Modeling the California State Water Project
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 111, Issue 1
Abstract
Two disadvantages of optimization models in water resources planning and management are the simplifications often required to construct the model and user reluctance to rely on optimization models alone. Both of these disadvantages may be overcome by combining a simulation model with an optimization model. In this study, a popular multipurpose, multireservoir system simulation model, HEC‐3, developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the Corps of Engineers, is combined with a dynamic programming model. One problem in using discrete differential dynamic programming (DDDP) is determining the initial trajectory. In this project, conventional dynamic programming was used to estimate the initial trajectory, and then a DDDP model was used. Consequently, the optimization model combines conventional dynamic programming and discrete differential dynamic programming to solve the complex problem of operating the California State Water Project's (SWP) Lake Oroville and San Luis Reservoir, given the constraints of the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and delta flow requirements. Preliminary results suggest that SWP revenue may be almost doubled by adopting the suggested optimal operation.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bellman, R., Dynamic Programming, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., 1957.
2.
Chung, I. W., “A Sequential Simulation—Optimization Model for Reservoir Systems,” thesis presented to the University of California, at Davis, Calif., in partial fulfillment of the rquirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
3.
“HEC‐3 Reservoir System Analysis for Conservation—Users Manual,” 723‐030, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July, 1974.
4.
“HEC‐3 Reservoir System Analysis for Conservation—Programmers Manual,” 723‐X6‐L2030, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Jan., 1976.
5.
Heidari, M., Chow, V. T., Kokotovic, P. V., and Meridith, D. D., “Discrete Differential Dynamic Programming Approach to Water Resources Systems Optimization,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1971, pp. 273–282.
6.
Helweg, O. J., and Labadie, J. W., “Linked Models for Managing River Basin Salt Balance,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1977, pp. 329–336.
7.
Input Data for 1980 and 2000 Level Central Valley Depletion Studies, Department of Water Resources, State of California, Aug., 1977.
8.
Jacobson, D. H., and Mayne, D. O., Differential Dynamic Programming, American Elsevier, New York, N.Y., 1970.
9.
Larson, R. E., State Increment Dynamic Programming, American Elsevier, New York, N.Y., 1968.
10.
Leclerc, G., and Marks, D. H., “Determination of the Discharge Policy for Existing Reservoir Networks under Differing Objectives,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1973, pp. 1155–1165.
11.
Murray, D. M., and Yakowitz, S. J., “Constrained Differential Dynamic Programming and Its Application to Multireservoir Control,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 15, No. 5, 1979, pp. 1017–1027.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 111 • Issue 1 • January 1985
Pages: 82 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1985
Published in print: Jan 1985
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.