Lake not at capacity before drawdown began May 23

By Kenneth A. Rykbost

Guest columnist

Klamath Reclamation Project water allocation planning is based on hydrologic conditions in the upper Klamath Basin .

An operations plan for 2003 was prepared by the Klamath Reclamation Project office of the Bureau of Reclamation following consultations on endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Minimum Upper Klamath Lake elevation targets were established for specific dates under four lake inflow ranges. Minimum flows past Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River were established for five lake inflow ranges.

The initial operations plan released in early April predicted Upper Klamath Lake inflow from April 1 to Sept. 30 would total 290,000 acre-feet at 50 percent exceedance and 238,000 acre-feet at 70 percent exceedance. Based on a Bureau of Reclamation hydrologic model, Upper Klamath Lake elevation and Iron Gate flow targets were set for “dry’ year classification.

April and May rains totaled about 3 inches in Klamath Falls and added significantly to mountain snowpacks. As a result, a June forecast of lake inflows increased from April estimates by about 50,000 acre-feet, bumping the plan up to a higher classification to “below average” for both lake elevations and river flows. The result is an increase in required river flows from June 15 through Sept. 30 of 68,873 acre-feet and the loss of access to 40,000 acre-feet of lake storage compared with requirements under a dry classification.

Distribution of the estimated 50,000 acre-feet of additional inflow will benefit river flows and salmon by 68,873 acre-feet through September, and much more through fall and winter months. Lake elevation and suckers receive 40,000 acre-feet of additional storage. Unless other sources of water can be found, Klamath Project water users lose 58,873 acre-feet out of the 50,000 acre-feet of additional inflow. This is a win-win scenario – salmon win, suckers win, and farmers and ranchers lose.

Plan sets criteria

The 2003 operations plan released by the Bureau on April 10 laid out the minimum Upper Klamath Lake elevation and Klamath River flow criteria for specific dates by water year type.

A separate table spelled out a schedule for additional river flows from the project water bank for a dry year type. These flows are intended to enhance flows for salmon out-migration in the spring, and in-migration in late August and September.

The additional water was purchased from individual water users for setting aside cropland in 2003, or pumping groundwater to supplement surface supplies. The plan outlined a schedule that included about 34,000 acre-feet of deliveries from April through mid-July and 16,000 acre-feet from Aug. 16 through Sept. 30 from the water bank. Credit for, and timing of, these releases is the subject of debate and negotiation.

Through all of April, May and early June, flows at Iron Gate Dam exceeded the minimum targets established in the operations plan by at least a factor of 2.

Through early May, higher discharges were necessary to avoid overfilling Upper Klamath Lake . However, the lake was not filled to capacity before drawdown began on May 23.

At the maximum elevation on May 22 the lake could have held an additional 10,000 acre-feet. On June 15,, Iron Gate flow was at 1,352 cubic feet per second (2,682 acre-feet per day) compared to the operations plan target of 700 cfs. Ten days later on June 25, water users were tentatively informed that deliveries to agriculture would have to be stopped until after June 30 so the June 30 elevation target for Upper Klamath Lake of 4142.10 feet above sea level would not be violated.

This came one day after a request from the Bureau to reduce delivers from 1,160 cfs (A Canal, Station 48, North canal and ADY Canal deliveries combined) by 200 cfs for the last six days of June. Late on June 25 the Bureau backed off this extreme solution, but uncertainty for the rest of the season remains.

From June 1-15, discharges at Iron Gate totaled 44,420 acre-feet compared to an operations plan required discharge of 20,827 acre-feet. The 23,593 acre-feet difference is nearly 10 times the 2,400 acre-feet shortfall identified by the Bureau on June 24 as needed to meet the June 30 elevation target. If the anticipated change in year type had been implemented on June 1, flow targets based on a “below average” year type would have been 30,288 acre-feet. This would have left savings of more than 14,000 acre-feet compared to actual flows, and a cushion for the June 30 lake elevation target.

Once again, federal agencies and other stakeholders in the greater Klamath Basin are expecting Klamath Project irrigators to carry the burden of satisfying regulations and expectations they had no voice in implementing.

A cutoff of irrigation supplies for four or five days at this stage of the season would have consequences for crops.

Crisis management likely

This is only the beginning of the season. Lake elevation targets are established for the last day of each month. It seems highly likely that crisis management will prevail through the entire season.

I know from experience gained from 32 years of potato research, the effects periodic water shortages will have on potato yield and quality. I doubt if anyone knows what effect, if any, a difference of 0.5 to 1.5 inches in Upper Klamath Lake elevation for a few days will have on listed suckers.

Since the beginning of water allocation policy changes in the early 1990s, the agricultural industry (and their lending institutions) has sought certainty and flexibility to accommodate the needs of planning and producing the commodities that generate more than $100 million in crop sales from project lands.

Economic consequences for those who lost water in 2001 are fresh in our memory. Loses could be much greater in 2003 if water is cut off from planted crops. Risking millions of dollars in losses over an inch or two of lake levels seems extreme and anything but flexible.

The Author:

Ken Rykbost recently retired as superintendent of the Oregon State University Klamath Experimental Station and Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science. Facts presented are from the Bureau of Reclamation 2003 operations plan and Web site. “Opinions are mine alone and do not represent Oregon State University, the Klamath Experiment Station, or Klamath County .”