Water Quality and Productivity Enhancement in an Irrigated River Basin through Participatory Conservation Planning and Analysis Timothy K. Gates 1 , John W. Labadie 1 , Ryan T. Bailey 1 , Dana Hoag 2 , Jim Valliant 3 , Blake Osborn 3 , Saman Tavakoli 1 , Faizal Rohmat 1 , Tony Orlando 2 , Chris Shultz 1 1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University (CSU) 2 Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU 3 Extension, CSU October 2014 – September 2017 Objective s RV L V B The Lower Arkansas River Valley (LARV) in Colorado has a long history of agricultural production; however, problems have immerged related to long-term irrigation. Salinization and waterlogging have become wide-spread throughout the valley, diminishing crop yield. Additionally, selenium (Se) concentrations in the river vastly exceed the current Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) chronic standard. This project seeks to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures (best management practices) that curtail these problems, are realistic socio- economically, and comply with the Arkansas River Compact through the refinement and application of two regional-scale (~500 km 2 ) stream-aquifer models and a basin wide (~2000 km 2 ) river network hydrologic model. A stakeholder advisory group steers researchers in using data and models to find practicable solutions for pilot implementation. Problem Research Objectives 1. Identify conservation practices and describe impact in improving water quality (in regard to salinity, selenium, and nutrients), boosting agricultural productivity, and saving water in the irrigated stream-aquifer system. 2. Identify river-reservoir system operation strategies at the basin-scale that permit implementation of conservation practices in the LARV so as to comply with State water law and the interstate Compact. 3. Measure economic standing of alternative conservation practices and river-reservoir operation/flow augmentation options. 4. Incorporate data and impacts of conservation practices and river operation/flow augmentation options into a platform that invites participation by interested stakeholders and educates policy makers as to benefits of integrated basin-wide water management. Extension Objectives 5. Evaluate, through participation with water users and agencies, the technical, socio- economic, and administrative viability of alternative conservation practices and river-reservoir operation/flow augmentation options and determine a recommended set of best options. 6. Broaden the understanding of local water users in the water quality and productivity implications resulting from irrigation practices, reservoir operations, and compact compliance issues. Education Objectives 7. Improve education and involvement of water users, agencies, and students in participatory identification, evaluation, and administrative enablement of conservation practices using data and models. 8. Provide active participation opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students to engage in the proposed research, education, and extension activities. 9. Develop and disseminate the results of this research as undergraduate and graduate level course material related to conservation of water resources at the river basin scale. Task 2. Regional-Scale Analysis of Alternative Conservation Practices. Salinity Selenium and Nitrate Task 3. Basin-scale Analysis of Flow Augmentation and River-Reservoir Operations. Task 4. Economic Analysis of Alternative Improvements. Task 5. Collaborative Examination and Assessment of Improvement Alternatives. Task 6. Recommended Ranking of Improvement Alternatives. Task 7. Dissemination of Findings. Downstream Study Region (DSR) Upstream Study Region (USR) Map of Colorado’s Lower Arkansas River Valley and the Upstream Study Region (USR) and Downstream Study Region (DSR), the locations of the two regional models. Aerial view of the Lower Arkansas River and irrigated valley between La Junta and Las Animas, Colorado. Tasks and 2016 Results Task 1. Formation and Preliminary Planning with Stakeholder Advisory Group. An Arkansas River Management Action Committee (ARMAC) has been formed, composed of 10 LARV farmers, a farm management consultant, and 16 representatives from key State and Local water management agencies. The purpose is to make recommendations on behalf of the LARV for pilot testing of land and water management actions that will help improve water quality in the river, the groundwater aquifer, and soils, while increasing profitability and sustainability of irrigated agriculture. This involves evaluation