This article really hit home for me when the phrase ‘quality of data’ matters. I can tell you most truthfully that the process of collecting raw hydrological data is not cheap, nor once a collection is started at a site it is not a ‘set and forget process’. Sensors at a site normally require monthly calibrations and stage discharge measurements also being done on a schedule. Overall, it’s not a cheap process.
You mentioned a site count. I’m assuming that this references sites in the upper basin only. The majority of them being USGS and maybe several at Reclamation Dams.
As a person who once supported a hydrologic data collection system, I would be asking about the instrumentation used at these sites? I know the accuracy at the Dams and the accuracy you would get at a typical gage.
I’ll also mention that there will always be some errors in the data. No data that I’ve been involved with had some margin of error in the collection. The concept of absolute data doesn’t actually exist.
Bringing this concept into the big picture when looking at several different sources when making that decision about how the water flows. You can see that assuming all sources to be correct can cause uncertainty.
I can tell you this, the more detailed data you can collect actually opens your eyes to the dynamics in play. The flip side to this is it takes more time to digest this information.
I only wish that there is more support to the data collection effort on the river.
Also it was mentioned about growing Alfalfa. Farmers typically get 12 cuttings per year in the Lower Colorado Region. It’s the perfect crop. Low maintenance compared to other crops. Almost like mowing the lawn. Think of it. Bringing in a harvest each month from the same field.
When asked about Alfalfa production, the Farmer says - “You like Dairy Products…Right?” I’ve been in my share of irrigation districts from Bullhead City to Yuma in the river valleys and haven’t seen any significant Dairy production in that area. For that, go to California’s Central Valley.
Parting thought. It takes 1850 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Most of which being Alfalfa.
The simplest solution to the SW water problem is to stop growing hay and alfalfa, cattle feed under the blistering summer sun in the Colorado, Imperial, and San Joaquin Valleys. Production could be moved to vast Midwest acreage devoted to corn ethanol crops, which really are pretty lame, especially with the fracking largesse.
This article really hit home for me when the phrase ‘quality of data’ matters. I can tell you most truthfully that the process of collecting raw hydrological data is not cheap, nor once a collection is started at a site it is not a ‘set and forget process’. Sensors at a site normally require monthly calibrations and stage discharge measurements also being done on a schedule. Overall, it’s not a cheap process.
You mentioned a site count. I’m assuming that this references sites in the upper basin only. The majority of them being USGS and maybe several at Reclamation Dams.
As a person who once supported a hydrologic data collection system, I would be asking about the instrumentation used at these sites? I know the accuracy at the Dams and the accuracy you would get at a typical gage.
I’ll also mention that there will always be some errors in the data. No data that I’ve been involved with had some margin of error in the collection. The concept of absolute data doesn’t actually exist.
Bringing this concept into the big picture when looking at several different sources when making that decision about how the water flows. You can see that assuming all sources to be correct can cause uncertainty.
I can tell you this, the more detailed data you can collect actually opens your eyes to the dynamics in play. The flip side to this is it takes more time to digest this information.
I only wish that there is more support to the data collection effort on the river.
Also it was mentioned about growing Alfalfa. Farmers typically get 12 cuttings per year in the Lower Colorado Region. It’s the perfect crop. Low maintenance compared to other crops. Almost like mowing the lawn. Think of it. Bringing in a harvest each month from the same field.
When asked about Alfalfa production, the Farmer says - “You like Dairy Products…Right?” I’ve been in my share of irrigation districts from Bullhead City to Yuma in the river valleys and haven’t seen any significant Dairy production in that area. For that, go to California’s Central Valley.
Parting thought. It takes 1850 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Most of which being Alfalfa.
The simplest solution to the SW water problem is to stop growing hay and alfalfa, cattle feed under the blistering summer sun in the Colorado, Imperial, and San Joaquin Valleys. Production could be moved to vast Midwest acreage devoted to corn ethanol crops, which really are pretty lame, especially with the fracking largesse.