration greater than or

equal to 25th percentile minus 1.5

times the interquartile range

(7) Number of analyses

SDWS (Secondary Drinking Water Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001) (1617) (176)

(24a)

(24b)

Figure 24. Chloride concentrations in surface water and ground water (24a) and by ground water in drainage

basin (24b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
42 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Surface

Water

Ground

Water

0.1

0.01

1.0

10.0

100

100

PDWR

Buggy Creek

Canadian River

Cobb Creek

Deer Creek

Ionine Creek

Spring Creek

Sugar Creek

Washita River

1

0.1

10

NITRITE + NITRATE AS NITROGEN, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Ground Water

PDWR

DRAINAGE BASINS

(5) (10) (2) (7)

Data values outside 1.5 times the

interquartile range

Largest concentration less than or

equal to 75th percentile plus 1.5

times the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Interquartile

range

Smallest concentration greater than or

equal to 25th percentile minus 1.5

times the interquartile range

(7) Number of analyses

PDWR (Primary Drinking Water Regulation, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001)

(170) (24)

(25a)

(25b)

NITRITE + NITRATE AS NITROGEN, DISSOLVED, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 25. Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentrations in surface water and ground water (25a) and by

ground water in drainage basin (25b) in the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma.
Water Use 43

 Table 4. Estimated freshwater withdrawals in 1995, by county, use, and source, in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma[Amounts in million gallons per day. Amounts may not add to total because of independent rounding]

County (tribes

treaty lands

approximate

percent of total

area)

Irrigation Water-supply Livestock Thermoelectric-power generation

Surface

water

Ground

water

Surface

water

Ground

water

Surface

water

Ground

water

Surface

water

Ground

water

Blaine (6) 0.44 1.23 0.00 1.15 1.20 0.66 0.00 0.00Caddo (62) 1.32 29.27 8.35 1.15 2.70 0.90 2.88 0.00Canadian (9) 0.25 2.14 0.00 3.16 1.91 0.24 0.00 1.42Custer (4) 0.43 2.83 5.28 2.35 1.37 0.46 0.00 0.00Grady (9) 5.69 2.92 0.00 3.63 2.93 0.27 0.00 0.00Washita (6) 0.97 3.20 0.24 0.68 1.21 0.40 0.00 0.00

 Table 4. Estimated freshwater withdrawals in Oklahoma, 1995, by county, use, and source, in and near the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands, Oklahoma—Continued

County (tribes

treaty lands

approximate

percent of total

area)

Domestic and commercial Industrial and mining Total

Surface

water

Ground

water

Surface

water

Ground

water

Surface

water

Ground

water Total

Blaine (6) 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.04 1.64 3.59 5.3Caddo (62) 0.25 0.77 0.00 0.00 15.5 32.0 47.6Canadian (9) 0.11 0.23 0.00 0.43 2.27 7.61 9.9Custer (4) 0.52 0.01 0.00 0.01 7.60 5.66 13.3Grady (9) 0.70 1.38 0.00 0.00 9.32 8.20 17.5Washita (6) 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 2.61 4.47 7.1
44 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

1,000 milligrams per liter of dissolved solids. The types of withdrawals are defined as (Lurry and Tortorelli, 1996):

• Irrigation withdrawal is water applied artificially on

land to assist in the growing of crops and pastures or

maintaining recreation lands such as parks and golf

courses. The water is self supplied or purchased from

an irrigation company, irrigation district, or other supplier for irrigation use. It is not obtained from a publicwater supply system for irrigation.

• Water-supply withdrawal is water withdrawn by public

and private water suppliers and delivered to users that

do not have their own water supply.

• Livestock withdrawal is water supplied for livestock.

Livestock includes cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, poultry,

horses, rabbits, bees, and fur-bearing animals in captivity.

• Thermoelectric-power generation withdrawal is water

for cooling purposes in the production of electrical

power using fossil-fuel (coal, oil, or natural gas), geothermal, or nuclear energy.

• Domestic withdrawal is water for normal household

purposes such as drinking, food preparation, bathing,

washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens; also referred to as residential

use. The water is self supplied and is not obtained from

a water-supply system.

