• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Preface
 Abstract
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Illustrations
 Interactive and batch modes
 Tract and area summary tables
 Summary
 Reference






Group Title: Economic information report 194
Title: Area-wide agricultural water demand projection model for South Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027243/00001
 Material Information
Title: Area-wide agricultural water demand projection model for South Florida user's manual, version 2.2
Series Title: Economic information report
Physical Description: iii, 34 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Lynne, Gary D
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Water-supply, Agricultural -- Computer simulation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Water use -- Computer simulation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Gary D. Lynne.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "February 1984."
Funding: Economic information report (Gainesville, Fla.) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027243
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001547500
oclc - 21062386
notis - AHG1042

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Preface
        Page i
    Abstract
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page ii
    List of Illustrations
        Page iii
    Interactive and batch modes
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Interactive operation
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
        Batch operation
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
    Tract and area summary tables
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Summary
        Page 33
    Reference
        Page 34
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida





Gary D.


Lynne


Economic Information
Report 194


Area-Wide Agricultural Water
Demand Projection Model for South
Florida: User's Manual, Version 2.2


3 -


Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611


February 1984













Preface


Version 2.2 of the AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
MODEL FOR SOUTH FLORIDA represents a "1st generation" attempt at such
projection for larger areas. The model incorporates the best informa-
tion available, but at times some rather heroic assumptions were neces-
sary. As a result, the specific empirical results from the model may
not be exact. However, the model is useful in providing information
regarding the directions of change in economic impact and water use
under different water availability conditions. Further work is in
progress on the model, with the goal of making continual improvements
through time. Please relay any comments for improvements to the author.
The model can be utilized by anyone having access to the IFAS VAX
at the University of Florida. The MENU title is AGWATER.




Abstract
/
The user interface with the AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND
PROJECTION MODEL FOR SOUTH FLORIDA is described, The user is shown how
to create necessary files, and the various responses to computer prompts
are explained. The same information is used whether the model is oper-
ated in INTERACTIVE or BATCH modes. The model provides a water demand
projection for daily, monthly, and yearly intervals, given a set of
daily rainfall values provided by the user for the August to July water
year. The user can predict water demand for the entire water year or
any sub-interval of that year. The computer generates five tables,
summarizing parameters in the daily simulation, water demand and. deep
percolation/drainage losses, and financial impact at both the acre and
area levels of aggregation.


Key words: Water demand, water use, irrigation use, drought impact




Acknowledgements


The funds for this modeling effort were provided in part under
contract 4-FCD-22 8002-302 with the South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm BRach, Florida. Completion of the model also
relied heavily on resources of the Institute, including help and aid
from many faculty,













Preface


Version 2.2 of the AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
MODEL FOR SOUTH FLORIDA represents a "1st generation" attempt at such
projection for larger areas. The model incorporates the best informa-
tion available, but at times some rather heroic assumptions were neces-
sary. As a result, the specific empirical results from the model may
not be exact. However, the model is useful in providing information
regarding the directions of change in economic impact and water use
under different water availability conditions. Further work is in
progress on the model, with the goal of making continual improvements
through time. Please relay any comments for improvements to the author.
The model can be utilized by anyone having access to the IFAS VAX
at the University of Florida. The MENU title is AGWATER.




Abstract
/
The user interface with the AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND
PROJECTION MODEL FOR SOUTH FLORIDA is described, The user is shown how
to create necessary files, and the various responses to computer prompts
are explained. The same information is used whether the model is oper-
ated in INTERACTIVE or BATCH modes. The model provides a water demand
projection for daily, monthly, and yearly intervals, given a set of
daily rainfall values provided by the user for the August to July water
year. The user can predict water demand for the entire water year or
any sub-interval of that year. The computer generates five tables,
summarizing parameters in the daily simulation, water demand and. deep
percolation/drainage losses, and financial impact at both the acre and
area levels of aggregation.


Key words: Water demand, water use, irrigation use, drought impact




Acknowledgements


The funds for this modeling effort were provided in part under
contract 4-FCD-22 8002-302 with the South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm BRach, Florida. Completion of the model also
relied heavily on resources of the Institute, including help and aid
from many faculty,













Preface


Version 2.2 of the AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
MODEL FOR SOUTH FLORIDA represents a "1st generation" attempt at such
projection for larger areas. The model incorporates the best informa-
tion available, but at times some rather heroic assumptions were neces-
sary. As a result, the specific empirical results from the model may
not be exact. However, the model is useful in providing information
regarding the directions of change in economic impact and water use
under different water availability conditions. Further work is in
progress on the model, with the goal of making continual improvements
through time. Please relay any comments for improvements to the author.
The model can be utilized by anyone having access to the IFAS VAX
at the University of Florida. The MENU title is AGWATER.




Abstract
/
The user interface with the AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND
PROJECTION MODEL FOR SOUTH FLORIDA is described, The user is shown how
to create necessary files, and the various responses to computer prompts
are explained. The same information is used whether the model is oper-
ated in INTERACTIVE or BATCH modes. The model provides a water demand
projection for daily, monthly, and yearly intervals, given a set of
daily rainfall values provided by the user for the August to July water
year. The user can predict water demand for the entire water year or
any sub-interval of that year. The computer generates five tables,
summarizing parameters in the daily simulation, water demand and. deep
percolation/drainage losses, and financial impact at both the acre and
area levels of aggregation.


Key words: Water demand, water use, irrigation use, drought impact




Acknowledgements


The funds for this modeling effort were provided in part under
contract 4-FCD-22 8002-302 with the South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm BRach, Florida. Completion of the model also
relied heavily on resources of the Institute, including help and aid
from many faculty,



















Table of Contents





Preface ...................................********************.................. i

Abstract .... .............. .... ............ ..... ..*****.********

Acknowledgementse ........................ ....****.*...**..........*



List of Illustrations ..............................**** ********* iii

INTERACTIVE AND BATCHM' ODES...................................... I

Interactive Operation..............**....***.....********** 4
Batch Operation..... ....*..........*... **********************

TRACT AND AREA SUMMARY TABLES. .................................. 16

SU .................*** ** ********. ..... 33






List of Tables




Table 1. Format of the WATCOS data file, subset of data for
Everglades Agricultural Area..................... .... 3

Table 2. August to July calendar for a water year, showing
Julian days....7......... .. ............*********... 7

