VOL. 8, NO.

2 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH APRIL 1972

Chance Constrained Reservoir Model

L. M. EISEL •

Division o] Engineeringand Applied Physics,Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Abstract. A chance constrainedmodel of an 'irrigation reservoir is developed that em-

ploys a more general reservoir operating policy than previous chance constrained reservoir
models. Development of this model demonstrates the possible convolution problems asso-
ciated with chance constrained models of water resource systems. The optimal reservoir
design and operating parameters resulting from model solution are investigated in a simple
reservoir simulation model employing operational hydrology. Results of the simulation
studies validate the chance constrained reservoir model.

Stochasticmathematical programing permits A chance constrainedmodel of a single pur-

explicit consideration of stochastic factors in pose irrigation reservoir is developedthat em-
the analysis of water resource systems. The ploys a reservoir operating rule more general
specificationof a stochasticmodel can be ac- than those previously used in chance con-
complishedeither by linear programing under strainedreservoirmodels [Eisel, 1970b; Loucks,
uncertainty [Dantzig, 1963] or by chancecon- 1970; Revelle et al., 1969; Revelle and Kirby,
strained programing [Naslund, 1965; Charnes 1970; Joeres et al., 1971; Nayak and Arora,
and Cooper,1963]. Linear programingunder un- 1971]. The development of a model for this
certainty partitions the problem into two or simple system demonstratesthe mathematical
more stages. First the decision maker makes complexitiesresulting from convolutionprob-
a decision,then the random effects occur. The lems in chance constrained models.
random events may cause some of the con-
straints to be violated and linear programing MODEL DEVELOPMENT

under uncertainty assumes that the decision Notation

maker can meet the violated constraintsthrough
secondstage decisions.In a linear programing Notation in this paper is consistentwith that
under uncertainty model of a water resource in Eisel [1972] where the chance constrained
system, these second stage decisionsmay be reservoir model is integrated into a water re-
representedby loss functions for not meeting sourcessystem involving land use management
supply targets [Dorfman, 1962]. Adequateesti- activities. To incorporate these land use man-
mation of lossesresulting from deficient sup- agement activities into a mathematical model,
pliesof irrigationwater, electricpower,or other the 90-year time horizon was divided into three
system productsmay be difficult. 30-year 'land usemanagementdecisionperiods,'
An alternative to linear programing under indicated by subscript k(k ---- 1, 2, and 3).
uncertainty is chance constrainedprograming, For purposesof this paper, the k subscripts
which allows for constraint violations a certain are superfluous.They are retained, however,to
percentageof the time. The problem of loss ,
maintain consistencywith the notation in Eisel
function estimationmay be partially alleviated [1972] and the following notation is defined:
by chanceconstrainedprogramingthat requires B•, present value of gross benefits from
reliability estimatesfor meeting specificcon- annually supplying I acre-foot of irriga-
straints. tion water throughout decision period
k, k = 1, 2, and 3, S/acre-feet;
T•, annual irrigation supply target for
* Now at Environmental Defense Fund, East decisionperiod k, a decision variable,
Setauket, New York 11733. acre-feet;
339
340 ß ElSEL

c, capital and presentvalue of operating Objective Function

and maintenance costs of I acre-foot
of reservoir storage capacity, S/acre- The objectiveof the analysisis to determine
feet; the capacityof an irrigationreservoirand to
K0, the initial reservoir storage capacity, developa reservoiroperatingpolicy that will
a decision variable, (in the land use maximize the time stream of net economic
management model presented in
Eisel [1972] sedimentation reduces benefitsfrom the system.This objective can
reservoir storage capacity so that be specifiedas
K0 > K• for k -- 1, 2, and 3), acre-feet;
qi•, annualstreamflowin year j of decision
period k, a random variable, j -- 1, max• B•,T•,-- cKo (2)
ß-., 30, k -- 1, 2, and 3, acre-feet/yr;
si•, reservoirstorageat end of year j in where Z•B•T,, representsthe presentvalue of
decision period k, j -- 1, -.., 30, irrigationwater deliveriesand cKois the capital
k -- 1, 2, and 3, a random variable,
acre-feet;
costand presentvalue of operatingand main-
tenance costs.
Yi•, annual reservoirreleasein year j of
decisionperiod k, a random decision
Constraints
variable,j -- 1, ..., 30, k -- 1, 2, and
3, acre-feet/yr; The system designand reservoiroperation
a•, reservoiroperating parameter, a deci-
sion variable, 0 _< a• < 1; must conformto the followingthree constraints'
E, expectationoperator; (1) meetingthe irrigationtarget, (2) spilling,
V, variance operator; and (3) continuity.
P, probability operator; Target constaint. The irrigation target T•
a•(r), reliability level for meeting the target
chance constraint in period k, 0 <_ must be met with a specifieddegree of cer-
a• (a,) < 1.0 (the superscriptsc and s tainty. The systemmust be designed
and op-
are used to denote the risk levels for erated to insure that farmers can expect de-
the continuity and spillingconstraints, livery of at least T• acre-feetof irrigation
respectively);
F-l(o• a• ca)fractile of a Gaussiandistribution water in 100 a,•'% of the years. This target
with mean 0.0 and variance 1.0; constraint can be written in chance constrained
•, for all. form as