• Commercial withdrawal is water for motels, hotels,

restaurants, office buildings, commercial facilities, fish

hatcheries, and civilian and military institutions. The

water is self supplied and is not obtained from a watersupply system. Commercial withdrawal is combined

with domestic withdrawal for this study.

• Industrial withdrawal is water for purposes such as fabrication, processing, washing, and cooling in the production of steel, chemical and allied products, paper

and allied products, mineral processing not performed

on mine site, and petroleum refining. The water is self

supplied and is not obtained from a water-supply system.

• Mining withdrawal is water used in the extraction of

naturally occurring minerals such as coal, ores, crude

petroleum, and natural gas. It also includes quarrying,

well operation (dewatering), milling (crushing, screening, washing, and flotation), and other preparations typically performed at the mine site or as part of a mining

activity. Mining withdrawals are combined with the

industrial withdrawals for this study.

An estimated 100 million gallons of water per day were

withdrawn in the counties listed in table 4 during 1995. Of this

amount, 61 percent was supplied by ground-water sources. The

largest withdrawal of water in the counties, 50 percent, was for

irrigation, and about 83 percent of irrigation withdrawals was

ground water. Livestock use represented 14 percent of the total

water withdrawn and was supplied by both surface- (79 percent)

and ground-water (21 percent) sources. Water-supply and

domestic and commercial uses combined for 31 percent of the

total withdrawn and were supplied by surface- and groundwater sources. About 50 percent of water-supply use was surface water and about 50 percent was ground water. Self-supply

domestic use was 100 percent ground water. About 79 percent

of commercial use was surface water and about 21 percent was

ground water (Tortorelli, 1998).

Summary

This report is an overview of water resources in and near

the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes treaty lands in western Oklahoma. The primary objectives of the report are to describe surface- and ground-water availability, water quality, and water

use in the study area.

Seventy percent of the study area lies within the Washita

River drainage basin and 30 percent of the area is in the Canadian River drainage basin. Tributaries of the Washita River in

the tribal treaty lands, from west to east, include Cobb Creek,

Sugar Creek, Spring Creek, and Ionine Creek. Cobb Creek and

Sugar Creek are perennial streams that are maintained by discharge from the Rush Springs Aquifer. Principal tributaries of

the Canadian River are Deer Creek and Buggy Creek. Deer

Creek is a perennial stream maintained by discharge from the

Rush Springs Aquifer. The percentages of the tribal trust and

allotment lands within each of these surface-water drainage

basins are as follows: Buggy Creek, 5 percent; Canadian River,

1 percent; Cobb Creek, 9 percent; Deer Creek, 3 percent; Ionine

Creek, 2 percent; Spring Creek, 10 percent; Sugar Creek, 40

percent; and Washita River, 30 percent.

Seasonal changes in streamflow reflect the quantity and

frequency of rainfall and differences in evapotranspiration.

March through June are months of greatest average streamflow,

with 49 to 57percent of the annual flow occurring in these four

months. November through February, July, and August have

the least average streamflow, with 26 to 36 percent of the annual

flow occurring in these six months.

Two streamflow-gaging stations with both unregulated

and regulated periods of record indicated peak streamflows

generally decrease with regulation, and two other stations indicated a decrease in peak streamflows after regulation at less

than the 100-year recurrence and an increase in peak streamflows greater than the 100-year recurrence. Three stations with

both unregulated and regulated periods of record had estimated

annual low flows that generally increased with regulation. One

station located immediately downstream from Fort Cobb Reservoir dam had a decrease of estimated annual low flows after

regulation.

A LOWESS smooth performed on the regulated period of

record of the precipitation shows a slight upward trend, with a

dip downward coinciding with droughts in the 1990s. A LOWESS smooth of the regulated period of record for the streamflow
Summary 45

at three stations shows general upward trends, which may be

due to the variability of large storm events, effects of reservoir

operations of the major dams, and gradual sediment filling of

the hundreds of Natural Resources Conservation Service floodwater retarding structures in the Washita River Basin.

There are more than 900 ground-water wells in the tribal

treaty lands. Eighty percent of the wells are in Caddo County.