Table 3. Format of COEFPARA data file for batch operation....... 10

Table 4. Crop types for each water supply area in South
Florida............................................... 12



















Table of Contents





Preface ...................................********************.................. i

Abstract .... .............. .... ............ ..... ..*****.********

Acknowledgementse ........................ ....****.*...**..........*



List of Illustrations ..............................**** ********* iii

INTERACTIVE AND BATCHM' ODES...................................... I

Interactive Operation..............**....***.....********** 4
Batch Operation..... ....*..........*... **********************

TRACT AND AREA SUMMARY TABLES. .................................. 16

SU .................*** ** ********. ..... 33






List of Tables




Table 1. Format of the WATCOS data file, subset of data for
Everglades Agricultural Area..................... .... 3

Table 2. August to July calendar for a water year, showing
Julian days....7......... .. ............*********... 7

Table 3. Format of COEFPARA data file for batch operation....... 10

Table 4. Crop types for each water supply area in South
Florida............................................... 12






















List of Illustrations


Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration

Illustration


Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer
Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer
Computer


generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated

generated


Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table


for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for


sugarcane........

sugarcane........

sugarcane........

sugarcane........

sugarcane........

celery*.*e******
celery... ... .....

celery...........

celery...........

celery...........

celery...........

sweet corn.......

sweet corn,......

sweet corn.......

sweet corn....*..

sweet corn......





















AREA-WIDE AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTION MODEL
FOR SOUTH FLORIDA: USER'S MANUAL, VERSION 2.2

Gary D. Lynne


Florida water management districts are charged with the efficient
and equitable allocation of all fresh water resources, which can be an
especially difficult problem during water shortage periods. Some means
is needed to project the water use patterns expected during such inter-
vals of time, generally for several months. One approach is to develop
computerized, mathematical models of the water use process. This User's
Manual describes hoy to access and use a model developed for this pur-
pose. This model represents agricultural water demand and provides for
simulation of the water balance and economic impact during a entire
water year over larger areas.
The details regarding the internal workings, and the underlying
logic of the model are presented in the "Technical Documentation"
(Lynne, et al.). It is the purpose of this User's Manual to indicate
how the user can interface with Version 2.2 (V2.2) of the model, includ-
ing a discussion of the results.


INTERACTIVE AND BATCH MODES


The user can choose to operate interactively or in a "batch"
mode. In the former, the user deals individually with each tract of
land, and responds to prompts from the computer for various constants
and parameters. In the latter, the user must provide a machine readable
file called COEFPARA, in which all the constants and parameters are
directly available to the computer for projection purposes. The batch




GARY D. LYNNE is Associate Professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.














mode will normally be used where water use and economic impact projec-
tions are to be accomplished over a large number of tracts. The inter-
active mode is more useful for examining many cases, such as several
alternative management strategies, for only a few tracts. The same
constants and parameters must be available for either operational
mode. They differ only in how the user interfaces with the model.
Both operational modes in V2.2 require that two major data files be
provided by the user, named RAIN and WATCOS. The first is a daily
rainfall file that may be as large as 55 years. Leap years are not
separated out for special attention; it is suggested that any new rain-
fall file be modified to include February 29 rainfall on February 28.
The computer will indicate which rainfall file is currently available,
based on statements in the MAIN code. The user must change the OPEN
statement in MAIN if the rainfall file is named anything other than
RAIN. The rainfall data can he placed in free form format, with a space
between each item, and including a decimal point, or in the F4.2
format. Also, the inflow of water from other material sources could
also be included in the RAIN file. The only requirement is that such
estimates are for each day in the calendar year.
The second file needed in V2.2, called WATCOS, includes data on
crop name, costs, yields, and growing season length for each of seven
water supply areas. There must be data provided on 19 different crops
for each area. The format of this file is presented in Table 1. The
first item in the file must be the crop name, in capital letters, using
up to 20 alphanumeric characters. The name must be left justified in a
20 column data field. This must be followed by several constants, each
including a decimal point and separated by one space, or in 10 column
fields (with or without the decimal point). They are all read into a
F10.2 format, in the following order (Table 1).
1. price, dollars per unit yield of the crop;
2. average variable cost of water for irrigation (AVCWI), dollars per
acre inch;
3. average variable cost of water for drainage (AVCWD), dollars per
acre inch;













4. fixed and other costs (FC), except for harvest costs, dollars per
acre;
5. average variable costs of harvest (AVCH), dollars per unit har-
vested;
6. yield, in crates, pounds, hundredweights, bushels, tons (or other
appropriate units) per acre;
7. growing season length, in days from planting through harvest.



Table 1. Format of the WATCOS data file, subset of data for Everglades
Agricultural Area

Crop
Name Price AVCWIa AVCWD FC AVCH Yield Season

<--20-->b <--10--> <-0-10--> --10--> (--10--> <--10--> <--10--> <--10-->

CELERY 6.51 e0.0 0.0 1569.54 3.10 659. 85.
ESCAROLE 4.69 0.0 0.0 703.74 2.26 366. 98.

aAcronyms defined as:
AVCWI and AVCWD are the average variable costs of water for irrigation
and for drainage; FC is the fixed cost per acre; AVCH is the average
variable cost per unit harvested.
bColumn widths, computer card or record image.



The user may name these files differently; however, V2.2 will only
recognize the name WATCOS, unless changes are made to the appropriate
OPEN statements in the MAIN program. Also, the first field must be 20
columns long, with the crop name left justified, even if free format is
used for the numeric data.
After the program is executed, the user is first asked to indicate
the terminal type. If a VT-100 (DEC) is being used, the computer inter-
face is more user friendly. However, any terminal will operate ade-
quately. The computer then reads the rainfall (RAIN) file.
The user is then given a message indicating the name of the model,
and is asked to press ENTER to continue, as for all prompts. If this is
done, the program presents a message briefly describing the model, and














then asks whether a file is to be opened for saving results. If so, a
file called WATUSE will appear on the user's account. These files
should be deleted after each session, to keep sufficient file space.
The user must then specify whether the operational mode is to be inter-
active or batch. The user indicates a "1" for the interactive or "2"
for batch operation.


