Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation

An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites 

Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5212
Cover: Klamath River upstream of Keno Dam near Keno , Oregon

(Photograph by John C. Risley, U.S. Geological Survey, October 2005.)
An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath 

River Sites Between Link River Dam and 

Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon

By John C. Risley, Glen W. Hess, and Bruce J. Fisher

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Bureau of Reclamation

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5212

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK A. KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Risley, J.C., Hess, G.W., and Fisher, B.J., 2006, An assessment of flow data from Klamath River sites between Link 

River Dam and Keno Dam, south-central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5212, 

30 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope of Assessment...................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................2

Water-Balance Inconsistency............................................................................................................2

Water-Balance Flow-Data Quality..............................................................................................................8

Accuracy of Flow Records..................................................................................................................8

Downstream Flow-Measurement Site Description ........................................................................8

Klamath River at Keno.................................................................................................................8

Upstream Diversion Flow Site Descriptions.....................................................................................8

Lost River Diversion Channel at Station 48..............................................................................8

Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill Pumping Plant ...................................................9

North Canal at U.S. Highway 97 ................................................................................................9

Ady Canal at U.S. Highway 97....................................................................................................9

Upstream Return Flow Site Descriptions..........................................................................................9

Link River at Klamath Falls .........................................................................................................9

Lost River Diversion Channel at Lost River Diversion Dam ................................................12

Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill Pumping Plant .................................................12

Klamath Straits Drain at F-FF Pumping Plant ........................................................................14

Non-Water-Balance Flow Data.................................................................................................................14

Diversion Flows from the Klamath River.........................................................................................14

Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................14

Wood Products...........................................................................................................................15

Return Flows to the Klamath River...................................................................................................15

Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................15

Wastewater Treatment .............................................................................................................15

Wood Products...........................................................................................................................15

Ground-Water Levels and Climate...................................................................................................16

Time-Series Trend Analysis........................................................................................................................17

Canal Diversion Flows........................................................................................................................17

Canal Return Flows.............................................................................................................................22

Link River at Klamath Falls ................................................................................................................24

Klamath River at Keno........................................................................................................................26

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................26

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................27

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................28

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................28
iv

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of the Klamath River–Lake Ewauna study area, in

south-central Oregon, the water-balance reach, and flow-measurement

sites .......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of water-balance reach of the Klamath River,

south-central Oregon, showing diversions and return flows used in

computing the water balance ............................................................ 6

Figure 3. Graph showing comparison of April–September net river and canal flows 

for the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, 

1961–2004 .................................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Diagram showing Link River (headwaters of the Klamath River) and the

westside power canal, south-central Oregon .......................................... 10

Figure 5. Graph showing April–September net river and canal flows estimated using

the USGS flow record for the Link River without westside power canal flow,

south-central Oregon, 1961–2004 ......................................................... 11

Figure 6. Graph showing comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of

Reclamation-PacifiCorp westside power canal flows, south-central Oregon,

1961–2004 .................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Graph showing precipitation for Klamath Falls, south-central Oregon, water

years 1961–2004.............................................................................. 16

Figure 8. Graphs showing monthly flows in four diversion canals, south-central

Oregon, water years 1961–2004............................................................ 18

Figure 9. Graphs showing monthly flows in three return-flow canals, south-central

Oregon, water years 1961–2004............................................................ 19

Figure 10. Graph showing cumulative monthly canal diversion flows for the

water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water 

years 1961–2004.............................................................................. 20

Figure 11. Graph showing cumulative residual monthly canal diversion flows for the

water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water 

years 1961–2004.............................................................................. 20

Figure 12. Graph showing monthly flow for Ady Canal at Stateline Road, south-central

Oregon, water years 1961–2004............................................................ 21

Figure 13. Graph showing cumulative monthly canal return flows for the water-balance

reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004 ......... 22

Figure 14. Graph showing cumulative residual monthly canal return flows for the

water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water 

years 1961–2004.............................................................................. 22

Figure 15. Graph showing cumulative monthly flow at Link River at Klamath Falls,

south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004 .......................................... 24

Figure 16. Graph showing monthly flow through the “A” Canal at Klamath Falls,

south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004 .......................................... 25
Tables

Table 1. Streamflow-measurement sites on the water-balance reach of the Klamath

River, south-central Oregon ............................................................... 4

Table 2. Water-balance scenarios .................................................................. 4

Table 3. Difference between flow at Klamath River at Keno, Oregon and the sum of

upstream diversion and return flows...................................................... 5

Table 4. Net mean monthly and mean annual flows for the water-balance reach of

the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004 ... 7

Table 5. Annual flow records of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of

Reclamation–PacifiCorp Link River and westside power canal, south-central

Oregon, water years 1961-2004 ............................................................ 13

Table 6. Diversion and return flows not used in water-balance calculations for the

reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon .................................... 14

Table 7. Mean monthly and mean annual diversion flows for the water-balance

reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and

1983–2004 .................................................................................... 21

Table 8. Mean monthly and mean annual return flows for the water-balance reach of

the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004 ... 23

Table 9. Mean monthly and mean annual flows through the “A” Canal, Klamath Falls,

south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004 ........................... 25

Table 10. Mean monthly and mean annual flows for the Klamath River at Keno,

south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004 ........................... 26
vi

Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

acre 0.4047 hectare

acre 0.4047 square hectare

acre 0.004047 square kilometer

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter

acre-foot (acre-ft) 0.001233 cubic hectometer 

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 0.001233 cubic hectometer per year

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer 

Datum

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

Cal Poly California Polytechnic State University Irrigation Training and Research Center

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

KDD Klamath Drainage District

KID Klamath Irrigation District

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department

PC PacifiCorp

RM river mile

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquistion

TID Tulelake Irrigation District

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WWTP wastewater treatment plant

WY water year
Abstract

Records of diversion and return flows for water years 

1961–2004 along a reach of the Klamath River between Link 

River and Keno Dams in south-central Oregon were evaluated 

to determine the cause of a water-balance inconsistency in the 

hydrologic data. The data indicated that the reach was losing 

flow in the 1960s and 1970s and gaining flow in the 1980s and 

1990s. The absolute mean annual net water-balance difference 

in flows between the first and second half of the 44-year 

period (1961–2004) was approximately 103,000 acre-feet 

per year (acre-ft/yr). The quality of the diversion and returnflow records used in the water balance was evaluated using 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) criteria for accuracy. With 

the exception of the USGS Klamath River at Keno record, 

which was rated as “good” or “excellent,” the eight other 

flow records, all from non-USGS flow-measurement sites, 

were rated as “poor” by USGS standards due to insufficient 

data-collection documentation and a lack of direct discharge 

measurements to verify the rating curves. The record for the 

Link River site, the most upstream in the study area, included 

both river and westside power canal flows. Because of rating 

curve biases, the river flows might have been overestimated by 

25,000 acre-ft/yr on average from water years 1961 to 1982 

and underestimated by 7,000 acre-ft/yr on average from water 

years 1983 to 2004. For water years 1984–2004, westside 

power canal flows might have been underestimated by 11,000 

acre-ft/yr. 

Some diversion and return flows (for mostly agricultural, 

industrial, and urban use) along the Klamath River study 

reach, not measured continuously and not included in the 

water-balance equation, also were evaluated. However, the 

sum of these diversion and return flows was insufficient to 

explain the water-balance inconsistency.

The possibility that ground-water levels in lands adjacent 

to the river rose during water years 1961–2004 and caused 

an increase in ground-water discharge to the river also was 

evaluated. However, water-level data from local wells did not 

have a rising trend during the period.

The most likely cause of the water-balance inconsistency 

was flow measurement error in the eight non-USGS flow 

records. Part of the water-balance inconsistency can be 

explained by a 43,000 acre-foot error in the river and canal 

flow portions of the Link River flow record. A remaining 

60,000 acre-foot error might have been distributed among the 

seven other flow records, or much of the remaining 60,000 

acre-foot error might have been in the Link River flow record 

because flows in that record had a greater magnitude than 

flows in the seven other records.

As an additional analysis of the water-balance issue, 

flow records used in the water balance were evaluated for 

trends and compared to known changes in water management 

in the Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Project and Lower 

Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges over the 

44-year period. Many of the water-management changes 

were implemented in the early 1980s. For three diversion 

flow records, 1983–2004 mean annual flows were 16,000, 

8,000, and 21,000 acre-ft/yr greater than their 1961–82 mean 

annual flows. Return flows to the Klamath River at two flowmeasurement sites decreased by 31,000 and 27,000 acre-ft/yr 

for 1983–2004 compared with the 1961–82 period. 

Introduction

In December 2004, the USGS provided a hydrologic 

assessment of the Klamath Basin Water Bank Program for the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Klamath Basin Area 

Office (U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005). 

In the assessment, inconsistencies were found in the river 

and canal flow records from sites along the Klamath River 

between Klamath Falls and Keno, Oregon, for 1961–2004. 

A simple water balance estimated from the records indicated 

that the Klamath Falls to Keno reach was a losing reach in the 

1960s and 1970s and a gaining reach in the 1980s and 1990s. 

However, ascertaining the cause of these flow inconsistencies 

was not possible because of the limited scope and time 

available for the water-bank assessment. The inconsistencies 

prompted the following questions:

An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River 

Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, 

South-Central Oregon

By John C. Risley, Glen W. Hess, and Bruce J. Fisher
Were the inconsistencies the result of flow-data 

collection error? If so, which streamflow-measurement 

sites contributed most of the error? 

Were the inconsistencies caused by changes in 

undocumented diversion and return flows during the 

44-year period?

Were the inconsistencies the result of rising groundwater levels and/or changes in climate trends? 

Were the inconsistencies the result of a combination of 

causes?

Purpose and Scope of Assessment

As a result of these unanswered questions, Reclamation 

requested that the USGS perform a more in-depth analysis of 

historic and current Klamath Project diversion and return-flow 

data in order to accurately quantify uncertainty in the data and 

the benefits of the water-bank operations.

The scope of this assessment was limited to the 

streamflow-measurement sites directly related to diversion and 

return flows to and from the Klamath River reach between the 

Link River at Klamath Falls and Klamath River at Keno sites. 

The “A” Canal is not in this reach of the Klamath River and 

therefore was not included in the water balance. 

The assessment included:

An evaluation of flow-data quality for the records used 

in the water balance

An analysis of undocumented diversion and return 

flows in the study reach that were not used in the water 

balance

A trend analysis of diversion and return-flow records

Description of Study Area

The assessment study area, also termed “water-balance 

reach” in this report, is located near Klamath Falls in southcentral Oregon (fig. 1). The study area extends from the USGS 

streamflow-gaging station on the Link River at Klamath Falls 

(11507500) to the USGS gaging station on the Klamath River 

at Keno (11509500). The Link River is a short river linking 

Upper Klamath Lake with Lake Ewauna. Lake Ewauna 

extends from Klamath Falls about 2 mi downstream before 

it becomes the Klamath River. The flow-measurement site at 

the lower end of the study area (RM 231.9) is about 1.5 mi 

downstream of the Keno Dam.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Klamath Project provides irrigation water to about 

240,000 acres and to the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake 

National Wildlife Refuges (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000; 

2006). Streamflow-measurement sites assessed in this report 

are a subset of the sites in the Klamath Project. However, 

these sites were selected because the water-bank assessment 

(U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005) identified 

concerns about their accuracy and therefore the accuracy 

of measured flows to and from the Klamath River in the 

water-balance reach. The reach also includes non-Klamath 

Project diversion and return flows associated with agriculture, 

municipal wastewater, and the wood-products industry in 

the study reach. The possible influence of these flows on our 

understanding of Klamath River discharge in the reach also 

was assessed in this study.

