My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00116
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
Backfile
>
WMOD00116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:27:58 PM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:13:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Sponsor Name
MWDSC
Project Name
Weather Modification White Paper
Title
Weather Modification for Precipitation Augmentation and Its Potential Usefulness to the Colorado River Basin States
Prepared For
Colorado River 7 Basin States
Prepared By
Tom Ryan - Metro Water District of Southern California
Date
10/1/2005
Weather Modification - Doc Type
Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
<br />Recently Colorado utilized a WDMP grant to evaluate the Denver Water Cloud Seeding <br />Program using a numerical model for the 2003-04 season. <br /> <br />The CWCB, with assistance from Reclamation and consultants, has recently started a <br />Colorado Winter Storm Climatology Study. This study builds on previous work in <br />several mountain ranges by Dr. Edmond W. Holroyd of Reclamation. The project uses <br />NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis climate and weather <br />data to characterize SL W, temperature, and terrain in various mountain ranges for <br />seeding potential throughout Colorado. The study will also examine climatological <br />snowstorm variability and past relevant literature on SL W, and should be completed in <br />early 2006. <br /> <br />Approximately 70% of Colorado's water is supplied by snowmelt runoff (Sherretz and <br />Loehr, 1983), and mountain snow is extremely valuable because winter sports have <br />surpassed agriculture as the state's leading industry. Six major runoff-producing areas <br />within the Colorado River Basin have a total high-water yield area (areas of concentrated <br />and abundant snowfall accumulation) of 58,500 square kilometers. If cloud seeding <br />could produce 1.43 million acre-feet (maf) in the Upper Basin (approximately 10% of the <br />average annual stream flow) and an additional 830,000 acre-feet in the Lower and <br />adjacent basins, it has been estimated that approximately 1.7 maf of the total would be <br />available to reduce deficits and meet new demands. Valuing this water at $30 per acre- <br />foot (af), the total benefit from additional water would be $48.5 million per year (Lease, <br />1985). This does not include hydropower or recreation benefits. <br /> <br />Utah <br /> <br />Utah is the nation's second driest state. In 1973 the Utah legislature passed the Utah <br />Cloud Seeding Act, which allows for cost-sharing. The state has six large-scale projects <br />at a total cost of$404,300, of which the state paid approximately 38%. There are also six <br />inactive project areas. <br /> <br />A detailed study by the Utah Department of Natural Resources in 2000 showed an <br />average increase in April 1 snowpack water content ranging from 7 to 20% from a group <br />of projects that had been operating from nine to 22 years. The overall estimated annual <br />runoff increase from WxMod was about 250,000 acre-feet or 13% for the study area <br />(UDNR, 2000). <br /> <br />As in other states, early season snowfall is highly valued by the ski industry. According <br />to the Utah Division of Water Resources, the agricultural need for late-season irrigation <br />water is valued near $40 per acre-foot whereas the estimated direct cost of water from an <br />8 to 12% increase in snowpack from cloud seeding in key mountain watersheds is $10 <br />per acre-foot. Benefit-to-cost ratios of3:1 to 10:1 were estimated for 10% mountain <br />snowfall increases in the Sevier River basin in Utah (Super and Reynolds, 1991). The <br />basis for these figures was the amount of additional water potentially produced, the <br />estimated value of the additional stream flow, and the direct cost of conducting an <br /> <br />-14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.