Interactive Operation

The first prompt in the interactive mode is for the user to select
the area for which the simulation is to he accomplished. These names
can be changed by modifying the code in MAIN. There are seven water
supply areas, served through Lake Okeechobee, included in V2,2. Next,
the user must indicate whether daily, or monthly, or both types of
estimates are to be provided as output data. Normally, the user will
select option "2", as the daily output file is used mainly for debugging
purposes. If option "1" is selected, daily data are provided on each
tract; there is no provision in V2.2 for daily summaries across all
tracts for an entire area. Economic/financial estimates are provided
only with options 2 and 3, on monthly and yearly time steps.
The user then specifies the water year for the simulation. This
can be any of the years provided as input in the rainfall file. Rain-
fall is the major "driver" of the model. As soon as the user has speci-
fied the rainfall year, the computer creates a rainfall data set start-
ing on August 1, and continuing on through July 31 of the following
year. For example, if the user specifies 1971 as the simulation year,
the actual period examined is August 1, 1971 through July 31, 1972. Of
course, the user must also provide rainfall data for both 1971 and 1972,
if this is the choice.
Then, the user is asked to indicate whether daily rainfall data are
to be written to a file. Normally, except for "debugging" purposes, the
response should be "2", meaning no. Also, if the user did not OPEN a
file for output, these data will be typed on the terminal if the answer
is "1".














The next prompt relates to the initialization of two of the major
summary arrays which store tract information for aggregation to area-
wide summaries. There is one associated with the water balance. The
other represents the costs, returns, and profits for the area. The
answer should always be "1", to initialize, on the first pass through
the program. After that, it depends on the use to which the model is
being put. If the user is attempting to estimate the demand on many
tracts, all in one area, then normally the user will respond with a "2"
on each subsequent pass. However, the user does have the option of
zeroing out these summaries on any given pass, and starting over with
the current tract. The latest summary will be available on the user's
computer file, in any case (assuming the user has specified that files
can be written, which is asked in a later prompt). This latest summary
will also be typed at the terminal for each pass, if the answer is "2".
The next task is to enter the tract number, which can be any inte-
ger from 1 to 9999. It is suggested the user develop a coding system to
facilitate location and identification of each tract in each area.
The user then must indicate whether there were irrigation and/or
drainage water costs prior to August 1 of this simulation year. This
may be relevent for any crop planted before the August 1 starting date
for this model, especially for sugarcane in the Everglades Agricultural
Area. That is, the water year cannot start before August 1, in the
sense of the simulation. However, water costs can be included for those
crops planted/growing before August 1. A zero must be entered if there
were none, or if this is not relevant.
Again relating to the water and cost/return summary tables, the
user must now specify whether or not these area-wide summaries are to be
saved on a computer file. If not, the response should be "2", in which
case output is shown only on the CRT. Another way to interpret this
is: if the user wants only to have the last area-wide summary saved,
after making several passes through the program, then the user should
continually respond with a "2", until the last pass, in which case the
response should be a "1". The net result will be summary tables














containing the current aggregate values for all the tracts. These will
be saved in a file called WATUPE.RES, assuming the computer system being
used allows this type of file name designation. If not, the appropriate
OPEN statement in MAIN must be changed.
The next requirement is for the user to choose the crop type, from
the list provided by the computer. In V2.2, the user must insure the
list in MAIN, in the code is the same as the list read into WATCOS.
This is not automatically accounted for in V2.2. In terms of the simu-
lation, the controlling element is what is provided in WATCOS. For
example, if crop number seven is selected, and that crop is celery in
the WATCOS file, then the coefficients for celery will be used in the
simulation. Also, the name of crop seven in WATCOS will appear on the
output tables.
If sugarcane is' selected from the list, the user must now choose to
use the average yield for the area, or select from one of the equations
estimated. One of the yield models can be used if
1. the particular variety of concern is listed; and,
2. the plant cane was planted in early spring and harvested in Decem-
ber; and/or
3. the ratoon cane is in the first year, with harvest in December.
If these conditions are not met, the user should select the average
yield option. With this option, the computer asks whether it is ratoon
or plant cane, which affects the evapotranspiration (ET) calculations.
The ET is higher for plant cane.
A menu is then provided on the screen showing the current values of
the costs, prices, average yields, and growing season lengths from the
WATCOS file discussed earlier. The user can change any of these values
interactively. The menu will be repeated until the user responds with
an "8", meaning no further changes.
The next prompt is generally for the planting date. Recall the
calendar year starts in August; thus, the user must always specify the
month using that as the base. For example, a planting date of October
15 would be entered as month 3, day 15. July becomes month 12 under
this calendar. However, when using the sugarcane yield models based on














the experiments conducted at Belle Glade, the planting and harvest dates
are fixed by the computer. The calendar used in this model is shown in
Table 2.


Table 2. August to July calendar for a water year, showing Julian days

Julian
Month Number days

August 1 1- 31
September 2 32- 61
October 3 62- 92
November 4 93-122
December 5 123-153
January < 6 154-184
February 7 185-212
March 8 213-243
April 9 244-273
May 10 274-304
June 11 305-334
July 12 335-365




If the average yield model for sugar is selected, both the planting
and harvest date must be provided. If planting was before August 1,
planting should be indicted as August 1. However, caution must be
exercised in the interpretation of the water demand for sugarcane har-
vested other than in December. This is because of the way evapo-
transpiration was calculated for sugarcane in V2.2.
The harvest date may be requested at this point, depending on the
crop type. It will not be requested for any of the vegetables, but will
generally be requested for other crops, except the special sugarcane
situation described above. The harvest date for vegetables is calcu-
lated by adding the growing season length to the (Julian) planting date.

















