Nathan Westrup

Reservoir Operations Potential for FIRO Kansas Water Office Key Principals KWO is responsible for ensuring reservoir storage is sufficient to meet demands through drought, now and in the future Eligible water supply demands to be supported by releases from storage are primarily municipal and industrial Maintaining streamflow is also an authorized and required use of reservoir storage Legal Framework Water Appropriation Act Water rights – priority (first in time) State Water Plan Storage Act Water reservation rights – also priority based System Operations – KWO, WAD, & DWR Water Assurance Program Operations Agreement Mandatory & restricts use of storage to M & I Water Supply Access District Voluntary & allows IRR, IND, MUN, and REC Memorandum of Agreement Require target flows Water Marketing Program Contract for annual quantity – limited to drought yield Reservoirs Managed WS Reservoirs FIRO What criteria are necessary to determine if Kansas reservoirs are viable candidates for FIRO? Large flood pool Forecast confidence Normally predictable inflow (seasonality) Does Kansas need FIRO? Yes, conservation storage is shrinking fast Conservation storage / Demand Potentially less than one year supply Large Flood Pools 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 FEET - 1,000,000 ACRE 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Milford Kanopolis Tuttle Perry Clinton Fall River Toronto Elk City Big Hill Marion Council John Pomona Melvern Hillsdale Creek Grove Redmond Flood Capacity Cons Capacity Annual Inflow / Capacity 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 FEET - 1,000,000 ACRE 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Milford Kanopolis Tuttle Perry Clinton Fall River Toronto Elk City Big Hill Marion Council John Pomona Melvern Hillsdale Creek Grove Redmond Median Inflow Flood Capacity Max and Min Inflow 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 FEET - ACRE 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Milford Kanopolis Tuttle Perry Clinton Fall River Toronto Elk City Big Hill Marion Council John Pomona Melvern Hillsdale Creek Grove Redmond Maximum Inflow Minimum Inflow Seasonal Inflow Pattern 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Milford Kanopolis Tuttle Creek Perry Clinton Fall River Toronto Elk City Big Hill Marion Council Grove John Redmond Pomona Melvern Hillsdale Conservation Storage 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 FEET - ACRE 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Milford Kanopolis Tuttle Perry Clinton Fall River Toronto Elk City Big Hill Marion Council John Pomona Melvern Hillsdale Creek Grove Redmond Minimum Inflow Cons Capacity Shrinking Storage & History Tuttle Creek Lake Storage Conservation Storage Flood Storage 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Feet - Acre 1,000,000 500,000 0 Problem child… John Redmond Reservoir Storage Conservation Storage Flood Storage 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 Feet - Acre 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Never used full flood pool Never usedfullflood Acre-Feet 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 100,000 150,000 50,000 0 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 Storage 1987 Melvern Lake Melvern 1990 Conservation Storage 1993 1996 1999 StorageFlood 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Another one… Acre-Feet 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 100,000 150,000 50,000 0 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Storage 1989 1990 1991 1992 Conservation Storage 1993 Lake Clinton 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 StorageFlood 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Drought of 2012 John Redmond Reservoir Storage Conservation Storage 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 Feet - Acre 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Questions? .

Load more