Water-Balance Inconsistency

The sum of the inflows and outflows measured at eight 

sites was used to compute a surface-water balance for the 

reach of the Klamath River between Link River Dam and 

Keno Dam (table 1, fig. 2). The resulting calculated net flow 

was then subtracted from flow at the USGS measurement 

site at Keno (11509500) to determine whether the reach was 

losing or gaining. Flow at the four diversion and four return 

flow-measurement sites were negative and positive terms in 

the water balance, respectively. If all inflows to and outflows 

from the reach could be accurately documented and measured, 

the right side of the equation shown below (Qresidual) would be 

zero (table 2). However, if that condition is not met and the 

right side of the equation is nonzero, a gaining reach will have 

a positive value and a losing reach will have a negative value. 

Flow-measurement errors can result in a false characterization 

of a reach as gaining or losing. 

Qdownstream_outflow

– (Qupstream_inflows – Qupstream_outflows) = Qresidual (1)

where:

Qdownstream_outflow is the flow at the downstream Klamath 

River streamflow-gaging station at Keno,

Qupstream_inflows is the sum of upstream inflows,

Qupstream_outflows is the sum of upstream outflows, and

Qresidual is the unaccounted for gain or loss in flow 

for the reach.

The Klamath Project flow-measurement sites are 

operated by Reclamation and irrigation and drainage districts. 

The Link River flow data used in the analysis were compiled 

by PacifiCorp and Reclamation. The Klamath River at Keno 

streamflow-gaging station (11509500) is operated by the 

USGS. Monthly flow records from all sites were used to 

compute the monthly net sum water balance (table 3).

 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Figure 1. Location of the Klamath River–Lake Ewauna study area, in south-central Oregon, the waterbalance reach, and flow-measurement sites.

orC1U00_fig01

RM 231.9

122°00’ 121°50' 121°40'

42°20'

42°10'

42°00’

Lost River

KLAMATH

RIVER

Ady Canal

North Canal

Klamath

Straits Drain

Upper Klamath Lake

Lost River

Diversion Channel

Lake

Ewauna

OREGON

CAL IFORN IA

Station

48

Lost River

Diversion

Dam

Miller Hill

Pumping

Plant

Link

River

Dam

Keno

Klamath

Falls

Keno

Dam

A-Canal

EXPLANATION

Streamflow-measurement site

Downstream streamflow- 

 gaging station

0 5 MILES

0 5 KILOMETERS

39

140

97

97

97

State Line Road

LOWER KLAMATH

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

"F-FF"

Pumping

Plants

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 13.

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

Wildlife Refuge areas from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001, 1:24,000

Klamath

Falls

Area shown

on this map

Upper

Klamath

Basin CASCADE RANGE

Medicine

Lake Volcano

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Upper

Klamath

Basin

area

Introduction 
Table 1. Streamflow-measurement sites on the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon.

[Location of streamflow-measurement sites are shown in figure 1. Mean annual flow: Based on 1961–2004 period. Accuracy ratings: Both are defined 

as the percentage of error (±) in actual flow of 95 percent of daily flows. USGS: Based on water year 2004 record. Cal Poly: Based on water years 1999 

and 2000 records. Abbreviations: Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation; Cal Poly, California Polytechnic State University Irrigation Training and Research 

Center; KDD, Klamath Drainage District; KID, Klamath Irrigation District; PC, PacifiCorp; TID, Tulelake Irrigation District; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Symbol: >, greater than] 

Streamflow-measurement

site on river/canal Location Latitude Longitude Monitoring agency

Mean annual

flow

(thousand 

acre-feet)

Accuracy ratings

USGS

(percent)

Cal Poly

(percent)

Downstream streamflow-gaging station

Klamath River Keno, Oregon (11509500) 42° 07’ 58” 121° 57’ 42” USGS 1,129 5-10 10

Upstream diversion flow sites

Lost River Diversion Channel Station 48 42° 08’ 25” 121° 41’ 21” TID 61 >15 10

Lost River Diversion Channel Miller Hill Pumping Plant 42° 08’ 34” 121° 45’ 05” KID 19 >15 30

North Canal U.S. Highway 97 42° 07’ 21” 121° 49’ 44” Reclamation/KDD 32 >15 70

Ady Canal U.S. Highway 97 42° 04’ 51” 121° 50’ 44” Reclamation/KDD 73 >15 70

Upstream return flow sites

Link River Klamath Falls 42° 13’ 19” 121° 47’ 41” Reclamation/PC 1,058 1>15 (2)

Lost River Diversion Channel Lost River Diversion Dam 42° 08’ 34” 121° 40’ 23” Reclamation 164 >15 30

Lost River Diversion Channel Miller Hill Pumping Plant 42° 08’ 34” 121° 45’ 05” KID 2 >15 30

Klamath Straits Drain F-FF Pumping Plant 42° 04’ 48” 121° 50’ 37” Reclamation/KDD 107 >15 30

1

Rating for the Reclamation-PacifiCorp version of this record not the USGS version.

2

Cal Poly did not evaluate the Reclamation-PacificCorp version of the flow record.

Table 2. Water-balance scenarios.

Case 1: No unaccounted gains or losses

Qdownstream_outflow – (Qupstream_inflow – Qupstream_outflow) = 0

Case 2: Gaining stream

Qdownstream_outflow – (Qupstream_inflow – Qupstream_outflow) > 0

Possible reasons:

1. Unaccounted ground-water inflow

2. Other unaccounted inflows not included in the water balance

3. Measurement error 

Measured upstream inflows less than actual value

Measured upstream outflows greater than actual value

Measured downstream outflows greater than actual value

Case 3: Losing stream

Qdownstream_outflow – (Qupstream_inflow – Qupstream_outflow) < 0

Possible reasons:

1. Unaccounted outflow to ground water

2. Other unaccounted outflows not included in the water balance

3. Measurement error

Measured upstream inflows greater than actual value

Measured upstream outflows less than actual value

Measured downstream outflows less than actual value

 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Table 3. Difference between flow at Klamath River at Keno, Oregon and the sum of upstream diversion and return flows.

[Water year: October 1 to September 30. Link River at Klamath Falls and Klamath River at Keno flows are included in the computation. Values in thousand 

acre-feet] 

Water 

year

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Annual

1961 0 3 6 0 6 3 -4 -21 -8 -14 -10 -5 -44

1962 -4 -2 0 1 6 8 -6 -5 -9 -12 -10 -5 -38

1963 -5 -6 -9 -10 0 -8 -2 -7 -10 -12 -9 -7 -86

1964 -5 -7 -11 -11 -5 2 -6 -6 -4 -10 -10 -8 -82

1965 -10 -2 -24 -51 -30 17 4 -8 -6 -11 -8 -10 -140

1966 -15 -5 -10 -10 -3 -2 -11 -8 -8 -11 -8 -9 -100

1967 -1 -9 -2 -4 -1 0 -1 -7 -9 -11 -11 -4 -60

1968 -2 -5 -6 -3 -1 -40 -6 -8 -7 -9 -7 -7 -101

1969 -3 0 0 0 0 4 4 -13 -6 -11 -13 -8 -44

1970 -2 -7 0 -4 3 -2 -5 -7 -8 -11 -13 -8 -62

1971 -5 -2 -2 1 -4 0 5 -3 -10 -11 -12 -8 -52

1972 -3 -6 -6 -1 -2 -1 -2 -13 -13 -14 -10 -6 -76

1973 -4 -6 -11 -9 -3 -8 -11 -17 -18 -19 -13 -9 -127

1974 -7 -2 -4 4 -2 0 -13 -14 -13 -10 -12 -9 -82

1975 -2 -5 -7 -3 1 13 0 -14 -13 -10 -12 -7 -61

1976 -4 -5 -5 -7 -3 1 -5 -15 -13 -15 -4 -9 -85

1977 -1 -10 -5 -2 -2 -2 -6 -7 -25 -24 -15 -9 -107

1978 -6 -3 4 3 -3 -1 -8 -7 -10 -14 -11 1 -56

1979 -8 -4 0 2 3 3 0 -8 -9 -8 -7 -6 -44

1980 0 3 5 6 9 4 -1 -6 -7 -8 -9 -4 -7

1981 -2 -1 3 2 5 4 -1 -7 -8 -7 -10 -8 -30

1982 2 8 14 1 3 -4 0 -18 -7 -6 -5 -5 -16

1983 -3 -15 0 3 12 9 2 -6 -4 -4 -1 3 -3

1984 3 12 27 18 19 14 13 -2 0 -2 -2 6 105

1985 21 24 18 11 8 13 13 1 0 -6 -3 3 104

1986 5 8 8 6 18 11 1 0 -3 -3 1 3 55

1987 14 6 5 7 4 6 -10 -4 -3 -1 3 2 28

1988 1 2 10 7 11 8 4 -4 -4 -16 -3 -4 12

1989 0 5 5 10 15 33 19 -2 -6 -5 -3 0 72

1990 1 -2 1 6 5 11 0 -1 3 -2 -1 2 24

1991 1 4 -1 2 5 10 5 5 -2 -5 -1 3 26

1992 7 10 15 13 5 13 8 1 0 -1 -3 1 69

1993 3 4 5 7 7 6 12 2 -4 -6 -2 -5 29

1994 0 1 0 6 3 5 3 4 -3 -4 -2 1 13

1995 2 5 4 9 4 9 3 -3 -1 -2 -3 -18 9

1996 -30 -6 9 11 6 4 -3 -6 -4 1 0 -8 -24

1997 -5 2 10 20 4 0 3 -2 0 0 -4 0 28

1998 1 6 14 26 22 18 9 -5 3 7 7 1 109

1999 4 14 6 11 12 17 10 0 3 -4 2 -5 71

2000 0 8 9 3 2 5 1 -1 -4 -1 -2 -9 12

2001 1 3 3 6 3 4 5 -1 -3 -4 -5 0 14

2002 1 4 2 -7 10 6 5 -1 -4 -4 -3 -1 8

2003 3 1 4 8 3 5 -1 -3 -5 -4 -2 -3 6

2004 2 7 4 3 5 5 2 -2 -5 -6 -9 -6 -2

Introduction 
All flow data used in the water-balance analysis came 

from Reclamation’s hydrologic database with the exception 

of the USGS Klamath River at Keno (11509500) flow record. 

All flow records spanned 44 years (1961–2004), except for 

the Miller Hill Pumping Plant return flow record, which began 

in water year 1987. (A water year is defined as the 12-month 

period from October 1 to September 30.)

For most months of the year, water in Lost River 

Diversion Channel flows toward the Klamath River. During 

the summer, the flow can be reversed when water is diverted 

from the Klamath River. Until recently, there has not been 

a gaging station on the Lost River Diversion Channel close 

to the Klamath River. Four streamflow-measurement sites 

(Station 48, Miller Hill Pumping Plant diversions, Miller Hill 

Pumping Plant return spills, and Lost River Diversion Dam), 

all located on the Lost River Diversion Channel, were included 

in the water-balance equation to compute the net flow of Lost 

River Diversion Channel.

