Evaluation of collective water rights allocation scenarios using the WEAP simulation model in a region of water use conflicts: the case of Formoso River Basin – Tocantins state/Brazil

Silva, Eduardo Paulino da; Minoti, Ricardo Tezini; Alves, Conceição de Maria Albuquerque; Volken, Nicole John; Figueroa, Fernan Enrique Vergara

doi:10.1590/2318-0331.292420230092

Eduardo Paulino da Silva

conceptualization

investigation

methodology

writing – original draft

writing – review & editing

Universidade de Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6718-1841

Ricardo Tezini Minoti

metodology

supervision

visualization

writing – review & editing

Universidade de Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9193-843X

Conceição de Maria Albuquerque Alves

metodology

supervision

visualization

writing – review & editing

Universidade de Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6553-1561

Nicole John Volken

methodology

Universidade de Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7240-9620

Fernan Enrique Vergara Figueroa

methodology

project administration

Universidade Federal do Tocantins, Palmas, TO, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1643-2564

E-mails: eduardopaulino_silva@hotmail.com (EPS), calves@unb.br (CMAA), nicolejvolken@gmail.com (NJV), vergara@mail.uft.edu.br (FEVF), rtminoti@unb.br (RTM)

Editor in-Chief: Adilson Pinheiro

Associated Editor: Fábio Veríssimo Gonçalves

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Formoso River Basin (FRB) and municipalities contours.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Spatial distribution of fluviometric, telemetric and meteorological stations used in FRB modeling in WEAP.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Layout of the WEAP tool and representation of the FRB in Schematic.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Conceptual diagram and equations incorporated in the Soil Moisture Method.

Thumbnail

Figure 5
Critical regions in terms of flow and catchment number in the FRB.

Thumbnail

Figure 6
WEAP sensitivity to calibration parameters

Thumbnail

Figure 7
Observed flow and simulated flow at Projeto Rio Formoso Station.

Thumbnail

Figure 8
Observed flow and simulated flow at Foz Rio Urubu Station.

Thumbnail

Figure 9
Observed flow and simulated flow at Foz Formoso Station.

Thumbnail

Figure 10
Remaining flow in the critical section of the DIRF for the Reference scenarios, PB-A and PB-B, during the month of July 2020.

Thumbnail

Figure 11
Remaining flow in the critical Lower Formoso section for the Reference scenarios, PB-A and PB-B, during the month of July 2020.

Thumbnail

Figure 12
Remaining flow in the critical Urubu River section for the Reference scenarios, PB-A and PB-B, during the month of July 2020.

Thumbnail

Figure 13
Remaining flow in the critical Rio Formoso mouth section for the Reference scenarios, PB-A and PB-B, during the month of July 2020.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Fluviometric stations selected for modeling in WEAP.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Soil variables used in the calibration of the WEAP model.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Performance Assessment Criteria for NSE, R² and PBIAS statistics recommended by Moriasi et al. (2015)Moriasi, D. N., Gitau, M. W., Pai, N., & Daggupati, P. (2015). Hydrologic and water quality models: performance measures and evaluation criteria. Transactions of the ASABE, 58(6), 1763-1785. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.10715. for watershed scale models.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Seasonal Reference Flows (Q90) and Environmental Flows (Qenv.) for the critical sections of the FRB.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Monthly Reference Flows (Q95) and Environmental Flows (Qenv.) for the critical sections of the FRB.

Thumbnail

Table 6
PB-A Scenario - Rotation cycle with duration of operation for each Group and Rest.

Thumbnail

Table 7
PB-B Scenario - Rotation cycle with duration of operation for each Group and Rest.

Thumbnail

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis of the WEAP model for the FRB.

Thumbnail

Table 9
Result and evaluation of the performance statistics for the calibration of the flow modeled in the Projeto Rio Formoso Station.

Thumbnail

Table 10
Final values of the calibration parameters after adjusting the modeled flow to the observed flow at the Projeto Rio Formoso Station.

Thumbnail

Table 11
Result and evaluation of the performance statistics for the calibration of the flow modeled in the Foz Rio Urubu Station.