The major aquifers in the study area of the tribal treaty lands are

the Rush Springs Aquifer and portions of the Canadian River

and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers. The Rush Springs

Aquifer is used extensively for irrigation as well as industrial

and municipal purposes, especially near population centers. The

Canadian River and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers are

not used extensively in the study area because of the limited

areal extent of the aquifers.

Water-level measurements indicate that climatic conditions such as droughts and periods of greater than normal precipitation affect the water levels in the Rush Springs Aquifer.

The Rush Springs Aquifer is recharged by the infiltration of

precipitation. The estimated recharge is about 1.80 inches per

year evenly distributed over the outcrop of the aquifer in the

study area. Well yields from the Rush Springs Aquifer vary, but

the most productive irrigation wells produce more than 1,000

gallons per minute.

The Canadian and Washita River valley alluvial aquifers

occur in the flood plains along the rivers. The Canadian River

valley alluvial aquifer in the tribal treaty lands has 10 wells

reported for irrigation usage. Some of these wells have reported

yields greater than 300 gallons per minute. The Washita River

valley alluvial aquifer has six wells in the tribal treaty lands and

one was reported to yield greater than 300 gallons per minute.

Much of these aquifers lie in flood-prone areas where well-head

protection and water-supply facilities need to be elevated or

otherwise protected from surface contamination during flooding.

Principal factors affecting the water quality in the study

area include geology, agricultural practices, and oil and gas production. Agricultural practices may result in increased pesticide, fertilizer, and fecal bacteria concentrations in surfacewater runoff and ground water. Calcium, magnesium, sulfate,

and bicarbonate are the dominant dissolved constituents in

water in the study area due to dissolution of bedrock and sediment, which consist primarily of sandstone, shales, gypsum,

and anhydrites.

Interquartile dissolved-solids concentrations in surfacewater samples in the study area were greater than interquartile

concentrations in ground-water samples. Dissolved-solids concentrations in surface water ranged from 15 to 2,460 milligrams

per liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 579 and

1,620 milligrams per liter. Concentrations of dissolved solids in

ground water ranged from 52 to 9,040 milligrams per liter, with

the interquartile between 264 and 574 milligrams per liter.

Median dissolved-solids concentrations for ground-water samples from Canadian River, Ionine Creek, Spring Creek, and

Washita River Basins exceeded the USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 milligrams per liter.

Interquartile calcium concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area were greater than interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples. Calcium concentrations in surface water in the study area ranged between about 27 and 440

milligrams per liter, with the interquartile concentrations

between 100 and 248 milligrams per liter. Calcium concentrations in ground water ranged between 7.0 and 600 milligrams

per liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 46 and

110 milligrams per liter. Greater median concentrations were

detected in ground water from wells in the Canadian River, Ionine Creek, Spring Creek, and Washita River Basins than from

the other basins.

Interquartile sodium concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area were greater than interquartile concentrations in ground-water samples. Sodium concentrations in surface water in the study area ranged from 1.6 to 215 milligrams

per liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 31 and

100 milligrams per liter. The median concentration in surfacewater samples was 57 milligrams per liter, which exceeds the

USEPA health advisory level. Sodium concentrations in

ground-water samples ranged from 4.2 to 1,500 milligrams per

liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 17 and 44

milligrams per liter. The greater concentrations in surface water

than in ground water were probably from the dissolution of

sodium salts from sedimentary rocks.

Sulfate concentrations in surface water in the study area

ranged from 1.0 to 1,700 milligrams per liter, with the interquartile between 270 and 825 milligrams per liter. Sulfate concentrations in ground water ranged from 4.1 to 4,600 milligrams

per liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 12 and

190 milligrams per liter. Median sulfate concentrations from

ground-water samples in the Canadian River, Ionine Creek, and

Spring Creek Basins ranged from 385 to 570 milligrams per

liter, which exceeded the USEPA Secondary Drinking Water

Standard of 250 milligrams per liter.

Interquartile chloride concentrations in surface-water samples in the study area generally were greater than interquartile

concentrations in ground-water samples. Chloride concentrations in surface water ranged from 0.3 to 400 milligrams per

liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 22 and 100

milligrams per liter. Chloride concentrations in ground water

ranged from 0.49 to 900 milligrams per liter, with the interquartile concentrations between 6.5 and 30 milligrams per liter.