of the technical, socioeconomic, and administrative viability of alternative management actions with the assistance of the CSU team. Input Data • Soil & landscape properties • Aquifer properties • Crop properties • Canal and irrigation rates & concentrations • Climatic data MODFLOW-UZF Sat-unsat flow model UZF-RT3D Sat-unsat transport model • Advection • Dispersion • Kinetic Reactions • Plant uptake • Auto-and hetero- trophic redox reactions Equilibrium Chemical Reaction Model - Precipitation & Dissolution - Ion Exchange - Complexation - pH, temp effects Predicted Variables - Sat-unsat water content - Soil and aquifer salt concentration - Relative crop yield - Salt load to river system The committee met 3 times in 2016 and plans to meet quarterly throughout the remainder of the project. A survey of 400 farmers was administered in 2016 to determine baseline knowledge, attitudes and practices related to salinity, Se, and nutrient pollution. Survey will be repeated at project end and compared to determine project impacts. ARMAC Propose Solutions Request Research Review Research Discuss/Debate Implications Develop Action Plan Adopt Best Solution CSU Collect Data Build Models Evaluate Solutions Evaluate Impacts Present to ARMAC Revise and Repeat Regional Salt Model Best management practices (BMPs) being considered Reduced fertilizer application Reduced irrigation (RI) Land fallowing (LF) Reduced canal sealing Enhanced riparian buffer zones Salts, NO 3 ,SeO 4 S ET Upflu x Irriga tion Seepage Se NO 3 Salts, NO 3 , SeO 4 Geo-referenced display and interactive scenario manager Administrative and surface water network modeling Surface water – Groundwater model coupling Groundwater model Spatiotemporal Database NHD Plus database CDWR water rights USGS, NWS, EPA, NRCS CSU field data Scenario Manager Historical baseline analysis BMP scenario analysis Interactive basin-wide management model GIS Geo-referenced map display Feature selection tool GeoMODSIM Geo-referenced surface water modeling Accounts for water rights, storage accounts, exchanges, reservoir operations, and Arkansas River Compact MATLAB-ANN Stream-aquifer interaction Input: GIS-processed explanatory variables Output: MODFLOW-UZF return flow predictions MODFLOW-UZF Regional scale 3D numerical groundwater model Developed for large part of the Lower Arkansas River Basin BMP scenarios to be simulated in the ArkGeoDSS to evaluate basin-wide system response, alongside the compliance with Colorado Water Law and the Arkansas River Compact. ArkGeoDSS SeO 4 SO 4 Cana l Water Table Irrigati on Water Salts, NO 3 ,SeO 4 Fertili zer NH 4 Salts, NO 3 ,SeO 4 Root Processes Crop Yield Response Model 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Baseline Canal Sealing by 80% Reduced Irrigation by 30% Reducing Fertilizer Application by 30% Lease Fallowing by 25% Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Selenium Concentration (μg/L) Horse Creek Fort Lyon Diversion Patterson Hallow Simulated river selenium concentrations for baseline and best management practices (BMPs) for 36 year forecast model. Simulated river nitrate concentrations for baseline and BMPs for 36 year forecast model. Simulated selenium groundwater concentrations for baseline for 36 year forecast model. Simulated decrease in selenium groundwater concentrations for canal seepage reduction by 80% for 36 year forecast model. RI20 RI30 LF25 Modeled Impacts of BMPs on Salt Loads in the USR Furrow Gated Pipe w/ Laser Leveling Center Pivot Sprinkler $- $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 $350.00 $141.06 $306.46 $195.44 $256.14 $289.79 $191.03 Traditional Accounting Is a Problem Cost is obstacle Difficult to Treat 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Salinity Selenium Nutrients 40% 6% 43% 13% Farms Urban Industry Natural Thoughts about Pollutants Who Pollutes Most Traditional accounting methods (ownership and operating costs) often underestimate the cost of an irrigation system by failing to capture institutional costs and other adjustments. Traditional methods show furrow irrigation is less costly than center pivots. However, adding consideration of yield changes, cost sharing, and compliance with state irrigation rules shifts the advantage to center pivots. This research helps us understand how all costs affect adoption. A survey of 400 irrigated growers revealed that farmers think that farms and industry are most responsible for water pollution. The are most concerned about Sanity, followed by Selenium, then Nutrients. Salinity and Selenium are more difficult and costly to control than are Nutrients. Farmers feel that