River GeoDSS for Agroenvironmental Enhancement of Colorado’s Lower Arkansas River Basin. I: Model Development and Calibration

Triana, Enrique; Labadie, John W.; Gates, Timothy K.

doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000025

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Triana, et al (2010) used an artificial neural network (ANN) that was trained on high resolution MODFLOW model results to represent the groundwater-surface water interaction in the Arkansas River basin in Colorado. The ANN was then linked to a Geo-MODSIM river basin network flow model to evaluate water management alternatives in the region (Triana et al, 2009a;Triana et al, 2009b). As with the use of the MODRSP, the use of the ANN improves computation time.…”

Section: Coupled Hydrologic and Water Management Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, authors such as Richter (2010) point out the need for hydrologic models that accurately model the spatial and temporal aspects of a watershed, including land use, diversions, reservoir operations, and unimpaired runoff. The geo-spatial decision support system (GeoDSS), as developed by Triana et al (2009a) for the Lower Arkansas River in Southeast Colorado is an example of just such a system. points out that spatial decision support systems should be designed to support the exploration of multiple alternatives instead of focusing the solution of a single problem.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geospatial decision support system for ameliorating adverse impacts of irrigated agriculture on aquatic ecosystems

Fields

Labadie

Rohmat

et al. 2021

Agricultural Water Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Coupled Hydrologic and Water Management Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geospatial decision support system for ameliorating adverse impacts of irrigated agriculture on aquatic ecosystems

Fields

Labadie

Rohmat

et al. 2021

Agricultural Water Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conveyance efficiency,

η

, is assumed to be 80%, consistent with findings from the neighboring Arkansas River Basin [ Gates et al . ; Triana et al ., ].…”

Section: Stochastic Dynamic Model Of Reservoir Operationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water storage in a changing environment: The impact of allocation institutions on value

Maas

Dozier

Manning

et al. 2017

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As populations increase in arid regions of the world, investment in water infrastructure improves resource management by increasing control over the location and timing of water allocation. Many studies have explored freer trade as a substitute for additional infrastructure investment. We instead quantify how water allocation institutions, reservoir management objectives, and storage capacity influence the value derived from a reservoir system. We develop a stochastic dynamic programming model of a reservoir system that faces within‐year variation in weather‐dependent water demand as well as stochastic semiannual inflows. We parameterize the model using the Colorado‐Big Thompson system, which transports stored water from the West Slope of the Rocky Mountains to the East Slope. We then evaluate the performance of the system under five institutional settings. Our results suggest that rigid allocation mechanisms and inefficient management objectives result in a decrease of up to 13% in the value generated from stored water when compared to a free trade scenario, an impact on par with predicted losses associated with climate‐change‐induced inflow reductions. We also find that under biased management objectives, increasing storage capacity can decrease the social value obtained from stored water.

show abstract

“…While these frontiers effectively reveal the environmental and economic consequences of different practices, they only tell part of the story because they do not include institutional constraints. Engineering approaches to estimate environmental outcomes, pollution from Se in this case, utilize field studies to determine impacts of implemented practices and employ models to project relative cost efficiency for pollution abatement strategies (Triana et al, 2010b;Collins and Gillies, 2014). Economic approaches model costs by taking into account shadow prices or resource rents and opportunity costs associated with each engineering practice (Bond and Farzin, 2007;Liu and Sumaila, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional Constraints on Cost‐Effective Water Management: Selenium Contamination in Colorado's Lower Arkansas River Valley

Sharp

Hoag

Bailey

et al. 2016

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground and surface water selenium (Se) contamination is problematic throughout the world, leading to harmful impacts on aquatic life, wildlife, livestock, and humans. A groundwater reactive transport model was applied to a regional‐scale irrigated groundwater system in the Lower Arkansas River Basin in southeastern Colorado to identify management practices that remediate Se contamination. The system has levels of surface water and groundwater Se concentrations exceeding the respective chronic standard and guidelines. We evaluate potential solutions by combining the transport model with an assessment of the cost to employ those practices. We use a framework common in economics and engineering fields alike, the Pareto frontier, to show the impact of four different best management practices on the tradeoffs between Se and cost objectives. We then extend that analysis to include institutional constraints that affect the economic feasibility associated with each practice. Results indicate that although water‐reducing strategies have the greatest impact on Se, they are the hardest for farmers to implement given constraints common to western water rights institutions. Therefore, our analysis shows that estimating economic and environmental tradeoffs, as is typically done with a Pareto frontier, will not provide an accurate picture of choices available to farmers where institutional constraints should also be considered.

show abstract

River GeoDSS for Agroenvironmental Enhancement of Colorado’s Lower Arkansas River Basin. I: Model Development and Calibration

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Geospatial decision support system for ameliorating adverse impacts of irrigated agriculture on aquatic ecosystems

Geospatial decision support system for ameliorating adverse impacts of irrigated agriculture on aquatic ecosystems

Water storage in a changing environment: The impact of allocation institutions on value

Institutional Constraints on Cost‐Effective Water Management: Selenium Contamination in Colorado's Lower Arkansas River Valley

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About