The user is next prompted to provide the planted acreage for this
tract. It is assumed in V2.2 the acreage stays the same each month.
The user then indicates what percentage of this acreage is to be har-
vested, which may be especially relevent for the vegetable crops. The
water and fixed costs are calculated on the basis of the planted acre-
age; harvest costs are calculated on the basis of the harvested acre-
age.
The next task is to specify the month and day to start and the day
to stop the water balance simulation. For example, the user may wish to
start the water balance on August 1, 1978 and end it on February 28,
1979. Assuming 1978 was entered for the year prompt, the user now
simply enters.
1 1
to start the simulation, and
7 28
to stop it on February 28 of the next year. (See Table 2).
The user then selects the soil type, either organic soil or
"other". V2.2 has a detailed soil/water model for the organic muck
soils, such as exist in the Everglades Agricultural Area. The other
model used to represent all other types has only a simple water balance
relation, thus, the name "POT" model. Dependent on the soil type
selected, the user is prompted to review the various soil parameters
associated with that soil. Changes can be made by selecting the appro-
priate code. If, for example, the user wished to change the goal water
table shown as the "default" value in the prompt, code "1" should be
entered. The computer will then prompt the user for the appropriate
water table, and repeat the entire menu. This can be done as many times
as the user wishes; when all changes have been made, a code "10" must be
entered.
This concludes the information that must be provided before the
simulation is actually started by the computer. During the simulation
various messages may be displayed, depending on the situation, indi-
cating possible problems with the run. Also, dependent upon various















selections made by the user, there may be other prompts for further
information. For example, if the user specifies that daily output of
the water balance is to be printed for a tract on to file, the computer
will prompt for which days to be printed. These must be provided in
Julian days (Table 2).
After the simulation is finished for the tract, and output has been
provided, the user is prompted to select from three possible options.
The simulation can be terminated (code 3), started over with a new
rainfall year (code 1), or started over with everything open to change
except the rainfall year. Either code 1 or 2 can be selected as many
times as desired by the user.


Batch Operation

It is highly desirable for the user to try several interactive runs
before attempting the creation of a file for batch operation. This will
facilitate obtaining a general understanding of the variables and infor-
mation used in the model. The batch mode simply reads the same types of
responses from a computer file called COEFPARA.
Once a file is ready to be accessed, and batch operation has been
selected, the user has no interaction with the computer. Some output is
displayed on the screen to show progress through the simulator. How-
ever, there is considerably more advance preparation. The nature of the
data file COEFPARA must be understood by the user before attempting
batch operation.
A brief representation of COEFPARA is shown in Table 3, for the
sample case of three tracts with the first two in the Everglades and the
third in the Lower East Coast (Dade County) area. The names in the
illustration are the actual computer code in the program, and are
defined specifically in the Technical Documentation (Lynne, et al.).
The numbers in parentheses are those used for the sample tracts. These
numbers must be entered into a computer file in the order shown in Table
3.















Table 3. Format of COEFPARA data file for batch operation.

1 NAREA(4)
2 MTABLE(2) NYRSTA(1978)
3 NRAIN(2)
4 NINIT(1)
5 FCAP(0.) PFCAP(0.) STRESS(0.) RATE(0.) PWP(0.) MIRRD(0) GWT(33.)
NTRACT(1)
6 WCI(10.) WCD(20.) MSUM(1)
7 MCROP(13)
8 MY(1) Y(0.)
9 MONSTART(1) IDAYSTART(1)
10 MHARV(5) IDAYHARV(15)
11 TAC(10000.) PROPH(1.)
12 MOS(1) ISTARTDAY(1)
13 MOE(12) IENDAY(31)
14 MSOIL(1) EFFIRR(1.) ORGPCD(1.5) ORGPCI(.4) TDDRY(12.) TIDRY(3.)
15 TDWET(6.) TIWET(9.) DEPTHS(48.)
16 NANS(2)
17 FCAP(0.) PFCAP 0.) STRESS(0.) RATE(0.) PWP(0.) MIRRD(0) GWT(18.)
NTRACT(2)
18 WCI(0.) WCD(0.) MSUM(1)
19 MCROP(1)
20 MONSTART(1) IDAYSTART(15)
21 TAC(900.) PROPH(1.)
22 MOS(1) ISTARTDAY(15)
23 MOE(4) IENDAY(1)
24 MSOIL(1) EFFIRR(1.) ORGPCD(1.4) ORGPCI(.5) TDDRY(0.) TIDRY(0.)
25 TDWET(3.0) TIWET(6.) DEPTHS(36.)
26 NANS(1)
27 NAREA(7)
28 MTABLE(2) NYRSTA(1978)
29 NRAIN(2)
30 NINIT(1)
31 FCAP(4.) PFCAP(.60) STRESS(.70) RATE(1.0) PWP(1.0) MIRRD(7) GWT(0.)
NTRACT(3)
32 WCI(0.0) WCD(0.0) MSUM(1)
33 MCROP(7)
34 MONSTART(1) IDAYSTART(20)
35 TAC(500) PROPH(.9)
36 MOS(1) ISTARTDAY(1)
37 MOE(12) IENDAY(31)
38 MSOIL(2) EFFIRR(.75) ORGPCD(0.) ORGPCI(0.) TDDRY(0.) TIDRY(0.)
TDWET(0.) TIWET(O.O) DEPTHS(0.)
39 NANS(3)














The first line shows that area (NAREA) 4, the Everglades Agricul-
tural Area, is the first area being considered. Next, the monthly as
opposed to daily estimates (MTABLE) are requested and the year (NYRSTA)
of the simulation is to be 1978 (line 2). Code "2" is selected in line
3 for the rainfall (NRAIN) summary, meaning the rainfall data is not
copied to a file and saved. In line 4, code "1" (NINIT) is selected,
meaning the area-wide summary arrays are to be initialized to zero.
Then, various water system variables are read in line 5.
The first five variables in line 5 refer to several soil/irrigation
features for all the "other" soils (in contrast to the organic soils).
Field capacity (FCAP), proportion of available water at field capacity
at which an irrigation is to take place (PFCAP), proportion of available
water at which stress stops (STRESS), rate of irrigation application
(RATE), permanent Gilting point (PWP), and minimum number of days
between irrigations (MIRRD) are all set to zero. This is done as this
tract is the organic muck soils. The goal water table (GWT) for the
organic soil is set equal to 24 inches. Then, the tract number (NTRACT)
is specified as tract 1.
Line 6 gives the water costs for irrigation and for drainage water
prior to August 1 as $10000 and $20000 entered as 10. and 20., respec-
tively. Then, the computer reads MSUM as code 1, which says the area--
wide summaries are to be generated on a file for this pass. This will
occur only if the user indicated a file was to be created for saving
results. In line 7, the crop type (MCROP) selected is sugarcane (Table
4), with the average yield model selected in line 8 (MY=1), and plant
cane is indicated by Y=0.
The month of planting (MONSTART) is August, and planting is con-
sidered as being on August 1 (IDAYSTART). For sugarcane, this could
mean either the cane was actually planted on August 1, or that it was
planted earlier, but growing on August 1. In this example, it is
assumed the cane was planted in January and water costs from January
through July were included. The effect of this specification is simply
to insure that water pumping costs are calculated from August 1 through

















