Klamath Distribution Model

1

• Klamath ADR Hydrology Report
• Modeling Results
• Historical Record and Instream Claims
• Model Accuracy

Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist 3/11/2000
2
Klamath Distribution Model

• Preliminary Results

3
Four New Model Runs

• 1) Basin separated into two areas - above
  Klamath Lake and
• Klamath Lake to Iron Gate (Run 5)
• 2) Instream claims turned off above Klamath Lake
  (Run 4)
• 3) All claims below Klamath Lake deferred to
  claims above
• Klamath Lake (Run 8)
• 4) Using adjudicators preliminary findings for
• instream claims (Run 6)

4

• The first three runs isolate for the effects
  of lake levels and instream claims on claimants
  above Klamath Lake.

5
The last run shows the effects of instream claims
as described in preliminary findings on claimants
in upper Klamath basin.
6

• Results with Basin Separated
• Compare results between separated (run D5) and
  integrated basin (D1) with all claims on.
• This isolates the effects of instream claims on
  users above Klamath Lake. (i.e. lake claims and
  project claims do not extend above lake).
• Results shown as yearly supply and deliveries
  above and below Klamath Lake.

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9

• Summary
• Lake level claims and BOR Claims have a minimal
• effect on upstream diversions, given the level
  of
• instream claims (as filed) above Klamath Lake.
• Instream claims (as filed) control amount of
  irrigation
• above Klamath Lake.

10

• Results with instream claims turned off above
  Klamath Lake
• Compare results with instream claims on and off
  above Klamath Lake (Run D1 and Run D4).
• Isolates effects of lake level claims and project
  claims on upper basin.

11

• Yearly total of supply and delivery above and
  below Klamath Lake
• Lake Levels

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15

• Summary
• With instream claims above Klamath Lake off, the
  lake level
• and BOR claims do have an effect of irrigation
  above Klamath
• Lake.
• However, lake level claims do not appear to have
  a substantial
• direct impact on upstream irrigation. Lake
  levels are kept
• high, therefore less water is needed to fill
  the lake (even during
• dry years).

16
Summary

• Lake levels do appear to have an indirect
  impact on
• upstream irrigation by creating shortages in
  the project.
• These project shortages may in turn create
  calls on water users
• above Klamath Lake with a post 1905 priority
  date.
• The stored water available for use by the
  project is substantially
• limited by the lake claims. This creates an
  increased reliance on
• live flows, which, during below average and
  dry years, creates
• shortages for the project.

17

• Defer all claims below Klamath Lake to claims
  above Klamath Lake (Run 8).
• Isolates for effects of lake level claim on
  users above
• Klamath Lake.
• Compare results of D4 (integrated basin,
  instream claims
• off above Klamath Lake) with D8 (same as D4,
  except
• claims below lake defer to above Klamath
  Lake).

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Summary The lake level claim alone has a limited
(if any) effect on irrigation above Klamath Lake.
Lake levels are kept elevated, which reduces the
amount of water necessary to fill the lake. The
lake level claim limits the storage capacity
available for the project, and therefore reduces
project irrigation especially during low water
years. Lake level claims have an indirect impact
on irrigation above Klamath Lake by creating
shortages in the project area. These shortages
may create calls on water.
22

• Results using adjudicators preliminary findings.
• Instream claim 672 below the project was
  denied, therefore
• FERC flows were used instead with a zero
  priority date.
• Comparison of two runs. Run 6 includes the
  preliminary
• findings with FERC flows. Run 7 is with claims
  as initially
• filed with FERC flows.

23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Results above Klamath Lake vary dramatically
by sub-basin.
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
Summary The adjudicators preliminary findings,
have a lesser impact on irrigation in the basin
when compared to the original claims. However,
the amount of water available for irrigation
varies significantly between sub-basins. Without
ESA requirements, the project area would get
significant deliveries under the adjudicators
preliminary findings. However, the simulated
deliveries may be overstated due to the lack of
simulated instream requirements below the
project.
31
Historical Records
32

• Median flows at long term gages over simulation
  period (1974-1997)
• Median flow is the amount of water flowing in
  the river at least 50 of the time.
• Information Prepared for the Klamath Basin
  Alternative Dispute Resolution Process and is not
  admissible in legal proceedings, pursuant to ADR
  Operating Principle 7.2, without the consent of
  the affected participants, ADR Operating
  Principle 7.3.3(3).

Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist 3/11/2000
33

• By calculating the median flow at long term
  gage sites in the basin and comparing them to
  instream claims, the general effects of these
  claims on irrigation can be examined.

34
Long Term Gage Records

• Sycan near Beatty (Gage 11499100)
• Upper Sprague near Beatty (Gage 11497500)
• Lower Sprague near Chiloquin (Gage 11501000)
• Upper Williamson near Rocky Ford (Gage
  11491400)
• Lower Williamson above Sprague Confluence (Gage
• 11502500 - Gage 11501000)
• Lower Williamson below Sprague Confluence (Gage
• 11502500)
• Klamath near Keno (Gage 11509500)

35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53

• Model Accuracy

54
Model Checks

• Diversions
• Simulated versus Measured
• Canal Data
• Depleted Flow Data
• Annual Net Demand Estimates
• Simulated versus Measured
• Average
• Yearly Trends
• Annual Crop ET
• Simulated versus Agrimet Data

55

• Diversions
• Simulated versus Measured Canal Data
• Modoc Diversion Canal
• Comparison of simulated monthly average versus
  miscellaneous daily measurements.

56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61

• Summary for monthly simulated versus daily
• measured diversions for Modoc Canal
• When looking at the average simulated diversions
  versus daily
• measurements for Modoc canal, the model
  results appear reasonable.
• However, when looking at particular months (e.g.
  Sept., 1980)
• the deviation from the daily measurements
  increases. This is
• to be expected and is probably typical for
  modeled areas. This is one
• reason why the model results are shown as
  averages over different
• year types (wet, average, dry).

62

• Summary (continued)
• There are certain inherent limitations when
  comparing monthly
• average flows to a single discharge
  measurements (i.e., does the
• single measurement reflect average diversions
  for the month).
• These limitations lessen the certainty of the
  comparison.
• There are certain influences on irrigation that
  cannot be modeled.
• (i.e. connective rainstorms, headgate and
  ditch problems, etc.)

63

• Diversions
• Simulated versus Measured Depleted Flows
• Wood River 91-93
• Inflows from tributaries calculated from
• miscellaneous records.
• Demands estimated using previously
  described method.
• Outflows taken from BOR gage data.

64
(No Transcript)
65
(No Transcript)
66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68

• Summary for monthly simulated versus measured
• flows for Wood River.
• When looking at the average simulated versus
  measured
• flows, the model results appear reasonable.
• When looking at individual years, the model
  results appear
• reasonable
• As in the Modoc diversion check, the deviation
  between simulated
• and measured flows for a particular month is
  greater than the
• average.

69

• Annual Net Demand Estimates
• Simulated average annual demand above Klamath
  Lake
• versus measured average annual demand in the
  Project.
• Demand is normalized by acreage (ac-ft/ac).

70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72

• Summary for net demand comparison above and
• below Klamath Lake.
• The net demand estimate above Klamath Lake is
  comparable
• to net demands from gage data in the project
  area.
• The net demands trends above Klamath Lake follow
  trends in
• the project and reflects usage in response to
  climate conditions.

73

• Annual Crop ET
• Simulated annual crop ET versus
• Agrimet data in Lakeview.

74
(No Transcript)
75

• Summary for crop ET comparison.
• The ET estimate above Klamath Lake is comparable
  to ET values
• at Agrimet sites located in a similar climate.

76
Additional Model Runs
1) Subordinate tribal claims to all pre 1905
claims. 2) Subordinate tribal claims to all
existing uses. 3) Use ODFW instream values for
all tribal claims. 3) Raise the lake capacity by
a foot.