Integrated Water-Power System Resilience Analysis in a Southeastern Idaho Irrigation District: Minidoka Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript uses an agent-based model that to study the resilience of the irrigation and energy system dependent on the water of a region in eastern Idaho.
The topic is important to face management issues in the context of major global changes (demand increases, climate change). The method seems also innovative in capturing together feedback across the water and energy system.

However, the novelty of this approach is not clearly presented, especially in the context of several novel models that focus on the same issues with higher detail and including also more techno-economic aspects.

Moreover, while the paper is generally well written and structured, I think it would benefit from a clearer statement of the research questions, a discussion on the methods used and outcomes.

Below are some major comments:

• the introduction dedicates several pages to describing the irrigation system and its relations with water and the electricity system. A clear statement of the research question is missing. The author should also explain why the modelling choice is appropriate in comparison to other models, I would recommend looking at the following and other references:
  Optimization models
  https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1768828
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.714
  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1095-2020
  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4129-2019
  
  others
  https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177043
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2006.02.011
  
  
• Method: for readers not completely familiar with ABMs, there should be an explanation of the decision process of the model, possibly in the supplementary material. It is also not clear. Another aspect to me not clear is if costs and prices are taken into account in any endogenous process of the model. For instance, can impacts on electricity and water prices be assessed, or are just accounted for based on the literature?
• scenarios and outcomes: some digression on the likelihood of each scenario could be added, to understand their importance. I would also recommend summarizing scenario assumptions, motivation and conclusions in a table
• The conclusions are presented in a too generic way, expressions like 'mostly', 'fairly' should be substitute with quantitative information and discussion on the uncertainty be linking to the likelihood of the considered scenarios.
  Limitations of the model used should be stated more clearly in the conclusive session

Minor comments:

• Units used are not SI, up to the editor to express if the units should be converted
• The Abstract lacks a brief contextualization on the irrigation system issues that could be summarized with an initial sentence
• line 253, add acronym definition here
• line 306, why only the wet time period is considered? is there agriculture activity during the dry season? this could be clarified in the text
• Scenario 1, is the possibility to 'empty the reservoir considered, leading to a solution similar to scenario 2?
• fig 10,11,12,13: expand caption with clear description, like in the main text. A reader should understand the content of a figure (including what scenario it is related to) reading the caption

Author Response

Reviewer 1's Comments							Author's Response
the introduction dedicates several pages to describing the irrigation system and its relations with water and the electricity system. A clear statement of the research question is missing. The author should also explain why the modelling choice is appropriate in comparison to other models, I would recommend looking at the following and other references: Optimization models https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1768828 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.714 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1095-2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4129-2019 others https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177043 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2006.02.011							Thank you for these suggestions. For varied reasons, we have decided to exclude some of these references, and include others. McNamara et al. (2021)  does not seem to look into water-energy nexus. The model used is WEAP, which is mainly focus on water resources planning assessments. Castelletti et al. (2021) approach helps design water reservoir network management policies, with no implications on power sytem. Other suggested publications are added in the paper, with additional context and justification of our approach.
Method: for readers not completely familiar with ABMs, there should be an explanation of the decision process of the model, possibly in the supplementary material. It is also not clear. Another aspect to me not clear is if costs and prices are taken into account in any endogenous process of the model. For instance, can impacts on electricity and water prices be assessed, or are just accounted for based on the literature?							(1) Agents decision process is explained in section 2. The main goal of each agent is stated, as well as their action in the sytems are also defined in that very section. (2) Costs/prices are not taken into account in any endogeneous process. We are mainly interested in the impacts, in terms of operation, of disruption in one system on the other. However, there are some cost implication, for instance, based on energy mix. Cost implications are discussed in sections 3.3.1. and 3.3.4.
scenarios and outcomes: some digression on the likelihood of each scenario could be added, to understand their importance. I would also recommend summarizing scenario assumptions, motivation and conclusions in a table							A brief paragraph has been added describing relative probabilities and/or the motivation for analyzing the selected scnarios.
The conclusions are presented in a too generic way, expressions like 'mostly', 'fairly' should be substitute with quantitative information and discussion on the uncertainty be linking to the likelihood of the considered scenarios. Limitations of the model used should be stated more clearly in the conclusive session							Addressed
Units used are not SI, up to the editor to express if the units should be converted							Units converted to SI (cfs to m^3/s).
The Abstract lacks a brief contextualization on the irrigation system issues that could be summarized with an initial sentence							Added context to abstract.
line 253, add acronym definition here							BPA - Bonneville Power Administration. Clarified in text. Thank you
line 306, why only the wet time period is considered? is there agriculture activity during the dry season? this could be clarified in the text							Context added lines 363/364
Scenario 1, is the possibility to 'empty the reservoir considered, leading to a solution similar to scenario 2?							For Scenario 1, we did not consider the complete emptying of the reservoir. In flows of 20-30% less than normal are indicative of a dry year, but would not lead to complete reservoir emptying (at least "active storage") unless many years like this were experienced in series. The simulation could consider a complete emptying of active storage, however, we wanted results to be historically valid given the last two decades of data.
fig 10,11,12,13: expand caption with clear description, like in the main text. A reader should understand the content of a figure (including what scenario it is related to) reading the caption							Referenced scenario numbers and clarified captions. The authors reviewed recent publications in MDPI Sustainability (https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su131810467, https://doi.org/10.3390/ su131810464) for examples of acceptable captions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

