My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RGDSS_Task8-1_ReviewPreviousWaterBudgets
CWCB
>
Decision Support Systems
>
DayForward
>
RGDSS_Task8-1_ReviewPreviousWaterBudgets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2011 8:35:33 AM
Creation date
7/16/2008 8:56:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Decision Support Systems
Title
RGDSS Task 8.1 - Review of Previous Water Budgets
Description
Memo containing results of the RGDSS water budget analysis
Decision Support - Doc Type
Task Memorandum
Date
4/24/2001
DSS Category
Surface Water
Water Budget
DSS
Rio Grande
Basin
Rio Grande
Contract/PO #
C153863
Grant Type
Non-Reimbursable
Bill Number
HB98-1189, SB99/173
Prepared By
Leonard Rice Engineering
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Direct comparison of the previous water budget investigation results to the RGDSS results is made <br />difficult due to: <br />Different study areas (Figure 1: San Luis Valley, Alamosa Basin, Closed Basin, RGDSS <br />Ground Water Area), <br />Different study periods (1924-69, 1950-80, 1970-87, 1950-97, and variable periods <br />representing long-term averages). <br />2. Based on our review, the water budget items with the greatest uncertainty are ground water inflows <br />from the San Juan Mountains and consumptive use estimates from evapotranspiration. Given the <br />magnitude of these water budget items, a 10 to 20% estimation error can result in a significant <br />amount of water. <br />Of the five water budget investigations, the Hearne and Dewey water budget was the most complete <br />in addressing the water budget components of the entire basin and using a consistent period for each <br />water budget item to determine an average. However, the water budget did not balance for the <br />Alamosa Basin because the computed residual water budget item, ground water outflow, was <br />computed to be 345 kaf/yr, which they determined to be unreasonable given the aquifer <br />characteristics. We agree with the authors that the large imbalance can be attributed to estimation <br />errors of other items such as San Juan ground water inflows and evapotranspiration. <br />4. Direct comparison of the non-beneficial consumptive use component between the RGDSS Ground <br />Water Area water budget analysis and the previous five water budget investigations is made difficult <br />because of the large discrepancy in beneficial consumptive use estimates. Based on our review of <br />the five previous water budget investigations, we believe the beneficial consumptive use component <br />reflected total potential consumptive use -the amount of water the irrigated crops would use if they <br />had a full water supply available from a combination of effective precipitation, irrigation water, and <br />shallow ground water. The RGDSS supply-limited consumptive use analyses estimated abasin-wide <br />crop shortage of approximately 20 percent. <br />rg_task8-1_2001-08.doc 19 of 19 Apri16, 2001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.