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.