both government and farmers are responsible for solutions but lack trust in government. They are more concerned about water quantity than quality. Costs of Irrigation Farmer Survey •A basin-wide planning and analysis model of BMPs (ArkGeoDSS) is currently in the final stages of development. •The model employs stream-aquifer interaction relationships using artificial neural networks (ANN) and a hydro-administrative modeling component which covers up-to-date spatial features, stream gauge measurements, rainfall measurements, groundwater return flow model, water rights and storage accounts in the Lower Arkansas River Basin. •The basin-scale model simulates the BMP alternatives in the irrigated lands of the Lower Arkansas River Basin to be adopted in a manner that complies with basin water rights and the Arkansas River Compact between Colorado and Kansas. •The ANN prediction model is currently undergoing refinements to increase the accuracy of prediction using variable selection, ANN hypotheses selection, regularization, and successive aprroximation methods. 10/7/1999 3/2/2000 6/29/2000 10/26/2000 3/29/2001 7/26/2001 11/22/2001 4/4/2002 10/31/2002 2/27/2003 7/3/2003 12/4/2003 4/1/2004 1/27/2005 5/26/2005 11/17/2005 3/16/2006 7/27/2006 2/ 1/ 2007 6/7/2007 1/6/2000 10/2/2003 9/30/2004 9/7/2006 -1.00E+08 -5.00E+07 0.00E+00 5.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.50E+08 Total Groundwater Return Flow | Region: USR | Scenario: Baseline MOFLOW_Return ANN_Return Groundwater return flow (m3/week)
Water Quality and Productivity Enhancement in an Irrigated River Basin through Participatory Conservation Planning and Analysis
Apr 15, 2017
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Water Quality and Productivity Enhancement in an Irrigated River Basin through Participatory
Conservation Planning and AnalysisTimothy K. Gates1, John W. Labadie1, Ryan T. Bailey1, Dana Hoag2,
Jim Valliant3, Blake Osborn3, Saman Tavakoli1, Faizal Rohmat1, Tony Orlando2, Chris Shultz1
1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University (CSU)2Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU
3Extension, CSUOctober 2014 – September 2017
Objectives
RVLV
B
The Lower Arkansas River Valley (LARV) in Colorado has a long history of agricultural production; however, problems have immerged related to long-term irrigation. Salinization and waterlogging have become wide-spread throughout the valley, diminishing crop yield. Additionally, selenium (Se) concentrations in the river vastly exceed the current Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) chronic standard. This project seeks to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures (best management practices) that curtail these problems, are realistic socio-economically, and comply with the Arkansas River Compact through the refinement and application of two regional-scale (~500 km2) stream-aquifer models and a basin wide (~2000 km2) river network hydrologic model. A stakeholder advisory group steers researchers in using data and models to find practicable solutions for pilot implementation.
Problem
Research Objectives 1. Identify conservation practices and describe impact in
improving water quality (in regard to salinity, selenium, and nutrients), boosting agricultural productivity, and saving water in the irrigated stream-aquifer system.
2. Identify river-reservoir system operation strategies at the basin-scale that permit implementation of conservation practices in the LARV so as to comply with State water law and the interstate Compact.
3. Measure economic standing of alternative conservation practices and river-reservoir operation/flow augmentation options.
4. Incorporate data and impacts of conservation practices and river operation/flow augmentation options into a platform that invites participation by interested stakeholders and educates policy makers as to benefits of integrated basin-wide water management.
Extension Objectives5. Evaluate, through participation with water users and
agencies, the technical, socio-economic, and administrative viability of alternative conservation practices and river-reservoir operation/flow augmentation options and determine a recommended set of best options.
6. Broaden the understanding of local water users in the water quality and productivity implications resulting from irrigation practices, reservoir operations, and compact compliance issues.
Education Objectives7. Improve education and involvement of water users,
agencies, and students in participatory identification, evaluation, and administrative enablement of conservation practices using data and models.