Thumbnail

Table 12
Final values of the calibration parameters after adjusting the modeled flow to the observed flow at the Foz Rio Urubu Station.

Thumbnail

Table 13
Result and evaluation of the performance statistics for the calibration of the flow modeled in the Foz Rio Formoso Station.

Thumbnail

Table 14
Final values of the calibration parameters after adjusting the modeled flow to the observed flow at the Foz Rio Formoso Station.

Thumbnail

Table 15
Average, minimum and maximum flow values and portion of days with daily flow exceeding the environmental flow limits corresponding to the critical section of the Formoso District River.

Thumbnail

Table 16
Average, minimum and maximum flow values and portion of days with daily flow exceeding the environmental flow limits corresponding to the Lower Formoso critical section.

Thumbnail

Table 17
Values of average, minimum and maximum flow and portion of days with daily flow higher than the environmental flow limits corresponding to the critical section Mouth of Urubu River.

Thumbnail

Table 18
Values of average, minimum and maximum flow and portion of days with daily flow higher than the environmental flow limits corresponding to the critical section Mouth of Formoso River.

Thumbnail

(1)

Thumbnail

(2)

Thumbnail

(3)

Station	Code	Responsible	Operator	Lat (°)	Long(°)
Projeto Rio Formoso	26730000	ANA	CPRM	-11.8392	-49.7711
Foz Rio Formoso	26799000	SEMARH-TO	SEMARH-TO	-10.5856	-49.9264
Foz Rio Urubu	26798500	SEMARH-TO	SEMARH-TO	-10.8278	-49.7956

Parameters	Description	Units	Default Values
Crop Coeficient	Relative to the reference crop.	-	1
Soil Water Capacity	Effective water holding capacity of upper soil layer.	mm	1000
Deep Water Capacity	Effective water holding capacity of lower, deep soil layer.	mm	1000
Runoff Resistance Factor	Used to control surface runoff response.	-	2
Root Zone Conductivity	Root zone conductivity rate at full saturation.	mm/day	20
Deep Conductivity	Conductivity rate of deep layer at full saturation.	mm/day	20
Preferred Flow Direction	Used to partition the flow out of the root zone layer between interflow and flow to the lower soil layer.	-	0.15
Initial Z1	Initial value for Z1 at the beginning of simulation.	%	30
Initial Z2	Initial value for Z2 at the beginning of simulation	%	30

Performance Rating	NSE	R²	PBIAS
Very Good	0.8 < NSE ≤ 1.00	0.85 < R² ≤ 1.00	PBIAS < ± 5
Good	0.7 < NSE ≤ 0.8	0.75 < R² ≤ 0.85	± 5 ≤ PBIAS < ± 10
Satisfactory	0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.7	0.60 < R² ≤ 0.75	±10 ≤ PBIAS ≤ ± 15
Unsatisfactory	NSE ≤ 0.5	R² < 0.60	PBIAS ≥ ± 15

Seasonal Reference Flow – Q90 (m³/s)
Critical Reagions	Dry Season		Rainy Season
Critical Reagions	Q90	Q env.	Q90	Q90 env.
Urubu River Mouth	1.25	0.311	28.63	7.16
Upper Formoso	0.68	0.169	15.57	3.89
Middle Formoso	2.07	0.518	47.62	11.91
Lower Formoso	2.94	0.734	67.53	16.88
Formoso River Mouth	4.22	1.055	97.02	24.26

Monthly Reference Flow – Q95 (m³/s)
Month	Formoso River Mouth		Lower Formoso		Middle Formoso		Urubu River Mouth
Month	Q95	Qenv.	Q95	Qenv.	Q95	Qenv.	Q95	Qenv.
January	99.1	24.8	65.1	16.3	43.9	10.9	13.72	3.4
Febuary	164.3	41.1	118.5	29.6	89.9	22.5	18.51	4.6
March	273.9	68.5	185.9	46.5	130.8	32.7	35.58	8.9
April	487.4	121.9	276.2	69.1	144.2	36.1	85.35	21.3
May	201.9	50.5	109.3	27.3	51.4	12.8	37.5	9.4
June	57.8	14.4	32.2	8.1	16.2	4.1	10.3	2.6
July	21.7	5.4	12.9	3.2	7.3	1.8	3.6	0.9
August	6.6	1.7	3.6	0.9	1.7	0.4	1.2	0.3
September	2.4	0.6	1.7	0.4	1.2	0.3	0.3	0.1
October	3.9	0.9	3.9	0.9	3.9	0.9	0.01	0.004
November	5.2	1.3	5.1	1.3	5.04	1.3	0.04	0.01
December	18.3	4.5	15.3	3.8	13.4	3.4	1.2	0.3

