Water storage can look stable at the statewide level while conditions vary sharply from one reservoir to another. On March 26, 2026, Texas reservoirs were reported at 73.9% full, with 27,086,813 acre-feet stored against 31,531,332 acre-feet of conservation capacity. The individual figures below are a dated snapshot from Water Data for Texas, and they should be read as measurements for the stated dates rather than a current forecast.
Contents
- Statewide water storage
- Highest reported storage levels
- Lowest reported storage levels
- Large reservoirs and stored volume
- Mid-range storage conditions
- How to read the figures
Statewide water storage
The Water Data for Texas statewide figure was 73.9% full on March 26, 2026. Reported storage was 27,086,813 acre-feet, compared with 31,531,332 acre-feet of conservation capacity. An acre-foot is a volume measurement used for large water stores; the figures here retain the source’s original unit so the reservoir values can be compared consistently.
The statewide percentage does not describe every reservoir equally. The same March 26 report included reservoirs below 10% full, reservoirs above 95% full, and many sites between those extremes. A statewide total is therefore useful for broad context, while local storage percentages are more useful for understanding a particular water supply or region.
Two records use dates or capacity conventions that need special attention. Caddo Lake was reported on March 9, 2026, at 100.0% full, with 138,546 acre-feet stored against 29,898 acre-feet of Texas-share conservation capacity. Its capacity label is not the same as a simple whole-reservoir capacity label. Athens Reservoir was reported at 100.0% full with 29,936 acre-feet stored against 29,503 acre-feet of capacity, showing that displayed percentages and stored-versus-capacity figures do not always align perfectly when rounded or calculated under source-specific reporting conventions.
Highest reported storage levels
Several reservoirs were reported at or near full capacity on March 26. The following compact comparison keeps both the displayed percentage and the source-reported volumes together.
| Reservoir | Full | Stored | Capacity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Athens | 100.0% | 29,936 acre-ft | 29,503 acre-ft |
| Bardwell | 100.0% | 45,248 acre-ft | 43,856 acre-ft |
| Cherokee | 100.0% | 45,953 acre-ft | 40,094 acre-ft |
| Comanche Creek | 99.7% | 150,830 acre-ft | 151,250 acre-ft |
| Granbury | 98.5% | 131,908 acre-ft | 132,949 acre-ft |
| Cypress Springs | 97.6% | 65,180 acre-ft | 66,756 acre-ft |
| Gibbons Creek | 97.3% | 26,740 acre-ft | 25,721 acre-ft |
| Crook | 97.1% | 8,939 acre-ft | 9,195 acre-ft |
Source: Water Data for Texas.
Belton Reservoir was 96.9% full, with 419,101 acre-feet stored against 432,631 acre-feet of capacity. Austin Reservoir was 96.1% full, with 23,643 acre-feet stored against 23,972 acre-feet of capacity. B. A. Steinhagen Reservoir was 95.8% full, with 66,330 acre-feet stored against 69,186 acre-feet of capacity. Arlington Reservoir was 95.6% full, with 38,411 acre-feet stored against 40,157 acre-feet of capacity.
Brady Creek Reservoir was listed at 95.4% full, with 29,100 acre-feet stored against 28,808 acre-feet of capacity. Bob Sandlin Reservoir was 94.0% full, with 191,672 acre-feet stored against 192,417 acre-feet of capacity. Buchanan Reservoir was 94.2% full, with 830,140 acre-feet stored against 866,694 acre-feet of capacity. Conroe Reservoir was 94.7% full, with 395,277 acre-feet stored against 417,577 acre-feet of capacity.
Other high readings included Aquilla Reservoir at 92.9% full, with 40,193 acre-feet stored against 43,243 acre-feet of capacity; Bois d’Arc Reservoir at 88.9%, with 326,913 acre-feet against 367,609 acre-feet; and Fork Reservoir at 87.6%, with 562,162 acre-feet against 606,088 acre-feet. These figures show why a percentage alone is not enough: Fork’s stored volume was much larger than Aquilla’s even though Aquilla had the higher percentage.
Lowest reported storage levels
The lowest reported percentages in the supplied March 26 snapshot were Greenbelt Reservoir at 7.3% full and Choke Canyon Reservoir at 7.8% full. Greenbelt held 4,826 acre-feet against 59,968 acre-feet of capacity. Choke Canyon held 51,984 acre-feet against 662,820 acre-feet of capacity.
Abilene Reservoir was 3.6% full, with 285 acre-feet stored against 7,900 acre-feet of capacity. Corpus Christi Reservoir was 9.0% full, with 23,410 acre-feet against 256,062 acre-feet. E. V. Spence Reservoir was 11.7% full, with 60,284 acre-feet against 517,272 acre-feet. Elephant Butte Reservoir was 12.6% full, with 250,228 acre-feet against 1,985,900 acre-feet.