the manuscript sent to me for review presents very interesting research based on the simulation of theresilience of interconnected water and power systems. The research is conducted solidly and the research results are presented in an interesting way. Currently, research of this type is extremely important due to the increasingly frequent climatic anomalies, and thus the periodic overload of energy and water systems.

However, I have a few remarks to improve the manuscript:

1) First of all, the manuscript should be much more precisely adapted to the current TEMPLATE, especially the chapter references, mathematical formulas, figures ...

2) There is no short hypothesis in the Abstract.

3) Keywords should be arranged in alphabetical order and should not repeat words appearing in the title of the manuscript.

4) Conclusion should be more precise, it should be much too long.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2's Comments							Author's Response
First of all, the manuscript should be much more precisely adapted to the current TEMPLATE, especially the chapter references, mathematical formulas, figures …							Formula and figure captions have been updated to better reflect template. Section titles have been altered to better conform to traditional titles.
There is no short hypothesis in the Abstract.							Wording adjusted to clarify hypothesis/aim of research
Keywords should be arranged in alphabetical order and should not repeat words appearing in the title of the manuscript.							Thank you. Comment has been addressed
Conclusion should be more precise, it should be much too long.							Addressed. Thank you. We have renamed the Conclusion section to more accurately describe the contents as discussion and conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number: Sustainability 1374977

Title: “Integrated Water-Power System Resilience Analysis in a South-eastern Idaho Irrigation District: Minidoka Case Study”

 

The paper presents a study to analized the dependencies between water-power system and irrigation district in the region of Southeastern Idaho.

The kind of research in interesting but the reviewer would like to rise some problems:

• The study is not replicable, because there is not information about the relations between the different systems (Water Demand, Water source, Power Dispatcher, etc…). In my opinion the methodology should be replicable in other similar context, because if it were not like that, the manuscript would not contribute to the development of knowledge.
• Is there Operational rules and constraints? Which are?. In my opinion the authors should describe what these relationships are, and how the different agents are interconnected. What is the mathematical background of these relationships?. It is necessary to describe the mathematical model.
• In my opinion is necessary a flow chart to describe the study and the relationships.
• Is it possible to describe more extensively the calibration and validation of the model?. In my opinion this aspect is very important and it implies the validity of the study.
• The abstract is poorly written.
• The introduction would require major rewriting for sense and the authors should add more references.
• The background of the introduction is insufficient, because the authors do not address other aspects as important as sustainability their work could improve.
• Regarding the sustainability and efficiency improvement, the authors should describe how their work can affect these two aspects.
• In my opinion, the introduction should be expanded to describe sustainability aspects.

