Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2 Siqing Liu, Bob Suits DWR, Bay Delta Office, Modeling Support Branch 2011 CWEMF Annual Meeting, February 28 –March 2 1 Topics • Project objectives • Aqueduct System modeled • Assumptions / issues with modeling • Model results –Flows / Storage, EC, Bromide 2 Objectives Simulate Aqueduct hydraulics and water quality • 1990 – 2010 period • DSM2 Aqueduct version calibrated by CH2Mhill Achieve 1st step in enabling forecasting Physical System Canals simulated • South Bay Aqueduct (42 miles) • California Aqueduct (444 miles) • East Branch to Silverwood Lake • West Branch to Pyramid Lake (40 miles) • Delta‐Mendota Canal (117 miles) 4 Physical System, cont Pumping Plants Banks Pumping Plant Buena Vista (Check 30) Jones Pumping Plant Teerink (Check 35) South Bay Chrisman (Check 36) O’Neill Pumping-Generating Edmonston (Check 40) Gianelli Pumping-Generating Alamo (Check 42) Dos Amigos (Check 13) Oso (West Branch) Las Perillas (Costal branch) Pearblossom (Check 58) 5 Physical System, cont Check structures and gates • Pools separated by check structures throughout the aqueduct system (SWP: 66, DMC: 21 ) • Gates at check structures regulate flow rates and water surface elevation 6 Physical System, cont Turnout and diversion structures • Water delivered to agricultural and municipal contractors through diversion structures • Over 270 diversion structures on SWP • Over 200 turnouts on DMC 7 Physical System, cont Reservoirs / Lakes Represented as complete mixing of water body • O’Neill Forebay • San Luis Reservoir • Quail Lake Head boundaries • Santa Clara Terminal Reservoir • The Mendota Pool • Silverwood Lake • Pyramid Lake 3 Physical System, cont 8 Pumping Plants • Banks Pumping Plant • Jones Pumping Plant • South Bay Pumping Plant • O’Neill Pumping-Generating • Gianelli Pumping-Generating • Pacheco Tunnel • Dos Amigos (Check 13) • Buena Vista (Check 30) • Teerink (Check 35) • Chrisman (Check 36) • Edmonston (Check 40) • Oso (West Branch) • Pearblossom (Check 58) 9 Assumptions / Issues with Modeling Model Assumptions • Check structures treated as weirs to control water elevation • Pipes, siphons, and tunnels treated as open channels • Instantaneous transfer of water • Complete and instantaneous mixing of water in reservoir Hydraulics Issues • Gains / Losses • Monthly diversion data • Channel dry-up 10 Issues with Modeling, Cont Water Quality • Uncertainty for Groundwater Pump‐in, Storm water Inflow • Missing data at Banks / Jones PP for extended periods • Data errors at Banks / Jones PP Data Collection / Generation • Hydraulic data compiled by Bryant Giorgi of O & M • Water quality data compiled by Marcia Scavone‐Tansey of MWQI 11 Hydraulic Simulation of Aqueduct System Boundary Conditions •Flow at Banks and Jones Pumping Plants • San Luis Reservoir Operations • DMC and O’Neill Forebay Operations • Diversions to South Bay Aqueduct and West Branch • Contractor Diversions 12 Hydraulic Simulation of Aqueduct System Output • Flows at typical Checks • Stages of San Luis Reservoir Locations with measured data • Measured flow data at SWP Checks 21, 30, 35, 40 and 58 • Storage of San Luis Reservoir 13 Model Results: Hydraulics Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 14 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 15 16 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 17 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 18 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont EC Simulation of Aqueduct System 19 Input • EC boundary at Banks (measured) and Jones PP (measured and DSM2 output) • EC for source flows, i.e. Groundwater Pump‐in, Storm water inflow (WDL, USBR sample data) Output • At typical Checks • San Luis Reservoir Available measured data • SWP Checks 12, 13, 18, 21, 29, 41, 66 • DMC Checks 13, 21 • South Bay Aqueduct, Del Valle Check 7 • San Luis Reservoir (using Pacheco Pumping Plant) Model Results: EC 20 Model Results: EC, Cont 21 Model Results: EC, Cont 22 Model Results: EC, Cont 23 Model Results: EC, Cont 24 Model Results: EC, Cont 25 Model Results: EC, Cont 26 Model Results: EC, Cont 27 Model Results: EC, Cont 28 Model Results: EC, Cont 29 Model Results: EC, Cont 30 Model Results: EC, Cont 31 32 Bromide Simulation of Aqueduct System Input • Br at Banks PP and Jones PP (both measured and DSM2 output) • Br for source flows, i.e. Groundwater Pump‐in, Storm water inflow (WDL, USBR sample data) Output • At typical Checks • San Luis Reservoir Locations with measured data • SWP Checks 13, 29, 41, 66 • DMC Checks 12 • South Bay Aqueduct, Del Valle Check 7 • San Luis Reservoir Model Results: Bromide 33 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 34 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 35 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 36 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 37 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 38 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 38 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 40 41 Conclusions • DSM2-Aqueduct model simulates hydraulics, EC, and bromide over historical 1990-2010 period reasonably well. • Treating San Luis Reservoir as completely mixed body of water is sufficient for meaningful results • Other assumptions make sense for available information Acknowledgments • MWQI • DWR O&M • Real‐time Data Forecasting (RTDF) committee • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.