Falcon Reservoir was 19.9% full, with 354,653 acre-feet stored against 1,562,367 acre-feet of capacity. Amistad Reservoir was 31.7% full, with 624,633 acre-feet against 1,813,408 acre-feet. Champion Creek Reservoir was 40.3% full, with 16,740 acre-feet against 41,580 acre-feet. Cisco Reservoir was 47.4% full, with 13,756 acre-feet against 29,003 acre-feet.
These low percentages do not all represent the same absolute amount of water. Amistad, Falcon, and Elephant Butte each stored hundreds of thousands of acre-feet despite being below 32% full, while Abilene stored only 285 acre-feet. For preparedness planning, the relevant measure depends on the question: percentage indicates remaining capacity relative to the reported baseline, while acre-feet indicates the reported volume.
Large reservoirs and stored volume
The largest stored-volume figures in this snapshot were concentrated in a smaller group of reservoirs. Buchanan held 830,140 acre-feet at 94.2% full. Amistad held 624,633 acre-feet at 31.7%. Fork held 562,162 acre-feet at 87.6%, and Cedar Creek held 545,566 acre-feet at 84.6% against 644,686 acre-feet of capacity.
Belton held 419,101 acre-feet at 96.9%. Conroe held 395,277 acre-feet at 94.7%. Falcon held 354,653 acre-feet at 19.9%, while Bois d’Arc held 326,913 acre-feet at 88.9%. Bridgeport Reservoir held 317,346 acre-feet at 85.3%, compared with 372,183 acre-feet of capacity.
Brownwood Reservoir was 82.4% full, with 107,786 acre-feet stored against 130,868 acre-feet of capacity. Arrowhead Reservoir was 80.9% full, with 186,453 acre-feet against 230,359 acre-feet. Eagle Mountain Reservoir was 83.3% full, with 154,154 acre-feet against 185,087 acre-feet. Canyon Reservoir was 59.2% full, with 224,472 acre-feet against 378,781 acre-feet.
The contrast between Amistad and Buchanan is especially clear in the supplied figures. Buchanan’s displayed percentage was 94.2%, while Amistad’s was 31.7%; nevertheless, both had more than 600,000 acre-feet stored. That comparison illustrates why a storage percentage should be paired with a volume and a capacity whenever possible.
Mid-range storage conditions
Many reservoirs fell between roughly 50% and 90% full. Alan Henry Reservoir was 83.1% full, with 79,915 acre-feet stored against 96,207 acre-feet of capacity. Coleman Reservoir was also 83.1% full, with 31,650 acre-feet against 38,075 acre-feet. Benbrook Reservoir was 82.7% full, with 70,829 acre-feet against 85,648 acre-feet, and Brownwood was 82.4% full as noted above.
Eagle Mountain was 83.3% full. Arrowhead was 80.9%. Graham Reservoir was 78.1% full, with 35,387 acre-feet stored against 45,288 acre-feet. Georgetown Reservoir was 76.4% full, with 29,082 acre-feet against 38,005 acre-feet. Bonham Reservoir was 76.3% full, with 8,421 acre-feet against 11,027 acre-feet, while Halbert Reservoir was 75.6% full, with 4,562 acre-feet against 6,033 acre-feet.
Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir was 71.9% full, with 50,333 acre-feet against 70,030 acre-feet. Texas’s Coleto Creek Reservoir was 75.9% full, with 23,545 acre-feet against 31,040 acre-feet. Colorado City Reservoir was 53.6% full, with 16,489 acre-feet against 30,758 acre-feet. Hords Creek Reservoir was 54.9% full, with 4,453 acre-feet against 8,109 acre-feet.
The middle range also includes reservoirs with materially different scales. Colorado City and Hords Creek were both near the mid-50% range, but their stored volumes were 16,489 and 4,453 acre-feet respectively. Cedar Creek, at 84.6%, held 545,566 acre-feet. Comparing both fields helps readers avoid treating a percentage as if it were a direct measure of community supply or total water available.
How to read the figures
First, check the measurement date. Most values in this report were recorded on March 26, 2026, while the Caddo Lake value was recorded on March 9, 2026. Conditions can change after either date, so these figures are historical snapshots rather than a live status report or forecast.
Second, keep the geography attached to the number. The statewide total describes Texas reservoirs collectively. Individual entries describe named reservoirs, and Caddo Lake is specifically expressed with Texas-share conservation capacity. Those scopes should not be blended into one undifferentiated comparison.
Third, record all three fields when planning: displayed fullness, stored acre-feet, and reported capacity. A 90% full reservoir can hold less water than a 30% full reservoir if their capacities differ greatly. The March 26 figures for Amistad and Buchanan demonstrate that directly, as do the readings for Abilene and Elephant Butte.
Finally, treat the source labels as part of the statistic. The measurements and descriptions in this article are attributed to Water Data for Texas, with the dates and capacity wording retained where supplied. They provide useful context for everyday preparedness, but they do not by themselves establish household water availability, local restrictions, water quality, or a future supply estimate.