Decision Rule
P(Yi+•.•-->T•) _>a•(r' Vk (3)
Linear decision rules are used in chance
wherey•+•.,is a randomdecision
variableand
constrained
programing
to express
decision
vari- T, is a decisionvariable. Substitutionof the
ables as linear functions of selected system
linear reservoiroperatingpolicy (1) yields
random variables. A reservoir operating rule
originallydeveloped
by Bryant [1961] is used P[(1 -- a•)(qi+•.•q- s•)
for a decision rule in the succeedingchance
constrained reservoir model' q- a•T• >_T•] >_a•{r) V k
or
Yi+•.• = (1 -- a•)(qi+•.•q- s•) --[--a•T• (1)
T)
Vk + ..' v (4)
where 0 _• as < 1 is a decisionparameterof Constraint 4 can be interpreted' The decision
the operatingpolicyand T• is the targetrelease. variables of the chance constrained reservoir
This reservoiroperatingpolicy conformsto model must be specified in order that 100
policies
developed andThomas a,(•'% of the years, releasesgreater than or
by Watermeyer
[1962] and Younq [1966, 1967]. Bryant de- equal to the irrigation target T, can be made
velopsa queuingtheoryapproachto estimate in accordance with the linear decision rule 1
the moments of the distribution of reservoir (Figure 1).
storages• for a reservoiroperatedaccording
to If the distributionof (q•+•.• + s•) is as-
(1). Thesemomentsare necessary to develop sumed to be Gaussian, inequality 4 can be
deterministicequivalentsfor the chancecon- reducedto a deterministicequivalent. The cen-
straints. tral limit theorem supports this assumption
 Reservoir Mo.delinq 341
Yj+1,k The momentsof the distributionof (qj+,.•
sj•) must now be determined.Specifyingthese
moments is a difficult convolution problem
becausethe distribution of sj• must be deter-
mined without knowing the reservoir capacity
K•, and operating rule parameters a• and T•.
Revelle et al. [1969], Revelle and Kirby [1970],
Joeres et al. [1971], and Nayak and Arora
[1971] have approachedthis convolutionprob-
•Tk qj+l,k+Sjk lem by proposinga specificreservoiroperating
I
rule that eliminates the random variable
Thetargetconstraintrequires
thatreleases
n-• from the constraint, thus eliminating the con-
cannotfall intothisrangemorethan(1-a•")100% volution problem. This approach is questioned
of thetime.
by Eisel [1970b] and Loucks [1970].
Fig. 1. Interpretation of target chanceconstraint. The Bryant queuingtheory method for esti-
mating the moments of the distribution of
reservoirstorageis adaptedby Eisel [1970a] to
because estimate the moments of the distribution of
(q•+l,• q- $•)
$i+l,k --- $ik + qi+l,• -- Yi+l,k
Yi• • Yi+z,• E(q,+l,/•
21-si/•
) = E(qi+,,k)
-- a•T/• (6)
1 -- a•
i+1
Vk
S•+l.•-- so.•-t- •(q•k-- y•)
and
and therefore