As shown in table 3, there is a trend in net Klamath River 

flows from negative to positive values. Positive values indicate 

a gain to the Klamath River in the water-balance reach and 

negative values indicate a loss of water in the reach. In the 

1960s and 1970s, most of the values were negative for October 

through April, indicating a net loss from the river. In the 1980s 

and 1990s, almost all values for these months are positive, 

indicating a net gain to the river. Likewise, many values for 

May–September changed from double digit negative to single 

digit negative. The inconsistency is also evident in figure 3, 

which shows a relation between the sum of April–September 

net canal flows and April–September net river flows used in 

the water balance. Net canal flows were calculated as the sum 

of the diversion flows minus the sum of the return canal flows. 

Specifically, these include the North Canal, Ady Canal, Miller 

Hill Pumping Plant, and Station 48 diversion flows minus the 

Lost River Diversion Dam, Miller Hill Pumping Plant spills, 

and Klamath Straits Drain F-FF Pumping Plant return flows. 

Net river flows were computed as Klamath River at Keno 

flows minus Link River flows. 

In figure 3, data points for the first and second 22-

year periods (1961–82 and 1983–2004) are separated by a 

regression line that was computed from data for the entire 

period. Such a sharp separation or shift for the two time 

periods is an indication of flow data error or changes in 

undocumented flows that were not included in the water 

balance. If there were no water-balance inconsistency over the 

44-year period, data points from the first and second 22-year 

periods would be more evenly distributed on both sides of the 

regression line. Mean monthly and mean annual net waterbalance flow volumes in thousand acre-feet are shown for the 

two 22-year periods in table 4. The mean annual net water 

balance for the first and second 22-year periods (1961–82 

and 1983–2004) are about –68,000 and 35,000 acre-ft, 

respectively. The absolute difference between the two periods 

is about 103,000 acre-ft/yr.

Figure 2. Water-balance reach of the Klamath River, 

south-central Oregon, showing diversions and return flows 

used in computing the water balance.

orC1U00_fig02Klamath River 

+

- -

-

-

+

+

+

Upper Klamath

Lake

Klamath

Project

Link River and westside 

power canal at Klamath 

Falls, Oregon

Lost River

Lost River 

Diversion Channel

at Miller Hill 

Pumping Plant

Lost River 

Diversion 

Channel 

at Station 48

Lost River 

Diversion 

Channel

at Lost River 

Diversion Dam

North Canal 

at U.S. Highway 97

“F-FF” Pumping Plant at

U.S. Highway 97

Ady Canal at

U.S. Highway 97

Klamath Project 

and

Lower Klamath 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

Lower Klamath

River

Link

River

-

+

EXPLANATION

Upstream return flow site

 Upstream diversion flow site

Downstream streamflow- 

 gaging station

Klamath River at 

Keno, Oregon

(11509500)

 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Table 4. Net mean monthly and mean annual flows for the waterbalance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water 

years 1961–82 and 1983–2004.

[Values in thousand acre-feet] 

Month 1961–82 1983–2004 Absolute 

difference

October -4.02 1.42 5.44

November -3.33 4.60 7.93

December -3.22 7.28 10.49

January -4.34 8.51 12.85

February -.98 8.35 9.33

March -.48 9.61 10.09

April -3.42 4.68 8.10

May -9.93 -1.37 8.57

June -10.12 -2.07 8.05

July -11.72 -3.23 8.50

August -9.88 -1.62 8.26

September -6.81 -1.41 5.40

Annual -68.25 34.75 103.01

Figure 3. Comparison of April–September net river and canal flows for the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, 

south-central Oregon, 1961–2004.

orC1U00_fig03

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

APRIL−SEPTEMBER DIVERSION MINUS RETURN CANAL FLOWS, IN THOUSAND ACRE-FEET

APRIL−SEPTEMBER KLAMATH RIVER AT KENO MINUS 

RECLAMATION-PACIFICORP LINK RIVER FLOWS, IN THOUSAND ACRE-FEET

1961-1982

1983-2004

Regression computed

Introduction 
Water-Balance Flow-Data Quality

Flow-measurement sites were visited to assess site 

conditions and methods used. Documentation for the flow 

measurements also was reviewed. The flow-measurement sites 

and records used in the water balance were assessed during 

two field visits by USGS personnel in May and June 2005. 

At Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office, archived files 

and original documents pertaining to many of the sites were 

reviewed. Additional files pertaining to these sites also were 

examined in the Klamath and Tulelake Irrigation District 

offices. The USGS measurement site on the Klamath River 

at Keno is operated using standard USGS protocols, and the 

data are published annually in the USGS annual data report of 

streamflow data.

Accuracy of Flow Records

Flow records for the non-USGS measurement sites 

were not compiled, reviewed, or published on an annual 

basis. An annual station analysis for these sites was limited 

or nonexistent. Check measurements of streamflow and 

instrument maintenance at the sites were not done or 

documented on a regular basis. Overall data documentation 

was limited, and a complete paper trail detailing how every 

daily flow value was computed could not be established. Daily 

values at these sites were not computed from unit (hourly) 

values. Flow at some of the canal sites was estimated using 

a canal weir equation that used the head difference between 

upstream and downstream head gates. Although continuous 

strip charts were used at some of the sites to estimate canal 

stage differences, only a single head-difference value was 

measured from the charts for each day. At some of the other 

sites, where stage differences were not measured, a daily 

flow estimate was based on the time duration of flow passing 

through a specific gate opening or the time duration of one or 

more pumps in operation.

The rating that the USGS uses to describe the accuracy 

of an annual streamflow record depends on (1) the stability 

of the stage-discharge relation or, if the control is unstable, 

the frequency of flow measurements, and (2) the accuracy 

of measurements of stage and flow, and interpretation of 

records. Accuracy ratings of “excellent” indicate that about 

95 percent of the daily flow are within 5 percent of the actual 

value; “good,” within 10 percent; and “fair,” within 15 percent 

(table 1). Records that do not meet these criteria are rated 

“poor.” Accuracy ratings for USGS flow records for a given 

year are shown in the USGS annual data report for that year. 

The accuracy rating is applied to a record on an annual basis 

and can sometimes change from year to year.

In this study, eight of the nine flow records were nonUSGS records. Because documentation for all eight flow 

records was limited, a reliable paper trail that would show with 

certainty how every daily flow value was determined could 

not be established. Because of incomplete documentation, 

all non-USGS flow records were rated as “poor” by USGS 

standards (table 1). In addition to the USGS ratings, accuracy 

ratings (table 1) were assigned by the California Polytechnic 

State University Irrigation Training and Research Center 

(Cal Poly) (Burt and Freeman, 2003). Reclamation is in the 

process of improving measurement methods, accuracy, and 

documentation of the non-USGS gaging stations described in 

this report in cooperation with, and as a result of, a network 

analysis by Cal Poly and the USGS.

Downstream Flow-Measurement Site 

Description

Klamath River at Keno

The daily flow record for the USGS Klamath River at 

Keno streamflow-gaging station (11509500) began in 1929. 

For water years 1961–82, the annual records were consistently 

rated as “good.” For water years 1983–92 and 1993–2004, 

the annual records were rated as “excellent” and “good,” 

respectively. 

Upstream Diversion Flow Site Descriptions

The following flow-measurement sites were used to 

measure water being diverted away from the water-balance 

reach of the Klamath River. 

Lost River Diversion Channel at Station 48

Located on the Lost River Diversion Channel, Station 

48 diverts water by gravity from the diversion channel into 

a canal that flows into the natural Lost River (fig. 2). From 

there, water flows to the Anderson-Rose Dam and eventually 

to the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, about 20 miles 

southeast of Klamath Falls. The Tulelake Irrigation District 

(TID) operates the Station 48 gates by radiotelemetry 

and also manually monitors and records flow. Daily flow 

values, in cubic feet per second (ft3/s), are called in daily 

to Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office. Daily flow is 

computed using a step rating table of gate-opening size and 

flow. The duration of an opening also is recorded. Upstream 

stage measurements are not used in the flow computation 

because flows through the Station 48 gates are only a small 

   An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
part of total flow in the Lost River Diversion Channel. Water 

levels in the diversion channel are assumed to be reasonably 

constant. The gate size opening and flow rating table are in 

increments of 50 ft3/s. The maximum flow rate capacity is 550 

ft3/s. The rating table was developed by Reclamation when 

Station 48 was constructed in 1948. Whether this rating has 

ever been updated or whether check measurements have ever 

been made could not be determined (Jerry Pyle, Tulelake 

Irrigation District, oral commun., June 22, 2005). Because of 

these factors and limited data documentation, this flow record 

was rated as “poor.”

Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill 

Pumping Plant

The Miller Hill Pumping Plant is operated by the 

Klamath Irrigation District (KID) and has three single 

speed 35-ft3/s pumps (maximum total capacity, 105 ft3/s) 

that lift water from the Lost River Diversion Channel into 

nearby lateral canals. The plant was constructed in 1941 and 

originally had two pumps. The third pump was added in the 

mid-1960s. Daily flow is computed by KID by multiplying 

the number of pumps in operation times 35 ft3/s and the 

duration of operation. These daily flows are then sent 

weekly to Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office. Check 

measurements by Cal Poly (Burt and Freeman, 2003) were 

within 15 percent of 35 ft3/s for all three pumps. However, 

whether other check measurements had been made over the 

past 44 years could not be determined. A constant rate of 

35 ft3/s was assumed to have been used for each pump in all 

computations for the entire flow record. Because of these 

factors and limited data documentation, this flow record was 

rated as “poor.” 

North Canal at U.S. Highway 97

The North Canal gates, near U.S. Highway 97, are 

used to control flow diversions from the Klamath River 

to farmlands managed by the Klamath Drainage District 

(KDD) and Area K Leaselands managed by the Lower 

Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. (The North Canal in this 

study should not be confused with the nearby North Canal 

in the Langell Valley.) The gates are operated by the KDD, 

but usually are left open. Because the terrain is flat, lateral 

diversions from the canal at downstream locations operate 

as a flow control. Opening and closing downstream lateral 

diversion canals alters the stage-discharge relation at the 

streamflow-measurement site by creating variable backwater 

conditions. Flow at the U.S. Highway 97 gate is monitored 

by Reclamation with two (upstream and downstream) 

Stevens® drum recorders mounted on stilling wells. The stage 

difference is used to compute velocity. Discharge is computed 

by multiplying velocity times the total gate opening area 

and a coefficient of discharge. The canal has a low gradient, 

and stage differences were measured at ±0.1 ft. (At a USGS 

streamflow-gaging station, stage is measured at ± 0.01 ft.) 

There was no evidence that levels or check measurements 

had been made at this site in recent years. During a site visit, 

one of the staff gages was entirely above water. Also, the gate 

opening was obstructed by trash and debris jams, which could 

have affected the water elevations. Because of these factors 

and limited data documentation, this flow record was rated as 

“poor.”

Ady Canal at U.S. Highway 97

The Ady diversion canal gates also are located near U.S. 

