ABSTRACT:

Powerpoint presentation on status of National Water Model case study in July 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Water balance provides an organizing principle for rainfall-runoff models, both as a constraint (conservation of mass) but also as a perspective that structures models as fluxes among various compartments and states. Given that fewer tunable model parameters provides a more powerful quantitative test of our understanding of hydrologic processes, a dilemma arises between the use of lumped conceptual models and fully distributed models: lumped models generally have fewer parameters than distributed models, but translating data collected at a physical location in the field into information that is meaningful to a lumped model is not straightforward. By contrast, physically distributed models using spatially explicit computational grids or meshes can more directly relate internal model states to field data, yet data are quite sparse relative to the information requirements of the model.

Thus, a central challenge emerges of extracting information from data, whether point in situ measurements or remotely sensed data based upon grids or an eddy covariance measurement of uncertain footprint, to inform model parameter values or the dynamics of model state variables. The new National Water Model (NWM), developed by NOAA’s Office of Water Prediction, offers an interesting test case for addressing this challenge. As currently constructed, the NWM translates between a gridded landscape structure and a geofabric of reach catchments defined by the NHDPlus. We are examining the application of the NWM to three different Critical Zone Observatory catchments (Shavers Creek (PA), Upper Sangamon River (IL) , and Clear Creek (IA)) to explore the representation of groundwater-surface water exchange in these well-characterized basins. We contrast the effectiveness of different modeling approaches in extracting information from the available data sets.

References
Clark, M. P., Bart Nijssen, Jessica D. Lundquist, Dmitri Kavetski, David E. Rupp, Ross A. Woods, Jim E. Freer, Ethan D. Gutmann, Andrew W. Wood, Levi D. Brekke, Jeffrey R. Arnold, David J. Gochis, Roy M. Rasmussen (2015), A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept, Water Resour. Res., 51, 2498–2514, doi:10.1002/2015WR017198.
Fenicia, F., D. Kavetski, and H. H. G. Savenije (2011), Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivationand theoretical development, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11510, doi:10.1029/2010WR010174.
Graf, A., H. R. Bogena, C. Drue, H. Hardelauf, T. Putz, G. Heinemann, and H. Vereecken (2014), Spatiotemporal relations between water budget components and soil water content in a forested tributary catchment, Water Resour. Res., 50, doi:10.1002/2013WR014516.
Kirchner, J.W. (2009), Catchments as simple dynamical systems: Catchment characterization, rainfall-runoff modeling, and doing hydrology backward, Water Resour. Res., 45, doi:10.1029/2008WR006912
Nearing, G. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2015) The quantity and quality of information in hydrologic models, Water Resources Research, 51(1), pp. 524-538.
Stockinger, M. P., H. R. Bogena, A. Lucke, B. Diekkruger, M. Weiler, and H. Vereecken (2014), Seasonal soil moisture patterns: Controlling transit time distributions in a forested headwater catchment, Water Resour. Res., 50, doi:10.1002/2013WR014815.
Soulsby, C., C. Birkel, J. Geris, J. Dick, C. Tunaley, and D. Tetzlaff (2015), Stream water age distributions controlled by storage dynamics and nonlinear hydrologic connectivity: Modeling with high-resolution isotope data, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7759–7776, doi:10.1002/2015WR017888