Texas County, OK
90-Day Pilot Proposal
Acoustic leak-correlation sensors proposed for Guymon and Hooker service areas. Engineering submission on file. Awaiting county sign-on.
What Is Real vs. What Is Projected
This is the most important table on this page. Every claim is labelled with its tier. Nothing in the PROPOSED column has been tested in Texas County.
What Is Real VERIFIED
What Is Projected PROPOSED / MODELED
The Problem
The Ogallala Aquifer — the sole water source for Texas County, Guymon, and Hooker — is under compounding stress from long-term depletion and infrastructure-level non-revenue water loss.
● VERIFIED — USGS documented
Ogallala Aquifer Depletion
Long-term water-level declines in the Ogallala Aquifer are documented by USGS National Water Information System monitoring. Texas County, Oklahoma draws exclusively from this source. Regional water loss through undetected pipe leaks compounds the depletion rate. Source: USGS High Plains Aquifer.
● MODELED — IWA/AWWA M36 methodology
Non-Revenue Water Range: 12–28% modeled reduction range
Derived from IWA/AWWA M36 district metered area methodology applied to Ogallala Aquifer region baseline conditions. Texas County utility self-reporting estimates 18–22% baseline NRW — this is an unconfirmed self-report, not independently instrumented. The 12–28% reduction range reflects acoustic correlation performance under varying pipe age, material, and pressure conditions. Actual reduction will be quantified after pilot instrumentation is deployed and operational.
The 90-Day Pilot Plan
Each phase is a PROPOSED milestone, contingent on Texas County sign-on. All timelines are relative to pilot start date (TBD).
-
Days 1–15
PROPOSEDBaseline Assessment. Utility records review, pipe material audit, pressure zone mapping. NRW baseline confirmed via metered water balance (IWA/AWWA M36). County engineering staff co-lead. No hardware deployed during this phase. -
Days 16–30
PROPOSEDSensor Deployment. 50 ARM Cortex-M4 class acoustic correlation sensors proposed across highest-NRW pipe segments identified in baseline assessment. Hardware procured commercially; BOM provided to county prior to procurement. -
Days 31–75
PROPOSEDAcoustic Monitoring. Continuous leak-correlation data collection. Leak map generated using industry-standard acoustic correlation methodology. All data logged to SHA-256 append-only timestamped record. County staff has read access throughout. -
Days 76–90
PROPOSEDRepair & Verification. Targeted repairs in priority order (highest-loss segments first) using county maintenance staff or contracted crew. Post-repair water balance comparison quantifies actual NRW reduction achieved. Financial return calculated from actual water savings — not from any pre-pilot projection. -
Day 91+
PROPOSEDOngoing Monitoring Subscription. Continued sensor operation funded through the developer compliance fee structure (see below). Quarterly third-party audit of all logged data. County retains full data ownership throughout.
Funding Model
The zero-taxpayer-cost structure is the strongest policy asset in this proposal. County infrastructure improvement is funded by data center developer compliance fees — not by municipal budget or state appropriation.
● PROPOSED — Policy model; not enacted in any jurisdiction
Zero-Taxpayer-Cost Developer Compliance Fee Structure
Under the Green Code Protocol municipal ordinance model, data centers exceeding a capacity threshold (proposed: 50 MW per-facility cap) are required to fund water infrastructure improvements as a condition of permitting. Fee structure is modeled on existing impact-fee precedents in Texas, Colorado, and Nevada jurisdictions. No Texas County jurisdiction has enacted this ordinance. This is the first active proposal.
- No property tax increase required
- No state appropriation required
- No federal grant application required
- Fee structure activates only upon data center permit issuance
- County retains full control of repair prioritization and vendor selection
● MODELED — Closed-loop cooling requirement
Closed-Loop Cooling Requirement: >10 MW facilities
Facilities above the proposed threshold are required to operate closed-loop cooling systems — no evaporative discharge to the local water table. This requirement is based on precedented municipal impact-fee structures. No jurisdiction has enacted this specific ordinance.
Pricing Methodology
Specific pricing figures are provided after technical assessment of the county's pipe network, NRW baseline, and compliance fee structure. The formula below describes how the financial model is structured.
● MODELED — ROI methodology, not a measured outcome
ROI Calculation Formula
Input variables (confirmed during baseline assessment):
Annual water production volume (gal) × local NRW baseline % (15–30% reference range) × water production cost per gallon ($0.003–$0.009/gal reference range)
Projected saving: Volume recoverable × reduction % from acoustic correlation methodology (12–28% modeled range)
Design target: 10:1 twelve-month TARGET (modeled) — this is a modeled design target. Actual return is calculated post-pilot from instrumented water balance data, not from this formula.
Methodology published in GCTS-1 Technical Standard v1.0-draft. See GCTS-1 →
Council Documents
Published engineering documents available for county staff, elected officials, and utility engineers. All documents are open-access.
Contact — County Officials & Engineers
For Texas County commissioners, utility managers, or city engineers to request a technical briefing, review the engineering submission, or ask questions about the pilot proposal.
engineering@silxi.pages.devResponse within 2 business days. Briefings available in person (Guymon/Hooker) or via video conference. All technical documents provided prior to any meeting.