Highway 97. The gates are operated by the KDD, but usually 

are left open. Similar to North Canal, flow rates are controlled 

by downstream lateral canal openings. The Ady Canal 

flow is monitored by Reclamation with two (upstream and 

downstream) Stevens® drum recorders mounted on stilling 

wells. This canal has a low gradient, and stage differences 

were measured at only ±0.1 ft. There was no evidence that 

levels or check measurements had been made at this site in 

recent years. During a site visit, the gates were found to be 

obstructed by trash and debris jams and there were several 

sets of staff gages. Because of these factors and limited data 

documentation, this flow record was rated as “poor.” 

Upstream Return Flow Site Descriptions

The flow-measurement sites discussed in this section 

measure waters being returned to the water-balance reach of 

the Klamath River. The flow record for Link River at Klamath 

Falls is included as a return-flow record because it is a positive 

term in the water-balance equation. During particularly large 

winter and spring runoff events, the Lost River Diversion 

Channel and the Klamath Straits Drain are used to discharge 

water to the Klamath River to decrease flooding in the 

Klamath Project and the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Link River at Klamath Falls

The USGS has collected flow data at Link River at 

Klamath Falls (11507500) throughout the period of interest 

for this study (1961–2004). This streamflow-gaging station, in 

addition to others in the upper Klamath Basin, is cooperatively 

funded by PacifiCorp as a part of their license compliance 

Water-Balance Flow-Data Quality   
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

Up until (and including) water year 1983, flows in the 

westside power canal were included in the published USGS 

record for Link River. However, for water year 1984 (and 

thereafter) PacifiCorp discontinued the USGS canal flow data 

collection function of the site. As a result, only river flows 

have been included in the published USGS record (water years 

1984–2005). The westside power canal diverts water from the 

Link River Dam and bypasses the USGS Link River gaging 

station. Water in the canal then flows through a powerplant 

before it is returned to the river downstream of the USGS 

gaging station (fig. 4).

Although PacifiCorp has funded USGS data collection 

for the Link River flow record since 1984, they have also 

made their own estimates of daily flow for the Link River 

and westside power canal. This was necessary because 

PacifiCorp needed the data on a real-time basis for power 

generation operations. (Real-time USGS flow data for this 

site have been available on the Web only in recent years.) 

PacifiCorp flow estimates were for their internal purposes 

and were never intended to be used by the public. PacifiCorp 

estimated the river portion of the Link River flow record by 

using USGS stage readings and their own stage-discharge 

rating curves. They estimated flow in the canal on the basis of 

the powerhouse intake capacity and the frequency of power 

production. Because the PacifiCorp Link River flow data were 

real-time, and the USGS Link River flow data were not realtime until recently, Reclamation had to use PacifiCorp Link 

River flow data (combined river and canal) for their watermanagement operations. As a consequence, PacifiCorp Link 

River flow data were input to the Reclamation hydrological 

database and were also used in the calculation of monthly 

Upper Klamath Lake net inflow.

For water years 1961–84, the USGS Link River flow 

records were rated in the annual USGS water-data report as 

“good.” For water years 1985–90 and 1991–2004, flow records 

were rated as “excellent” and “good,” respectively. To test 

the possibility that non-USGS flow data could be a factor in 

the inconsistency shown in figure 3, that graph was modified 

using USGS Link River flow (river portion only) for the 

entire period 1961–2004 (fig. 5). In the modified version of 

the graph, data from the two periods are not sharply separated 

by the regression line. Less separation could indicate better 

data-collection consistency. The canal and river components 

of that record were evaluated separately to assess the extent of 

potential data error in Reclamation-PacifiCorp flow record for 

Link River.

Figure 6 shows a comparison of USGS and ReclamationPacifiCorp westside power canal flows for 1962–2004. 

(The USGS daily flow record for water year 1961 was not 

available.) The hydrograph shows an abrupt change occurring 

in the mid-1980s. The USGS and Reclamation-PacifiCorp 

estimated daily flows were based on different rating curves 

that related flow to daily power production. The USGS rating 

curve was continually adjusted and updated every 3 months 

using check measurements. To develop the rating curve, the 

USGS made regular check measurements on the canal from 

a location about 300 ft upstream of the powerplant intake 

(fig. 4). The Reclamation-PacifiCorp maximum flow rate was 

based on the powerplant intake rate of 220 ft3/s. The USGS 

check measurements are a more accurate measurement of 

canal flow because they were made at a location closer to 

the gaging station on the river. The Reclamation-PacifiCorp 

maximum flow rate does not take into account canal leakage, 

a small agricultural diversion, and spillway flow losses that 

occur between the USGS gaging station and the powerplant.

Although the canal daily flows were no longer published 

in the USGS record for Link River after water year 1983, 

check measurements were still made by the USGS on the 

canal every 3 months in the years since. The USGS continued 

to make the canal measurements because they must be 

subtracted from the river check measurements to make a direct 

comparison to the USGS Link River gaging station (fig. 4). 

The river check measurements are made from the Klamath 

Falls Main Street Bridge, which is downstream of the canal 

and the powerplant.

Upper Klamath Lake

Klamath Falls Main Street Bridge Link River

Lake Ewauna

Eastside

power canal

Powerplant

Powerplant

Canal check 

measurement site

USGS Link River 

flow gage (11507500)

Westside

power canal

Link River Dam

Figure 4. Link River (headwaters of the Klamath River) and 

the westside power canal, south-central Oregon.

10 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Figure 5. April–September net river and canal flows estimated using the USGS flow record for the Link River without 

westside power canal flow, south-central Oregon, 1961–2004.

orC1U00_fig05

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

APRIL–SEPTEMBER DIVERSION MINUS RETURN CANAL FLOWS, IN THOUSAND ACRE-FEET

APRIL–SEPTEMBER KLAMATH RIVER AT KENO MINUS 

USGS LINK RIVER FLOWS, IN THOUSAND ACRE-FEET

250

1961–1982

1983–2004

Regression computed

Figure 6. Comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation-PacifiCorp westside power canal flows, southcentral Oregon, 1961–2004.

WATER YEAR

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

196119651970197519801985199019952000

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2005

USGS daily flows (11507400), 1962−1983

Reclamation-PacifiCorp daily flows, 1984−2004

USGS discharge measurements, 1984−2004

Water-Balance Flow-Data Quality 11
During the earlier period for the westside power canal 

(water years 1962–83), estimated daily flow was greater than 

200 ft3/s on an average of 252 days of the year. During the 

later period (water years 1984–2004), estimated daily flow 

was greater than 200 ft3/s on an average of only 180 days of 

the year. The number of days of power production was about 

30 percent less during the later period compared with the 

earlier period.

The use of different rating curves also created a 

significant inconsistency between the two records. The mean 

of the USGS westside power canal check measurements and 

Reclamation-PacifiCorp daily flows greater than 200 ft3/s 

(during power production) in the later period (water years 

1984–2004) was 251 and 220 ft3/s, respectively. Based on the 

annual average number of days of power production reported 

by PacifiCorp (180 days) during this period, approximate 

canal flow volume during this period would have been about 

90,000 acre-ft/yr using the USGS flow rate and about 79,000 

acre-ft/yr using the Reclamation-PacifiCorp flow rate. Thus, 

the Reclamation-PacifiCorp canal flow record for water years 

1984–2004 could be 11,000 acre-ft/yr less than what it should 

be. During the earlier period (water years 1962–1983), the 

USGS westside power canal flow was about 130,000 acreft/yr. Thus, the 1984–2004 Reclamation-PacifiCorp canal flow 

record contains an approximate flow decrease of 51,000 acreft/yr between the two time periods that is attributable to both 

decreased power production and possible flow-measurement 

error. If the USGS canal flow rate is more accurate, the flow 

decrease (due to decreased power production) would be only 

40,000 acre-ft/yr. 

Possible error in the river portion of the ReclamationPacifiCorp flow record for the Link River was found when 

the record was compared with the USGS Link River record. 

A comparison of USGS and Reclamation-PacifiCorp Link 

River and westside power canal flow records for water years 

1961–2004 is shown in table 5. As discussed earlier, the 

Reclamation-PacifiCorp Link River flow record was based 

on a different rating curve for the river than the USGS rating 

curve. The difference between the USGS and ReclamationPacifiCorp Link River flow records is shown in table 5, 

column F. For water years 1961–83, the USGS canal flow 

record (table 5, column D) is included in the USGS Link River 

flow record (table 5, column A). For water years 1984–2004, 

the USGS canal flow record (table 5, column D) is estimated 

by adding 11,000 acre-ft to the Reclamation-PacifiCorp 

canal flow record (table 5, column E). The estimated USGS 

canal flow record was then added to the USGS Link River 

flow record (table 5, column B) to create an estimated 

USGS combined Link River and canal flow record (table 5, 

column A).

For the first 22-year period, water years 1961–82, the 

river portion of the Reclamation-PacifiCorp Link River flow 

record probably overestimated the actual flow by 25,000 

acre-ft/yr on average. For the second 22-year period, water 

years 1983–2004, the river portion of the ReclamationPacifiCorp Link River flow record probably underestimated 

flows by about 7,000 acre-ft/yr on average. The most likely 

source of error was bias in the rating curve used by PacifiCorp 

for the river gage. This combined error of 32,000 acre-ft/yr 

is consistent with the larger water-balance error shown in 

tables 3 and 4. However, it does not explain all of the waterbalance errors.

As a result of possible errors in both the river and power 

canal flow data and limited documentation, the Link River 

Reclamation-PacifiCorp flow record was rated as “poor.”

Lost River Diversion Channel at Lost River 

Diversion Dam

Built in 1912, the Lost River Diversion Dam was 

constructed to divert water from the Lost River into the 

constructed Lost River Diversion Channel. Flows are 

monitored by Reclamation with two Stevens® drum recorders 

mounted on stilling wells located upstream and downstream 

of the diversion gates. The stage difference is used to compute 

velocity. Flow is computed by multiplying velocity by the 

total gate opening area and a coefficient of discharge. Unlike 

the North and Ady Canal gates, there is a greater gradient at 

this site, and if the site had better data documentation, the 

flow record might have been rated as “fair.” However, because 

of documentation deficiencies, this flow record was rated as 

“poor.”

Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill 

Pumping Plant

A small amount of excess water at the Miller Hill 

Pumping Plant that is spilled back into the Lost River 

Diversion Channel is included in the water-balance equation. 

Because the pumps are single speed, more water is sometimes 

pumped out of the Lost River Diversion Channel than is 

needed for irrigation. Spill water flows back into the channel 

by gravity through a gate opening. Manually measured and 

recorded flows are computed using a gate opening versus 

discharge rating table and time durations of the gate opening. 

Because of these factors and limited data documentation, this 

flow record was rated as “poor.”

The Klamath Irrigation District started keeping records 

of the spill water return flows in water year 1987. Because the 

flow magnitude of this record is only 0.18 percent of all flow 

returns in the water balance, mean monthly flows for 1987–

2004 were used to fill in the missing period from 1961 to 1986 

for the water-balance computation.

12  An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Table 5. Annual flow records of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation–PacifiCorp Link River and westside power canal, 

south-central Oregon, water years 1961-2004.

