AUGUST 19 • ENID'S WATER STORY • PART 6 OF 8

The Wells Weren't Empty — So Why More?

Enid was not out of groundwater. The planning problem was how much the wells could provide sustainably and reliably, what it would take to keep expanding them — and whether the city should continue depending almost entirely on one kind of source.

Published Aug. 19, 2026 · Updated Aug. 21, 2026 · Part 6 of 8

⚡ Prefer the quick facts? Open Water Story at a Glance →

The question behind Kaw

By the time Enid began seriously weighing a new long-term water source, the city still had a large groundwater system.

The 2014 supply study said Enid received its entire water supply from 116 active wells in five well fields tapping three aquifers. For the historical period used by the study, those fields had supplied an average of about 8.74 million gallons per day, with a reported combined peak capacity of about 14.2 MGD.^[2]

So the issue was not simply that Enid had drilled wells and suddenly found them empty.

A well can still produce water today while the long-term rate of pumping is considered unsustainable.

The 2009 Water System Master Plan projected average-day demand rising from 9.59 MGD in 2006 to 18.45 MGD by 2050, with peak-day demand rising from 17.06 MGD to 33.39 MGD. The plan described those projections as slightly conservative and based them in part on assumptions about serving the projected population of all Garfield County and future industrial growth.^[1]

At the same time, the plan said the existing well fields were being pumped above estimated historic natural recharge rates — what the report called groundwater “mining.” Limiting withdrawals to estimated recharge would make pumping sustainable, the report said, but under its demand assumptions the city would face a substantial projected deficit by 2050.^[1]

The 2042 number needs context

The 2009 plan included a model in which, if projected future demand continued to be supplied from the existing well fields and historic trends continued, the usable stored water in the well fields was projected to be depleted around 2042.^[1]

That distinction is central to Part 6. Enid could keep pumping groundwater. The planning question was whether the existing system could reliably carry a much larger future load without continuing long-term drawdown.

2014: groundwater was still a viable option

Five years later, the 2014 study updated the picture. Conservation had reduced annual water use, and the return of treated wastewater reuse at the Koch Nitrogen Plant removed roughly 4 MGD from the municipal demand used in the study's 2014 assumptions.^[2]

The study estimated sustainable production from the existing well fields at about 7.3 MGD. But it did not conclude that groundwater had to be abandoned. It called continued reliance on groundwater a “very viable option” and evaluated a wells-only expansion alongside new-reservoir and Kaw alternatives.^[2]

In the study's long-term comparison, continuing to supply water from well fields only was the least expensive of the three principal options compared.^[2]

What was actually going wrong?

The 2014 report described several different pressures on the groundwater system, and they should not be collapsed into one claim.

It said individual-well and well-field capacity had declined primarily because of deteriorating mechanical conditions in wells, with water-level declines contributing in some areas. It also identified increasing total dissolved solids and nitrates as water-quality concerns, said some wells could not be operated during drought, and noted that some well fields were alternated because of possible interference between pumping wells.^[2]

In other words, “the wells are declining” did not mean one single thing. A weak well could reflect equipment, the well itself, the aquifer around it, water quality, drought conditions or how nearby wells were being operated.

More wells were possible — but not simple

The 2014 study found promising areas for groundwater expansion. But a groundwater-only future carried its own major construction program.

Under the study's assumptions, reaching 18.4 MGD entirely with groundwater would require 115 new wells. The scenario also assumed significant additional water rights, new collection lines, replacement of the Ames pipeline and improvements to the Ames plant. The study's “current construction cost estimate” for the wells-only option was $153.3 million in 2013 dollars.^[2]

The study also emphasized uncertainty about where water rights could be acquired and how productive individual new well sites would be. Its wells-only option assumed enough suitable aquifer acreage could be obtained and that competing groundwater demands near the expansion areas would not undermine sustainable pumping.^[2]

So why add Kaw?

The answer that emerges from the planning record is diversification.

The 2014 study said Kaw, coupled with continued but decreased use of Enid's well fields, could take advantage of different rainfall events because Kaw is on the Arkansas River. It also said maintaining a diversity of supply options could help the city provide adequate water when operations were disrupted by maintenance issues.^[2]

That remains the basic design described by the City today. The current Kaw project page says the program is intended to reduce average-day demand on the regional aquifers by 35 percent, not eliminate groundwater use, and says the new system will blend surface water from Kaw with groundwater still collected from wells.^[3]

The City's current Water Production page says the department has 140 water wells that require periodic maintenance.^[4]

The wells weren't empty

So the shorthand version — “Enid was running out of water” — misses the most important part of the story.

Enid still had groundwater. Engineers even found that expanding groundwater remained viable and comparatively less expensive on paper.

The harder question was whether Enid should continue relying almost entirely on a network of aquifers and wells that had to handle demand, drought, maintenance, water quality and long-term recharge at the same time.

Kaw was not designed to make the wells disappear. It was designed to give them help.

Continue: Why Kaw?

Once Enid decided a second major source deserved serious consideration, another question remained: Why Kaw Lake?

The City's 2014 study compared groundwater expansion, Kaw and three proposed reservoir sites. It identified Hennessey Reservoir as the strongest reservoir site in that study, while also documenting cost, filling-time, water-quality and Vance Air Force Base concerns.^[2]

Part 7 follows that comparison and asks the question people are still asking today: Could Enid have built its own lake instead?