i+1 i
V(qi+•
.• q-si•)
= V(qi+,.•)
1 -- a•
2 V k (7)
- + These moment estimates are based on two
assumptions' (1) independencebetween q•+,.•
which indicatesthat the distributionof (qj+,,• and sj• and (2) 'infinite' reservoircapacity.Sim-
q- s•) shouldapproach the Gaussiandistribu- ulation studiesby Eisel [1970a] indicate these
tion if the lag-one serial correlation of annum assumptionsare generallyadequateif the lag-
flowsis small. Table 1 indicatesthat only small one serial correlation between annual flows is
differences exist between the extreme fractiles
small (i.e., p•,.,+, _< 0.3) and the reservoir
of a Gaussiandistribution and a gamma dis- capacityis greaterthan 70% of the mean annual
tribution with decided skewhess(¾ ---- 1.0). streamflow. Substitution of these estimates into
Therefore the normality assumptionmay be of (5) yields
limited importancein actual numericalcompu-
tations. The reductionof (4) to a deterministic
equivalentyields I -- a• T•-[.E(q)-
_1 •T•.
1
< F-• (1-- a•½
v))[V(q)
]1/2
p{qi+,,•
q-si•
--E(qi+,
si•) Vk

TABLE 1. Comparisonof 10 and 90% Fraetiles of

Gaussian and Gamma Distributions

which requires Distribution F-'(0.10) F-•(0.90)

T• -- E(qi+l, • •t_ 8i•) Gaussian 20.40 40.20

Gamma (y = 0.5) 20.29 40.56
__•F-l(1 --Otk(T))[V(qi+l,k
-•- 8ik)]1/2 (5) Gamma (• - 1.0) 20.99 40.66

•k • -- 30.0 and • = 8.0 for all distributions.

 342 L. 1Vf. EISEL

or the resultingoperatingpolicy is more general

and more nearly approximates the optimal

T•- E(q)_<i1q- /1/2

-- a•/
ak F_i(1_ policiesdevelopedby Young [1966, 1967] and
Watermeyerand Thomas [1962] than operat-
ing policies used in other chance constrained
' [ r(q) ]112 V k (8)
reservoirmodels [Revelle et al., 196.9; Revelle
Points that satisfy inequality 8 do not repre- and Kirby, 1970; Joereset al., 1971; Nayak
sent a convex set becausethe term [ and Arora, 1971].
(1 q- as)]TMis neither convexnor concave.Over Thereforefrom Figure 2
the range 0.6 _< as _< 0.9, this term can be
closelyapproximatedby a linear function (Fig-
ure 2). Young [1966, 1967] concludesthat the 1 -- a•
lq-ak
= 1.05-- 0.90a•
'normal' operatingpolicy (as -- 1.0 in equa-
tion 1) is optimal for annualreservoiroperation and substituting
when release deficits are associated with cer-
tain piecewiselinear lossfunctions.Young also
T• -- E(q) <_(1.05- 0.90a•)F-l(1 --•
demonstrates that a normal-likeoperatingpol- v
icy (a• -- 1.0) havinga target releaseequalto
or
a mean annual inflow (T•- E(qjs)) may be
optimal for certain quadratic loss functions.
(T))[r(q)] 1/2
Wk-•- 0.90akF-l(1-- o•k
Young's conclusionsindicate that optimal
from the solution of the chance constrained <_Z(q) '4- 1.05F-1(1-- o•k(T)),[V(q)]
1/2 (9)
reservoir model will approach 1.0. Simulation
Vk
studies by Eisel [1970a] indicate Bryant's
queuing theory estimate of V(sjs) may not Inequality 9' is a deterministiclinear approxi-
adequately estimate V(s•s) for as > 0.90. As mation to the original chance constrainedin-
a result of Young's conclusionsand Eisel's sim- equality 4 for 0.6 _< as _< 0.9.
ulation studies,limits are placed on as, 0.6 _< Spilling constraint. Storage from 1 year to
as _< 0.9. The upper limitation on a• may pro- the next must be lessthan or equal to. reservoir
duce a suboptimal operating policy. However, capacity, any excessmust be spilled. This re-
quirement is written in chanceconstrainedform

•.1-ak•
1/2
P(qi+l,•q- 8i• -- Yi+•,•_<K•) >_•(•) (10)
1.0 Vk

0.9 ar approximation and substitutingthe linear reservoir operating

policy (1)'
0.8
- P{qi+i,k '4- 8i• -- [(1 -- ak)(qi+i,k'4-
0.7
- •)

