-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Small Farm Irrigation Coefficients #2
Comments
C_irr c,y and C_tot c,y coefficients would be same in either case because of how we convert the "under threshold" acres from census data to million gallons. Multiplying C-tot with total withdrawals in a county a would give a large unreported withdrawal amounts. e.g. GILES has C_irr c,y or C_tot c,y of 0.22 Possible solutions:For counties with DEQ data continue using C_irr For counties missing DEQ data
Here is the detailed calculation of C_irr and C_total: |
I think the issue is in the third line of your equations - in the formulation you have there, "total withdrawals in a county" should refer to irrigation withdrawals but not total withdrawals. When we have DEQ irrigation withdrawals, it's reasonable to assume that the UT (under threshold) percent is the same for both acreage and gallons. IE, if 20% of the irrigated acreage in a county is under the reporting threshold, then we assume 20% of the irrigation volume also is under the reported threshold. However, there's no reason to assume that the UT percent would also refer to non-irrigation withdrawals. We can talk through the equations tomorrow, but in general I think the best approach in counties with no VDEQ irrigation withdrawals is to calculate the irrigated acreage below threshold, and then apply a depth to those acres using the rainfall deficit approach. |
C_irr c,y = Acres under threshold c,y / Total Irrigated acres c,y 2002
2007
2012
2017
|
For counties without DEQ withdrawals:C_tot c,y = Volume of Irrigation c,y / Total DEQ withdrawals c,y 2002
2007<style> </style>
2012<style> </style>
2017<style> </style>
|
MK for Area under Th<style> </style>
|
Thanks Lal. A few questions/suggestions:
|
1. Yes these are rainfall deficit values 2. MK on Coefficient
3. I have removed one value from DEQ irrigation method for plotting each year from 2007 to 2017 |
I really like the points @julieshortridge made above, and I also really like @laljeet responses here. These charts seem to suggest that there is not a clear bias in one direction or the other, but I would be interested in seeing all years on a single chart, rather than each year in a separate chart. Also, rainfall deficit by month or season could be beneficial to see if it improves error. |
Actually, in and of itself, I speculate that comparing the model error between annual rainfall deficit and seasonal/monthly deficit approaches could provide a nice validation of the method if it in fact moves in the direction that I think it will. |
Changes after the meeting:1. Effective precipitation months used: June- August Updated Scatter plots: Looks a lot better
|
Some notes I jotted down during our last call:
|
Total Withdrawals
|
Using Irrigation Withdrawals
|
Thanks Lal, this is helpful to see. From this, it appears that the rainfall deficit approach does tend to result in higher volume estimates than the area proportional approach. That's ok, just useful to know. It also appears that the range of rainfall deficit estimates is somewhat smaller than the range of area proportional estimates. The range of area proportional MG is about 0.01 (eyeballing this, having those lower values marked on the x-axis would be helpful) to 100 MG, while the range of rainfall deficit estimates is about 1 to 100. It might also be helpful to see a summary of the ratio of volume estimates derived from the two methods: |
Thanks Lal, this is interesting to see. We didn't get time to talk about it today, but one thing I've been wondering is if we could consider that area proportional approach as a likely lower bound (or at least an estimate that we know is likely to be lower than the true value). I think we can, because one assumption that we're making when we use that approach is that all of the farms above the threshold are accounted for in the VDEQ reported withdrawal, even though we know that's not the case. If we relax that assumption and assume that some of those large farm acres are not reporting to VDEQ, then our coefficients for small farm irrigation as a percentage of VDEQ withdrawals will necessarily go up. If we assume that VDEQ reports account for about half of actual water used by large farms (as our large farm estimates seem to suggest), then the small farm estimates would double. This seems pretty aligned with that median increase of 2.5 above. I'm attaching an image of the equations I did just to get my head around this, in case it's useful. I don't think we necessarily need to use this moving forward, but I think it is one more piece of evidence towards the robustness of our rainfall deficit approach. |
Task: Develop county-level coefficients of small farm (estimated to be under reporting threshold) unreported irrigation withdrawals.
@laljeet @jdkleiner @rburghol
C_irrc,y = Wunr_sm / Wrep_irr
C_totc,y = Wunr_sm / Wrep_tot
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: