WRAP User Group Forum

TCEQ WAMs and WRAP GUI files are available

Author: kamartin
Forum: TCEQ Water Availability Models
Date: 2008-10-20

You can download updated versions of the WAM (including the new Guadalupe/San Antonio WAM) from our ftp site:
ftp://ftp.tceq.state.tx.us/pub/WaterRes ... ntity/WAM/

As additional basins are requested, we will post them to our ftp site. TCEQ is currently using the WRAP program available from Dr. Wurbs' web site

very god!

Author: sslivigo
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2008-08-01

Every man is the architect of his own fortune.

.*.　　/~ .~\　　/~　~\　　/~ .~\　　/~　~\
***　 '　　　`\/'　　　*　'　　　`\/'　　　*
　V　 (　MY LOEV TO YOU.*)(　　　　　　　 . *)
/\|/\　\　　 wow gold,　 .*./ \　wow gold, *./
　|　　 `\ .　　　. .*/'一　`\ .　　　. .*/'
　|　　　 `\ * .*. */' _　　_ `\ * .*. */'
　　　　　　`\ * */'　( `\/'*)　`\ * */' wow gold,
　　　　　　　`\/'　　 \　 */'　　`\/'
　　　　　　　　　　　　`\/'wow gold,
wow gold,

Happy

Author: sslivigo
Forum: TCEQ Water Availability Models
Date: 2008-08-01

Happy is the man who learns from the misfortunes of others.

.*.　　/~ .~\　　/~　~\　　/~ .~\　　/~　~\
***　 '　　　`\/'　　　*　'　　　`\/'　　　*
　V　 (　MY LOEV TO YOU.*)(　　　　　　　 . *)
/\|/\　\　　 wow gold,　 .*./ \　wow gold, *./
　|　　 `\ .　　　. .*/'一　`\ .　　　. .*/'
　|　　　 `\ * .*. */' _　　_ `\ * .*. */'
　　　　　　`\ * */'　( `\/'*)　`\ * */' wow gold,
　　　　　　　`\/'　　 \　 */'　　`\/'
　　　　　　　　　　　　`\/'wow gold,
wow gold,

Bug PX/BU

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: WRAP Bugs
Date: 2008-04-17

Seems there is a minor bug with the PX/BU combination used to model subordination.

The option does not work when the upstream junior water right is immediately upstream of the senior water right being subordinated. The model needs at least one control point in between. This happens with the May 2007 and March 2008 versions.

Re: Priority Date Modification

Author: Hoffpauir
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2008-04-04

Attached is an update to allow exclusion or inclusion only of specified water rights.

Priority Date Modification

Author: Hoffpauir
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2008-03-21

I've uploaded my presentation to the WRAP Users Group, as well as the executable and example input files for the priority date modification tool.

I will be updating the tool to allow the user to exclude or include only specified water rights in the modification. I will post the update when it is available. You can also check my website at http://www.rjhoffpauir.com for the update.

Thanks,
Richard

20080321_Hoffpauir.zip

Basics of System Operation to Gain Yield

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2008-03-20

Paper discusses how reservoir system operation works to increase the reliable supply

Comparing FD - Main Stem vs tributaries

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-09-21

My presentation at the 3rd Users Group Meeting (September 14, 2007, TCB Austin)

New Input files posted on TCEQ website

Author: kamartin
Forum: TCEQ Water Availability Models
Date: 2007-08-02

TCEQ has posted updated versions of the Brazos, Colorado, Cypress, Nueces, Red, Rio Grande and San Jacinto Basins to the TCEQ WAM web site.

TCEQ has accepted the May 2007 version of WRAP

Author: kamartin
Forum: TCEQ Water Availability Models
Date: 2007-06-04

TCEQ has accepted the May 2007 version of WRAP and will be using that version to process applications. Minor changes were made to some basin WAMs so they could be used with the new WRAP. TCEQ will be posting these new versions to our web site over the next month.

Hydropower modeling with multiple pools.

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-04-05

I would like to thank Ralph Wurbs for this answer:

"The evaporation allocation routines were revised last summer and Fall [2006]. [WRAP] should be able to simulate hydropower. Basic concept is to apply EA records only with type 1 storage refilling rights, but to attach any number of other types of rights to reservoir as well"

Simulation of Lake Texoma Hydropower Release

Author: Jonathan_Pi
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-04-03

Dr Wurbs,

When doing the streamflow assessments for the 2007 State Water Plan, we tried to simulate the hydropower release from Lake Texoma, however, we could not do it. I used to discuss this issue with Dr Andres Salazar. Dr. Salazar thought the version of WRAP at that time may not be able to simulate the hydropower release for Lake Texoma because of the multiple-pools simulation. I am wandering if we might be able to simulate it with the most recent version of WRAP.

Thanks.
Jonathan Pi
TWDB

Option to not overwrite Senior IF Records

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-03-30

I suport this idea. This would be a useful improvement and probably easy to implement.

Andres S.

Dual Pass Suggestion (from past users goup meeting)

Author: kkennedy
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-03-28

In the March 23, 2007 WRAP Users meeting roundtable discussion, I brought up the suggestion that the Dual Simulation option in WRAP might be more useful if it preserved all (or at least more) aspects of the water right simulation details that are structured to be engaged in the first pass only, not just a record of the associated depletions. With this change, the series of complex options that currently exist to calculate diversion targets (TO records) could be used to refer to the results of water rights that are only exercised in the first pass to build targets for second pass water rights. This would enable the goal of the existing code (limiting depletions of a WR in the second pass to depletions made by a WR in the first pass) to be accomplished by simply using the TO record with option 6 and referring to the WR record that was engaged in the first pass. In addition, I believed that by preserving the other simulation results for “first pass only” water rights (regulated flow, available flow, reservoir storage/drawdown, etc) many other target building applications could be more easily accomplished in the final pass by referring to the “first pass only” results and this capability would be useful when trying to quantify/mitigate the effects of changes from baseline.