8. Provide active participation opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students to engage in the proposed research, education, and extension activities.
9. Develop and disseminate the results of this research as undergraduate and graduate level course material related to conservation of water resources at the river basin scale.
Task 2. Regional-Scale Analysis of Alternative Conservation Practices. Salinity
Selenium and Nitrate
Task 3. Basin-scale Analysis of Flow Augmentation and River-Reservoir Operations.
Task 4. Economic Analysis of Alternative Improvements.
Task 5. Collaborative Examination and Assessment of Improvement Alternatives.
Task 6. Recommended Ranking of Improvement Alternatives.
Task 7. Dissemination of Findings.
Downstream Study Region (DSR)
Upstream Study Region (USR)
Map of Colorado’s Lower Arkansas River Valley and the Upstream Study Region (USR) and Downstream Study Region (DSR), the locations of the two regional models.
Aerial view of the Lower Arkansas River and irrigated valley between La Junta and Las Animas, Colorado.
Tasks and 2016 ResultsTask 1. Formation and Preliminary Planning with Stakeholder Advisory Group. An Arkansas River Management Action Committee (ARMAC) has been formed, composed of 10 LARV farmers, a farm management consultant, and 16 representatives from key State and Local water management agencies. The purpose is to make recommendations on behalf of the LARV for pilot testing of land and water management actions that will help improve water quality in the river, the groundwater aquifer, and soils, while increasing profitability and sustainability of irrigated agriculture. This involves evaluation of the technical, socioeconomic, and administrative viability of alternative management actions with the assistance of the CSU team.
Input Data• Soil & landscape
properties• Aquifer properties• Crop properties• Canal and irrigation
rates & concentrations• Climatic data
MODFLOW-UZF Sat-unsat flow model
UZF-RT3D Sat-unsat transport model
• Advection• Dispersion• Kinetic Reactions• Plant uptake• Auto-and hetero-
trophic redox reactions
Equilibrium Chemical Reaction Model
- Precipitation & Dissolution- Ion Exchange- Complexation- pH, temp effects
Predicted Variables- Sat-unsat water content- Soil and aquifer salt
concentration- Relative crop yield- Salt load to river system
The committee met 3 times in 2016 and plans to meet quarterly throughout the remainder of the project.
A survey of 400 farmers was administered in 2016 to determine baseline knowledge, attitudes and practices related to salinity, Se, and nutrient pollution. Survey will be repeated at project end and compared to determine project impacts.
ARMACPropose SolutionsRequest ResearchReview Research
Discuss/Debate ImplicationsDevelop Action Plan Adopt Best Solution
CSUCollect DataBuild Models
Evaluate SolutionsEvaluate Impacts
Present to ARMACRevise and Repeat
Regional Salt Model
Best management practices (BMPs) being consideredReduced fertilizer application
Reduced irrigation (RI)Land fallowing (LF)
Reduced canal sealingEnhanced
riparian buffer zones
Salts, NO3,SeO4
S
ET
Upflux
Irrigation
Seepage
SeNO3
Salts, NO3,SeO4
Geo-referenceddisplay andinteractivescenario manager
Administrativeand surfacewater networkmodeling
Surface water –Groundwatermodel coupling
Groundwatermodel
Spatiotemporal Database
NHD Plus database CDWR water rights USGS, NWS, EPA, NRCS CSU field data
Scenario Manager Historical baseline
analysis BMP scenario analysis
Interactive basin-wide management model
GIS Geo-referenced map display Feature selection tool
GeoMODSIM Geo-referenced surface water modeling Accounts for water rights, storage accounts,
exchanges, reservoir operations, and Arkansas River Compact
MATLAB-ANN Stream-aquifer interaction Input: GIS-processed explanatory variables Output: MODFLOW-UZF return flow predictions
MODFLOW-UZF Regional scale 3D numerical groundwater
model Developed for large part of the Lower Arkansas
River Basin
BMP scenarios to be simulated in the ArkGeoDSS to evaluate basin-wide system response, alongside the compliance with Colorado Water Law and the Arkansas River Compact.ArkGeoDSS
SeO4SO4
Canal
Water Table
IrrigationWaterSalts,
NO3,SeO4
FertilizerNH4
Salts, NO3,SeO4
Root Processes
Crop Yield Response Model
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Baseline Canal Sealing by 80% Reduced Irrigation by 30% Reducing Fertilizer Application by 30%Lease Fallowing by 25%
Nitr
ate
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sele
nium
Con
cent
ra-
tion
(μg/
L)
HorseCreek
Fort LyonDiversion
PattersonHallow
Simulated river selenium concentrations for baseline and best management practices (BMPs) for 36 year forecast model.
