WSP01027

• File Number: 8200.766
• Description: Gunnison River Basin General Publications - Correspondence - Reports
• State: CO
• Basin: Gunnison
• Water Division: 4
• Date: 8/5/1992
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Gunnison Basin Models - Planning Model - 1991-1992 - Training Materials - User Session Descriptions 1-6
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Data

"~'D n~' 3'

USER SESSION DESCRIPTION NO.3
"Increase Level of Detail on a Stream Segment"

Current Version: 4
Version Date: 8/5/92
Previously Reviewed by: CMB, BHU, Committee
Edited by: CRR

Hypothetical User

A consultant hired by a group of individual ditch owners within the 0.l1io Creek basin.
Assumed Context of Hypothetical Session

A study by the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (described in User
Session No.2) has indicated that certain scenarios could have some impacts upon the water
users in the Ohio Creek Basin. In the Planning Model these water rights are represented as
depletions, which are aggregated into four (or possibly twelve or more) priority classes and are
spatially aggregated at a single node. The ditch owners want to know in more detail how the
impacts projected by the UGRWCD study would be distributed among themselves.

The limitation of the baseline configuration of the Planning Model for this purpose is
that each of the ditches has water rights in more than one of the priority classes. There are
local call and return-flow relationships among the ditches that are obscured by their spatial
aggregation and by the representation of the water uses as net depletions.

The consultant's assignment is to develop a more detailed representation of this stream
. segment in the Planning Modei, so that the impacts of various planning scenarios can be
measured with respect to the individual rights and ditches.

Model Capabilities and Limitations to be Illustrated by this Session

1. The capability to replace a "demand" represented as a net depletion
with a comparable diversion-and-lagged-return-flow representation.

The capability to add stream reach arcs and to spatially disaggregate a
group of demands and return flows.

3. The procedure for interactive graphical editing of the network.

2.

4. The inherent limitations of the full basin Planning Model as a tool for
performing local micro-analyses.

Things to Think About

1, Even though this group of users may correctly model the relative
priorities of their individual rights, the range of network ranks they can
choose for the disaggregated rights will still have to interact with the
other aggregated groups of rights :represented as priority classes in the
Planning Model and Accounting Spreadsheet.

,. .K,;

,",.'",- -~., -..'.. '-.-~' ...,_.-,-,~'--;"'~~,--,

'1;, 1':,1
,

~

>.;
".:'

-,'-
,

',.'
,.

..,:,::.,~
,.ki.;~~,h}..b.-4.._ or. -