Open julieshortridge opened 2 years ago
C_irr c,y and C_tot c,y coefficients would be same in either case because of how we convert the "under threshold" acres from census data to million gallons. Multiplying C-tot with total withdrawals in a county a would give a large unreported withdrawal amounts.
e.g. GILES has C_irr c,y or C_tot c,y of 0.22 Using DEQ irrigation withdrawals, the Unreported withdrawal is 43 mgd Using total withdrawals, the Unreported withdrawal is 132 mgd
For counties with DEQ data continue using C_irr
For counties missing DEQ data
Here is the detailed calculation of C_irr and C_total:
I think the issue is in the third line of your equations - in the formulation you have there, "total withdrawals in a county" should refer to irrigation withdrawals but not total withdrawals. When we have DEQ irrigation withdrawals, it's reasonable to assume that the UT (under threshold) percent is the same for both acreage and gallons. IE, if 20% of the irrigated acreage in a county is under the reporting threshold, then we assume 20% of the irrigation volume also is under the reported threshold. However, there's no reason to assume that the UT percent would also refer to non-irrigation withdrawals.
We can talk through the equations tomorrow, but in general I think the best approach in counties with no VDEQ irrigation withdrawals is to calculate the irrigated acreage below threshold, and then apply a depth to those acres using the rainfall deficit approach.
C_irr c,y = Acres under threshold c,y / Total Irrigated acres c,y
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
County | County_Code | Total.Irri.Area | Irr.Area.Under.TH | Facility_withdrawal_mg | C_irr -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- ACCOMACK | 1 | 9716 | 17 | 3444.534 | 0 AMELIA | 7 | 886 | 109 | 42.093 | 0.12 AUGUSTA | 15 | 3416 | 184 | 461.554 | 0.05 CAROLINE | 33 | 2272 | 25 | 960.526 | 0.01 CHARLES CITY | 36 | 1122 | 21 | 268.67 | 0.02 CHESTERFIELD | 41 | 571 | 35 | 55 | 0.06 CLARKE | 43 | 327 | 94 | 42.8 | 0.29 CULPEPER | 47 | 589 | 111 | 4.11 | 0.19 DINWIDDIE | 53 | 1164 | 115 | 14.055 | 0.1 ESSEX | 57 | 246 | 39 | 140.34 | 0.16 FAIRFAX | 59 | 101 | 101 | 14.599 | 1 FRANKLIN | 67 | 1126 | 242 | 11.81 | 0.21 FREDERICK | 69 | 520 | 159 | 9 | 0.31 GREENSVILLE | 81 | 734 | 0 | 50.8297 | 0 HALIFAX | 83 | 2617 | 82 | 26.816 | 0.03 HANOVER | 85 | 2393 | 278 | 236.0457 | 0.12 ISLE OF WIGHT | 93 | 791 | 5 | 97.5 | 0.01 KING AND QUEEN | 97 | 743 | 64 | 256.91 | 0.09 KING WILLIAM | 101 | 2457 | 15 | 143.51 | 0.01 LOUDOUN | 107 | 3666 | 185 | 36.6 | 0.05 LUNENBURG | 111 | 1484 | 61 | 10 | 0.04 MECKLENBURG | 117 | 4158 | 236 | 5.59 | 0.06 MIDDLESEX | 119 | 651 | 16 | 13.4 | 0.02 MONTGOMERY | 121 | 303 | 41 | 17 | 0.14 NELSON | 125 | 795 | 145 | 192.13 | 0.18 NEW KENT | 127 | 458 | 15 | 11.89 | 0.03 NORTHAMPTON | 131 | 9338 | 44 | 742.087 | 0 ORANGE | 137 | 1556 | 53 | 0.45 | 0.03 PAGE | 139 | 238 | 14 | 34.476 | 0.06 PITTSYLVANIA | 143 | 5606 | 211 | 86.068 | 0.04 POWHATAN | 145 | 230 | 32 | 0.58 | 0.14 PRINCE EDWARD | 147 | 526 | 46 | 38.6 | 0.09 PRINCE WILLIAM | 153 | 1173 | 10 | 3.4 | 0.01 ROANOKE | 161 | 92 | 82 | 20.7 | 0.89 ROCKINGHAM | 165 | 4355 | 174 | 276.896 | 0.04 SHENANDOAH | 171 | 1110 | 36 | 30.277 | 0.03 SOUTHAMPTON | 175 | 2385 | 0 | 41 | 0 SPOTSYLVANIA | 177 | 346 | 40 | 60.56 | 0.12 SURRY | 181 | 1472 | 30 | 53.203 | 0.02 SUSSEX | 183 | 1410 | 16 | 38.6 | 0.01 WESTMORELAND | 193 | 1474 | 122 | 311.381 | 0.08 SUFFOLK CITY | 800 | 1167 | 109 | 208.64 | 0.09
Task: Develop county-level coefficients of small farm (estimated to be under reporting threshold) unreported irrigation withdrawals. @laljeet @jdkleiner @rburghol