Opportunities for Restoring Environmental Flows in the Rio Grande–Rio Bravo Basin Spanning the US–Mexico Border
Abstract
Introduction
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/bdc54b98-e28f-4751-a7b0-9efae142be9a/assets/images/large/figure1.jpg)
Water Infrastructure and Policy Development
Headwaters Irrigation Phase
International Water-Sharing Agreement and Large Reservoir Construction in the United States
Reservoir Development in Mexico
Interstate Water-Sharing Agreement
International Cooperation to Build Reservoirs and Share the Lower River
Effects of Water-Sharing Agreements on Flow Regime
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/3391dcab-1480-4f52-88db-46b03aadb8da/assets/images/large/figure2.jpg)
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/74177ff4-300a-4ab1-b611-3edae02364e7/assets/images/large/figure3.jpg)
Data and Methods
Quantification of Environmental Flow Needs and Gaps
Location | Existing conditions [ (cfs)] | Environmental flow target [ (cfs)] | Environmental flow gap [ (cfs)] | Environmental flow gap [ ()] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Albuquerque | 7.7 (272) | 10.0 (353) | 2.2 (81) | 21 (17,025) |
San Marcial | 0.5 (18) | 4.0 (141) | 3.5 (124) | 35 (28,375) |
Note: Sandoval-Solis et al. (2023) developed environmental flow targets for 17 locations within the northern branch of the RGRB system above Fort Quitman. One of these environmental flow targets (10th percentile low flow) is used in our analysis of flow restoration needs and opportunities at two river locations. The volumetric gap (million cubic meters) in environmental flows represents the volume of additional flow to be recovered during the irrigation season of April through September. = cubic meters per second; and cfs = cubic feet per second.
Hydrological Model Development
Assessing Potential Irrigation Savings from Crop-Shifting and Fallowing
Results
Step 1: Assessing Flow Depletion Using Basin-Wide Hydrologic Model
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/0ab3d8e7-6d59-409d-b8d0-38b61c051884/assets/images/large/figure4.jpg)
Step 2: Evaluating Potential Flow Improvement from Reduced Irrigation
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/5d32fcee-9584-40d3-a6ae-151c70fabc37/assets/images/large/figure5.jpg)
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/ea9b451c-647e-4cd2-b0d8-6f1602f2a9b2/assets/images/large/figure6.jpg)
Step 3: Comparison of Potential Water Savings with Environmental Flow Gaps
HUC ID | HUC Name | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
13020101 | Upper Rio Grande | 1.84 | 3.92 | 6.23 |
13020102 | Rio Chama | 0.35 | 0.73 | 1.14 |
13020201 | Rio Grande–Santa Fe | 1.98 | 4.23 | 6.69 |
13020202 | Jemez | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.12 |
13020203 | Rio Grande–Albuquerque | 2.52 | 5.41 | 8.60 |
13020204 | Rio Puerco | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.18 |
13020211 | Elephant Butte Reservoir | 2.54 | 5.45 | 8.66 |
Total | 9.33 | 19.92 | 31.62 |
Note: The volumes of potential water savings in each HUC8 when irrigation consumption is reduced by 10%–30% are indicated in million cubic meters (); water savings in 5 of 12 HUC8s assessed were negligible and are therefore not listed here. These results indicate that a little more than 20% reduction in irrigation consumption would be sufficient to fill the environmental flow gap () at Albuquerque, but a 30% reduction in irrigation is insufficient to fill the gap at San Marcial.
Step 4: Assessing Optimization Strategies for Attaining Needed Irrigation Savings
![](/cms/10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6278/asset/f1a9b2f1-cb72-4e4c-9504-6924bf6a54f3/assets/images/large/figure7.jpg)
Scenario ID | Scenario description | Alfalfa | Barley | Corn | Oats | Other hay | Potatoes | Spring wheat | Green chili peppers |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current | Existing conditions | 13,701 (77%) | 259 (1%) | 494 (3%) | 186 (1%) | 2,357 (13%) | 171 (1%) | 176 (1%) | 309 (2%) |
Scenario 1 | No fallowing | Cannot achieve 23% water savings | |||||||
Scenario 2 | Fallowing area ; allow crop area change | 8,605 (48%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 186 (1%) | 3,317 (19%) | 206 (1%) | 176 (1%) | 2,150 (12%) |
Scenario 3 | Fallowing area ; allow crop area change | 11,593 (65%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (0%) | 186 (1%) | 1,687 (9%) | 182 (1%) | 176 (1%) | 808 (5%) |
Note: The crop and fallowing mixtures that can attain 23% water savings annually are summarized here (based on average water use during 2000–2019). Crop area is reported in both hectares and percent of total irrigated area.
Discussion
Supplemental Materials
- Download
- 256.67 KB
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
References
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
History
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Agriculture
- Basins
- Bodies of water (by type)
- Ecological restoration
- Ecosystems
- Engineering fundamentals
- Environmental engineering
- Flow (fluid dynamics)
- Fluid dynamics
- Fluid mechanics
- Hydrologic engineering
- Hydrologic models
- Irrigation
- Irrigation engineering
- Models (by type)
- River flow
- Water and water resources
- Water management
- Water shortage
- Water supply