Simulated river nitrate concentrations for baseline and BMPs for 36 year forecast model.
Simulated selenium groundwater concentrations for baseline for 36 year forecast model.
Simulated decrease in selenium groundwater concentrations for canal seepage reduction by 80% for 36 year forecast model.
RI20
RI30
LF25
Modeled Impacts ofBMPs on Salt Loads in the USR
Furrow Gated Pipe w/ Laser Leveling
Center Pivot Sprinkler $-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$141.06
$306.46
$195.44
$256.14 $289.79
$191.03
Traditional Accounting Accounting for Yield Impacts, Cost-Sharing, Institutional ImpactsIs a Problem Cost is
obstacleDifficult to
Treat
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Salinity
Selenium
Nutrients
40%
6%
43%
13%
Farms Urban IndustryNatural
Thoughts about Pollutants
Who Pollutes Most
Traditional accounting methods (ownership and operating costs) often underestimate the cost of an irrigation system by failing to capture institutional costs and other adjustments. Traditional methods show furrow irrigation is less costly than center pivots. However, adding consideration of yield changes, cost sharing, and compliance with state irrigation rules shifts the advantage to center pivots. This research helps us understand how all costs affect adoption.
A survey of 400 irrigated growers revealed that farmers think that farms and industry are most responsible for water pollution. The are most concerned about Sanity, followed by Selenium, then Nutrients. Salinity and Selenium are more difficult and costly to control than are Nutrients. Farmers feel that both government and farmers are responsible for solutions but lack trust in government. They are more concerned about water quantity than quality.
Costs of Irrigation Farmer Survey
• A basin-wide planning and analysis model of BMPs (ArkGeoDSS) is currently in the final stages of development.
• The model employs stream-aquifer interaction relationships using artificial neural networks (ANN) and a hydro-administrative modeling component which covers up-to-date spatial features, stream gauge measurements, rainfall measurements, groundwater return flow model, water rights and storage accounts in the Lower Arkansas River Basin.
• The basin-scale model simulates the BMP alternatives in the irrigated lands of the Lower Arkansas River Basin to be adopted in a manner that complies with basin water rights and the Arkansas River Compact between Colorado and Kansas.
• The ANN prediction model is currently undergoing refinements to increase the accuracy of prediction using variable selection, ANN hypotheses selection, regularization, and successive aprroximation methods.
10/7/
1999
1/13/2
000
4/20/2
000
7/27/2
000
11/2/
2000
2/8/20
01
5/17/2
001
8/23/2
001
11/29
/2001
3/7/20
02
6/13/2
002
9/19/2
002
12/26
/2002
4/3/20
03
7/10/2
003
10/16
/2003
1/22/2
004
4/29/2
004
8/5/20
04
11/11
/2004
2/17/2
005
5/26/2
005
9/1/20
05
12/8/
2005
3/16/2
006
6/22/2
006
9/28/2
006
1/4/20
07
4/12/2
007
7/19/2
007
10/25
/2007
-1.00E+08
-5.00E+07
0.00E+00
5.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.50E+08
Total Groundwater Return Flow | Region: USR | Scenario: Baseline
MOFLOW_Return
ANN_Return
Gro
undw
ater
retu
rn fl
ow (m
3/w
eek)
Related Documents