Table 4. Crop types for each water supply area in South Floridaa
--u~s-iJ=.. : ..... = '-' "IPP~3D;


Caloosahatchee River
1 Cucumbers
3 Peppers
5 Staked Tomatoes
7 Other Vegetables
9 Oranges
11 Others


Rim Basin


1 Pasture


2 Irish Potatoes

4 Winter Squash
6 Watermelons
8 Pasture
10 Grapefruit





2 Others


St. Lucie Canal


1 Celery
3 Irish Potatoes
5 Radish
7 Squash
9 Other Vegetables
11 Pasture (Dairy)
13 Sugarcane
15 Fieldcorn
17 Grapefruit


Everglades Agricultural Area
1 Celery
3 Irish Potatoes
5 Radish
7 Squash
9 Other Vegetables
11 Pasture (Dairy)
13 Sugarcane
15 Field Corn


2 Escarole
4 Leaf Lettuce
6 Snap Beans
8 Sweet Corn
10 Pasture (Cow/Calf)
12 Turf, Sod
14 Rice
16 Oranges
18 Others


2 Escarole
4 Leaf Lettuce
6 Snap Beans
8 Sweet Corn
10 Pasture (Cow/Calf)
12 Turf, Sod
14 Rice
16 Others














Table 4. Continued.
-I -i-l--s"---s


Lower East Coast 1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13


Lower East Coast 2
1
3
5
7
9
11
13


Lower East Coast 3
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19


Cucumbers
Snap Beans
Squash
Other Vegetables
Pasture (Dairy)
Oranges
Others


Cucumbers
Snap Beans
~Squash
Other Vegetables
Pasture (Dairy)
Oranges
Others


Cucumbers
Pole Beans
Squash
Sweet Corn
Other Vegetables
Pasture (Dairy)
Golf Courses
Grapefruit
Lemons
Others


Eggplant
Green Peppers
Staked Tomatoes
Pasture (Cow/Calf)
Turf, Sod
Grapefruit





Eggplant
Green Peppers
Staked Tomatoes
Pasture (Cow/Calf)
Turf, Sod
Grapefruit





Irish Potatoes
Snap Beans
Strawberries
Ground Tomatoes
Pasture (Cow/Calf)
Turf, Sod
Oranges
Limes
Nursery


aThe numbers associated with each crop are those printed by the com-
puter. The user indicates which crop is to be simulated by specifying
this number.
















the date of harvest. Harvest is specified by month (MHARV) and day
(IDAYHARV) as taking place on December 15. Costs of production -and
harvest will be calculated through December 15, including the costs from
January through July.
There are 10000 acres (TAC) and 100 percent of these acres are
harvested (PROPH). This is shown in line 11.
The water balance simulation is shown in line 12 to start in August
(MOS) on day 1 (ISTARTDAY). The water year is shown to end July (MOE)
31 (IENDAY) in line 13. Notice the water year is different from the
harvest/production year.
In line 14, various soil/water parameters are defined. First, the
soil type (MSOIL) is specified as an organic soil. Then, the efficiency
of irrigation is set (EFFIRR) at 100 percent. Notice this is a number
between 0 and 1. /Pumping capacity, in acre inches per day, in the
organic soil for drainage (ORGPCD) and for irrigation (ORGPCI) are
specified at 1.5 and 0.4 inches per day.
Line 14 continues with the trigger for drainage (TDDRY) and for
irrigation (TIDRY) during the dry period of the water year. These are
measured in inches above and below the goal water table, respectively,
at which drainage and irrigation are to start. In line 15, the triggers
for drainage (TDWET) and irrigation (TIWET) during the wet part of the
year are defined, again in inches from the goal water table. Choices
here reflect management decisions, which in turn affect the amount of
water drained and used in irrigation.
The last item in line 15 is the depth of soil to rock. The value
supplied is used in calculating the total soil water, which is monitored
throughout the simulation period.
The above is sufficient to facilitate one pass through the pro-
gram. At the end of that run, the response is "2" (NANS) in line 16,
which causes the program to cycle back to the front and expect more
information, for the next tract of land within the same area. The
process starts over in line 17. Notice the goal water table (GWT) has
been changed to 18 inches, and the tract number is 2. In line 18, MSUM















is set equal to 1, which says that the area-wide summaries are to be
saved on a file. On line 19, the crop type is set to celery (Table 4).
The celery crop is planted on August 15, as shown in line 20.
Notice the equivalent of line 9 does rot appear, where the harvest date
had to be presented. The length of growing season provided in the
WATCOS data set is added to the planting date in an internal calculation
for all the crops in V2.2 except sugarcane.
The water year is started on August 15 (line 22). In line 23, the
water year is shown to stop on November 1, which will also be the date
of harvest because of the season length for this crop. Thus, water use
is not monitored for the rest of the water year for this particular
piece of land. If the water year were ended, say on July 31, the model
would use a crop coefficient of 0.4, for all days after harvest, meaning
an assumption of bare ground.
The computer is then instructed in line 26 to "start over." The
user will be prompted at the terminal to press RETURN a few times, and
then choose the batch or interactive mode again. If the user selects
batch, the next line read from COEFPARA is line 27, which is area 7, the
Lower East Coast 3 (LEC3) area. If the user had responded with the
interactive selection, tracts could have been added interactively. As
soon as the user selects the "start over" option, the computer will
start reading COEFPARA at line 27.
As for the previous area, the user selects the monthly estimates
(MTABLE=2) and the simulation year 1978. Rainfall data is not written
to the file (NRAIN=2). Code "1" is selected by NINIT, meaning the
summary areas now having data for the Everglades area are initialized to
zero. This is because this tract is in the LEC3 area.
Field capacity (FCAP) is set at 4 inches and the permanent wilting
point (PWP) at 1 inch in line 31. Also, the start of an irrigation is
when 60 percent of the available water at field capacity is reached
(PFCAP=.6). Plant stress occurs only if available water is reduced
below 70 percent of FCAP (STRESS=.7). The irrigation application rate
is set at 1 (RATE=1.) acre inch, and the minimum number of days between















