Drought Management Planning at Ute Reservoir, Quay County, NM

Drought Management Planning at Ute Reservoir, Quay County, NM Greg Gates, CH2M Hill Mark T. Murphy, GeoSystems Analysis and Paul Van Gulick, Occam ConsulGng Engineers

THE PROBLEM • Ute Reservoir, in Eastern NM, built in the 60’s to supply a sustainable drinking water source for communiAes reliant on the declining Ogallala aquifer. • A supply pipeline project authorized by Congress in 2009 . ReclamaAon began funding and completed NEPA . • In the forty years between, local economic dependency built on a stable lake level suitable for recreaAon. • In 2011, ReclamaAon funded Eastern NM Water UAlity Authority to develop a conservaAon plan to control use of the lake in drought.

BASIS of PLAN Evaluate the fairness of alternaAves to all interests using the ‘Firm Yield’ model.

LITERATURE SEARCH Best system is a rule curve with elevaAon trigger points

FORMATION OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Status quo/no acAon 2. Firm, fixed pool (3765) 3. Rule curve w/storage 4. Rule curves w/trigger points

RULE CURVES W/TRIGGER POINTS Based upon a ‘prudent reserve’ of water necessary to sustain an extended drought. Three scenarios invesAgated.

CONSEQUENCE MODELING – model formulaGon

CONSEQUENCE MODELING – reservoir storage 3800Max Storage379037803770376037503740ISC Conservation Pool 3741.6 ft. NAVD293743.5 ft. NAVD8837301965 1973 1981 1989 1998 2006 2014

CONSEQUENCE MODELING – base data, ouRlow 1,6001,4001,2001,000200,000 180,000 160,000 After Filling (reconstructed)Measured StreamflowFlow (cfs)800140,000 600400Annual Flow (ac-­‐ft)120,000 100,000 80,000 20060,000 040,000 Jan-­‐41 Oct-­‐54 Jun-­‐68 Feb-­‐82Month and YearOct-­‐95 Jul-­‐0920,000 ReservoirFilling-­‐1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001Year

CONSEQUENCE MODELING – base data, seepage & evaporaGon Pan Evaporation (inches/mo): UTE161514131211109876Comparison of Pan Evaporation Between TUC4 and UTEPan EvaporationReference, Kute = 1Monthly Seepage (cfs)Best Fit: Kute = 0.87877.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0y = 0.8787xR² = 0.37266 8 10 12 14 16Pan Evaporation (inches/mo): TUC4y = 1E-­‐05x + 1.3861R² = 0.560 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000Monthly Storage (ac-­‐ft)

140000120000100000CONSEQUENCE MODELING inflows 8000060000400002000005/3/64 10/24/69 4/16/75 10/6/80 3/29/86 9/19/91 3/11/97 9/1/02 2/22/08 8/14/13 2/4/19-­‐20000

CONSEQUENCE MODELING – inflow staGsGcs 100,000 120,000 100,000 Storage Needed to Meet All Demand with Minimum Inflow10-­‐yr Recurrance DeficitInflow (ac-­‐ft)Storage Required (ac-­‐ft)80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Minimum Average Inflow1-­‐yr3-­‐yr5-­‐yr6-­‐yr7-­‐yr10-­‐yr-­‐1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Minimum Annual Average Inflow Period (yrs)10,000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0Recurrance Interval

3790Max Storage337803770237603750CONSEQUENCE MODELING results 13740ISC Conservation Pool 3741.6 ft. NAVD293743.5 ft. NAVD88Drought Stage No Action 3,742 3,765 TQCRWA 10yr2 Current37301971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19810

3810TQCRWAMin inflow 10-­‐Yr 10-­‐Yr b380037903780Max Compact Storage 3784Spillway 37873770376037503740373037203710Original Spillway 3760Conservation Pool 3741.6CONSEQUENCE MODELING scenarios 3700444.48431.4418.33405.26392.18379.11366.04352.97339.89326.82313.75300.67

EVALUATION OF CONSEQUENCES Table 4.1 -­‐ AlternaAve trigger points, delivery reducAons and impacts.Firm, Fixed Pool Status Quo Tucumcari/Quay Minimum Inflow 90% Inflow Stage 1 trigger (feet asl) N/A N/A 3779 3776 3771 Stage 1 reducAon N/A N/A 20% 10% 10% Stage 2 trigger (feet asl) N/A N/A 3772 3773 3768 Stage 2 reducAon N/A N/A 50% 20% 20% Stage 3 trigger (feet asl) N/A N/A 3767 3770 3766 Stage 3 reducAon N/A N/A 90% 30% 30% Average storage (acre-­‐c/y) 140,712 124,012 147,064 136,637 133,093 Average yield (acre-­‐c/y) 19,908 23,462 17,384 20,643 21,661 Average ENMWUA Deficit (acre-­‐c/y) 2,805 369 4,535 2,301 1,603 Amount Released (acre-­‐c/40 y) 846,600 740,739 966,973 804,731 770,730 Median ElevaAon (c, asl) 3,776 3,773 3,777 3,775 3,775

UTE RESERVOIR DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. All diversions administered by the Director of the Interstate Stream Commission under Permit 2900 2. If the reservoir elevaAon drops below 3,763 feet asl, as measured by the ISC staff, a Stage 1 drought will be declared. Diversions from Ute Reservoir will be reduced by 10%. 3. Below 3,760 feet asl, a Stage 2 drought will be declared. Diversions from Ute Reservoir will be reduced by 20%.

UTE RESERVOIR DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN 6. Below 3,757 feet asl, a Stage 3 drought will be declared. Diversions from Ute Reservoir will be reduced by 30%. 7. Below 3,741.6 feet asl, all diversion from the reservoir shall cease. 8. Upon the increase of inflow the less severe restricAon shall be in effect 9. Other acAons internal to the Ute Reservoir Water shall be sApulated in a separate shortage sharing agreement signed by the Ute Reservoir Water Commission members and approved by the ISC. 10. No part of this plan shall authorize any acAvity by any party that is not in conformity with exisAng contracts, State law, State Water Rights, Federal regulaAons or interstate stream compacts.

UTE RESERVOIR DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN QuesAons? Mark Murphy GeoSystems Analysis, Inc. (520) 628-­‐9330 or (505) 830-­‐6039 www.gsanalysis.com Greg Gates CH2MHILL (505) 855.5238 hjp://www.ch2m.com