MWA approach is cheaper, faster, and better.

There are several underlying principles which help in achieving the high accuracy of MWA hydroclimate forecast models.  In our experience, the more reproducible the performance report, the more rapidly the calculations evolve to higher accuracy.

The featured images are included as an example.   The images compare our (training) forecast performance (blue) for annual flows of the Gila River near Gila, NM (in the United States) to a surrogate conventional method in green (Auto Correlation, AC) and to a global circulation model (GCM) based method in red.  Note that for comparison, each sim output is limited to the period from 1987 to 2016.  GCM  values are adapted from an ensemble of VIC model runs covering a period from 1950 to 2100.  For every performance metric considered, the MWA method consistently outperforms all others.



Several critical features can relate to better forecast performance, including:

A.  Cost.

B.  Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).

C.  Goodness of Fit.



The metrics that MWA routinely utilizes to give Customers and Constituents a candid accounting for our performance are included in this post as self explanatory charts.

We encourage those who pay for services such as water (for irrigation, electricity generation, municipal etc.) to inquire from their providers if underlying water availability forecast methods are as accurate or as reproducible as those of MWA.  If answers are not satisfactory, please consider requesting that the service provider reach out to us.  As the final tables show, we may be able to improve performance and save many ratepayers a great deal of money.

annual average
Gila near Gila, NM, avg 1 yta  flow is    179 CFS RMSE difference cfs difference acre ft value at $700/af/year value at $1,000/af/year
MWA Approach 99.36
AC Approach 103.89
GCM Approach 119.66
MWA vs AC 4.53 3282  $  2,297,272  $   3,281,817
MWA vs GCM 20.30 14707  $ 10,294,617  $ 14,706,595
AC vs GCM 15.8 11425  $  7,997,345  $ 11,424,779


5 year average
Gila near Gila, NM, avg 5 yta  flow is    183 CFS RMSE difference cfs difference acre ft value at $700/af/year for 5 yrs value at $1,000/af/year for 5 yrs
MWA Approach 33.14
AC Approach 40.94
GCM Approach 71.67
MWA vs AC 7.80 5651  $   19,777,835  $  28,254,050
MWA vs GCM 38.53 27914  $   97,697,432  $139,567,760
AC vs GCM 30.7 22263  $   77,919,598  $111,313,711

Copyright 2016, 2017, Michael Wallace,

Disclaimer:  This is a draft and preliminary post.   Original Source for GCM product:  Gutzler, D.S. 2013, “Streamflow Projections for the upper Gila River” UNM Contract No. 37675.  Submitted to the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission for Deliverables 2 and 3.