preview

Chowchilla Subbasin Case Study

Decent Essays

Based on the results from both cases, an excel tool was used to review results and generate head level maps in layer 6th only for 21 critical subbasins in color ranges (see figure 4 and figure 5). Based on the results of the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity data in layer 6th, I manipulated the range and average of horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities for both cases. With assuming the thickness of layer 6th approximately 100 feet, I also calculated the transmissivity for Chowchilla subbasin (see the results above). The hydraulic conductivity is greater than the vertical conductivity for this subbasin. This indicates that the groundwater movement in this subbasin flows in horizontal direction greater than vertical direction.
In layer 6th for this subbasin, both the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities are in large ranges with large values of standard deviations indicating the geologic information of layer 6th in Chowchilla subbasin is not uniform. This shows that are more different soil types in this layer. From the results, the hydraulic conductivities (K1) are in the range from 690 to 0.05 (m/day). According to the third edition of the “Groundwater Hydrology” , David Todd and Larry Mays, page 93, Table 3.2.1, soil types in layer …show more content…

Therefore, any changes of the amount of nounrouted delivery to Chowchilla farm, it doesn’t impact the precipitation. However, in both cases, there is significant difference between the precipitation and the total final surface water. This significant difference is caused by impacts of evaporation, infiltration, overland flow, stream flow, and ground water flow in Chowchilla farm. Based on the results, the amount of precipitation in 1969 is about 300,000 ac-ft, and the amount of the final surface water is about 5,000 ac-ft, therefore the loss in this subbasin is about 295,000

Get Access