Conceptual and numerical models of dissolved solids in the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam, and Parker Dam to Imperial Dam, Arizona, California, and Nevada

David W. Anning; Alissa L. Coes; Jon P. Mason

doi:10.3133/sir20185108

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20185108

Conceptual and numerical models of dissolved solids in the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam, and Parker Dam to Imperial Dam, Arizona, California, and Nevada

David W. Anning·Alissa L. Coes·Jon P. Mason

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Conceptual and numerical models were developed to understand and simulate monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. The ability to simulate dissolved-solids concentrations at this location will help the Bureau of Reclamation satisfy the binational agreement on the volume and salinity of Colorado River water delivered to Mexico. A robust spatial- and temporal-resolution dataset that consists of river discharge and dissolved-solids concentration and load information between January 1990 and September 2016 for 10 sites on canals, drains, tributaries, and the main stem of the Colorado River between Hoover and Imperial Dams was generated. Daily mean dissolved-solids concentrations were estimated and monthly mean dissolved-solids loads were computed for each site. Spatial and temporal load patterns, and historical and current controls on loads and concentrations, were analyzed in order to develop a conceptual model of dissolved-solids transport between Hoover and Imperial Dams. Two numerical models describing the relations between dissolved-solids concentrations and components controlling dissolved-solids concentrations and loads were developed, calibrated, and verified. Between January 1990 and September 2016, there was a 98.8-million-acre-feet loss of water and a 57.0-million-ton loss of dissolved-solids load from the Colorado River between Hoover and Imperial Dams. Between Hoover and Parker Dams, about 69.0 million acre-feet of water was lost and 51.1 million tons of dissolved solids were lost; between Parker and Imperial Dams, about 29.8 million acre-feet of water was lost and 5.9 million tons of dissolved solids were lost. Water was removed from the river at a relatively consistent rate over the 25-year study period through water transfers to California and Arizona, evapotranspiration from crop irrigation, transpiration processes of riparian vegetation, and evaporation from the river main stem. Dissolved solids were removed from the river between Hoover and Parker Dams at a relatively constant rate through water transfers to California and Arizona, and water pumped from the river for irrigation within the Mohave Valley. A small amount of dissolved solids are gained by the river from inflow from the Bill Williams River. Between Parker and Imperial Dams, however, dissolved solids were not removed from the river at a consistent rate over the study period. Dissolved solids were generally removed from the river from 1990 to 2012, then gained by the river from 2012 to 2015, and then removed from the river from 2015 through 2016. Dissolved solids are assumed to be removed from the river and accumulated within the floodplain sediments and aquifers during irrigation processes; some dissolved solids may also be removed from the river through uptake by crops and riparian vegetation. Dissolved solids accumulated on the landscape and in the floodplain aquifer during irrigation are transported to the river during periods when the hydraulic gradient between the floodplain aquifer and the river is increased, causing a gain in dissolved solids in the river. Dissolved-solids gains in the river occur during periods of relatively low river discharge, such as during the winter months and during drier climatic conditions. Two numerical models were developed and coefficients were estimated by using data from a May 2008-September 2016 calibration period. One model simulates concentrations at Imperial Dam based on the Colorado River system downstream from Parker Dam, and the other model simulates concentrations at Imperial Dam based on the Colorado River system downstream from Hoover Dam. Both models simulated monthly flow-weighted concentrations of dissolved solids for the Colorado River at Imperial Dam, which corresponded well with observed concentrations for the entire study period. The models are more sensitive to input variables of monthly discharge of the Colorado River below Parker Dam and monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam and Parker Dam than to the rate of change in concentration with respect to time and the combined discharge of the Colorado River Indian Reservation Main Canal and the Palo Verde Canal. The calibrated models can be used to run scenarios of future monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. Although the models are expected to provide concentration estimates within 18 milligrams per liter (Parker Dam to Imperial Dam model) to 22 milligrams per liter (Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam model), 95 percent of the time, the error of future scenarios increases as uncertainty in the estimated future input variables increases.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 34.229970811273084° to 36.22211876039103° latitude; -114.98291015625° to -114.0435791015625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

David W. Anning, Alissa L. Coes, Jon P. Mason. 2018-08-28. Conceptual and numerical models of dissolved solids in the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam, and Parker Dam to Imperial Dam, Arizona, California, and Nevada. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185108

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