1. Middle and Upper Williamson Sub-Basin Distribution Model Preliminary Results Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist3/20/2000

2. 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).

3. What is a water distribution model? A water accounting system. Routes water within a distribution network (stream, canal, etc.) to demands based on priority and supply. Water Distribution Models

4. Klamath Model Summary Flows and instream claims are evaluated only at the sub-basin outlet. Upstream consumptive uses are aggregated by priority date. Four priority date groups -1864 1865-1904 1905 post 1905 Since there are no gages on diversions, consumptive use (i.e. net diversions) have to be estimated.

6. Middle and Upper Williamson sub-basins. Middle Williamson is defined as the drainage between Cholo ditch (just above Klamath Marsh) and the OWRD gage near Kirk (just below Sheep Creek). The Upper Williamson is defined as the drainage above the OWRD gage near Kirk.

7. Effects of instream claims on diversions in the Middle and Upper Williamson sub- basins. Compare: Tribal Claim, Adjudicators Preliminary Findings, ODFW Water Rights, Historical Flows. Evaluate: Diversions, Shortages and Instream flows using the above instream requirements.

8. 1) Comparison of Tribal Claims, Preliminary Findings, ODFW Certificates and Historic Flows Compared at the two sub-basin outlet: near Rocky Ford, above Cholo Ditch For all graphs, bars represent demands- either instream or irrigation. Lines represent flows- either instream or diversions.

12. Instream Claim/Permit Comparison Summary Tribal claim #631 as originally claimed and as described in the adjudicator’s preliminary findings are very similar, except during spring runoff months. Historical gage flows near Rocky Ford are somewhat lower than those stated in the preliminary findings, especially spring flows. Summer flows above Cholo Ditch are lower than the claimed amount, especially during summer months. ODFW water right amounts are much lower than historical flows and those stated in claim #631.

13. Using tribal claim as originally filed. Using instream values as stated in adjudicators preliminary findings. Using ODFW certificate values for instream flows. Results of instream claims on diversions in the Mid and Upper Williamson sub-basins.

14. Two types of output for diversions and instream flows. Monthly Average over the Period of Record (74-97) Monthly Average by year type (wet, avg, dry)

15. Results for Upper Williamson sub-basin (above Rocky Ford) using claim #631 as initially filed and as stated in the OWRD adjudicators preliminary findings.

22. General Summary There would not have been a substantial difference in the effects of instream claim #631 on irrigation above Rocky Ford as defined by the OWRD adjudicator or as originally claimed. Period of Record Average On average, irrigation would have ceased for any user with a priority date later than 1864. For the “-1864” priority group, irrigation would be substantially reduced. Summary for Upper Williamson (above Rocky Ford) subject to instream claim # 631.

23. Average by Year Type Average and Dry Years For average and dry years, users with any priority date would have been substantially reduced or eliminated by claim # 631 as defined by adjudicator or as initially claimed. Wet Years For wet years, -1864 priority users in the Upper Williamson sub-basin would have not been affected on average by instream claim #631 as defined in the preliminary findings by the OWRD adjudicator. However, all later priority dates would have been affected. Summary for Upper Williamson (above Rocky Ford) subject to instream claim # 631.

24. Results for Middle Williamson sub-basin (between Cholo Ditch and Rocky Ford).

32. Summary findings for Middle Williamson (between Cholo ditch and Rocky Ford) subject to instream claim # 631. Period of Record Average. On average, irrigators in the “-1864” priority group between Cholo ditch and Rocky Ford would have been moderately affected by claim #631 as originally claimed or as stated in the OWRD adjudicators preliminary findings. On average, any irrigators with a later priority date would be eliminated or greatly reduced by claim #631.

33. Summary findings for Middle Williamson (between Cholo ditch and Rocky Ford) subject to instream claim # 631. Average by Year Type. Wet Years During wet years, irrigators in the “-1864” priority group would have not be affected by claim#631 as stated in the original claim or as determined by the adjudicator. All other priority groups may have been affected in the late summer months.

34. Summary findings for Middle Williamson (between Cholo ditch and Rocky Ford) subject to instream claim # 631. Average by Year Type. Average Years During average years, irrigators in the “-1864” priority group may be moderately affected in late summer by claim #631 as determined by the adjudicator. The original claim amount would have further reduced irrigation for the “-1864” priority group. No or very small amounts of irrigation would have occurred for the other priority groups.

35. Summary findings for Middle Williamson (between Cholo ditch and Rocky Ford) subject to instream claim # 631. Average by Year Type. Dry Years No or very small amounts of irrigation would have occurred during dry years using either claim#631 as originally stated or as determined by the adjudicator.

36. Results using ODFW water right value with time immemorial priority. Monthly Average over the Period of Record (74-97) Monthly Average by year type (wet, avg, dry)

37. Upper Williamson sub-basin (above Rocky Ford).

42. Summary findings for Upper Williamson (above Rocky Ford) subject to ODFW values given a time immemorial priority. Period of Record Average. On average, irrigators above Rocky Ford would not be affected or only slightly affected by instream ODFW flow values. Minimum summer flows at Rocky Ford would average around 50 cfs for the period of record.

43. Summary findings for Upper Williamson (above Rocky Ford) subject to ODFW values given a time immemorial priority. Average by Year Type. Dry Years On average, irrigators above Rocky Ford would have been minimally affected (if at all) by ODFW flow values during dry years. Minimum summer flows at Rocky Ford during dry years would have averaged around 41 cfs.

44. Middle Williamson sub-basin (between Cholo Ditch and Rocky Ford).

49. Summary findings for Middle Williamson (between Cholo Ditch and Rocky Ford) subject to ODFW values given a time immemorial priority. Period of Record Average. On average, irrigators in the Middle Williamson would have been minimally affected (if at all) by ODFW flow values. Minimum summer flows above Cholo Ditch would have averaged about 44 cfs over the period of record.

50. Summary findings for Middle Williamson (between Cholo Ditch and Rocky Ford) subject to ODFW values given a time immemorial priority. Average by Year Type. Dry Years On average, irrigators in the Middle Williamson would have been minimally affected (if at all) by ODFW flow values during dry years. Minimum summer flows above Cholo Ditch during dry years would have averaged around 30 cfs.

51. General Summary Above Rocky Ford Tribal Claim #631 as defined in the original claim or as defined by the adjudicator would have greatly affected any irrigators with a post 1864 priority date. Irrigators with a priority date of 1864 or earlier would be affected in dry and average years, but not wet years. ODFW instream flows with a time immemorial priority would have had a minimal or zero impact on irrigation. The minimum average summer flow for dry years would have been around 41cfs.

52. Summary Between Cholo Ditch and Rocky Ford Tribal Claim #631 as defined in the original claim or as defined by the adjudicator would have had a slight impact on irrigation during wet years, a moderate impact during average years, and a high impact during dry years. ODFW instream flows with a time immemorial priority would have had a minimal or zero impact on irrigation. Average minimum summer flows during dry years would have been around 30cfs.