0.6- q- a•T•] _<K•} •_ a•( V k

0.5- or

0.4- P[a•(q•+l,•q- si•) -- a•T• _<•] •__o•

Vk
and
0.1- \

O0o.o I I I I I I I I I I • ak

•i•.
0.2

2. •i•e•t
o.4 0.6

•ppto•im•tio•
o. 8

of [(• --
•.o

•)/
P(qi+l,•
q-s•
_<a•T•
q-K•)>_a•(•)
(• -- •) ]•. Vk
 Reservoir Modeling 343

Inequality 11 requires the specificationof op- Inequality 13 is nonlinear and nonseparable

erating rule parameters to insure that spills without transformation and the set of feasible
occur in no more than 100(1 -- as('•)% of solution points satisfying (13) will be non-
the years (Figure 3). Inequality 11 can be re- convex.

duced to, a deterministic equivalent' The Hessianmatrix for Ks(1 -- as)/as indi-
cates that this function is neither convex nor
concave.In the range 0.6 _< as _< 0.9, the
function (1 -- as)/as can be approximatedby
(1 -- as) /as -- -- 1.9as q- 1.8.
(s)
Substitutionof this approximationalongwith
the previousapproximationfor
Vk

which requires

a•Tk q- K• -- a•E(qi+i,• q- si•) into (13) yields

_• ak[V(qi+l.• q- $ik)]l/2F-l(olk
(s)) (12) T• •- K•(1.8- 1.9a•)-- E(q)
Vk
>_(1.05- 0.9a•)F-l(o•('))[ V(q)]1/2
By substituting Bryant's estimates of the
Vk
(qj+,,s + s•s) distribution moments'
or

a•T• -•- K•- a• '

[E(q•
--a•Tk
-
1 -- ak
T• q- 1.8K•- 1.9Kka•- E(q)
> 1.o5- 1! (s))IV(q)] 1/2
I V(q)
• F-l(•(•))a• •
-- a•A Vk
-- O.9a•F--1(a•('))[V(q)]1/2 (14)
and rewriting Vk

where --1.9'Ksascan be proved concaveby

T•• K•[(1--a•)•-
E(q)•
•1--a••
a• •/•inspectingthe quadraticform associatedwith
-- 1 + a•
the Hessian matrix. Therefore the set of feas-
ßF-l(•(•))[V(q)]•/• V k (13) ible solutionpointssatisfyinginequality14 will
be convex.Inequality14,however,remainsnon-
separable
withouttransformation.
Use of a
procedure
suggested
by Hadley[1964,p. 119]
enablesa separable
approximation
to (14) to
be developed:

(15)
Vk

Thespillinq
constraint
requires where
selectionof decisionrule
parameters
in order
that(qj+l
k+Sjk
)
falls
into
this
rancje
only ' •w• = -}(a• q- Kk)
(1-a•;))(100)%
ofthetime.
Therefore,
spillsmustoccuronly ew• = «(--ak q- K•)
1-c•S))(100)%
of theyears.
0.6 _< a• _< 0.9
Fig. 3. Interpretation of spilling chance con-
straint. Inequality 15 is separableand representsa
convexset. By obtaininga separableconstraint TABLE 3. Reservoir Simulation Model Results
set a solutionwith the Simplex algorithm with
restricted basis entry is permitted. Length Years
of Period, Deficiency YearsSpill
Continuity constraint. A chance constraint years Occurred,% Occurred,%
must be formulated that requires that in 100
o/• (c•o/
70 of the years, the linear reservoiroperat- 100 11 2
100 4 6
ing rule must recommend releases consistent
100 0 7
with the continuity condition.The remaining 100 6 2
100(1 -- • j% of the years, the linear op- 100 7 10
erating rule must be abandoned,and releases
Mean 5.6 5.4
must conform to the continuity condition.The
formulation of this requirement as a chance Annual streamflow sequenceswere generated
constraint with a lag-oneMarkov model with E(q) = 64,000
ac ft and IV(q)]•/• = 20,000 ac ft.