The authors should review references such as:

• Tiago Luna, João Ribau, David Figueiredo, Rita Alves, Improving energy efficiency in water supply systems with pump scheduling optimization, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 213, 2019, Pages 342-356, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.190.
• Mercedes Garcia, A.V.; López-Jiménez, P.A.; Sánchez-Romero, F.-J.; Pérez-Sánchez, M. Objectives, Keys and Results in the Water Networks to Reach the Sustainable Development Goals. Water2021, 13, 1268. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091268

• In Conclusions, the limitations are not clearly presented. The authors should explain what kind of limitations their methodology has.
• The manuscript structure is not a conventional research article, the article should be written with a conventional structure, 1.- Introduction 2.- Material and Methods 3.-Results and Discussion 4.-Conclusions
• In Instructions for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) SI Units (International System of Units) should be used. Imperial, US customary and other units should be converted to SI units whenever possible. In my opinion all units should be in SI.

 

Therefore, this paper should be rewritten or complemented to meet the standard of the scientific of these manuscripts.

Author Response

Reviewer 3's Comments							Author's Response
The study is not replicable, because there is not information about the relations between the different systems (Water Demand, Water source, Power Dispatcher, etc…). In my opinion the methodology should be replicable in other similar context, because if it were not like that, the manuscript would not contribute to the development of knowledge.							The code cannot be shared, at least for the time being. It has to go through a process by our "Export Control" department. However, the relations between systems and their components are shown in figure 4. The nature of relationships, as well as the agent decision making and methodology, are explained in section 2. It is therefore replicable for anyone with the required programming skills.
Is there Operational rules and constraints? Which are?. In my opinion the authors should describe what these relationships are, and how the different agents are interconnected. What is the mathematical background of these relationships?. It is necessary to describe the mathematical model.							The relationships and their nature are based on literature  describing the operation of the water and power systems. Agents behavior and their decision making process are designed based on real life operations. Section has been added to clarify
In my opinion is necessary a flow chart to describe the study and the relationships.							A flow chart, as described, has been added (figure 5). Additional description has been added beneath the figure to aid in interpretation. Thank you
Is it possible to describe more extensively the calibration and validation of the model?. In my opinion this aspect is very important and it implies the validity of the study.							(1) Model input is detailed in section 3.2., with sources now shown in Table 1, (2) The validation has been described. We are comparing model results with real system power generation (Figure 7b). Figure 8 displays the results of validation technique used. These results are interpreted in the section below the figure. The validation technique used is one from many suggested by Sargent (2010), who is cited in the same section.
The abstract is poorly written.							I'm sorry you feel this way. We have made adjustments to the abstract based on more specific and constructively worded comments from the other reviewers. Hopefully these adjustments also address your comment.
The introduction would require major rewriting for sense and the authors should add more references.							We have addressed the other reviewers' more specific comments about the introduction and added additional references. Other reviewers didn't indicate an issue with understanding the introduction, but hopefully the additional context and information we've added will aid in interpretation.
The background of the introduction is insufficient, because the authors do not address other aspects as important as sustainability their work could improve.							This article is designed to specifically respond to the call for the "Water and Energy Integration System" Special issue. This work targets the research priorities: "- Applying constructal theory concepts to build more resilient and high efficiency EWI systems; - Proposing new methods and metrics to account for a water–energy–environment nexus applicable for EWI systems; - Propose new indicators for water–energy-related services and their use in hydro-economic assessment and scenario analysis; - Evaluating and improving the reliability and resiliency of WEI systems." That being said, we have also updated the background/introduction information to more specifically call out associations with sustainability based on the comments from other reviewers.
Regarding the sustainability and efficiency improvement, the authors should describe how their work can affect these two aspects.							The authors have made adjustments to the introduction to better clarify linkages between the resilience related work and efficiency improvement of the irrigation system.
In my opinion, the introduction should be expanded to describe sustainability aspects.							The introduction has been expanded. Thank you.
The authors should review references such as: Tiago Luna, João Ribau, David Figueiredo, Rita Alves, Improving energy efficiency in water supply systems with pump scheduling optimization, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 213, 2019, Pages 342-356, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.190. Mercedes Garcia, A.V.; López-Jiménez, P.A.; Sánchez-Romero, F.-J.; Pérez-Sánchez, M. Objectives, Keys and Results in the Water Networks to Reach the Sustainable Development Goals. Water2021, 13, 1268.							These references were excellent. Thank you.
In Conclusions, the limitations are not clearly presented. The authors should explain what kind of limitations their methodology has.							Added
The manuscript structure is not a conventional research article, the article should be written with a conventional structure, 1.- Introduction 2.- Material and Methods 3.-Results and Discussion 4.-Conclusions							The titles of the sections have been updated to better reflect the traditional structuring. It was unclear how necessary adhering to this conventional structure was as the authors observed many examples of articles within MDPI Sustainability which did not conform (one such example published this week: https://doi.org/10.3390/ su131810464)
In Instructions for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) SI Units (International System of Units) should be used. Imperial, US customary and other units should be converted to SI units whenever possible. In my opinion all units should be in SI.							Added

