Laserfiche WebLink
rr � •�� <br />processes of dispersion, diffusion, and advection, the lumped para- <br />meter model is easier to apply to the entire lower valley because of <br />the reduced data requirements. Hukkinen (1993) suggests another <br />modeling option that has "simpler data requirements. He suggests that <br />a "microscale" local model such as the Konikow and Bredehoeft <br />(1978) model could be used for different areas within the Arkansas <br />River valley. Then the results could be combined and used as input <br />to a "macroscale" model such as the Interactive Accounting Model <br />established for the Arkansas River valley (Burns 1989). This would <br />allow both site - specific and generalized basin -wide data to be <br />used. By using this process, the basin -wide water quality impact of <br />local irrigation practices could be anticipated in a more realistic fash- <br />ion than if only generalized basin -wide data were used ( Hukkinen <br />1993). In the absence of additional detailed studies and because some <br />significant differences exist between the characteristics of the study <br />area and those of the valley both upstream and downstream from <br />the study area, reliable quantitative extrapolations from the detailed <br />study area to the entire valley cannot be made. <br />One finding from this study is that there is a relatively large <br />improvement in water quality resulting from all of the proposed <br />change in irrigation practices. This strongly suggests that, with <br />more widespread reductions in irrigation, downstream irrigators <br />could realize some benefit from lower salinity irrigation water. <br />These benefits could include increases in crop yields and the abil- <br />ity to grow crops that are less salt tolerant and have a higher cash <br />value. <br />Conclusions <br />The quantity and quality of streamflow and ground water in the <br />lower Arkansas River valley of Colorado are closely associated with <br />agricultural irrigation practices. Results of ground water flow and <br />solute transport modeling indicate that a decrease in withdrawals <br />from ground water sources or a decrease in irrigated acreage could <br />substantially affect ground water salinity as well as affect the quan- <br />tity and quality of water in the Arkansas River. <br />Three scenarios of decreased ground water pumping for ini- <br />gation were simulated: (1) 25% decrease; (2) 50% decrease; and (3) <br />100% decrease. The major results of these scenarios include the fol- <br />lowing: <br />a. Decreased pumping resulted in decreased salinity in the aquifer. <br />b. Complete cessation of pumping in the study area resulted in a <br />150 mg/L ( -6.9 %) decrease in average monthly ground water <br />salinity; a 10 mg/L ( — 0.6 %) decrease in average monthly <br />river salinity; and a 0.02 m /s (11.1 %) increase in average <br />monthly streamflow gain. <br />c. Ground water levels were relatively insensitive to decreased <br />ground water pumping. <br />d. The primary mechanism for the decreases in salinity was <br />decreased reuse of ground water that resulted in less evapoc- <br />oncentration of dissolved salts. <br />centage of the total irrigated area on which irrigation was <br />ceased. <br />b. Decreasing irrigated acreage by 100% within the study area <br />resulted in a 550 mg/L ( — 25 %) decrease in average monthly <br />ground water salinity and an 80 mg/L (— 4.4 %) decrease in <br />average monthly river salinity. <br />c. The maximum decrease in ground water salinity occurred <br />about 12 years into the simulation period, which corresponds <br />closely to the hydraulic residence time of the aquifer. <br />d. Ground water levels were relatively insensitive to decreases in <br />irrigated acreage. <br />e. For a 100% decrease in irrigated acreage, model scenarios with <br />and without flow in the canal varied little with respect to their <br />affect on salinity in the river and aquifer. <br />f. A 100% decrease in irrigated acreage, with and without flow <br />in the canal, substantially decreased base flow contributions to <br />the river. Average monthly streamflow gains decreased to <br />0.06 m3 /s ( — 64 %) and 0.03 m3 /s (— 86 %), respectively. <br />Because the model simulations were applied to a relatively <br />small area, the effects of changes in irrigation on the entire lower <br />Arkansas River valley are not easy to estimate. Even without for - <br />Mal b eg in - cx asact s -e-xp ncle-d decteas in in� <br />area or in ground water pumpage would be expected to further <br />decrease salinity in both the alluvial aquifer and the Arkansas <br />River. This conclusion is based on model results that indicate salin- <br />ity decreases as irrigated acreage or the amount of ground water <br />pumped is decreased. With lower salinity irrigation water, crop yields <br />may increase and less salt tolerant crops that have a higher cash value <br />may be grown. Additionally, the model represents a valuable tool <br />that can be used to better define the conceptual model of the rela- <br />tions between irrigation and salinity. This conceptual model could <br />be transferable to other irrigated semiarid environments outside of <br />the Arkansas River valley and might be used to indicate the direc- <br />tion and relative magnitude of changes in salinity in response to <br />decreased irrigation. <br />Acknowledgments <br />This work was conducted as part of the U.S. Geological <br />Survey's evaluation of the Water -Quality Effects of Water Operations <br />in the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado. Additional financial sup- <br />port was provided by the Gibson Hydrogeology Endowment at the <br />University of Minnesota and the McKnight Foundation. We would <br />like to thank the landowners who allowed us to sample their wells, <br />and L.D. Holt of the Southeast Colorado Power Association for sup- <br />plying power consumption data. Assistance in drafting one of the <br />figures was provided by Paul Morin at the Department of Geology <br />and Geophysics at the University of Minnesota. Stanley G. Robson, <br />Martha Scholl, and the three anonymous reviewers for this journal <br />provided many helpful comments. <br />Four scenarios of decreased irrigated acreage were simulated: <br />ceasing of irrigation on (1) sub -area 1 (20% of irrigated acreage); <br />(2) sub -area 2 (33% of irrigated acreage); (3) sub -area 3 (47% of <br />irrigated acreage); and (4) all irrigated acreage. Each of these sce- <br />narios were simulated with flow in the irrigation canal. Scenario 4, <br />where all irrigation was ceased, was also simulated without flow in <br />the canal. The major results of these scenarios include the following: <br />a. Drying up irrigated land resulted in decreased salinity in the <br />aquifer and river. These decreases were related to the per- <br />References <br />Adkins, R. 1996. Overview —The future of the river. Colorado Water: <br />Newsletter of the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute 13, <br />no. 1:15 -17. <br />Barroll, Dr. M. 1996. Interview by author, October, New Mexico State <br />Engineers Office. Santa Fe, New Mexico. <br />Batie, S.S., and R.G. Healy. 1983. The future of American agriculture. <br />Scientific American 248, no. 2: 45 -53. <br />Bouwer, H. 1994. Irrigation and global water outlook. Elsevier Agricultural <br />Water Management 25: 221 -231. <br />85 <br />