AUGUST 20 • ENID'S WATER STORY • PART 7 OF 8

Why Kaw?

Could Enid have built its own lake instead? The City's studies say a new reservoir was technically plausible. The harder question was whether Enid should build and fill a lake — or accept the very different challenge of reaching one that already existed.

Published Aug. 20, 2026 · Updated Aug. 21, 2026 · Part 7 of 8

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

The question people keep asking

For years, Enid residents have asked a simple question: if the city needed another major water source, why run a pipeline all the way to Kaw Lake? Why not build a reservoir closer to home?

The record shows Enid studied that idea seriously. The 2014 water-supply study evaluated three proposed reservoirs — Hennessey, Sheridan and Lahoma — and selected Hennessey as the strongest reservoir site for detailed comparison.^[2]

The Hennessey option

The proposed Hennessey reservoir was on Turkey Creek. The earlier 2009 Water System Master Plan described the Corps of Engineers dam site as about five miles west of Bison, south of Enid.^[1]

The 2014 study estimated a 22.9-million-gallon-per-day dependable yield, a 6,665-acre conservation pool, an average conservation-pool depth of 17.5 feet and roughly 18 road miles from Enid's center to the proposed dam. The projected yield was large enough that the study said Enid could eventually phase out groundwater use.^[2]

The Hennessey reservoir was not dismissed as impossible. The study treated it as a technically capable alternative.

A new lake was more than a dam

The Hennessey scenario required preliminary engineering, environmental review and an Environmental Impact Statement, final design, land acquisition, pipeline easements, lake-bed clearing, relocation of utilities, plugging or re-plugging oil and gas wells, a dam, an intake and pump station, a pipeline to Enid and surface-water treatment.^[2]

The study said its land-acquisition schedule was aggressive enough that condemnations would most likely be necessary. And after construction, the reservoir would still have to fill.

The water and the land created more complications

The proposed reservoir did not eliminate treatment problems. The 2014 comparison listed total dissolved solids at about 980 milligrams per liter for Hennessey, along with iron and manganese, and identified reverse osmosis for TDS removal as a treatment need.^[2]

The study also counted 275 oil and gas wells on or within one-half mile of the Hennessey reservoir area. Those findings did not mean a lake could not be built. They meant the site carried substantial preparation, treatment and environmental work.

Then there was Vance

The Hennessey proposal raised an unusual local issue: aircraft safety.

The 2014 study said Vance Air Force Base leadership had expressed concern that a new reservoir could attract waterfowl and increase bird populations near flight patterns, creating a potentially increased safety hazard for flying missions. The study included a figure specifically showing Vance flight patterns in relation to the proposed Hennessey reservoir.^[2]

What about Lahoma and Sheridan?

Lahoma was closer to Enid. The 2014 study estimated a dependable yield of 12.6 MGD, but said the city would still need its well fields. Because Lahoma and Enid's western groundwater system depended on essentially the same regional rainfall, the study concluded that Lahoma would not provide the same level of source diversification during drought.^[2]

The proposed Sheridan reservoir site had the highest estimated dependable yield of the three at 25.0 MGD, but it was farther from Enid and carried its own water-quality, oil-and-gas and infrastructure complications. Hennessey was ultimately selected as the strongest reservoir site for the detailed comparison.^[2]

Kaw was not always the obvious choice

One of the most revealing parts of the record is how Enid's view of Kaw changed.

The 2009 Water System Master Plan compared Kaw, Hennessey, Lahoma and additional groundwater development. At that time, Kaw ranked as the least economical of the detailed options, largely because of the energy required to move water such a long distance. The plan's 50-year present-value estimates put Kaw at about $237.2 million and Hennessey at about $235.1 million.^[1]

But that same plan pointed out one advantage no proposed local reservoir had: Kaw Lake already existed.

By 2014, the cost comparison had changed

The 2014 study's historical construction estimates were $153.3 million for wells only, $198.7 million for the Kaw option and $324.1 million for Hennessey.^[2]

The twist: the 2014 study did not start with Kaw

The executive summary says Kaw was not originally included because there was more interest at the beginning in developing a reservoir completely dedicated to Enid. As the study progressed, however, the report said it became apparent that Kaw needed increased consideration.^[2]

One reason was drought. Kaw is on the Arkansas River, giving Enid access to rainfall events different from those affecting the city's western groundwater fields. From February 2011 through December 2013, the study said the lowest Kaw Lake elevation was only 1.11 feet below normal pool, while western Oklahoma reservoirs experienced much larger declines.^[2]

And unlike a proposed new reservoir, Kaw was already full-sized infrastructure. Enid still needed water rights, storage, an intake, pumps, a pipeline and treatment — but it did not need to create the lake and wait for it to fill.

The water-rights story came full circle

There is another piece of the Kaw story that has largely disappeared from public memory.

According to the 2009 master plan, Enid previously held Stream Water Permit No. 1981-180 for 25,000 acre-feet per year. On July 3, 2001, the City authorized the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to transfer that permit to the Kaw Reservoir Authority.^[1]

The transfer triggered a review of historical use. The OWRB determined that some water had been forfeited because of non-use. When the permit was transferred in August 2002, it had been reduced to 14,159 acre-feet per year.^[1]

By 2009, the master plan was again describing ways Enid might obtain Kaw water, including applying for a new right. The 2014 study said Enid no longer had a Kaw storage allocation or Arkansas River basin water rights, but reported that OWRB officials indicated a new application backed by a near-term plan to use the water would be favorably considered.^[1][2]

Then, in the City's 2015 Annual Report, Engineering reported that Enid had received water rights from OWRB for an average demand of 18 MGD to supplement the groundwater well fields.^[3]

So why Kaw?

The record does not show one magic number that made the decision automatic.

Groundwater expansion remained the least expensive option in the 2014 study. Hennessey could have produced a large dedicated supply. Sheridan showed even more estimated dependable yield. Lahoma was closer.

But Kaw combined advantages the alternatives did not all share at once: the lake already existed; its watershed behaved differently from Enid's western groundwater system; it performed comparatively well during the drought studied; it could be paired with continued groundwater use; its 2014 construction estimate was substantially below Hennessey; and the City could pursue water rights and federal storage without first building and filling an entirely new reservoir.^[2]

The choice was not “Kaw or nothing.” It was a choice among different kinds of cost, uncertainty, drought exposure, permitting, construction time and long-term risk.

By 2015, Enid had moved from studying the alternatives to preliminary engineering for Kaw.^[3]

Could Enid have built its own lake?

The studies say yes — conceptually. Hennessey was considered technically capable of producing enough water. But a study-level reservoir concept is not the same thing as a completed permitted design.

Hennessey came with a new dam, thousands of acres of reservoir, land acquisition, oil-and-gas complications, treatment needs, environmental review, a long fill timeline, Vance flight-safety concerns and the highest initial construction estimate in the 2014 comparison.

Kaw came with its own enormous challenges — distance, pumping, storage rights, water rights, treatment and a major transmission pipeline.

Enid chose the challenge of reaching an existing lake instead of creating a new one.

Continue: Building the connection

Choosing Kaw did not mean the hard part was over.

The route changed. The project grew. Financing changed. Federal storage had to be secured. A new intake, pumping system and treatment plant had to be designed and built. And the system Enid is finishing today is not identical to the one engineers drew in 2009 or 2014.

Part 8 follows the modern Kaw project from decision to construction — what Enid actually built, what it cost, how much water it can deliver and what comes next.