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentrations in surfacewater samples in the study area generally were less than concentrations in ground-water samples. Nitrite plus nitrate as

nitrogen concentrations in surface water in the study area

ranged from less than 0.10 to about 4.8 milligrams per liter, with

the interquartile concentrations between 0.78 and 1.5 milligrams per liter. Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen concentrations in

ground water in the study area ranged from 0.25 to 63 milligrams per liter, with the interquartile concentrations between

5.9 and 19 milligrams per liter. The median nitrite plus nitrate

as nitrogen concentration in ground water was 9.8 milligrams

per liter, indicating almost one-half the ground-water samples
46 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

exceeded the USEPA Primary Drinking Water Regulation of 10

milligrams per liter.

Phosphorous concentrations in streams in the study area

ranged from less than 0.01 to about 3.0 milligrams per liter, with

the interquartile concentrations between 0.01 and 0.46 milligram per liter. No ground-water analyses were available for

phosphorus.

Total iron concentrations in surface-water samples in the

study area ranged from 5 to 170 micrograms per liter, with the

interquartile concentrations between 10 and 60 micrograms per

liter. Total iron concentrations in ground-water samples within

the study area ranged from 5 to 1,600 micrograms per liter, with

the interquartile concentrations between 5 and 20 micrograms

per liter. Greater concentrations were detected in water from

wells in the alluvial aquifer in the Canadian River Basin than in

water from wells in other basins, with most concentrations

between 10 and 110 micrograms per liter and the median was

30 micrograms per liter.

An estimated 100 million gallons of water per day were

withdrawn from surface and ground water for all uses in counties of the study area during 1995. Fifty percent of water use

was for irrigation, and about 83 percent of water withdrawn for

irrigation was from ground water. Livestock use represented 14

percent of the total water withdrawn and was supplied by surface- and ground-water sources. Water-supply for domestic and

commercial uses was 31 percent of the total withdrawn and was

supplied by surface- and ground-water sources.

Selected References

Allen, R.F., 1980, Uranium potential of the Cement District,

southwestern Oklahoma: Stillwater, Oklahoma State University, master's thesis p. 84.

Bass, N.W., 1939, Verden Sandstone of Oklahoma-and

exposed shoestring sand of Permian age: AAPG Bulletin, v.

23, p. 559-581.

Becker, Mark F., 1998, Steady-state simulation of ground-water

flow in the Rush Springs Aquifer, western Oklahoma: U.S.

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report

98-4082, 18 p.

Becker, Mark F. and Runkle, Donna L., 1998, Hydrogeology,

water quality, and geochemistry of the Rush Springs Aquifer,

western Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 98-4081, 37 p.

Bell R., Jelks, E.B., and Newcomb, W.W., 1974, Wichita Indians: New York, Garland, 435 p.

Blazs, R.L., Walters, D.M., Coffey, T.E., Boyle, D.L., and Kerestes, J.F., 1999a, Water resources data, Oklahoma, water

year 1998, Volume 1, Arkansas River Basin: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Data Report OK-99-1, 364 p.

Blazs, R.L., Walters, D.M., Coffey, T.E., Boyle, D.L., and Kerestes, J.F., 1999b, Water resources data, Oklahoma, water

year 1998, Volume 2, Red River Basin: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Data Report OK-99-2, 197 p.

Bogard, V.A., Fielder, A.G., and Meinders, H.C., 1978, Soil

Survey of Grady County, Oklahoma: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 104 p.

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Titles and Records Office,

Southern Plains Region, Itm3_r804, CD-ROM.

Carr, J.E., and Bergman, D.L., 1976, Reconnaissance of the

water resources of the Clinton quadrangle, west-central

Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas

5, 4 sheets, scale 1:250,000.

Cederstrand, J.R., 1996, Digital geologic map of Clinton quadrangle, west-central Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 96-373, 2 diskettes.

Christenson, S.C., 1983, Numerical simulation of the alluvium

and terrace aquifer along the North Canadian River from

Canton Lake to Lake Overholser, central Oklahoma: U.S.

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report

83-4076, 36 p.

Collier, Michael, Webb, R.H., and Schmidt, J.C., 1996, Dams

and rivers, primer on the downstream effects of dams: U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1126, 94 p.