[Values in thousand acre-feet. Water year: October 1 to September 30. 1984-2004: Column A for water years 1984–2004 estimated by adding Columns B 

and D. Column D for water years 1984–2004 estimated by adding 11 thousand acre-feet per year to Column E values. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological 

Survey; Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation; PC, PacifiCorp; na, not available] 

Water year

Link River 

USGS

Canal only

(D)

Reclamation-PC

Canal only

(E)

Error: 

Columns A 

minus C

(F)

USGS Reclamation–PC

With canal

(A)

Without canal

(B)

With canal

(C) 

1961–83

1961 818 na 821 na na -3

1962 874 687 883 186 na -9

1963 1,166 973 1,207 193 na -41

1964 878 714 930 164 na -53

1965 1,695 1,549 1,794 145 na -99

1966 1,029 877 1,049 152 na -20

1967 1,077 903 1,115 174 na -38

1968 785 637 805 147 na -21

1969 940 775 942 166 na -2

1970 1,124 968 1,139 156 na -15

1971 1,455 1,316 1,455 139 na 0

1972 1,567 1,425 1,551 141 na 16

1973 982 868 1,049 115 na -67

1974 1,501 1,387 1,545 113 na -44

1975 1,319 1,185 1,338 134 na -19

1976 1,115 1,010 1,122 104 na -7

1977 709 601 738 107 na -29

1978 1,175 1,057 1,210 117 na -35

1979 804 681 838 123 na -35

1980 797 676 826 120 na -29

1981 735 566 712 169 na 22

1982 1,403 1,267 1,419 136 na -17

1983 1,683 1,529 1,684 154 na -1

1984–2004

1984 1,666 1,597 1,681 69 58 -15

1985 1,215 1,165 1,237 51 40 -22

1986 1,299 1,271 1,367 28 17 -68

1987 807 775 898 32 21 -91

1988 630 577 720 53 42 -89

1989 1,013 895 1,021 118 107 -8

1990 673 546 681 127 116 -8

1991 519 426 529 93 82 -11

1992 413 397 396 16 5 18

1993 1,037 972 1,025 65 54 12

1994 669 499 589 170 159 80

1995 846 729 797 117 106 49

1996 1,451 1,312 1,427 140 129 25

1997 1,363 1,268 1,379 95 84 -16

1998 1,412 1,270 1,385 141 130 27

1999 1,449 1,310 1,407 138 127 42

2000 1,148 1,035 1,098 113 102 50

2001 757 669 716 87 76 41

2002 778 661 728 117 106 50

2003 705 652 665 53 42 39

2004 696 629 653 67 56 43

Water-Balance Flow-Data Quality 13
Klamath Straits Drain at F-FF Pumping Plant

The F-FF Pumping Plant is located near the intersection 

of the Klamath Straits Drain and U.S. Highway 97. The 

Straits Drain is the primary flow conduit for return water from 

the Klamath Project and the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake 

National Wildlife Refuges. This site includes two pumping 

plants (F and FF) and is operated by Reclamation and the 

Klamath Drainage District. Plants F and FF were constructed 

in 1941 and 1980, respectively. 

Over the past 60 years, two methods of flow computation 

have been used to create the flow record at this site. One 

method uses the stage difference between the outlet and sump 

(upstream and downstream) and a stage-discharge relation 

curve. The other method uses the manufacturer’s original 

pump capacity curves. 

The first method probably was used to compute the flow 

record for much of the 1940s and 1950s. Reclamation made a 

series of discharge measurements to develop a stage-discharge 

relation for Plant F, which appeared relatively accurate. 

However, in more recent years the flow record appears to have 

been computed entirely on the manufacturer’s pump capacity 

curves. On the basis of those curves, the combined maximum 

flow capacity of the plants theoretically is 600 ft3/s. However, 

there is no evidence that any of the pump capacity curves were 

recently compared with the field-developed capacity curves. 

There is no documentation of check measurements on any of 

the pumps since the 1960s. Severe cavitation occurred about 

5 years ago at one of the pumps, which has rendered it less 

efficient (Al Wilder, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, 

Oregon, oral commun., 2005). Because of these factors and 

limited data documentation, this flow record was rated as 

“poor.”

Non-Water-Balance Flow Data

Numerous smaller return and diversion flows enter or 

leave the Klamath River between the Link River at Klamath 

Falls and the Klamath River at Keno. These additional flows 

were not included in the water-balance equation because they 

were measured on an irregular basis, poorly documented, 

and/or considered insignificant in magnitude. Nonetheless, 

it was necessary to determine if changes in these flows over 

time could have had a significant effect on the water balance 

and been a factor in the flow inconsistency. A summary of the 

return and diversion flows is shown in table 6. Table 6 includes 

circa 2004 flow estimates in addition to how these estimates 

compare with probable flow conditions in the 1960s.

Diversion Flows from the Klamath River

Most of the unmeasured or poorly measured diversions 

have been used for irrigated agriculture and the wood products 

industry. Historical water right permits granted by the Oregon 

Water Resources Department (OWRD) provide some insight 

into the magnitude of the diversions, although it cannot be 

assumed that a water user will use the full amount of water 

that they are allowed to use. In some years, a water right 

holder may not use the appropriated water at all. The water 

rights granted by OWRD in the water budget reach provided 

an estimate of the maximum potential uses in addition to the 

measured Klamath Project diversions and returns. An increase 

in undocumented surface-water diversions from the Klamath 

River would be inconsistent with changes in the water balance 

over the 44-year period from 1961 to 2004.

Agriculture

Some landowners adjacent to the Klamath River have 

surface-water withdrawal permits for agricultural use. Between 

the Link River and Keno Dams, the sum of these numerous 

small diversions has been estimated to be about 25,000 acreft/yr (PacifiCorp, 2005). Although this amount is significant, 

there is no available quantitative or anecdotal evidence of 

changes in irrigation practices over the 44-year study period 

that would explain the water-balance inconsistencies. Few new 

water rights have been granted to landowners on this stretch of 

the Klamath River since 1971. At the same time, these direct 

diversions for irrigated agriculture adjacent to the river have 

not likely decreased by a significant amount.

Table 6. Diversion and return flows not used in water-balance 

calculations for the reach of the Klamath River, south-central 

Oregon.

[Flows are given in thousand acre-feet per year. Abbreviations: WWTP, 

wastewater-treatment plant; SSS, South Surburban Sanitation] 

Water use

Diversion flow Return flow

Current 1960s Current 1960s

Klamath Falls WWTP 

effluent

None None 12.00 2.50

SSS WWTP effluent None None 7.60 Less

Other storm runoff None None 2 4.00 Less

Lumber mills 30 to 1.6 Same 0.90 More

Irrigated agriculture 2 25.00 Same 4 6.25 More

Total 25.00 Same 19.75 Less

1

Includes Klamath Falls Cogeneration Power Project plant evaporation losses.

2

Estimates from PacifiCorp (2005).

3

Lumber mills have combined water rights to 1.6 thousand acre-feet per year. 

Most of these rights are kept for fire suppression and the water is rarely diverted 

from the river.

4

Return flows were assumed to be 25 percent of irrigated diversions.

14  An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Wood Products

Some other water users in the study area include 

wood-products processing plants. In the 1960s, four major 

plants existed, which included Modoc Lumber, D.G. Shelter 

Products, Collins Products LLC (formerly Weyerhaeuser), and 

Columbia Plywood. As of water year 2004, only Columbia 

Plywood and Collins Products LLC existed. Historically, water 

has been used at these facilities for the manufacturing and 

processing of plywood, cardboard, and wood siding products, 

and for log sprinkling to reduce the potential for fire. However, 

the Collin Products LLC plant stopped using logs altogether in 

1992 and now relies on wood chips. Columbia Plywood still 

uses logs; however, their logs are stored in the river and do 

not need to be kept wet using sprinklers (Ted Devore, Collins 

Products LLC, Klamath Falls, Oregon, oral commun., 2005).

A query of the OWRD water rights information data base 

found the combined total surface-water rights permits for the 

four plants to be about 1,600 acre-ft/yr. Historically, however, 

most of the water used by the plants has come from groundwater wells. The two remaining plants take very little water 

directly out of the river. The surface-water right permits are 

kept mostly for fire suppression (Ted Devore, Collins Products 

LLC, Klamath Falls, Oregon, oral commun., 2005).

Although difficult to quantify, overall water diversions 

for the wood products industry in the study area likely has 

decreased between 1961 and 2004, mainly because there are 

fewer plants in operation. A trend of less water diversion is 

consistent with the water-balance inconsistency; however, an 

amount of only 1,600 acre-ft/yr is too small to explain it. 

Return Flows to the Klamath River

Return flows to the Klamath River that are not included 

in the water-balance equation include outflows from 

wastewater-treatment and wood-products processing plants. 

An increase in undocumented surface-water return flows to the 

Klamath River would be consistent with changes in the water 

balance over the 44-year period from 1961 to 2004.

Agriculture

Return flows from irrigated agriculture on lands adjacent 

to the Klamath River were not measured. However, 25 to 50 

percent of irrigation diversion flows is considered a reasonable 

estimate for return flows in the Upper Klamath Basin (Broad 

and Collins, 1996). Using a rate of 25 percent, return flows 

for water year 2004 were estimated at 6,250 acre-ft/yr. Return 

flows in the 1960s possibly were higher than in water year 

2004 because of more flood irrigation and less sprinkler 

irrigation at that time. For many locations in the upper 

Klamath Basin, the transition from flood irrigation to sprinkler 

irrigation has reduced return flows (Burt and Freeman, 2003).

Wastewater Treatment

The study area is served by two main wastewatertreatment plants (WWTP). One is operated by the City of 

Klamath Falls and the other by the South Suburban Sanitation 

District. As a result of population growth, these flows have 

gradually increased. Between 1960 and 2000, the population 

of Klamath County increased from 47,475 to 63,775 (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2005). Annual average effluent releases from 

the Klamath Falls WWTP have increased at a steady rate 

from about 2.2 Mgal/d (2,464 acre-ft/yr) in the early 1960s 

to about 3.0 Mgal/d (3,360 acre-ft/yr) in water year 2004. 

The Klamath Falls WWTP also currently (water year 2004) 

treats about 0.22 to 0.3 Mgal/d of urban storm and geothermal 

runoff, which when combined with effluent outflow is about 

3.3 Mgal/d (3,696 acre-ft/yr) (Jeff Fritz, City of Klamath 

Falls, Oregon, oral commun., 2005). On an annual basis, 

this increase in quantity is insufficient to explain the waterbalance inconsistency. Not all WWTP outflow is discharged 

to the Klamath River. Since 2001, the Klamath Cogeneration 

Project Power Plant has been using about two-thirds of the 

WWTP outflow for cooling purposes. About one-third of that 

amount (less than 1,000 acre-ft/yr), the portion that is not 

evaporated, is returned to the WWTP and then discharged to 

the Klamath River (Jeff Fritz, City of Klamath Falls, Oregon, 

oral commun., 2005). Total effluent discharged to the river is 

approximately 2,000 acre-ft/yr.

From the early 1990s to the mid-2000s, an annual 

average of about 2.5 Mgal/d (2,820 acre-ft/yr) of effluent was 

treated by the South Suburban Sanitation District WWTP. 