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments

 

SUMMARY

 

The paper addresses the research area related to “Energy and Water Integration System” of the MDPI Sustainability journal. I believe that the target journal is an appropriate forum for this article. The authors used a multi-agent-based simulation model, using an agent-oriented approach based on the DEVS (Discrete EVent system Specification) formalism to simulate Water and power systems operations. The modelling platform used captures the interdependency of power and water systems for an integrated analysis to better inform resilience planning.

 

BROAD COMMENT

 

This is an important paper about the sustainability of water and power system in Southeastern Idaho (USA). The introduction section is well written with recent references. I appreciate the fact that the authors used a case study to illustrate their point. It helps to understand and grab the issue at the ground. The authors draw a good conclusion at the end of the paper.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

-I suggest the authors put more implications of the results of the study in the abstract section.

-Please, put the scale bar and the north arrow on the map of Figure 4.

- Figure 10: put the labels (a) and (b) on the graphs.

-Line 259 and 484: the equations are not properly numbered in the manuscript.

-Line 514-515: put the captions of Figure 13a and 13b under them, respectively.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 4's Comments							Author's Response
This is an important paper about the sustainability of water and power system in Southeastern Idaho (USA). The introduction section is well written with recent references. I appreciate the fact that the authors used a case study to illustrate their point. It helps to understand and grab the issue at the ground. The authors draw a good conclusion at the end of the paper							Thank you.
I suggest the authors put more implications of the results of the study in the abstract section.							Added
Please, put the scale bar and the north arrow on the map of Figure 4.							The figure has been updated
Figure 10: put the labels (a) and (b) on the graphs.							Addressed. Thank you
Line 259 and 484: the equations are not properly numbered in the manuscript. Line 514-515: put the captions of Figure 13a and 13b under them, respectively.							Thank you, these comments have been addressed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for addressing all of the issues I raised. I think the manuscript can be now accepted for publication.

Author Response

You're welcome. It was our pleasure to address your comments, thank you for the very constructive critique. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript, all questions have been appropriately answered.

The abstract and introduction has been improved and they have clarified the study.

The flowchart has been added and the methodology has been described better.

In the manuscript there are still units such as acres, acres-feet, gallons, etc...in my opinion these units should be converted to SI.

 

 

Author Response

We have found the instances to which you refer and have converted them to the appropriate unit (cubic meters, hectares, (liters in one case), and kilometers). The uploaded draft will reflect these changes. Thank you