Abstract

Knapp and Feinerman (1985) pose and solve a problem of steady‐state allocation of ground water based directly on the underlying dynamic problem. Their dynamic steady‐state formulation incorporates both the equations of transient ground. water flow and the discount rate. We wish to discuss two aspects of their analysis. First, we question their assertion that the computational advantages of the dynamic steady.state formulation will justify its substitution for the full transient problem. In fact, the dynamic steady‐state problem will often be harder to solve than the properly formulated transient problem. Second, we argue that the dynamic steady‐state is a concept that has limited applicability in ground‐water management. In cases where the optimal steady state is indeed useful, the dynamic solution is often identical to the static solution.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.