Centennial Services has been monitoring Et measurements recorded in various Orange
County locations for the past 7 years. As previously reported on this website, there has been
a widening variance between the CIMIS station 75 (central Irvine) data and the IRWD Central
data:
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Cimis 53.11 49.48 51.8 50.37 45.71 47.01
IRWD 48.62 43.87 45.86 46.64 39.1 40.71
% IRWD/CIMIS 91.55% 88.66% 88.53% 92.59% 85.54% 86.60%
Examining the data so far in 2003, however, shows that the gap between these two data
sources has closed:
Jan 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 May 03 Jun 03 YTD
Cimis 2.51 2.15 3.96 4.64 5.13 Pending 18.39
IRWD 2.36 2.4 3.98 4.54 4.98 Pending 18.26
% IRWD/CIMIS 94.02% 111.63% 100.51% 97.84% 97.08% 99.29%
The 2003 YTD Et for these two stations is virtually the same. What has changed?
A comparison of the 2002 data for the same 5 month period reveals that while the data for
the CIMIS site is very similar for both years, the IRWD Et increased 13.35% in 2003:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May YTD
IRWD '02 1.97 3.25 3.22 3.46 4.21 16.11
IRWD '03 2.36 2.4 3.9 4.54 4.98 18.26
%’03/’02 119.80% 73.85% 123.60% 131.21% 118.29% 113.35%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May YTD
CIMIS '02 2.32 2.58 3.89 4.04 5.2 18.03
CIMIS '03 2.51 2.15 3.96 4.64 5.13 18.39
%’03/’02 108.19% 83.33% 101.80% 114.85% 98.65% 102.00%
As previously noted in this website, the IRWD central weather station’s location is
considerably different from the weather station standardization promoted by CIMIS, and is be
described as “non-ideal”. “A recent study by the University of California, Davis … . .
suggested a scenario in which certain weather parameters can be measured at the
“non-ideal” sites and the remaining parameters taken from a nearby CIMIS station” as reported in
Water Conservation News October 2002, which went on to say that a statewide feasibility
study of this has been undertaken. See http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/ for further information
and updates.
Given the seeming adjustment in the IRWD Central weather station data we have observed
so far this year, is it reasonable to suggest the data is currently being tweaked by insertion of
CIMIS data as described above? It will be interesting to continue to compare these two data
sets. If IRWD central and CIMIS show ongoing consistency of Et data, would it be
reasonable to suggest that IRWD Central customers were possibly under-allocated
irrigation water in the past?