The optimalsolutionspecifies a reservoirof

Vk
approximately94,000 acre-feetcapacity,an
and the substitutionof the operatingrule (1) annualirrigationtarget of 59,000acre-feet,and
into the continuitychanceconstraintyields a, -- 0.90.
A simplereservoirsimulationmodelwasde-
velopedto test the adequacyof the chance
c) constrainedreservoir model. A lag-one Marko-
vtan model [Fiering, 1967] was used to gen-
which reduces to
erateoperational
hydrology.
Theseannualflows
were routedthrougha 94,000acre-feetcapacity
P{ q,+•,•,•-- s,• _• T•,}_• •,(c, V k (17) reservoir and operating decisionswere made
which is identical in form to inequality 4. in accordance with the operatingrule (1) with
Therefore the continuity constraint can be T, = 59,000and a, = 0.9. Table 3 presents
omitted and the constraint set of the chance resultsfrom routingfive 100-yearsequences of
constrained reservoir model will consist of the annual flows through the reservoir.These re-
target and spilling constraints. sults indicate the irrigation target was gen-
erally met or exceeded in more than 90% of
RESULTS
the years and reservoirspills occurredin less
The chance constrained reservoir model is a than 10% of all years.
nonlinear separableconvex programingprob- A parametricinvestigationof the irrigation
lem. The '3 method' of separableprograming target reliability level a, (•' is presentedin
[Hadley, 1964] was employed to achieve a Figures 4 and 5. These resultsindicate the
globaloptimal solutionof this problem.Param- sensitivityof systemdesignand net economic
eter values necessaryfor model solution are benefitsto the certainty level for meetingthe
detailed in Table 2. irrigation target. Increasingthe reliability of

TABLE 2. Parameters for Model Solution

Units and Description Parameter Value

Irrigationbenefits,$/ac ft (irrigationbenefitswereevaluated B• B• = 276.0
at $20/ac ft over a 90-yeartime horizonfor a 60-/0
discount B• = 48.0
rate) B• = 8.0
Capital costsand presentvalue of operationand maintenance c 50.0
costsfor reservoir storage, $/ac ft
Mean annual streamflow, ac ft Z(q) 64,000
Standard deviation of annual streamflow [V(q)]•/' 20,000
Ten percentfractile level for the target constraint F-•(1 - a•(•")) - 1.28
Ninety percentfractile level for spillingconstraint F -• ( a• ½')) 1.28
 Reservoir Modeling 345

lOO - INITIALRESERVOIR
CAPACITY,
K0

90- ....O..
'-"-
-""O"
-' --0--
---{)-/-CO-
--0--
-0-
-0-
-0
70-

ß
.-...•_ DECISION
PERIOD
ONEIRRIGATION
-- TARGET,TI .
• 50-
I----
40--

o 30--

20--

lO--

0.O
0.80

Fig. 4. Parametric investigation of the effects of irrigation target reliability a• (•) on

reservoir design and operating parameters. Initial reservoir storage capacity Ko and the
irrigation target release for the first decision period Tx are given in kilo acre-feet.

meeting the irrigation target from 4 out of 5
years, to 19 out of 20 years, would reduce net
economicbenefitsby over $5,000,000becauseof
increased reservoir size and the decreased irri-
gation target necessaryto meet the more strict
reliability requirement. This benefit reduction
does, however, ignore the economicbenefits to
farmers resulting from a more reliable supply
of irrigation water. Decision makers must de-
cide whether benefitsfrom increasedreliability
outweighrequired costsnecessaryto achievethis
increasedreliability. Therefore the problem of

:52-

51-

w
z
w
:50--

28

i.80I 0.82
I I 0.84
I I 0.86
I I 0.88
I I 0.90
I I 0.92
I I 0.94
I
Fig. 5. Parametric investigation of the effects of irrigation target reliability level on project
net economic benefits.
346

loss function estimation associated with linear Acknowledgments. The continued interest •nd
programing
underuncertaintyis not totally helpfulcriticism
of Dr. Douglas
V. Smith,Popu-
obviated
bychance
constrained
programing
and lationStudies Center, Harvard University, have
been appreciated. Dr. Russell J. de Lucia., Meta
decision
makers
muststillweigh
thecosts
and Systems,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
provided
benefitsof increasedreliability. valuablecomments
andsuggestions.
Acknowledg-
ment is made to Mr. Grant W. Schaumburg, I-Iar-
CONClUSiONS yard University and V. I-I. Eisel for their assist-
ance in publication. This investigation was
Thisdevelopment
ofa single
purpose,
I sea- supported
byaU.S.
Public
Health
Service
trainee-
sonstochastic
reservoir
modeldemonstrates
the shi.
p anda grantfromResources
fortheFuture
possibleconvolutionproblems that can occur (44-5325-2).Publicationwas assistedby the en-
in chanceconstrainedprogramingmodelsof vironmentalsystemsprogram,HarvardUniver-
waterresource
systems
ß
Furtherstudies
are sity,
GI-24.
through
National
Science
Foundation
grant
necessary if these mathematical complexities
are not to limit the general application of
chance
constrained
programing
in thedesign
of R•r•R•NC•S
water resourcesystems. Bryant,G., Stochastic
theoryof queuesapplied
The Bryant[196.1]operating
policy(1) todesignofimpounding reservoirs,
Ph.D. thesis,
Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass., 1961.
represents
a moregeneralclassof reservoirCharnes,A.,andW. W. Cooper, Deterministic
operatingrulesthan previouslyemployedin equivalents
for optimizing
andsatisficing
under
chance constrained reservoir models [Eisel, chance constraints,Oper. Res., 11(1), 18-39,
1970;Loucks,1970].Employment
of this op- 1963.
erating
policy
in a chance
constrained
pro- Dantzig,G.B.,Linear Programming andExten-
sions, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
graming
model
appears
feasible
if thequeuing N.J., 1963.
theory assumptionsfor estimationof the stor- Dorfman,R., Mathematicalmodels:The,multi-
age distributionparametersare not seriously structureapproach,in Designo/Water Resource
violated.
Extension
of the Bryantoperating Systems,
editedby A. Maass
et al.,pp.494-
policy
to a multiseason
chance
constrained
539,Harvard
Mass., 1962. University
Press,
Cambridge,
reservoir
modeldoes,however,
presentmathe- Eisel,L. M., Land-use
management
in a water
matical complexities(most notably a nonconvex resourcesystem,Ph.D. thesis,Harvard Univ.,
constraint
set). This limitationpartiallyoffsets Cambridge,
Mass.,1970a.
theadvantages
gainedfromgenerality
of the Eisel,
L. M., Comments onthelinear decision
rule in reservoir management and design by
Bryantoperating
rule. C. Revelle, E. Joeres,andW. Kirby,Water
Parametricprograminganalysisof chance Resour.Res.,6(4), 1239-1241,
1970b.
constrainedwater resourcemodelscan provide Eisel, L. M., Watershedmanagement:A systems
decisionmakers with estimatesof the costs of approach, Water Resour. Res., 8(2), 326-338,
increased
system
reliability.
Decision
makers 1972.
canthenweigh
thebenefits
andcosts
ofthis Fiering,
M. B, Streamflow Synthesis, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1967.
increased
reliability
in theirdecision
process.Hadley,G., Nonlinear
Programming,
p. 119,
This procedureoffersan alternativeto linear Addison-Wesley,
Reading,Mass.,1964.
programingunder uncertainty. Joeres,E. F., J. C. Liebman, and C. S. Revelle,
The stochasticnature of water resourcessys- Operatingrules for joint operationof raw water
tems suggestscontinued research in applica- sources,Water Resour. Res., 7(2), 225-235, 1971.
Loucks,D. P., Some commentson linear decision
tion of stochasticprogramingmethodsto the rules and chance constraints, Water Resour.
design and operation of these systems.Such Res., 6(2), 668-671, 1970.
future researchshouldincludea comparative Naslund,B., Mathematicalprogramming under
study of linear programingunder uncertainty risk,$wed.J. Econ.,67(3), 240-255,1965.
andchance
constrained
programing.
Thisstudy Nayak,S.C., andS. R. Arora,Optimal
capacities
could
determine
whether
theseveral
possible decision
for a multireservoir system using thelinear
rule, Water Resour. Res., 7(3), 485-498,
advantagesof chanceconstrained
programing 19,71.
offsetthe mathematical
complexityresulting Revelle,
C.S.,andW.Kirby,Linear
decision
•ule
from convolutionproblems. in reservoirmanagementand design,2, Per-
 Reservoir Modeling 347
formance optimization, Water Resour. Res., Young, G. K., Techniques for finding reservoir
6(4), 1033-1044,1970. operating rules, Ph.D. thesis, tte•rvard Univ.,
Revelle, C. S., E. Joeres, and W. Ki.rby, The Cambridge, Mass., 1966.
linear decision rule in reservoir management .Young, G. K,, Finding reservoir operating rules,
and design, 1, Development of the stochastic J. Hydraul. Div., Amer. $oc. Civil Eng.,
model, Water Resour. Res., 5(4), 767-777, 1969. 93(I-IY6), 297-321, 1967.
Watermeyer, P., and l:I. A. Thomas, Jr., Queuing
theory and reservoir design, Ann. Comput. Lab.
Harvard Univ., 31, 5.9-76, 1962. (Manuscript received July 8, 1971.)