After thinking about this deeper and trying to come up with examples, I have conceded that:

(1) The Dual Pass option as it is currently designed, can already accomplished all of the examples that I came up with by manipulating dummy water at dummy control points (flagged to occur in the second pass only) which look at first pass only water rights and compute depletions that quantify the desired target in the second pass.

(2) The concept of trying preserve all, or more, of the water availability results from first pass water rights so they could be conveniently accessible to the regular target building process in the second pass is probably not worth the “baggage” of having to come up with some way of clearly distinguishing first and second pass output in the final (second pass) output file.

Thanks

Option to not overwrite Senior IF Records?

Author: kkennedy
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-03-27

When a user enters an IF card tied to a certain control point, he must check to make sure that the control point does not have another IF associated....if so, the “other” IF will be overwritten with the information the user is attempting to represent with the new addition. For most cases, this is logical since the new instream flow requirement at a certain location should change if a junior IF changes the requirement (presumably increases the requirement). However, for many more complicated instream flow requirements, there are often several valid requirements for the same location. For example, the TWDB’s consensus planning criteria basically requires that at least three different instream flow requirements be engaged and different ones be turned on or off depending on certain other influences (reservoir storage, regulated flow, etc). For these type of representations, the user has to create several new control points at the same location in order to have and manage the three different levels of instream flow requirements that reference the same location. If there were a flag on the specific IF card that said “1 = allow all junior IF’s to over right; or 2 = treat junior IF attempting to be set at this control point as separate IF requirement at this location”, this issue could be better understood and would not require additional control points be structured in the model just to be able to represent complicated instream flow requirements.

TABLES Issue/Enhancement Suggestion

Author: kkennedy
Forum: WRAP Bugs
Date: 2007-03-27

IF records are not output in the TABLES 1SRT card by priority, only WR records are. As a result of this, it is difficult to be sure what an IF record’s effective priority order is without parsing and sorting the input file outside of WRAP (since IF’s [like WR’s] with the same specified priority date are dependant on their order in the input file). It seems like the 1SRT card in TABLES should be changed to include both WR and IF records so the user can clearly understand the relative priority of both of these activities.

TABLES Issues/Problems

Author: kkennedy
Forum: WRAP Bugs
Date: 2007-03-27

The 16 character WRID in WRAP is not compatible with the column output format option in Tables. For example, if the user selects the 2DIV card in Tables and requests the column format, the resulting output file only allocates 8 characters per column, truncating all water right ID’s exceeding 8 characters.

Drawdown computations and MS cards

Author: kkennedy
Forum: WRAP Bugs
Date: 2007-03-27

For reservoirs that have MS cards associated (conservation capacity varies per month), the TO card option 5 and -5 (Drawdown) does not use the correct value to determine drawdown. The resulting drawdown computed for TO 5 and -5 does not acknowledge the MS card and therefore computes drawdown based on the full reservoir capacity for all months, even though the MS card does not allow the reservoir to fill in some months.

DSS HEC-Vue Compatibility

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: WRAP New Features
Date: 2007-03-26

The WRAP program TABLES now includes options for writing essentially any of the time series variables in the SIM, SIMD, or SALT simulation results as HEC-DSS files.

The Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed a suite of generalized hydrologic, hydraulic, and water management simulation models that are applied extensively by numerous agencies and consulting firms throughout the United States and abroad. The HEC-DSS (Data Storage System) is used routinely with HEC simulation models and can be used with other non-HEC modeling systems as well. Multiple simulation models share the same graphics and data management software.

Database management capabilities provided by the HEC-DSS are oriented particularly toward voluminous sets of sequential data such as time series (Hydrologic Engineering Center 1995). The HEC-DSS Visual Utility Engine (HEC-DSSVue) is a graphical user interface program for viewing, editing, and manipulating data in HEC-DSS files (Hydrologic Engineering Center 2005). The public domain HEC-DSSVue software and documentation may be downloaded from the Hydrologic Engineering Center website.

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/

Warning Message when using EA records with Type 2 WR

Author: Andresalazar
Forum: Modeling Techniques
Date: 2007-03-26

A warning message occurs when applying an EA record to a type 2 water right.

Dr. Wurbs provided the following explanation for this warning.

Type 2 and type 3 rights divert water from storage but do not refill storage. Any number of water rights can be associated with a reservoir, including any number of types 2 and 3 rights. However, at least one type 1 right (or optionally new type 7 right) must be associated with every reservoir to refill storage. Type 1 rights allowing both diversions and refilling storage are the default applied to most water rights. With type 2 rights, you still must have another type 1 right to refill storage, typically at the end of the priority sequence.

With multiple water rights at the same reservoir, evaporation volumes are computed with each water right. With type 2 rights, evaporation volumes are computed to determine whether enough water is available to meet the diversion target. However, the evaporation volumes are independent of each other, not additive. Evaporation volumes are recomputed from scratch with each more junior water right at the same reservoir.

The evaporation allocation (EA record) routine is applied only to type 1 (actually also type 7) water rights along with refilling storage. It is fine to have any number of other type 2 or 3 rights or hydropower rights at the same actual reservoir. However, you also need type 1 rights at the end of the priority sequence to refill storage and compute the final actual evaporation volume in each of the hypothetical component reservoirs. These are the hypothetical reservoirs, representing components of the actual real reservoir, for which the EA and WS records connect to the evaporation allocation routine.