the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A data derived workflow for reservoir operations for simulating reservoir operations in a global hydrologic model
Abstract. Globally there are over 24,000 storage structures (e.g. dams and reservoirs) that contribute over 7,000 km3 of storage. Until recently, most of the data regarding these reservoirs was not openly accessible. As a result, many studies rely on generalized operations based on generalized assumptions about reservoir storage dynamics and management. With the creation of global datasets such as the Global Reservoirs and Dams (GRanD), RealSat, GloLakes, and the International Coalition for Large Dams database (iCOLD) as well as localized datasets such as ResOpsUS for the contiguous United States, and the Mekong Data Monitor for the Mekong River basin, the inference of reservoir operations using data derived techniques has become much more ubiquitous regionally. Yet to our knowledge, there has been no global application of data-derived methods due to their model complexities and data limitations. Therefore, our analysis aims to fill this gap by providing a workflow for implementing data derived reservoir operations in the large scale hydrologic models with an application in the PCRGLOBWB 2 global hydrologic model. This methodology uses global satellite altimetry data from GloLakes, a parameterization methodology developed by Turner et al. (2021), and a random forest model. We also test the sensitivity of our reservoir scheme to downstream demand by selecting three different downstream areas presumed to be served by reservoirs release (command areas): 250 km, 650 km, and 1100 km. Our results demonstrate that our random forest algorithm is able to capture the storage dynamics and that the errors are mainly due to the errors in using remotely sensed storage data. Additionally, we observe in many cases that deriving operational bounds from historical reservoir time series has minimal impact on streamflow at the basin outlets nor is the scheme sensitive to the downstream command areas. We do observe that streamflow is affected directly downstream from the reservoirs and that the data-derived methodology does increase the accuracy of simulated global reservoir storage when compared to observations. In fact, the derived operations have much lower storage values that align better with both direct and remotely sensed reservoir storage observations. This demonstrates that generic operations overestimate the total amount of water stored in reservoirs and, as a result, are potentially overestimating water availability. Ultimately, our workflow allows global hydrologic models to capitalize on recent data acquisition by remote sensing to provide more accurate reservoir storage and global water security.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(31939 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3658', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2025
Steyaert et al. present an approach to deriving reservoir operations for global scale hydrologic models. The study is of value to the water resources modeling community, but requires major revisions before being accepted for publication in HESS. Some elements of the method are not well justified, including the categorization of dams into “irrigation-like” and “hydro-like”, as well as use of a release decision approach based on downstream demand aggregated across an arbitrary command area. Use of a random forest model to extrapolate curves is a nice idea but is not evaluated fully (i.e., using a cross-validation scheme) and appears quite ineffective based on the results shown. Although the level and depth of analysis conducted is impressive, the quality of results/figures is quite poor, and often confusing. The study can be simplified and reworked to deliver more clear and compelling results (with more impactful figures) on improvements offered by a data-derived storage scheme. The paper would also benefit from a significant reduction in number of words. The introduction is 13 paragraphs long and contains a lot of general detail. I encourage the authors to rewrite the introduction in a way that brings immediate focus to the problem area, most recent literature addressing that problem, and aims of the study. Three or four paragraphs will suffice. The abstract, currently almost 400 words, can be halved without loss of essential information.
Title: Awkward repetition of "reservoir operations". Did you mean "A data derived workflow for simulating reservoir operations in a global hydrologic model" ? Also, this wording suggests that it is the *workflow* that is data derived, rather than the reservoir operation. So, did you actually mean something like "Data derived reservoir operations in a global hydrologic model" ?
Abstract L2. "most of the data was not openly accessible" . I would suggest that this remains true. Specify the type of data.
L27. water supply reservoirs, flood control reservoirs, and hydropower dams are found in all climate types.
L187. Do you mean: “…to determine reservoir rule curves that specify seasonal flood and conservation pools…” ?
