A and B Irrigation District, Idaho: Call on the River Completed
In 2006, A and B Irrigation District (A and B), a senior groundwater user, claimed it was materially injured due to junior groundwater pumping. Landsat data processed with the METRIC model served as key evidence for the case. One way of determining if there was a shortage of water in A and B was to analyze three archived Landsat scenes. Water use was compared through the evapotranspiration measurements conducted in METRIC for groundwater and surface-water users in A and B and the surrounding groundwater users. The mean daily evapotranspiration chart did not show water shortage in the area in dispute.
Authors: Larisa Serbina and Holly Miller
In 2006, A and B Irrigation District (A and B), a senior groundwater user, claimed it was materially injured due to junior groundwater pumping (fig. 1). Landsat data processed with the METRIC model served as key evidence for the case. One way of determining if there was a shortage of water in A and B was to analyze three archived Landsat scenes. Water use was compared through the evapotranspiration measurements conducted in METRIC for groundwater and surface-water users in A&B and the surrounding groundwater users (fig. 2). The mean daily evapotranspiration chart did not show water shortage in the area in dispute (fig. 3). Combined with an extensive examination of A and B’s water rights, history of diversions, and hydrogeology, the Director of IDWR determined A and B was not materially injured. On appeal, the A and B call was dismissed on procedural grounds.
References:
Polly, Jason. GIS and Remote Sensing Analyst. Riverside Technologies, inc. Fort Collins, CO
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Case Studies of Landsat Imagery Use
In 2006, A and B Irrigation District (A and B), a senior groundwater user, claimed it was materially injured due to junior groundwater pumping. Landsat data processed with the METRIC model served as key evidence for the case. One way of determining if there was a shortage of water in A and B was to analyze three archived Landsat scenes. Water use was compared through the evapotranspiration measurements conducted in METRIC for groundwater and surface-water users in A and B and the surrounding groundwater users. The mean daily evapotranspiration chart did not show water shortage in the area in dispute.
Authors: Larisa Serbina and Holly Miller
In 2006, A and B Irrigation District (A and B), a senior groundwater user, claimed it was materially injured due to junior groundwater pumping (fig. 1). Landsat data processed with the METRIC model served as key evidence for the case. One way of determining if there was a shortage of water in A and B was to analyze three archived Landsat scenes. Water use was compared through the evapotranspiration measurements conducted in METRIC for groundwater and surface-water users in A&B and the surrounding groundwater users (fig. 2). The mean daily evapotranspiration chart did not show water shortage in the area in dispute (fig. 3). Combined with an extensive examination of A and B’s water rights, history of diversions, and hydrogeology, the Director of IDWR determined A and B was not materially injured. On appeal, the A and B call was dismissed on procedural grounds.
References:
Polly, Jason. GIS and Remote Sensing Analyst. Riverside Technologies, inc. Fort Collins, CO
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.