The Virgin River Basin Study: a Regional Approach to Multiobjective Planning for Water and Related Resources
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory January 1977 The Virgin River Basin Study: A Regional Approach to Multiobjective Planning for Water and Related Resources John E. Keith Jim Mulder Trevor C. Hughes V. A. Narasimhan Lance Rovig Karl Eriksen See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Keith, John E.; Mulder, Jim; Hughes, Trevor C.; Narasimhan, V. A.; Rovig, Lance; Eriksen, Karl; Fowler, Don D.; Borchard, Lucinda; Kimball, Kirk; Ballard, Spence; Turna, K. S.; and Hoggan, Daniel H., "The Virgin River Basin Study: A Regional Approach to Multiobjective Planning for Water and Related Resources" (1977). Reports. Paper 276. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/276 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors John E. Keith, Jim Mulder, Trevor C. Hughes, V. A. Narasimhan, Lance Rovig, Karl Eriksen, Don D. Fowler, Lucinda Borchard, Kirk Kimball, Spence Ballard, K. S. Turna, and Daniel H. Hoggan This report is available at DigitalCommons@USU: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/276 THE VIRGIN RIVER BASIN STUDY: A REGIONAL APPROACH TO MULTIOBJECTIVE PLANNING FOR WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES by John E. Keith Jim Mulder Trevor C. Hughes V. A. Narasimhan Lance Rovig Karl Eriksen Don D. Fowler Lucinda Borchard Kirk Kimball Spence Ballard K. S. Turna Daniel H. Hoggan The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the Department of the Interior Office of Water Research and Technology as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, P.L. 88-379, Project Number B-084-Nevada, Contract number 14-31-0001-5090. Nevada Center for Water Resources Researcb and Utah Water Research Laboratory College of Engineering Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322 June 1977 PRWG146-1 ABSTRACT A joint research effort by the Utah Water Research Laboratory and the Nevada Center for Water Resources Research applied two multiobjective planning models to the Virgin River Basin in order to test the efficiency and practicality of applying such tools in water resources planning. The Surrogate Worth Trade-off (SWT) method couples mathematical optimization to quantify trade·.offs among noncommensurable objectives with interviews to compare public preferences with respect to these trade offs. PROPDEMM uses information on interest group objectives, values, willingness to pay, influence, level of information, etc. to compare the political feasibility of alternative courses of action. Both models were applied to assess the difficulties in doing so and the usefulness of the results. The trade offs identified by the SWT method showed agricultural water use to be so dominant in the basin that slight adjustments in irrigation efficiency could supply all foreseeable needs for additional water for other uses, such trade offs to be too inconsequential to identify and compare public preferences, and other trade offs to be impossible because of the position taken by ecologists that any environmental change would destroy a rare species of minnow. Prior to analyzing a situation by the SWT method, the planner should make sure that the trade offs will be of a magnitude meaningful to the public and that the model selected will be sufficiently refined in analyzing small units in time and space to identify locally significant trade offs. PROPDEMM showed the politically most controversial trade off to be between construction of energy generating fa,~ilities and life support for the minnow, a controversy that would probably be decided in favor (. f the environmentalist because of their power and non-openness to change. Improvements to the model to do a better job of interfacing environmental with social data were recommended. Social modeling in such low population areas was found to be restricted by laws against disclosure of private information because of the very small numbers of individuals living in many evaluation units. Hi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported with funds provided by the Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, under P.L. 88-379, Project Number B-084-Nevada, Contract Number 14-31-0001-5090. The writers acknowledge the support provided by the Nevada Center for Water Resources Research, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, and the Utah Center for Water Resources Research and Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University. Iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 Background ................................................................ 1 Methodologies Examined .................................................... 1 Study Objectives ............................................................ 2 Procedures ................................................................. 2 Results .......................... , ...... " ........... , ....... , ............. 2 Allocation Model Results (Annual) ........................................... 3 Allocation Model Results (Late Season) ...................................... 4 SWT Models ............................................................. 4 PROPDEMM Model Results ................................................ 4 II LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 5 Historic Perspective ......................................................... 5 Croley, 1974: Sequential Operations of Water Resources Systems Using Adaptive Multiobjective Trade Offs .................................. 6 Cohon and Marks, 1975: A Review and Evaluation of Multi- objective Programming Techniques ....................................... 6 Haimes et aI., 1975: Multiobjective Optimization in Water Resources Systems ...................................................... 9 University of South Carolina Symposium on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Cochrane and Zeleny, Eds., 1973 ......................... 11 Water Resources Planning, Social Goals, and Indicators: Methodological Development and Empirical Test by the Technical Committee of the Water Resources Research Centers of the Thirteen Western States (Techcom, 1975) ......................................... 11 Federal Principles and Standards ............................................ 12 Comparison of Optimization and Simulation Approaches ......................... 13 Synopsis of the Surrogate Worth Trade-off Method ........................... 13 Synopsis of the PROPDEMM Simulation Method ............................. 14 Similarities and Differences of SWT and PROPDEMM ........................ 15 Integration of SWT and PROPDEMM ...................................... 16 Selected References ........................................................ 16 III DESCRIPTION OF REGION ................................................ 19 Introduction ............................................................... 19 The Virgin River ........................................................... 19 Surface Flow .............................................................. 19 Climatic Variability ........................................................ 20 Geology ................................................................... 20 Soils ...................................................................... 20 Groundwater Resources .................................................... 20 Water Quality ............................................................. 23 Consumptive Use .......................................................... 23 Land Use Pattern .......................................................... 23 Economic Setting .......................................................... 23 Demographic Data ......................................................... 24 Economic Profile ........................................................... 24 Agriculture ............................................................... 24 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter Page Nonagricultural Activity .................................................... 25 Urban .................................................................... 26 Future Economic Development .............................................. 26 Decision Makers ........................................................... 27 Organizations ............................................................. 28 References ................................................................ 29 IV APPLICATION OF HYDRO-QUALITY MODEL TO THE VIRGIN RIVER BASIN ............................................................ 31 Introduction ........................................ '....................... 31 Application of Utah State River Model (USRM) ................................ 31 The Hydro-Salinity Model ................................................... 31 Application of Hydro-Salinity Model to Virgin River Basin ....................... 31 Subbasin Development '" ................................................ 31 Data Collection and Processing ............................................ 33 Calibration of Salinity Model ............................................... 33 Development of the Sediment Subroutine ..................................