Davis, L.V., 1950, Ground water in the Pond Creek Basin,

Caddo County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey

Mineral Report 22, 23 p.

Davis, L.V., 1955, Geology and groundwater resources of

Grady and northern Stevens counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma

Geological Survey, Bulletin 73, 184 p.

Dugan, J.T., 1984, Hydrologic characteristics of Nebraska

soils: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2222, 19

p.

1986, Hydrologic characteristics of soils in parts of Arkansas,

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas: U.S. Geological Survey

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-678, 1 sheet, scale

1:1,500,000.

Elam, E.H., 1971, The History of the Wichita Indian Confederacy to 1868: Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University.

Evans, O.F., 1948, The structure of the Verden sandstone [abs.]:

Oklahoma Academy of Science Proceedings, v. 29, p. 42-43.

Fay, R.O., 1962, Stratigraphy and general geology of Blaine

County, part 1 of Geology and mineral resources of Blaine

County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin

89, 258 p.

Fay, R. O. and Hart, D. L., 1978, Geology and mineral

resources (exclusive of petroleum) of Custer County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 114, 88 p.

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of the eastern United

States: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 714. p.

Fisher, C.F., 1968, Soil Survey of Blaine County, Oklahoma:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,

84 p.

Fisher, C.F., and Swafford, B., 1976, Soil Survey of Canadian

County, Oklahoma: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, 64 p.

Gould, C.N., 1905, Geology and water resources of Oklahoma:

Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, v. 8, no. 3, 178 p.
Selected References 47

Ham, W. E., Merritt, C. A., and Frederickson, E. A., 1957, Field

conference on geology of the Wichita Mountain region in

southwestern Oklahoma, May 2-4, 1957: Oklahoma Geological Survey guidebook 5, 58 p.

Hart, D.L., Jr., 1978, Ground water in Custer County, in Fay,

R.O., 1978, Geology and mineral resources (exclusive of

petroleum) of Custer County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 114, 88 p.

Heimann, D.C. and Tortorelli, R.L., 1988, Statistical summaries of streamflow records in Oklahoma and parts of Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas through 1984: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4205, 387

p.

Helsel, D.R. and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in

water resources: Studies in Environmental Science 49: New

York, Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc., 522 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed): U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Henson, O.G., 1978, Soil Survey of Custer County, Oklahoma:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,

52 p.

Hodge, F.W., ed., 1959, Handbook of American Indians North

of Mexico, Pageant: New York, Government Printing Office,

1907, 1910, 2 vols, 2,193 p.

Holmes, Arthur, 1959, A revised geological time-scale: Transactions of Edinburgh Geological Society, v. 17, part. 3, p.

183-216.

John, E.A.H., 1975, Storms Brewed in Other Men's Worlds:

The Confrontation of Indians, Spanish, and French in the

Southwest, 1540-1795: College Station, Texas A&M University Press.

Johnson, H.L., and Duchon, C.E., 1995, Atlas of Oklahoma Climate: Norman Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 32

p.

Johnson, K.S., ed., 1989, Anadarko Basin Symposium, 1988:

Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 90, 289 p.

Johnson, K.S., Branson, C.C., Curtis, N.M., Jr., Ham, W.E.,

Harrison, W.E., Marcher, M.V., and Roberts, J.F., 1972,

Geology and Earth Resources of Oklahoma, An Atlas of

Maps and Cross Sections: Oklahoma Geological Survey

Educational Publication 1, 8 p.

Johnson, K.S., Runkle, D.L., and Becker, M.F., 1990, Hydrogeology of the Rush Springs-Marlow Aquifer in the Anadarko

Basin, west-central Oklahoma, U.S.A.: in Proceedings of the

International Association of Hydrologists, Conference on

Groundwater in Large Sedimentary Basins, Perth, Western

Australia, July 9-10, 1990: Australian Water Resources

Council, Conference Series no. 20.

Kennon, F.W., 1966, Hydrologic effects of small reservoirs in

Sandstone Creek watershed, Beckham and Roger Mills

Counties, western Oklahoma, U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Supply Paper 1839-C, 39 p.

