Investigation of Uncertainties in Surface Water Resource Assessment of Georgia’s State Water Plan
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 140, Issue 2
Abstract
As one of the three key components of state of Georgia’s state water plan, a surface water availability resource assessment (SWRA) involves three sequential steps, as follows: (1) synthesizing unimpaired flow (UIF) data by removing anthropogenic effects from streamflow observations, (2) developing instream flow protection thresholds based on the UIF data, and (3) assessing possible resource gaps based on UIF data, flow protection thresholds, and water demands. Uncertainties are embedded in the observed input data and development processes, and could be propagated through these steps. A legitimate question pertains to the reliability of the SWRA results since they may affect regional water development plans. In this study, the uncertainties in all input data and development processes of SWRA were identified and quantified through Monte Carlo simulations. Results at two typical nodes indicate that uncertainties associated with the derived UIF data, flow thresholds, and SWRA results are very limited. The largest uncertainty came from the flow data-filling process. The most efficient way to reduce the uncertainty in future resource assessments is to maintain relatively complete flow and water use records.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank George McMahon, Owen McKeon, Anwer Ahmed, and Brian Bandy of Arcadis for their assistance and support relating to the data collection of this study. The authors also thank Jason Ward, Stan Simpson, and Steve Wynn of the USACE; and Brian McCallum and Tony Gotvald of the USGS for their important discussions and valuable suggestions regarding the uncertainty in reservoir data and streamflow field measurements. The authors acknowledge permission for using TSTool software that was developed by Riverside Technology for the state of Colorado. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
References
Arcadis. (2010). “Surface water–Availability modeling and technical analysis for statewide water management plan.” Unimpaired Flow Data Rep. Prepared for the Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
BASINS 4.0 [Computer software]. EPA, Cincinnati.
Beck, M. B. (1987). “Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty.” Water Resour. Res., 23(8), 1393–1442.
Beven, K. J. (1993). “Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modeling.” Adv. Water Resour., 16(1), 41–51.
Beven, K. J., and Binley, A. M. (1992). “The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction.” Hydrol. Process., 6(3), 279–298.
Bulygina, N., and Gupta, H. V. (2009). “Estimating the uncertain mathematical structure of a water balance model via Bayesian data assimilation.” Water Resour. Res., 45(12), W00B13.
Butts, M. B., Payne, J. T., Kristensen, M., and Madsen, H. (2004). “An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation.” J. Hydrol., 298(1), 242–266.
Clark, M. P., et al. (2008). “Framework for understanding structural errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models.” Water Resour. Res., 44(12), W00B02.
Freer, J., Beven, K. J., and Ambroise, B. (1996). “Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach.” Water Resour. Res., 32(7), 2161–2173.
Georgakakos, K. P., Seo, D. J., Gupta, H. V., Schaake, J., and Butts, M. B. (2004). “Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty through multimodel ensembles.” J. Hydrol., 298(1), 222–241.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD). (2010). “Surface water availability assessment–Georgia’s state water plan.” Synopsis Rep., Atlanta.
Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P. O. (1998). “Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information.” Water Resour. Res., 34(4), 751–763.
Linsley, R. K., Kohler, M. A., and Paulhus, J. L. H. (1975). Hydrology for engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
MATLAB R2010a [Computer software]. Mathworks, Natick, MA.
Melesse, A. M., Abtew, W., and Dessalegne, T. (2009). “Evaporation estimation of Rift Valley lakes: Comparison of models.” Sensors, 9(12), 9603–9615.
National Weather Service (NWS). (1998). Automated surface observing system (ASOS)–User’s guide, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., Thyer, M., and Franks, S. W. (2010). “Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors.” Water Resour. Res., 46(5), W05521.
Sauer, V. B., and Meyer, R. W. (1992). “Determination of error in individual discharge measurements.”, USGS, Reston, VA.
Stevens Water Monitoring Systems. (2011). “Programmable position monitors.” 〈http://www.stevenswater.com〉 (Nov. 3, 2013).
TSTool 9.03.06 [Computer software]. Riverside Technology, Fort Collins, CO.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1998). HEC-5 simulation of flood control and conservation systems–User’s manual, version 8.0, Davis, CA.
Vrugt, J. A., Diks, C. G. H., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W., and Verstraten, J. M. (2005). “Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation.” Water Resour. Res., 41(1), W01017.
Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W., and Sorooshian, S. (2003). “A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters.” Water Resour. Res., 39(8), WR001642.
Walker, W. E., et al. (2003). “Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support.” Integr. Assess., 4(1), 5–17.
Water Issue White Paper. (2001). Board of natural resources, State of Georgia.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 140 • Issue 2 • February 2014
Pages: 228 - 237
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Nov 4, 2011
Accepted: Jul 30, 2012
Published online: Aug 17, 2012
Discussion open until: Jan 17, 2013
Published in print: Feb 1, 2014
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.