This rate is about three times what it was in 1961. In 2004, 

the total combined sewer outflow from this plant (which 

includes effluent, storm runoff from streets, and geothermal 

return flows) was about 6.8 Mgal/d (7,600 acre-ft/yr) (Sally 

Braton, South Suburban Sanitation District, Klamath Falls, 

Oregon, oral commun., 2005). PacifiCorp (2005) estimated an 

additional 4,000 acre-ft/yr of storm runoff from other locations 

in the study reach. Although flows are higher than in the early 

1960s, the amount of increase is insufficient to explain the 

water-balance inconsistency. 

Wood Products

The two remaining wood-products processing plants in 

the study area, Collins Products LLC and Columbia Plywood, 

discharge an average of 900 and 30 acre-ft/yr, respectively 

(Burt and Freeman, 2003). In the 1960s, when there were 

additional wood-products processing plants in operation, the 

total return flows would have been greater than the current 

total flows of 903 acre-ft/yr. However, a decrease in return 

flows from these plants would have been contrary to the trend 

in the water balance, in addition to being insignificant.

Non-Water-Balance Flow Data 15
Ground-Water Levels and Climate

Changing ground-water levels in land adjacent to the river 

between the Link River and Keno Dams also could cause a 

water-balance inconsistency. Because the water balance shows 

a losing stream in the 1960s and 1970s and a gaining stream 

in the 1980s and 1990s, ground-water levels would have had 

to rise during the 44-year period; however, water-level data 

collected by the OWRD and the USGS from wells in or near 

the study reach do not show a rising ground-water-level trend 

(http://or.water.usgs.gov/projs_dir/or180/waterlevels/index.

html, accessed March 29, 2006). 

The nearest long-term OWRD observation wells to the 

study area include KLAM 11950 and KLAM 12815. The 

record for KLAM 11950, a geothermal well located within 

the city limits of Klamath Falls, began in the late 1960s. From 

that time to the present, this record does not show an overall 

increase in water levels. The water level in KLAM 11950 

declined by 15 ft between 1975 and 1990, followed by a 

recovery between 1990 and 1995. The observed decline was 

likely due to a combination of development of the geothermal 

aquifer and climate influences. The recovery of the water 

table is undoubtedly due to an increase in the practice of 

injecting spent geothermal water back into the aquifer that 

was mandated after July 1990 by city ordinance. As far as is 

known, this decline and recovery is limited to the geothermal 

aquifer in and around Klamath Falls. According to Sammuel 

(1980) the total discharge of the geothermal system in and 

around Klamath Falls is 2,868,000 gallons per day, or about 

3,200 acre-ft/yr. On the basis of that volume, pumping and 

injection practices in the geothermal aquifer are unlikely 

to have a measurable effect on flow in the Klamath River. 

(Marshall Gannett, USGS, Portland, Oregon, oral commun., 

2006). The record for KLAM 12815, located about 4 mi east 

of the river, shows an overall decline in water levels of about 8 

ft between the early 1960s and the early 1990s. This decline, 

which is likely climatological in origin, is contrary to the 

water-balance inconsistency.

Closer to the river, below Klamath Falls and above the 

Keno flow-measurement site, the USGS has collected waterlevel data from seven observation wells (KLAM 10013, 

KLAM 10253, KLAM 11211, KLAM 13744, KLAM 13800, 

KLAM 50392, and KLAM 51231) since 1999 for the USGS 

upper Klamath Basin ground-water study. Because of drier 

than average conditions for most of the period since 1999, 

water levels generally declined in all seven wells. Although 

the period of record for these wells does not represent the 

longer period from 1961 to 2004, additional water-level 

measurements made at the time the wells were drilled are 

available. KLAM 13800 and KLAM 13744 were drilled in 

1974 and 1988, respectively, and the other wells were drilled 

during the 1990s. The water levels in all seven wells at the 

time they were drilled are within the range of their measured 

water-levels over the past 7 years. Therefore, the possibility 

that there has been an overall rise in water levels over the 

period from 1961–2004 is not supported by the OWRD and 

USGS water-level data.

Precipitation data (fig. 7) also do not support a rise in 

ground-water levels. A long-term shift from drier to wetter 

weather would cause such a change, but although there are 

periods of wet and dry years, long-term precipitation did not 

significantly increase. Mean annual water year precipitation 

at Klamath Falls for 1961–82 and 1983–2004 was 13.3 and 

13.8 in., respectively, which is a difference of less than 5 

percent. Precipitation at other nearby sites also did not differ 

significantly between the two 22-year periods. Mean annual 

precipitation at Crater Lake for water years 1961–82 and 

1983–2004 was 65.8 and 64.63 in., respectively.

Figure 7. Precipitation for Klamath Falls, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

WATER YEAR

0

1961196519701975198019851990199520002005

5

10

15

20

25

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

16  An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Time-Series Trend Analysis

Trends in the four canal diversions (fig. 8A–D), the 

three canal returns (fig. 9A–C), and flow records for the Link 

River were visually evaluated to gain insights into watermanagement changes related to the Klamath Project and the 

National Wildlife Refuges over the 44-year period. Trends in 

these eight flow records cannot be used to explain the waterbalance inconsistency because these same trends would be 

inherent in the downstream flow record (Klamath River at 

Keno), which also was used in the water-balance calculations 

and is assumed to be accurate. Nonetheless, the analysis 

of trends was included to determine whether known watermanagement changes are evident in the flow data. Also, the 

extent of possible error in the flow records could be assessed 

by noting how consistent or inconsistent the records were with 

each other. 

Canal Diversion Flows

With the exception of the Miller Hill Pumping Plant 

diversion on the Lost River Diversion Channel (fig. 8B), 

the records for the three other canal diversions show flow 

increases over time (figs. 8A, 8C, and 8D). The changes 

in flow rate can also be seen in a cumulative line plot of 

each of the canal diversions (fig. 10). The solid lines show 

cumulative measured flows. A change in the slope of these 

lines represents a change in the flow rate. The straight dotted 

trend lines show what the cumulative line plots would have 

looked like if there were no changes in the flow rate over time. 

By plotting the differences between the cumulative line plots 

and the trend lines (cumulative residuals) from figure 10, it is 

possible to more easily see changes, or breaks, in flow rates 

(fig. 11). Flow rates for both North and Ady Canals increased 

around 1984 and 1985. Flow rates for Station 48 increased 

around 1978 and again around 1991. Also, flow-rate changes 

for Station 48 and Ady Canal were greater and more abrupt 

than flow-rate changes for the North Canal. For Station 48, 

North Canal, and Ady Canal flow records, 1983–2004 mean 

annual diversion flows were about 16,000, 8,000, and 21,000 

acre-ft/yr greater than their 1961–82 mean annual diversion 

flows (table 7).

The increase in diversion flows possibly can be explained 

by known water-management changes that occurred over the 

44-year period. By the 1980s, many farms in the Klamath 

Project had converted from flood to sprinkler irrigation. If 

managed correctly, sprinkler irrigation can conserve water 

better than flood irrigation. However, total annual water 

use can increase when sprinkler irrigation is introduced 

because higher market value row crops (such as onions, 

potatoes, strawberries, and peppermint) that require more 

water are grown instead of nonrow crops (such as winter 

grain and annual hay) that require less water and were grown 

under flood irrigation. Conversion to sprinkler irrigation 

often changes overall farm management. Smaller, but more 

numerous, irrigation applications are applied to the crops. 

Applications are also made for frost control and preseason 

field preparation that would not have been made using flood 

irrigation (Mike Green, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath 

Falls, Oregon, oral commun., 2005).

Diversions at Station 48 increased significantly in the 

1990s (figs. 8A and 11) for two possible reasons. One could 

be related to increased sprinkler irrigation and increased 

row crop production in the Tulelake Irrigation District (Jerry 

Pyle, Tulelake Irrigation District, Tulelake, California, oral 

commun., 2005). More water was also needed for the Tule 

Lake Refuge. Flows from the Station 48 diversion flow to the 

refuge through the Lost River. As a result of an Endangered 

Species Act requirement, minimum water levels in Sump 1A 

and 1B were raised by 0.5 ft beginning in 1992 (Mike Green, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon, oral commun., 

2005).

The North and Ady Canals provide water to the KDD 

lands and the Lower Klamath Wildlife District. Flow 

diversions used for both winter (for mostly grain) and summer 

irrigation are shown in figures 8C and 8D. In the 1980s and 

1990s, summer irrigation was higher than in the 1960s and 

1970s. Some of the increased summer irrigation is likely a 

consequence of increased sprinkler irrigation and row crop 

production in farmlands served by these two canals (Mike 

Green, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon, oral 

commun., 2005).

Not all increased flows in Ady Canal at U.S. Highway 

97 were diverted to irrigation use. Ady Canal also provides 

water to the Lower Klamath Refuge. The flow record for the 

Ady Canal site located at Stateline Road (just upstream of 

the refuge) indicates that more autumn, winter, and spring 

water deliveries to the Lower Klamath Refuge in the 1990s 

than in earlier periods (fig. 12). These increased flows can 

also be seen in the Ady Canal at U.S. Highway 97 flow record 

(fig. 8D).

Time-Series Trend Analysis 17
Figure 8. Monthly flows in four diversion canals, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

orC1U00_fig08

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

8

6

4

2

0

A. Lost River Diversion Channel at Station 48

B. Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill Pumping Plant

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

10

8

6

4

2

0

C. North Canal at U.S. Highway 97

D. Ady Canal at U.S. Highway 97.

WATER YEAR

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

20

16

12

8

4

0

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

25

20

15

10

5

0

18 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Figure 9. Monthly flows in three return-flow canals, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004. 

orC1U00_fig09

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

WATER YEAR

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

50

40

30

20

10

0

A. Lost River Diversion Channel at Lost River Diversion Dam

B. Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill Pumping Plant

C. Klamath Straits Drain at F-FF Pumping Plant

Time-Series Trend Analysis 19
Figure 10. Cumulative monthly canal diversion flows for the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central 

Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

Figure 11. Cumulative residual monthly canal diversion flows for the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, southcentral Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

orC1U00_fig10

WATER YEAR

 0

1961196519701975198019851990199520002005

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

FLOW, IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

CUMULATIVE MEASURED FLOW

 Station 48

 Miller Hill Pumping Plant

 North Canal

 Ady Canal

TREND LINE

 Station 48

 Miller Hill Pumping Plant

 North Canal

 Ady Canal

WATER YEAR

1961196519701975198019851990199520002005

-300

-200

-100

 0

 100 FLOW, IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

Station 48

Miller Hill Pumping Plant

North Canal

Ady Canal

20 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Table 7. Mean monthly and mean annual diversion flows for the water-balance reach of the 

Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004.