Library of Congress, 2002, accessed April 2, 2002, at URL

http://memory.loc.gov and search for Wichita Indians

Lohman, S.W. and others, 1972, Definitions of selected groundwater terms-revisions and conceptual refinements: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988, p. 13.

Lurry, Dee L. and Tortorelli, Robert L., 1996, Estimated freshwater withdrawals in Oklahoma, 1990: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4276, 2

sheets.

MacLachlan, M.E., 1967, Paleotectonic investigation of the

Permian System in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 515-E, p. 85-92.

MathSoft Inc., 1999, S-Plus 2000 Users Guide, Modern Statistics and Advanced Graphics: Cambridge, MA., p. 265-267.

Moffatt, H.H., 1973, Soil Survey of Caddo County, Oklahoma:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,

70 p.

Moffatt, H.H., and Conradi, A.J., 1979, Soil Survey of Washita

County, Oklahoma: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, 122 p.

Mogg, J.L., Schoff, S.L., and Reed, E.W., 1960, Ground water

resources of Canadian County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 87, 112 p.

Morton, R.B., 1980, Reconnaissance of the water resources of

the Woodward quadrangle, northwestern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 8.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, 2001, World's largest active archive of

weather data homepage: accessed January 18 and 22, 2001,

at URL http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

Newcomb, W.W., 1976, The People Called Wichita: Phoenix,

Indian Tribal Series.

O'Brien, B.E., 1963, Geology of east-central Caddo County,

Oklahoma: Norman, University of Oklahoma, master's thesis, 72 p.

Oklahoma Climatological Survey, accessed September 12,

2000, at URL http://climate.ocs.ou.edu/statewide/

30yrNormPrecip.gif.

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, 1996, Oklahoma agricultural statistics 1995: Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics

Service, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, 104 p.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 1997, Public

water supply operation: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Title 252, Oklahoma Administrative Code,

Chapter 630.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1990, Oklahoma water

atlas: Oklahoma Water Resources Board Publication 135,

360 p.

Ott, R.L., 1993, An Introduction to Statistical Methods and

Data Analysis (4th ed.): Belmont, California, Duxbury Press,

p. 80-82.

Schoff, S.L., 1948, Ground water in the Anadarko area [Caddo

County], Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 48-84, 7 p.

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic

unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper

2294, 63 p.
48 Overview of Water Resources in and Near Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Treaty Lands in Western Oklahoma

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., Perlman, H.A., 1998, Estimated use

of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1200, 76 p.

Tanaka, H.H., 1960, Water-level and water-level change maps

for the irrigation area in the Rush Springs sandstone in Caddo

County and adjacent area: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 60-138, 4 maps.

Tanaka, H.H., and Davis, L.V., 1963, Ground-water resources

of the Rush Springs sandstone, in the Caddo County area,

Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 61, 63 p.

The Texas State Historical Association: 2001, The Handbook of

Texas Online, accessed April 19, 2001, at URL http://

www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/WW/

bmw3.html

Thornthwaite, C.W., 1941, Atlas of climatic types in the United

States, 1900-39: U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 421, 55 p.

Tortorelli, R.L., 1997, Techniques for estimating peak-streamflow frequency for unregulated streams and streams regulated by small floodwater retarding structures in Oklahoma:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 97-4202, 39 p.

1998, Estimated freshwater withdrawals in Oklahoma, 1995,

accessed on May 17, 2001, at URL

http://ok.water.usgs.gov/wateruse

Trombley, T.J., Wolf, R.J., Jordan, P.R., and Brewer, L.D.,

1996, Overview of water resources in and near Indian lands

in northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-

4070, 68 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1994, STATSGO Metadata, accessed September 14, 2000, at URL

http://www.ftw.nrcs.usdalgov/stat_data.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000, Climate Information

Retrieval for Oklahoma, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, National Water and Climate Center, accessed September 14, 2000, at URL http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/

water/climate/state.pl?state=ok

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Caddo County, Oklahoma: p. 60.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Quality criteria

for water: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/

5-86-001, 479 p.

2001, Ground water and drinking water, current drinking water

standards, accessed May 31, 2001, at URL

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mcl.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, Oklahoma Land Cover Data Set,

accessed April 19, 2001, at URL http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/

programs/lccp/natllandcover.html