irrigations is set at 7 (MIRRD=7). The GWT is set at 0, as this tract
is on an "other" soil type. The tract number is NTRACT=3.
In line 32, the irrigation and drainage costs prior to August 1 are
set equal to zero, and MSUM is set to 1, meaning summaries are to be
saved to a file.
The crop type (MCROP) is sweet corn (line 33), from Table 4, which
is planted on August 20 (line 34). There are 500 acres and 90 percent
of that acreage is harvested (line 35).
The water year is started on August 1 (line 36) and ended on July
31. Thus, even though the crop season will extend only from August 20
through harvest (in first part of October), the model will project water
use on the tract for the entire water year. Before and after the crop
season, it is assumed there is "bare ground." The crop K coefficient is
set to K=0.4 for these periods. There is also need for caution here:
V2.2 assumes the same irrigation water rule for every month in the water
year. Thus, an irrigation will take place whenever the available water
at field capacity drops below 60 percent for the entire water year.
The "other" soil type is selected by code "2" for MSOIL in line
38. The rest of the entries in line 38 are concerned with the organic
soil and are set to zero. The simulation is terminated with NANS set at
3 in line 39. The computer will respond with FORTRAN STOP. The latest
WATUSE file will contain the results for all three tracts in the two
areas.


TRACT AND AREA SUMMARY TABLES


There are five tables generated for each tract. Examples are given
in Illustrations 1-5 for sugarcane and 6-10 for celery in the Ever-
glades, and 11-15 for the LEC3.
Computer generated Table 1 (Illustrations 1, 6 and 11) provides a
summary of the parameters and constants used in the simulation for the
particular tract being analyzed. First the user is shown the Julian
date of planting, and the season length for this particular crop. Also,












Illustration 1. Computer generated Table 1 for sugarcane.








TABLE 1. Coefficient/ Parameter/ Summary for SUGAR CANE on tract
number 1 in Everglades areas for water year 1978

CROP SEASON AND WATER YEAR :
a. Planted on day 1 and Season Length is 364.
b. Water Year started on day 1 and ended on day 365
COSTS, YIELDS, AND PRICES :
a. Average Variable Costs of
Irrigation Water = 0.00
Drainage Water = 52.95
Harvest (per unit) = 7.30
b. Other Costs (per acre) = 460.71
c. Yield (per acre) = 30.00
d. Price (per unit) = 30.00
SOIL/ WATER/ IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM COEFFICIENTS :
a. Goal Water Table = 33.00 b. Efficiency of Irrigation = 1.00
c. Drainage Pumping Capacity= 1.50 d. Irrigation Pumping Capacity= 0.40
e. Drainage "trigger", dry period = 12.00, and for wet period = 6.00
f. Irrigation "trigger",dry period = 3.00, and for wet period = 9.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------













Illustration 2. Computer generator Table 2 for sugarcane.








TABLE 2. Water Balance Relations per acre for SUGAR CANE planted
on day 1 and harvested on day 137 for tract number 1 in
Everglades areas for water year 1978

WATER IN WATER OUT
MONTH RAIN IRRIGATION EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE BALANCE

------------------------------(ACRE/INCHES)------------------------
AUG 12.370 0.000 6. 188 6.000 0.182
SEP 4.120 0.000 5.400 0.000 -1.280
OCT 3.650 1.200 4.557 0.000 0.293
NOV 2.770 1.200 3.147 0.000 0.823
DEC 4.700 0.000 2.588 0.000 2.112
JAN 3.980 0.000 1.754 3.000 -0.774
FEB 0.250 0.000 1.163 0.000 -0.913
MAR 1.010 0.400 2.187 0.000 -0.777
APR 1.810 1.600 2.391 0.000 1.019
MAY 6.850 0.000 5.061 1.500 0.289
JUN 3.770 1.600 6.354 0.000 -0.984
JUL 7.920 0.000 6.355 2.835 -1.270
TOTAL 53.200 6.000 47.145 13.335 -1.281
----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------













Illustration 3. Computer generated Table 3 for sugarcane.


TABLE 3. Total Crop Acreage and Water Balance Relations for
Everglades area, for water year 1978
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER IN WATER OUT
MONTH ACREAGE RAIN IRRIGATION EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE BALANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1000 acres)------------------------(1000 acre feet)----------------------

AUG 10. 0 10. 3 0. 0 5. 2 5. 0 O. 2
SEP 10.0 3.4 0.0 4.5 0.0 -1. 1
OCT 10. 0 3.0 1.0 3.8 0.0 0.2
NOV 10.0 2.3 1.0 2.6 0.0 0.7
DEC 10.0 3.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.8
JAN 10.0 3. 3 0. 0 1. 5 2. 5 -0. 6
FEB 10. 0 0. 2 0. 0 1.0 0. 0 -0.8
MAR 10. 0. 8 0. 3 1.8 0. 0 -0. 6
APR 10.0 1.5 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.8
MAY 10.0 5.7 0.0 4.2 1.3 0.2
JUN 10.0 3. 1 1.3 5.3 0.0 -0.8
JUL 10. 0 6. 6 0. 0 5. 3 2. 4 -1. 1
TOTAL 120.0 44.3 5.0 39.3 11. 1 -1. 1














Illustration 4. Computer generated Table 4 for sugarcane..


----------------------------'---------------- -
TABLE 4. Costs and returns for tract number 1 crop is
SUGAR CANE in Everglades for water year 1978
--- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest in month 5
Acres harvested 10000.00
Harvest cost($) 2190000.00
Water cost($) 3207000.00
Other costs($) 4607100.00
Total costs($) 10004100.00
Total production 300000.00
Price($) 30.00
Total returns($) 9000000.00
Not returns(1) -1004100.00
--I ,. -------11-1-.--.-.--,_--------------------------------------------------------









Illustration 5. Computer generated Table 5 for sugarcane


TABLE 5. Crop Acreage and Return Summary for Everglades for year 1978
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVEST HARVEST WATER OTHER TOTAL TOTAL
MONTH ACREAGE COST COST COST COST PRODN PRICE PROFIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
SEP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
OCT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
NOV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O 0. .00 0
DEC 10.0 2190.0 3207.0 4607.1 10004. 1 300.0 30.00 -1004. 1
JAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
FEB 0.0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
MAR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
APR 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
MAY 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
JUN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
JUL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
TOTAL 10. 0 2190.0 3207.0 4607.1 10004.1 -1004.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Harvest acres is in 1000 acres 2. Total Prodn is in 1000 units(if same crop)
3. Price (col 8) is in $ per unit 4. Other costs and profit are in 1000 $
5. Total Prodn is applicable for 1 crop only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------













Illustration 6. Computer generated Table 1 for celery.


