My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Stimulated Effects of Irrigation on Salinity in the Arkansas River Valley in CO
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Stimulated Effects of Irrigation on Salinity in the Arkansas River Valley in CO
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2010 2:54:25 PM
Creation date
6/28/2010 4:31:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
ARCA
State
CO
KS
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
1/1/1998
Author
Ground Water Vol. 36(1), Karin Goff, Michael E. Lewis, Mark A. Person, Leonard F. Konikow
Title
Stimulated Effects of Irrigation on Salinity in the Arkansas River Valley in CO
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.