[Values in thousand acre-feet; difference computed as the 1983–2004 period minus the 1961–82 period] 

Month

Lost River Diversion Channel 

Station 48

Lost River Diversion Channel

Miller Hill Pumping Plant

1961–82 1983–2004 Difference 1961–82 1983–2004 Difference

October 0.85 1.28 0.43 0.08 0.18 0.09

November .46 .41 -.05 .00 .00 .00

December .01 .05 .04 .00 .00 .00

January .00 .31 .31 .00 .00 .00

February .05 .18 .13 .00 .00 .00

March 2.82 2.34 -.48 .00 .00 .00

April 9.30 8.54 -.76 .24 .55 .31

May 2.97 7.34 4.37 2.98 2.96 -.02

June 16.38 17.52 1.14 4.53 4.04 -.49

July 13.14 17.47 4.33 5.46 5.22 -.25

August 5.58 11.09 5.52 4.18 4.53 .35

September 1.29 2.70 1.41 1.75 1.82 .06

Annual 52.85 69.22 16.37 19.23 19.28 0.05

Month

North Canal

U.S. Highway 97

Ady Canal

U.S. Highway 97

1961–82 1983–2004 Difference 1961–82 1983–2004 Difference

October 1.76 2.03 0.27 3.44 6.26 2.82

November 2.19 2.39 .20 3.28 6.11 2.83

December 2.89 4.10 1.21 5.41 7.84 2.43

January 4.21 3.99 -.22 9.55 9.27 -.27

February 2.19 2.16 -.03 4.48 6.15 1.67

March .61 1.28 .67 1.12 5.66 4.54

April .73 1.59 .86 2.13 4.41 2.28

May 1.65 2.50 .86 4.28 4.79 .52

June 3.11 4.35 1.24 6.98 8.29 1.30

July 3.70 5.17 1.47 8.96 8.83 -.13

August 3.19 3.63 .45 7.33 8.46 1.13

September 1.94 2.84 .90 5.76 7.52 1.76

Annual 28.17 36.04 7.87 62.72 83.60 20.88

Figure 12. Monthly flow for Ady Canal at Stateline Road, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

orC1U00_fig12

WATER YEAR

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

15

12

9

6

3

0

Time-Series Trend Analysis  21
Canal Return Flows

The most significant canal return flows in the water 

balance are the Lost River Diversion Channel at the Lost 

River Diversion Dam and Klamath Straits Drain at the F-FF 

Pumping Plant (figs. 9A and 9C). Return flow to the Lost 

River Diversion Channel at the Miller Hill Pumping Plant is 

insignificant by comparison (fig. 9B). Cumulative line and 

cumulative residual plots of the canal return flows are shown 

in figures 13 and 14, respectively. The Lost River Diversion 

Dam and, to a lesser extent, the F-FF Pumping Plant plots, 

show some correspondence to historical wet and dry periods 

Figure 13. Cumulative monthly canal return flows for the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central Oregon, 

water years 1961–2004.

WATER YEAR

1961

196519701975198019851990199520002005

FLOW, IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

CUMULATIVE MEASURED FLOW

 Lost River Diversion Dam

 Miller Hill Pumping Plant

 F-FF Pumping Plant

TREND LINES

 Lost River Diversion Dam

 Miller Hill Pumping Plant

 F-FF Pumping Plant

Figure 14. Cumulative residual monthly canal return flows for the water-balance reach of the Klamath River, south-central 

Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

WATER YEAR

1961196519701975198019851990199520002005

FLOW, IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

-200

 0

200

400

600

Lost River Diversion Dam

Miller Hill Pumping Plant

F-FF Pumping Plant

22  An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Table 8. Mean monthly and mean annual return flows for the water-balance reach of the 

Klamath River, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004.

[Values in thousand acre-feet; difference computed as the 1983–2004 period minus the 1961–82 period] 

Month

Link River 

Klamath Falls, Oregon

Lost River Diversion Channel

Lost River Diversion Dam

1961–82 1983–2004 Difference 1961–82 1983–2004 Difference

October 75.63 64.45 -11.18 13.80 9.50 -4.30

November 99.82 75.74 -24.09 9.22 5.90 -3.32

December 131.92 91.87 -40.05 15.09 9.86 -5.23

January 147.34 95.54 -51.81 18.79 15.24 -3.55

February 112.89 91.59 -21.30 18.03 19.97 1.94

March 132.05 130.19 -1.87 21.05 27.22 6.17

April 123.71 119.19 -4.52 16.77 15.71 -1.06

May 85.85 97.51 11.66 12.71 12.75 .04

June 53.47 76.53 23.06 11.91 7.94 -3.97

July 48.74 58.60 9.87 11.52 5.27 -6.24

August 47.34 53.94 6.60 14.85 7.59 -7.26

September 54.44 48.55 -5.89 15.72 11.88 -3.84

Annual 1,113.20 1,003.69 -109.51 179.46 148.82 -30.64

Month

Lost River Diversion Channel

Miller Hill Pumping Plant

Klamath Straits Drain

F-FF Pumping Plant

1961–82 1983–2004 Difference 1961–82 1983–2004 Difference

October 0.11 0.11 0.00 6.52 2.67 -3.86

November .00 .00 .00 11.77 4.69 -7.08

December .00 .00 .00 12.61 5.57 -7.04

January .00 .00 .00 11.82 7.39 -4.43

February .00 .00 .00 14.03 12.26 -1.78

March .00 .00 .00 18.39 17.21 -1.19

April .23 .23 .00 8.12 9.67 1.55

May .41 .41 .00 9.45 9.28 -.17

June .38 .38 .00 6.43 7.60 1.17

July .37 .37 .00 6.59 5.29 -1.30

August .49 .49 .00 7.19 6.24 -.95

September .40 .40 .00 7.10 5.36 -1.75

Annual 2.39 2.39 0.00 120.05 93.22 -26.84

in the upper Klamath Basin region. During wet periods (early 

1970s, early 1980s, and late 1990s), a significant portion 

of the return flows included storm runoff. Likewise, during 

dry periods (late 1970s, late 1980s to early 1990s, early 

2000s), return flows were lower. However, the F-FF Pumping 

Plant plots, and to a lesser extent the diversion at Lost River 

Diversion Dam plots, also show a definite overall change in 

water use over the 44-year period. For the period after the mid1980s, flows at both sites were reduced compared with the 

previous period from 1961 to the mid-1980s. Flows at the Lost 

River Diversion Channel at Lost River Diversion Dam and the 

F-FF Pumping Plant decreased by about 31,000 and 27,000 

acre-ft/yr, respectively, for the 1983–2004 period compared 

with the 1961–82 period (table 8).

Several of the decreased flows in the 1983–2004 record 

for the Lost River Diversion Channel at Lost River Diversion 

Dam (relative to flows in the 1961–82 record) occurred in 

summer and autumn (table 8). Many farms upstream of the 

Lost River Diversion Dam in the Poe and Langell valleys had 

converted from flood to sprinkler irrigation by the early 1980s. 

Flows in the Lost River into 

Lost River Diversion Dam 

would be expected to decrease 

during the summer-autumn 

irrigation season because 

return flows from sprinkler 

irrigated fields are significantly 

less than return flows from 

flood-irrigated fields (Jerry 

Pyle, Tulelake Irrigation 

District, Tulelake, California, 

oral commun., 2005).

Decreased summer and 

autumn flows mostly starting 

in the 1980s are also evident 

in the Straits Drain at F-FF 

Pumping Plant flow record 

(fig. 9C). After construction 

of the FF pumping plant in 

1979, it was possible to control 

water levels in the Lower 

Klamath Wildlife Refuge in 

a more deliberative manner 

than in the past. More water 

was held in the refuge for 

autumn and winter flooding. 

As a result, autumn and winter 

flows decreased in the Straits 

Drain (John Hicks, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Klamath 

Falls, oral commun., 2005). 

Also, starting in 1992, more 

water was retained in the 

Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge as 

the water levels in Sump 1A 

and 1B were raised because 

of Endangered Species Act 

requirements, and less water 

was pumped over to the Lower 

Klamath Wildlife Refuge.

Time-Series Trend Analysis  23
Link River at Klamath Falls 

The cumulative monthly Link River flows for water 

years 1961–2004 are shown in figure 15. Similar to the 

cumulative canal return flows, trend fluctuations that mirror 

the historical wet and dry periods are apparent. A comparison 

of flows during the last 20 years with the first 24 years of 

the 1961–2004 period indicates an overall decrease in flows 

during the last 20 years (fig. 15). This is partly a consequence 

of flow data error discussed earlier. However, flow changes 

in the trend plot for the Link River also reflect changes in 

the management of the Upper Klamath Lake and releases 

from Link River Dam (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000; 2006). 

Prior to the 1990s, Link River Dam releases were made in the 

interest of maintaining sufficient supply for “A” Canal (located 

above Link River), Lost River Diversion Channel, North 

Canal, and Ady Canal irrigation diversions and downstream 

hydropower demands. By the 1990s, Link River releases were 

also made for the purposes of maintaining minimum lake 

level elevations and for ensuring sufficient spring and summer 

downstream flows. As a consequence, winter and early spring 

Link River Dam releases were significantly reduced in the 

1990s compared with earlier decades. More water was held 

back in Upper Klamath Lake during this part of the year than 

had been in the past. Aside from Link River, the other main 

diversion from the lake is through the “A” Canal at Klamath 

Falls. Diversions through the “A” Canal have been generally 

constant over time. They were only slightly decreased, about 8 

percent, during water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004 (table 9; 

fig. 16).

Figure 15. Cumulative monthly flow at Link River at Klamath Falls, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

WATER YEAR

 0

1961196519701975

1980

19851990199520002005

FLOW, IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

CUMULATIVE MEASURED FLOW

TREND LINE

24  An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Figure 16. Monthly flow through the “A” Canal at Klamath Falls, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–2004.

orC1U00_fig16

WATER YEAR

MONTH

1961196519701975198019851990199520002004

S

A

J

J

M

A

M

F

J

D

N

O

EXPLANATION

Flow, in thousands

 of acre-feet per

 month

75

60

45

30

15

0

Table 9. Mean monthly and mean annual flows through the “A” 

Canal, Klamath Falls, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 

and 1983–2004.

[Values in thousand acre-feet] 

Month 1961-82 1983-2004 Difference

October 11.06 10.33 -0.73

November .00 .00 .00

December .00 .00 .00

January .00 .00 .00

February .00 .00 .00

March .00 .03 .03

April 14.05 17.48 3.43

May 43.87 37.55 -6.32

June 52.60 45.08 -7.52

July 59.26 52.75 -6.51

August 50.92 49.34 -1.58

September 36.68 33.89 -2.78

Annual 268.44 246.45 -21.99

Time-Series Trend Analysis  25
Discussion

As discussed earlier and shown in table 4, the absolute 

difference (or error) between net water-balance mean annual 

volumes for the first and second 22-year periods is 103,000 

acre-ft. This value can be considered the magnitude of 

the water-balance inconsistency. Possible reasons for the 

inconsistency are listed in table 2. For purposes of identifying 

Klamath River at Keno

Another indication of water-management changes in 

the Klamath Project and the National Wildlife Refuges over 

the 44-year period can be seen in the USGS flow record for 

Klamath River at Keno, Oregon (table 10). Mean annual flows 

for the second 22-year period (water years 1983–2004) were 

about 109,000 acre-ft less than in the first 22-year period 

(water years 1961–82). This decrease is not likely an artifact 

of climate because the two 22-year climate periods were 

similar (fig. 7). Nor would the decrease be a consequence of 

flow record quality because this flow record had always been 

rated as “excellent” or “good.” Changes in the operation of 

Upper Klamath Lake and trends in the canal diversion and 

return flows would be the most likely explanation for the 

differences.

Table 10. Mean monthly and mean annual flows for the Klamath 

River at Keno, south-central Oregon, water years 1961–82 and 

1983–2004.