TABLE 1. Coefficient/ Parameter/ Summary for CELERY on tract
number 2 in Everglades area, for water year 1978
------------------------------------------------
CROP SEASON AND WATER YEAR
a. Planted on day 15 and Season Length is 85.
b. Water Year started on day 15 and ended on day 93
COSTS, YIELDS, AND PRICES :
a. Average Variable Costs of
Irrigation Water = 0.00
Drainage Water = 0.00
Harvest (per unit) = 3.10
b. Other Costs (per acre) = 1569.54
c. Yield (per acre) = 659.00
d. Price (per unit) = 6.51
SOIL/ WATER/ IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM COEFFICIENTS :
a. Goal Water Table = 18.00 b. Efficiency of Irrigation = 1.00
c. Drainage Pumping Capacity= 1.40 d. Irrigation Pumping Capacitg= 0.50
e. Drainage "trigger", dry period = 6.00, and for wet period = 3.00
f. Irrigation "trigger",dry period = 3.00, and for wet period = 6.00
---- -----------------------------------------------------------------













Illustration 7. Computer generated Table 2 for celery.


TABLE 2. Water Balance Relations per acre for CELERY planted
on day 15 and harvested on day 100 for tract number 2 in
Everglades area, for wate-'eyar 1978
---------------------.---------------------------------
WATER IN WATER OUT



MONTH RAIN IRRIGATION EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE BALANCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------- (ACRE/INCHES)---------------------
AUG 12.370 0.000 0.950 5.018 6.402
SEP 4.120 0.000- 3.063 1.822 -0.765
OCT 3.650 0.500 2.923 0.631 0.596
NOV 2.770 0.000 0.052 0.000 2.718
DEC 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000
JAN 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000
FEB 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000
MAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000
APR 0. 000 0 000 0.000 0 000 0. 000
MAY 0. 0000 0000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000
JUN 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000
JUL 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000
TOTAL 22.910 0.500 6.989 7.471 8.951
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------















Illustration 8. Computer generated Table 3 for celery.


TABLE 3. Total Crop Acreage and Water Balance Relations for
Everglades area, for water y0ar 1978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER IN WATER OUT
MONTH ACREAGE RAIN IRRIGATION EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE BALANCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1000 acres)-----------------------(1000 acre feet)---------------------

AUG 10.9 11.2 0.0 5.2 5.4 0.6
SEP 10.9 3.7 0.0 4.7 0.1 -1. 1
OCT 10.9 3.3 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.3
NOV 10.9 2.5 1.0 2.6 0.0 0.9
DEC 10.0 3.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.8
JAN 10. 0 3. 3 0. 0 1.5 2. 5 -0.6
FEB 10. 0 0. 2 0. 0 1.0 0.0 -0. 8
MAR 10. 0 0. 8 0. 3 1.8 0. 0 -0. 6
APR 10. 0 1. 5 1.3 2. 0 0. 0 O. 8
MAY 10.0 5.7 0.0 4.2 1.3 0.2
JUN 10.0 3. 1 1.3 5.3 0.0 -0. 8
JUL 10. 0 6.6 0.0 5. 3 2. 4 -1.1
TOTAL 123.6 46.1 5.0 39.8 11.7 -0. 4
















Illustration 9. Computer generated Table 4 for celery.


TABLE 4. Costs and returns for tract number 2 crop is
CELERY in Everglades for water year 1978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Harvest in month
Acres harvested
Harvest cost($)
Water cost($)
Other costs($)
Total costs($)
Total production
Price($)
Total returns($)
Net returns($)


900.00
1838610.00
0.00
1412586.00
3251196.00
593100. 00
6. 51
3861081.25
609885. 25


L-~--- ------------~-----I-~---~---- - - - - - - -










Illustration 10. Computer generated Table 5 for celery.


TABLE 5. Crop Acreage and Return Summary for Everglades for year 1978
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVEST HARVEST WATER OTHER TOTAL TOTAL
MONTH ACREAGE COST COST COST COST PRODN PRICE PROFIT
m----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------


0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.9
10. 0


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10. 9


0.0
0.0
0.0
1838.6
2190. 0


0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
4028. 6


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3207.0


0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3207.0


0.0
0.0
0.0
1412.6
4607.1


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6019.7


0.0
0. 0
0.0
3251.2
10004.1


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13255.3


0.0
0. 0
0.0
593. 1
300. 0


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


0.00
0.00
0.00
6. 51
30. 00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


0.0
0.0
0.0
609.9
-1004.1


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-394. 2


units(if same crop)
are in 1000 $


AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC


JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL


1. Harvest acres is in 1000 acres 2. Total Prodn is in 1000
3. Price (col 8) is in $ per unit 4. Other costs and profit
5. Total Prodn is applicable for 1 crop only


-- --- ~~-----I---I-------------- - - -r- -- - - - -











Illustration 11. Computer generated Table 1 for sweet corn.


Table 1. Coefficient/ Parameter/ Summary for SWEET CORN(LEC) on Tract
Number 3 in Lower East Coast 3 Area, for Water Year 1978

Crop Season and Water Year :
a. Planted on day 20 and season length is 75.
b. Water year started on day 1 and ended on day 365
Costs, Yields, and Prices :
a. Average variable costs of
irrigation water = 0.00
drainage water = 0.00
harvest (per unit) = 2.33
b. Other costs (per acre) = 588.58
c. Yield (per acre) = 208.00
d. Price (per unit) = 5.44
Soil/Water/Irrigation and Drainage System Coefficients :
a. Irrigation system capacity = 7 b. Field capacity = 4.00
c. Permanent wilting point = 1.00 d. Irrigation "trigger" = 0.60
e. Application rate = 1.00 f. Efficiency of irrigation= 0.75
g. % Plant stress point = 0.70
-------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------











Illustration 12, Computer generated Table 2 for sweet corn.


