Suchergebnisse

"20 September 1985." ; Shipping list no.: 85-1041-P. ; "This manual supersedes TM 5-813-4/AFM 88-10, Chap. 4, 2 July 1958"--P. i. ; Cover title. ; Bibliography: p. B-5. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 14

"Bibliography of flood literature," index of titles relating to floods and torrents, stream regulation, water storage, etc. : p. [565]-656. ; Mode of access: Internet.

In mountain areas, both the ecosystem and the local population highly depend on water availability. However, water storage dynamics in mountains is challenging to assess because it is highly variable both in time and space. This calls for innovative observation methods that can tackle such measurement challenge. Among them, gravimetry is particularly well-suited as it is directly sensitive–in the sense it does not require any petrophysical relationship–to temporal changes in water content occurring at surface or underground at an intermediate spatial scale (i.e., in a radius of 100 m). To provide constrains on water storage changes in a small headwater catchment (Strengbach catchment, France), we implemented a hybrid gravity approach combining in-situ precise continuous gravity monitoring using a superconducting gravimeter, with relative time-lapse gravity made with a portable Scintrex CG5 gravimeter over a network of 16 stations. This paper presents the resulting spatio-temporal changes in gravity and discusses them in terms of spatial heterogeneities of water storage. We interpret the spatio-temporal changes in gravity by means of: (i) a topography model which assumes spatially homogeneous water storage changes within the catchment, (ii) the topographic wetness index, and (iii) for the first time to our knowledge in a mountain context, by means of a physically based distributed hydrological model. This study therefore demonstrates the ability of hybrid gravimetry to assess the water storage dynamics in a mountain hydrosystem and shows that it provides observations not presumed by the applied physically based distributed hydrological model.

In mountain areas, both the ecosystem and the local population highly depend on water availability. However, water storage dynamics in mountains is challenging to assess because it is highly variable both in time and space. This calls for innovative observation methods that can tackle such measurement challenge. Among them, gravimetry is particularly well-suited as it is directly sensitive–in the sense it does not require any petrophysical relationship–to temporal changes in water content occurring at surface or underground at an intermediate spatial scale (i.e., in a radius of 100 m). To provide constrains on water storage changes in a small headwater catchment (Strengbach catchment, France), we implemented a hybrid gravity approach combining in-situ precise continuous gravity monitoring using a superconducting gravimeter, with relative time-lapse gravity made with a portable Scintrex CG5 gravimeter over a network of 16 stations. This paper presents the resulting spatio-temporal changes in gravity and discusses them in terms of spatial heterogeneities of water storage. We interpret the spatio-temporal changes in gravity by means of: (i) a topography model which assumes spatially homogeneous water storage changes within the catchment, (ii) the topographic wetness index, and (iii) for the first time to our knowledge in a mountain context, by means of a physically based distributed hydrological model. This study therefore demonstrates the ability of hybrid gravimetry to assess the water storage dynamics in a mountain hydrosystem and shows that it provides observations not presumed by the applied physically based distributed hydrological model.

AbstractThirty‐one drinking water storage tank sediment samples were collected in 13 states, 17 distribution systems, and 29 tanks over the course of 4 years. Sediment samples were characterized for elemental composition and physical properties, which were found to be inconsistent both between samples of the same distribution system and across geographical regions. Differences between samples from the same tank also indicated spatial differences in sediment composition within storage tanks. Color was found to qualitatively trend toward darker or lighter depending on the concentration of a few elements (iron, aluminum, calcium, and magnesium). Particle shape varied between samples though uniformity increased as the particle size decreased. The average sediment particle density in this study (1.99 g/cm3) was lower than the density of a widely used sediment resuspension model silica sand (2.65 g/cm3), possibly resulting in underestimation of resuspension in models. This study suggests that sediment properties are highly site and storage tank specific, necessitating individual characterization to achieve greatest accuracy in storage tank suspension and draining model inputs.

This paper provides a typology of water storage technologies in the Abay sub-basin of the Blue Nile River basin from the 1960s to the present-day. Based on a literature review and project document review, various ways of facility creation and acquisition are analysed with regard to their social dynamics, political interest and project outcome. As a result, specific research needs in the social-political domain are formulated and topics and indicators for a comparative social-political assessment of the facility acquisition processes developed.