Sequence	Group 1			Group 2			Group 3			Group 1
Week	Sun	Mon		Tue	Wed		Thu	Fri		Sat
Day	1	2		3	4		5	6		7
Operation	✓	✓	Rest	✓	✓	Rest	✓	✓	Rest	✓
Time (h)	24	16	8	24	16	8	24	16	8	24

Sequence	Group 1		Group 2		Group 3		All Groups
Week	Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Day	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Operation	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	Rest
Time (h)	24	24	24	24	24	24	24

Parameters	Default	I1	I2	I12	O1	O2	O12	SI	Rating
SWC	1000	100	1900	1000	159.9	92.4	126.2	-0.297	3
DWC	1000	100	1900	1000	105.7	113.1	109.4	0.038	5
RRF	2	0.2	3.8	2	182.6	101.3	141.9	-0.318	2
RZC	20	2	38	20	42.3	147.2	94.8	0.615	1
DC	20	2	38	20	95.8	107.2	101.5	0.063	4
PFD	0.15	0.015	0.285	0.15	108.1	108.1	108.1	0.000	8
Initial Z1	30	3	57	30	108.0	108.4	108.2	0.002	7
Initial Z2	30	3	57	30	105.7	108.8	107.3	0.016	6

Performance Statistics	Projeto Rio Formoso Station	Performance Classification
NSE	0.89	0.8 < NSE ≤ 1.00	Very Good
PBIAS (%)	2.7	PBIAS < ± 5	Very Good
R²	0.89	0.85 < R² ≤ 1.00	Very Good

VARIABLES	SUB-BASINS
VARIABLES	Units	Piaus	Pau Seco	Upper Formoso	Middle Formoso
SWC	mm	5500	5500	5500	7500
DWC	mm	9000	9000	9000	7000
RRF
Farming	-	20	20	20	20
Non Vegetated Area	-	10	10	10	10
Irrigated Agriculture	-	-	-	-	30
Water	-	10	10	10	10
Forest	-	20	20	20	20
Non Forest Naturation Formation	-	20	20	20	20
RZC	mm/day	105	105	100	10
DC	mm/day	3	3	3	2
PFD
January	-	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9
Febuary	-	1	1	1	1
March	-	1	1	1	1
April	-	1	1	1	1
May	-	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
June	-	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
July	-	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
August	-	0	0	0	0
September	-	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
October	-	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
November	-	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
December	-	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
Initial Z1	%	0	0	0	0.1
Initial Z2	%	0	0	0	0

Performance Statistics	Foz do Rio Urubu Station	Performance Classification
NSE	0.79	0.7 < NSE ≤ 0.8	Good
PBIAS (%)	6.7	± 5 ≤ PBIAS < ± 10	Good
R²	0.8	0.75 < R² ≤ 0.85	Good

VARIABLES			SUB-BASINS
VARIABLES	Units		Dueré		Rib. Lago Verde		Urubu
SWC		mm		6700		2500		3400
DWC		mm		6500		5500		6500
RRF
Farming		-		20		20		20
Non Vegetated Area		-		10		10		10
Irrigated Agriculture		-		30		30		30
Water		-		10		10		10
Forest		-		20		20		20
Non Forest Naturation Formation		-		20		20		20
RZC		mm/day		20		30		45
DC		mm/day		3		3		2
PFD
January		-		0.9		0.9		0.9
Febuary		-		1		1		1
March		-		1		1		1
April		-		1		1		1
May		-		0.85		0.85		0.85
June		-		0.7		0.7		0.7
July		-		0.3		0.3		0.3
August		-		0		0		0
September		-		0.2		0.2		0.2
October		-		0.1		0.1		0.1
November		-		0.4		0.4		0.4
December		-		0.7		0.7		0.7
Initial Z1		%		0.1		0.1		0.1
Initial Z2		%		0		0		0

