Institutional Distortion of Drainage Modeling in Arkansas River Basin
Publication: Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Volume 119, Issue 5
Abstract
Cognitive mapping based on interviews with Colorado's water‐management officials indicates that institutional factors inhibit the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) from beneficially applying the so‐called Interactive Accounting Model (IAM) in the Arkansas River Basin. Modeling confuses the drainage problem and the design of remedial strategies by focusing attention solely on technical factors instead of the basin's central issues of economic viability and environmental regulation. The IAM is incapable of conceptualizing the relevant flow processes without support from a detailed model, which, however, the SCS has no plans for using. Finally, modeling cannot guide data collection or provide additional information for decision making because it is precisely the lack of interest by the SCS in pinpointing the sources of salinity in the basin that secures farmer support for on‐farm management projects. Institutional and modeling remedies are proposed to realize the potential benefits of modeling in the river basin.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Abbott, P. O. (1985). “Description of water‐systems operations in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado.” U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Resources Investigations Report 85‐4092, U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colo.
2.
Burns, A. W. (1988). “Computer‐program documentation of an interactive‐accounting model to simulate streamflow, water quality, and water‐supply operations in a river basin.” U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Resources Investigations Report 88‐4012, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo.
3.
Burns, A. W. (1989). “Calibration and use of an interactive‐accounting model to simulate dissolved solids, streamflow, and water‐supply operations in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado.” U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Resources Investigations Report 88‐4214, U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colo.
4.
Cain, D. (1985). “Quality of the Arkansas River and irrigation‐return flows in the lower Arkansas River Valley, Colorado, U.S.” Geological Survey Water‐Resources Investigations Report 84‐4273, U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colo.
5.
Cain, D. (1987). “Relations of specific conductance to streamflow and selected water‐quality characteristics of the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado.” U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Resources Investigations Report 87‐4041, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo.
6.
Evaluation of water quality in the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado. (1990). Revised work plan, June 12. U.S. Geological Survey, Pueblo, Colo.
7.
Ground water models: Scientific and regulatory applications (1990). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
8.
How can irrigated agriculture exist with toxic waste regulations? (1987). U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Denver, Colo.
9.
Hukkinen, J. (1991). Review of models linking agricultural drainwater quality to management practices. Report to U.S. EPA, Univ. of Calif., Dept. of Agric. and Resour. Econ., Berkeley, Calif.
10.
Hukkinen, J., Roe, E., and Rochlin, G. I. (1990). “A salt on the land: A narrative analysis of the controversy over irrigation‐related salinity and toxicity in California's San Joaquin Valley.” Policy Sci., 23(4), 307–329.
11.
Irrigation‐induced water quality problems: What can be learned from the San Joaquin Valley experience. (1989). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
12.
Konikow, L. F., and Bredehoeft, J. D. (1974). “Modeling flow and chemical quality changes in an irrigated stream‐aquifer system.” Water Resour. Res., 10(3), 546–562.
13.
Konikow, L. F., and Person, M. (1985). “Assessment of long‐term salinity changes in an irrigated stream‐aquifer system.” Water Resour. Res., 21(11), 1611–1624.
14.
Lefkoff, L. J., and Gorelick, S. M. (1990a). “Benefits of an irrigation water rental market in a saline stream‐aquifer system.” Water Resour. Res., 26(7), 1371–1381.
15.
Lefkoff, L. J., and Gorelick, S. M. (1990b). “Simulating physical processes and economic behavior in saline, irrigated agriculture: Model development.” Water Resour. Res., 26(7), 1359–1369.
16.
A management plan for agricultural subsurface drainage and related problems on the Westside San Joaquin Valley. (1990). San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, Sacramento, Calif.
17.
Patterson Hollow USDA water quality hydrologic unit area proposal (1990). Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
18.
Radosevich, G. E., Nobe, K. C., Allardice, D., and Kirkwood, C. (1976). Evolution and administration of Colorado water law: 1876–1976. Water Resour. Publications, Fort Collins, Colo.
19.
Report and submission of the Arkansas River Compact. (1948). State of Colorado, Denver, Colo.
20.
Roe, E. M. (1991). “Overseas perspectives for managing irrigation drainage in California.” J. Irrig. Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 117(3), 350–360.
21.
Sutherland, L. P., and Knapp, J. A. (1988). “The impacts of limited water: A Colorado case study.” J. of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(4), 294–298.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Volume 119 • Issue 5 • September 1993
Pages: 743 - 755
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 15, 1992
Published online: Sep 1, 1993
Published in print: Sep 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.