[Values in thousand acre-feet] 

Month 1961–82 1983–2004 Difference

October 85.92 68.41 -17.51

November 111.55 82.01 -29.54

December 148.08 102.59 -45.49

January 159.86 113.11 -46.75

February 137.25 123.68 -13.58

March 166.47 174.94 8.47

April 133.03 134.40 1.37

May 86.61 100.98 14.37

June 31.06 56.18 25.12

July 24.23 29.62 5.39

August 39.73 38.93 -.80

September 60.09 49.89 -10.21

Annual 1,183.87 1,074.72 -109.15

the cause and source of the water-balance inconsistency in this 

study, several assumptions can be made:

Ground-water levels have not increased during the 44-

year study period. It is unlikely, therefore, that groundwater inflows to the river have increased and that 

they could be a significant factor in the water-balance 

inconsistency.

The magnitude of undocumented diversion and return 

flows in the study reach (flows not included in the 

water balance) is insignificant relative to the waterbalance inconsistency.

The USGS flow record for the Klamath River at Keno, 

Oregon (the downstream streamflow-gaging station 

in the water balance), has been rated “excellent” 

or “good” throughout its history. Error in this 

record is insignificant relative to the water-balance 

inconsistency.

The USGS flow records for the Link River and 

westside power canal have been rated “excellent” 

or “good” throughout their history. Although these 

records were not used in the water balance, they can 

be used to assess some of the error in the ReclamationPacifiCorp record for the Link River.

On the basis of these assumptions, the probable cause of 

the water-balance inconsistency is error in the eight diversion 

and return-flow records. Part of the 103,000 acre-ft waterbalance inconsistency can be explained by an 11,000 acre-ft/yr 

error in the westside power canal flow record for water years 

1984–2004. Another part can be explained by a 32,000 acre-ft 

error in the river flow portion of the Link River flow record. 

A residual of 60,000 acre-ft of error could then be distributed 

among the seven other returns and diversions: the Lost River 

Diversion Channel Lost River Diversion Dam return, Lost 

River Diversion Channel Miller Hill Pumping Plant return, 

Klamath Straits Drain F-FF Pumping Plant return, North 

Canal diversion, Ady Canal diversion, Lost River Diversion 

Channel Station 48 diversion, and Lost River Diversion 

Channel Miller Hill Pumping Plant diversion. Some of the 

60,000 acre-ft of error might also be in the Link River flow 

record; the magnitude of the Link River flow is many times 

greater than that of the seven other flow magnitudes. Detailed 

data-collection documentation that could be used to identify 

specific sources of error during the 44-year period in the seven 

flow records is unavailable. However, it is notable, or possibly 

coincidental, that the error bias in all seven flow records is 

consistent among them and with known water-management 

changes in the Klamath Project and National Wildlife Refuges. 

All diversion flows increased over time, and all return flows 

decreased over time. 

•

•

•

•

26  An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Summary and Conclusions

A 2005 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of 

the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Klamath Pilot Water 

Bank program found inconsistencies in the river and canal 

flow records from sites along the Klamath River between 

Klamath Falls and Keno, Oregon, for water years 1961–2004. 

The sum of flows through eight diversions and returns was 

subtracted from flows at a downstream streamflow-gaging 

station to compute a surface-water balance for this reach of 

the river. Four diversion flows in the equation included Lost 

River Diversion Channel at Station 48, Lost River Diversion 

Channel at Miller Hill Pumping Plant, North Canal at U.S. 

Highway 97, and Ady Canal at U.S. Highway 97. Four return 

flows in the equation included Link River at Klamath Falls, 

Lost River Diversion Channel at Lost River Diversion Dam, 

Lost River Diversion Channel at Miller Hill Pumping Plant, 

and Klamath Straits Drain at F-FF Pumping Plants. The 

Klamath River USGS streamflow-gaging station at Keno, 

Oregon (11509500) was the downstream flow-measurement 

site for the water-balance equation. The water balance showed 

that the study reach was losing flow in the 1960s and 1970s, 

and gaining flow in 1980s and 1990s. For the first and second 

22-year periods (water years 1961–82 and 1983–2004), the 

mean annual net water-balance flows were -68,000 and 35,000 

acre-feet (acre-ft), respectively. The absolute difference in 

flows between the two periods was 103,000 acre-feet per year 

(acre-ft/yr).

Possible explanations for the water-balance inconsistency 

between the early and late periods include (1) error in the 

flow-data records included in the water balance, (2) changes 

in undocumented surface-water inflows and outflows not 

included in the water balance, and (3) changes in ground-water 

exchange with the river.

In this study, the data quality of all flow records used in 

the water balance was evaluated using USGS criteria for flow 

accuracy. With the exception of the USGS Klamath River 

at Keno record, which was rated as “good” or “excellent,” 

the eight other flow records were rated as “poor.” All eight 

flow records were from non-USGS sites and had insufficient 

data-collection documentation. Other than for the Link 

River flow record, there was no evidence of abrupt changes 

in data-collection procedures in the flow records during the 

44-year period that could have explained the water-balance 

inconsistency. The Reclamation-PacifiCorp Link River 

record included both river and westside power canal flows. 

Because of rating curve biases, the river flows could have been 

overestimated by 25,000 acre-ft/yr on average during water 

years 1961–82, and underestimated by 7,000 acre-ft/yr on 

average during water years 1983–2004. For water years 1984–

2004, the canal flows were in error by about 11,000 acre-ft/yr. 

These errors in the Link River flow record (combined river 

and canal) explained part, but not all, of the water-balance 

inconsistency.

 Smaller undocumented surface-water diversion and 

return flows along the Klamath River that were in the study 

area reach and not included in the water-balance equation 

were evaluated. These diversion flows included individual 

withdrawals from the Klamath River for irrigation and 

industrial use. Return flows included drainage from irrigation, 

storm runoff, discharge from wood-products processing plants, 

and effluent from wastewater-treatment plants. There was no 

evidence of abrupt changes in the flows of these diversions 

and returns that could have explained the water-balance 

inconsistency. The cumulative magnitude of the undocumented 

flows also was too small to explain the inconsistency.

Climate data and ground-water level data from wells 

in or near the study reach did not show an increasing trend 

during the 44-year period of record that would have caused an 

increase in ground-water discharge to the river mean annual 

water year precipitation at Klamath Falls for 1961–82 and 

1983–2004 was 13.3 and 13.8 in., respectively, which is a 

difference of less than 5 percent.

Trends in the eight diversion and return-flow records 

used in the water balance were evaluated to determine whether 

known changes in water-management practices in the Klamath 

Project and Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife 

Refuges during the 44-year period are evident in the flow 

data. Although trends related to water management cannot 

explain water-balance inconsistencies (the same trends would 

be reflected in the most downstream flow record, Klamath 

River at Keno), the analysis was included to determine 

whether management changes were apparent in the flow data 

and whether possible data error could be detected by noting 

inconsistencies among measurement sites. Many of the watermanagement changes were implemented in the early 1980s. 

Mean annual diversion flows at Station 48, North Canal, and 

Ady Canal during water years 1983–2004 increased over 

1961–82 by 16,000, 8,000, and 21,000 acre-ft/yr, respectively. 

Conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation actually 

increased total irrigation use in some of the lands serviced by 

these canals by enabling production of crops with a higher 

consumptive use. Additionally, summer crop production was 

implemented in some fields that had been used solely for 

winter wheat production. Some of the increased Station 48 and 

Ady Canal flows were also used to accommodate increased 

water use in both the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake refuges. 

The conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation also resulted 

in a significant reduction in return flows in the 1980s and 

1990s. Mean annual flows at the Lost River Diversion Channel 

at Lost River Diversion Dam and the Klamath Straits Drain at 

F-FF Pumping Plant for water years 1983–2004 decreased by 

31,000 and 27,000 acre-ft, respectively, compared with water 

Summary and Conclusions  27
years 1961–82. Releases through the Link River Dam in the 

1990s also were reduced to maintain minimum lake elevations 

for fish habitat.

The probable cause of the water-balance inconsistency 

was error in the eight diversion and return-flow data records; 

however, data-collection documentation during the 44-year 

period was insufficient to determine which flow record, or 

records, contained most of the error. Some of the 103,000 

acre-ft water-balance inconsistency can be explained by 

a 32,000 acre-ft error in the river flow portion of the Link 

River flow record. Another portion can be explained by an 

11,000 acre-ft/yr error in the westside power canal flow 

record, included in the Link River flow record, for water years 

1984–2004. The cause of the remaining 60,000 acre-ft of 

error could not be determined. Some of it could still be in the 

Reclamation-PacifiCorp flow record for the Link River, and 

some might be distributed among the seven other flow records. 

Coincidentally, the error bias in all eight flow records was 

consistent among the sites and with known water-management 

changes in the Klamath Project and National Wildlife Refuges.

From the analysis of flow data in this study, it is evident 

that an improved water measurement network is warranted to 

better understand both natural and anthropogenic impacts on 

the hydrologic system. In particular, this analysis described 

errors in the Link River flow record that can be corrected in 

Reclamation’s hydrologic database to ensure that any historic 

analyses of these data and the computation of Upper Klamath 

Lake monthly net inflows are based on sound hydrologic data.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jon Hicks, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Klamath Falls; John Rasmussen, formerly with the Bureau 

of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon; Beau Freeman, 

Irrigation Training and Research Center, California 

Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, and 

Daniel Snyder, USGS Oregon Water Science Center for their 

assistance in this study.

References Cited

Broad, T.M., and Collins, C.A., 1996, Estimated water use and 

general hydrologic conditions for Oregon, 1985 and 1990: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 96–4080, 166 p.

Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Klamath project historic operation: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Klamath Basin Area 

Office, 98 p.

Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, Welcome to the Klamath Basin 

Area Office: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/, modified May 

24, 2006, accessed on May 25, 2006.

Burt, C., and Freeman, B., 2003, Klamath Basin investigation—Hydrologic assessment of the Upper Klamath Basin, 

Issues and opportunities, Draft report, May 2003: San Luis 

Obispo, California, Irrigation Training and Research Center, 

California Polytechnic State University, 274 p.

Freeman, B., Hicks, J., and Burt, C., 2005, Leveraging 

SCADA to modernize operations in the Klamath irrigation 

project, in Proceedings of the SCADA and Related Technologies for Irrigation District Modernization Conference, 

Vancouver, Washington, October 26–29, 2005: The U.S. 

Society for Irrigation and Drainage Professionals, Denver, 

Colorado, 14 p.

PacifiCorp, 2005, Klamath River water quality model implementation, calibration, and validation, Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082), Response to November 10, 2005, FERC AIR GN-2, (Version: Dec. 2005, Dec. 

16, 2005, FERC filing): Portland, Oregon, PacifiCorp, 

455 p.

Sammuel, E.A., 1980, Hydrogeological appraisal of the Klamath Falls geothermal area: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1044-G, 45 p.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, Census Bureau home page: http://

www.census.gov, accessed July 5, 2005.

28 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon
Manuscript approved for publication, August 17, 2006

Prepared by the USGS Publishing Network, 

Publishing Service Center, Tacoma, Washington

Bill Gibbs 

Linda Rogers

Bobbie Jo Richey

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Oregon Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

10615 SE Cherry Blossom Drive 

Portland, Oregon 97216

http://or.water.usgs.gov
Printed on recycled paper

Risley and others SIR 2006–5212 An Assessment of Flow Data from Klamath River Sites Between Link River Dam and Keno Dam, South-Central Oregon