Performance Statistics	Foz do Rio Formoso	Performance Classification
NSE	0.89	0.8 < NSE ≤ 1.00	Very Good
PBIAS (%)	-7.4	± 5 ≤ PBIAS < ± 10	Good
R²	0.91	0.85 < R² ≤ 1.00	Very Good

VARIABLES			SUB-BASINS
VARIABLES	Units		Xavante	Lower Formoso
SWC		mm	3000	7500
DWC		mm	2500	7000
RRF
Farming		-	20	20
Non Vegetated Area		-	10	10
Irrigated Agriculture		-	30	30
Water		-	10	10
Forest		-	20	20
Non Forest Naturation Formation		-	20	20
RZC		mm/day	40	35
DC		mm/day	3	2
PFD
January		-	0.9	0.9
Febuary		-	1	1
March		-	1	1
April		-	1	1
May		-	0.85	0.85
June		-	0.7	0.7
July		-	0.3	0.3
August		-	0	0
September		-	0.2	0.2
October		-	0.1	0.1
November		-	0.4	0.4
December		-	0.7	0.7
Initial Z1		%	0.1	0.1
Initial Z2		%	0	0

Formoso Irrigation District
Scenarios	Q ave.	Q min.	Qmax	% days with Q day greater than 25% of seasonal Q90 (0.52 m³/s)	% days with Q day greater than 25% of monthly Q95 (1.83 m³/s)
Reference	3.69	0.003	18.68	38	38
PB-A	4.87	0.027	22.74	61	38
PB-B	5	0.032	22.52	61	38

Lower Formoso
Scenários	Q ave.	Q min.	Qmax	% days with Q day greater than 25% of seasonal Q90 (0.73 m³/s)	% days with Q day greater than 25% of monthly Q95 (2.22 m³/s)
Reference	6.55	null	23.82	68	68
PB-A	9.1	0.93	28.11	100	94
PB-B	9.5	0.93	27.9	100	93

Mouth of the Urubu River
Scenarios	Q ave.	Q min.	Q max.	% days with Q day greater than 25% of seasonal Q90 (0.311 m³/s)	% days with Q day greater than 25% of monthly Q95 (0.90 m³/s)
Reference	0.21	null	1.80	16	6
PB-A	0.88	0.02	2.4	61	45
PB-B	1.07	null	2.5	61	58

Mouth of the Formoso River
Scenários	Q ave.	Q min.	Qmax	% days with Q day greater than 25% of seasonal Q90 (1.05 m³/s)	% days with Q day greater than 25% of monthly Q95 (5.43 m³/s)
Reference	8.64	0.06	26.36	81	48
PB-A	16.1	6.11	35.01	100	100
PB-B	17.2	7.5	36.1	100	100

\begin{array}{l} R_{d}_{j} \frac{d_{z}_{1, j}}{d t} = P_{e} (t) - P E T (t) k_{c, j} (t) (\frac{5 z_{1, j} - 2 z^{2}_{1, j}}{3}) - \\ P_{e} (t) z_{i, j}^{R R F_{j}} - f_{j} k_{s, j} z_{1, j}^{2} - (1 - f_{j}) k_{s, j} z_{1, j}^{2} \end{array}

[1] E-mails: eduardopaulino_silva@hotmail.com (EPS), calves@unb.br (CMAA), nicolejvolken@gmail.com (NJV), vergara@mail.uft.edu.br (FEVF), rtminoti@unb.br (RTM)

Brasil

Brasil

Evaluation of collective water rights allocation scenarios using the WEAP simulation model in a region of water use conflicts: the case of Formoso River Basin – Tocantins state/Brazil

Avaliação de cenários de alocação coletiva de direitos à água utilizando o modelo de simulação WEAP em regiões de conflito pelo uso da água: o caso da Bacia do Rio Formoso-Tocantins/Brasil

ABSTRACT