In California, surface water storage has become a hot topic. California's recent drought has fueled the discussion, with a number of agricultural interests forcefully arguing that the state needs to store more water. Their efforts have been successful, and California's water bond, Proposition 1, has earmarked $2.7 billion for the public benefits of storage projects.There are now dozens of proposals for Proposition 1 funding, including twenty projects that incorporate surface storage, varying in size and location from large CALFED projects supported by federal and state funding to smaller, local projects. On average, the eligible large CALFED projects seek ten times the amount of funding as the small local/regional projects.While there has been a great deal of research and debate over the environmental impacts and cost effectiveness of surface water storage projects, there has been little consideration of the more fundamental question of their practical feasibility—in particular, the time required from project initiation to completion. This is critically important, for it will determine when and if these projects actually make a difference to water users. This report fills that gap, detailing the time commitment associated with designing, analyzing, and implementing recent major surface water storage projects.Our key finding is that most major surface water storage projects seriously considered since 2000 have not been completed and may never be. Among the eight projects evaluated in California since 2000, only two have been completed. Both of those expanded already existing storage facilities and still required about twelve years for permitting, approvals, and planning, followed by about two years for project construction. Including the other CALFED projects still under consideration, recent major surface storage projects have required almost fifteen years (and counting) for the permitting and analysis phase. No new major surface storage facility has been constructed in the state during this timeframe, despite millions spent on feasibility studies and environmental documentation.These long project timelines reflect the multiple assessments and permitting requirements necessary to ensure the feasibility, safety, and financial viability of the storage facilities. Many different laws and political/financial concerns contribute to the long timelines, meaning that there is no silver bullet for shortening schedules. And it would be inadvisable for other reasons to remove any of these requirements.Long timelines for recent large surface storage projects suggest that future major projects will likely follow similarly lengthy schedules. The California Water Commission should explicitly account for the practical timelines and requirements for a project to move from proposal to completion as it decides how to allocate Proposition 1 funding among storage projects.

In California, surface water storage has become a hot topic. California's recent drought has fueled the discussion, with a number of agricultural interests forcefully arguing that the state needs to store more water. Their efforts have been successful, and California's water bond, Proposition 1, has earmarked $2.7 billion for the public benefits of storage projects. There are now dozens of proposals for Proposition 1 funding, including twenty projects that incorporate surface storage, varying in size and location from large CALFED projects supported by federal and state funding to smaller, local projects. On average, the eligible large CALFED projects seek ten times the amount of funding as the small local/regional projects. While there has been a great deal of research and debate over the environmental impacts and cost effectiveness of surface water storage projects, there has been little consideration of the more fundamental question of their practical feasibility—in particular, the time required from project initiation to completion. This is critically important, for it will determine when and if these projects actually make a difference to water users. This report fills that gap, detailing the time commitment associated with designing, analyzing, and implementing recent major surface water storage projects. Our key finding is that most major surface water storage projects seriously considered since 2000 have not been completed and may never be. Among the eight projects evaluated in California since 2000, only two have been completed. Both of those expanded already existing storage facilities and still required about twelve years for permitting, approvals, and planning, followed by about two years for project construction. Including the other CALFED projects still under consideration, recent major surface storage projects have required almost fifteen years (and counting) for the permitting and analysis phase. No new major surface storage facility has been constructed in the state during this timeframe, despite millions spent on feasibility studies and environmental documentation. These long project timelines reflect the multiple assessments and permitting requirements necessary to ensure the feasibility, safety, and financial viability of the storage facilities. Many different laws and political/financial concerns contribute to the long timelines, meaning that there is no silver bullet for shortening schedules. And it would be inadvisable for other reasons to remove any of these requirements. Long timelines for recent large surface storage projects suggest that future major projects will likely follow similarly lengthy schedules. The California Water Commission should explicitly account for the practical timelines and requirements for a project to move from proposal to completion as it decides how to allocate Proposition 1 funding among storage projects.

Submitted to the Legislative Council, Colorado General Assembly, September, 1980. ; Bibliography: pages 51-52.