L205. Not clear what is meant by “yearly maps of static reservoir characteristics”. Also, since L180 I have been reading and wondering the motivation and reasoning behind these two categories (“hydropower-like” and “irrigation-like”). Please try to clarify the role of this categorization early in the study.
L250. Please add further detail here on whether any efforts were made to ensure reservoirs were placed on correct streams. From what I read, it seems the lat/lon of the reservoirs are snapped to the PCR-GLOBWB grid then assigned that grid cell.
L270. Ok—here I am now realizing that irrigation-like and hydropower-like categories are used to inform releases, with the starfit approach solely defining storage curves. Doesn’t this mean the operations are not full data-driven but rather half data driven (storage curves) and half “generic” (release policy based on command area demand and reservoir purpose)?
L313 – missing reference to equation 5.
L325-330. I would be very unsure about labels of water supply / irrigation vs hydro etc within GranD leading to a neat splitting of dams respectively operated for downstream demand versus maintaining high storage levels. Apart from the issue of inaccurate reservoir purposes in the available global datasets, one rarely finds such simple distinctions in reality. Are you able to show that two categories of operations actually exist, e.g., by comparing the starfit curves for irrigation-like versus hydropower-like dams in the set of 1752 observed dams? I would be surprised if you find a clear distinction. If this is the case, I don’t see strong justification for the splittling—which in a way complicates the study.
L335. It’s unclear to me what the command area offers. The storage curves can guide the release without a downstream demand. Were any tests performed to evaluate whether this downstream demand actually improves on accuracy?
L342. How are surface water abstractions considered? Is this based on demand within the same grid cell as the reservoir?
Equation 6. Maybe I missed this, but how is Env defined? Also, how is the flood release defined? Is this just spill required to draw the reservoir back to the active zone?
L350. Unclear what is being done here. Are you creating an active zone per dam type and country? Why? I thought the random forest provides full parameterization for each dam.
L381. After validating the model and demonstrating effectiveness with the 25% out validation, why not re-train with all 1,752 structures before extrapolating? Also, given the importance of the random forest to the overall framework, I strongly suggest the authors pursue a k-fold cross validation scheme rather than single training and test samples.
L385. How many reservoirs end up being constrained to these bounds? Also, it’s not clear what is meant by flood peak here. Do you mean upper bound of active storage?
Table 2. Here would be very interesting to see a version that drops the command area and demand parameters (as well as hydro/irrigation split) entirely. I can’t see a strong justification for the demand-based release or the command area (or the hydro / irrigation split for that matter). A simple way to test this would be to take the mid-point of the active zone (i.e. assume just one curve to target) and operate toward that at all times (giving you a very simple release function).
L503. Above you state that Clinton dam has a hydropower main purpose.
Figure 4. Is this average monthly discharge over a number of years, or are you showing a single year’s output?
L588 – this is an inadequate way to evaluate storage dynamics improvement. You have observation and results. Compute NSE / RMSE / KGE or similar for each dam (sim vs obs) and show the difference across a distribution (perhaps splitting by continent or large basin).
Figure 7. It’s not clear why the data-derived storage curves result in a different seasonal storage pattern than GloLAKES for North America. Aren’t the curves based on GloLAKES data?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3658-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jennie C. Steyaert, 24 Apr 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3658/egusphere-2024-3658-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jennie C. Steyaert, 24 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3658', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Mar 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jennie C. Steyaert, 24 Apr 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3658/egusphere-2024-3658-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jennie C. Steyaert, 24 Apr 2025
Data sets
Modelled outputs for "A data derived workflow for reservoir operations (in global hydrologic models)" (Steyaert et al., 2025) Jennie C. Steyaert and Niko Wanders https://public.yoda.uu.nl/geo/UU01/F2UO5H.html
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
307 | 81 | 15 | 403 | 14 | 16 |
- HTML: 307
- PDF: 81
- XML: 15
- Total: 403
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1