Table 2. Water Balance Relations per Acre for SWEET CORN(LEC) Planted



on Day 20 and Harvested on Day 95 for Tract Number 3 in
Lower East Coast 3 Area, for Water Year 1978
------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Water In Water Out
Month Rain Irrigation Evapotranspiration Drainage Balance
------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(Acre inches)-------------------------
AUG 12.370 0.000 1.733 10.637 0.000
SEP 4.120 0.000 2.919 1.856 -0.655
OCT 3.650 1.333 2.788 1.274 0.587
NOV 2.770 0.000 0.930 2.105 -0.265
DEC 4.700 0.000 0.725 3.666 0.309
JAN 3.980 0.000 0.755 3.275 -0.050
FEB 0.250 0.000 0.976 0.000 -0.726
MAR i.010 0.000 1.341 0.000 -0.331
APR 1.810 2.667 1.649 1.031 1.130
MAY 6.850 0.000 1.843 5.067 -0.059
JUN 3.770 1.333 1.752 2.959 0.059
JUL 7.920 0.000 1.779 6.532 -0.392
TOTAL 53.200 5.333 19.190 38.402 -0.392
---------------------------------------------------------------------










Illustration 13. Computer generated Table 3 for sweet corn.


Table 3. Total Crop Acreage and Water Balance-Relations for
Lower East Coast 3 Area, for Water Year 1978
----- ----------------------------------------- :------------------------------
Water In Water Out
Month Acreage Rain Irrigation Evarotranspiration Drainage Balance
----- -----------------------------------.-----------------------------------
(i000 acres)----------------------- (100 acre feet)----------------------

AUG 0.5 0.5 0.0 0. 1 0.4 0. 0
SEP 0. 5 2 "0.0 0. 1 0. 1 0. 0
OCT 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
NOV 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 1 0.0
DEC 0.5 2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
JAN 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
FEB 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MAR 5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
APR 0.5 0. i 0.1 0. i 0.0 0.1
MAY 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
JUN 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 0
JUL 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0
TOTAL 6.0 2.2 0.2 0. 1.6 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------













Illustration 14, Computer generated Table 4 for sweet corn.


Table.4. Costs and Returns for Tract Number 3 s Crop is
SWEET CORN(LEC) in Lower East Coast 3 for Water Year 1978
------ --------------------------------------------------------------------


Harvest in month
Acres harvested


450.00


Harvest cost($)
Water cost($)
Other costs($)
Total costs($)
Total production
PriVe($) ,'
Total returns($)
Net returns($)


218088.00
2tBOBS. 00
0.00
294290.00
512378. 00
93600.00
5.44
509184.00
-3194.00


--- ~ ui- --~-----~---~-- -- -- -- - -- -- - ---- -----











Illustration 15. Computer generated Table 5 for sweet corn,





Table 5. Crop Acreage and Return Summary in Lower East Coast 3 for Year 1978
---- -- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Harvest Water Other Total Total
Month acreage cost cost cost cost prodn Price Profit
----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
AUG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
SEP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
OCT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
NOV 0.4 218.1 0.0 294.3 512.4 93.6 5.44 -3.2
DEC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
JAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0. 0
FEB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
MAR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0.00 0.0
APR 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.00 0.0
MAY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
JUN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0
JUL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0
TOTAL 0. 4 218. 1 0. 0 294.3 512. 4 -3.2

1. Harvest acres is in 1000 acres 2. Total Prodn is in 1000 units(i4 same crop)
3. Pice is in $ per unit 4. Other costs and profit are in 1000 1
9. Totl. Prodn is applicable for i crop only
------------------------------------------------------------- --------















the day of start and finish for the water year are indicated. Then, the
costs, price, and yield are shown. All of these values are provided by
the user, except possibly for yield in the case of sugarcane. That is,
if the user selects one of the sugarcane yield models, yield will be
calculated by the computer. The various soil, water, and irrigation
system characteristics are then provided for the particular soil type
chosen by the user. This portion of the table will vary in its informa-
tion content dependent upon the soil type chosen, as shown in Illustra-
tions 1, 6 versus 11.
Computer generated Table 2 (Illustrations 2, 7 and 12) gives the
monthly water balance relationships for one acre of the crop, in acre
inches. The balance is the difference between the inflow to the system
(rainfall + irrigation) minus the outflow evapotranspirationn + drain-
age). This will normally be nearly equal to zero over the period of the
simulation, except for changes in water stored in the profile.
Computer generated Table 3 (Illustrations 3, 8 and 13) provides
total acreage plus the same information as computer generated Table 2,
but for the entire area. The measurements are in thousands of acre feet
per month. Again, the balance will usually sum to zero over the simula-
tion period. Notice the estimates in Illustration 8 are cumulative,
reflecting the total water balance from tracts. This will always be the
case for the most recent Table 3 generated by the computer.
Table 4 (Illustrations 4, 9 and 14) is back at the tract level.
This table summarizes the acres harvested, production, and costs/returns
from a particular tract.
Table 5 (Illustrations 5, 10 and 15) gives the area-wide summary of
the costs and returns over all the tracts simulated. These are always
presented in the month of harvest. If, for example, a corn crop was
planted August 15 and harvested in early November, all the costs and
returns could be reported in the November row of the table. A caution
is necessary here: the total production estimates are meaningless
except for the case where all tracts being examined are for the same
crop. For example the computer will add tons of sugarcane to crates of















celery, if harvest is in the same month. Also, the price reported
is always that for the last tract simulated, again useful information
only when one crop type is being examined. Computer generated Table 5
is cumulative across all tracts.


SUMMARY


The area-wide agricultural water demand model can be used in either
an interactive or a batch mode. The former will generally be used only
when a small number of tracts are being considered. The batch mode is
suitable for examining water use over many tracts over larger areas.
The same data/parameters must be provided in either mode of operation.
However, in the interactive mode the user is prompted, based on a series
of menus. In the hatch mode, a file of input data named COEFPARA must
be provided.
Output from the model consists of five computer generated tables.
These tables summarize information at the tract level. The other two
tables provide area-wide summaries across all tracts. Information and
estimates are provided in these tables on both water balances and the
costs/returns.
This User's Manual refers to Version 2.2, first made operational in
December 1983. Subsequent versions may have different operating
modes. The reader is advised to contact the authors for information on

these latest versions, and an attempt will be made to update this User's
Manual as appropriate.










34


REFERENCES


Lynne, G. D., P. J. d'Almada, W. C. Martin, and R. S. Mansell. Area-
wide Agricultural Water Demand Projection Model for South Florida:
Technical Documentation, Version 2.2. Fla. Ag. Exp. Station
Technical Bulletin. Gainesville: University of Florida (in review).




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs