Posts Tagged ‘groundwater’

Decentralized groundwater recharge

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

February 2012 Article (Early View):Decentralized Groundwater Recharge Systems Using Roofwater and Stormwater Runoff,” by Daniel B. Stephens, Mark Miller, Stephanie J. Moore, Todd Umstot, and Deborah J. Salvato.

Conceptual Diagram of Water Balance Components for (a) an Undeveloped Site and (b) a Home Site With Low-Impact Development Technology.

This article assesses the importance of decentralized methods to reduce stormwater runoff, including methods such as low-impact development (LID) technology, and to enhance recharge in urban areas. For urban watersheds with net excess runoff, the authors examine the role for more widely distributed, artificial recharge systems at the home lot, subdivision, neighborhood, shopping mall, or business park scale, using captured roof or hardscape runoff to gradually replenish groundwater supplies without adding significant new large-scale infrastructure.

In this conceptual model of a decentralized urban recharge system, runoff is limited to the predevelopment condition. Thus, on a partially hardscaped lot, the water volume that could be salvaged from runoff would then be the precipitation minus the predevelopment runoff, minus natural recharge and evapotranspiration. Capturing runoff close to its source helps minimize dissolved chemicals or entrained sediment in runoff. By encouraging LID options that favor recharge, the benefits double; that is, groundwater storage increases and surface water quality improves.

Costs to implement decentralized systems seem to be favorable in comparison to centralized and heavily engineered systems, but, the authors note, there are few incentives currently in place to encourage public support; consequently, implementation is likely to be a slow process. Nevertheless, there is evidence that a movement toward decentralized systems may have already begun, as some municipalities, counties, states, and now likely federal facilities have begun to encourage or mandate groundwater recharge from stormwater at the local scale to a great extent.

[Please note: I have quoted and paraphrased freely from the article, but the interpretation is my own.]

Inactive wells hazard

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

June 2011 article (Early View):Modeling the Potential Impact of Seasonal and Inactive Multi-Aquifer Wells on Contaminant Movement to Public Water-Supply Wells, ” by R.L. Johnson, B.R. Clark, M.K. Landon, L.J. Kauffman, and S.M. Eberts.

Ok, here’s something to get you worried, as if you needed anything else: “Wells screened across multiple aquifers can provide pathways for the movement of surprisingly large volumes of groundwater to confined aquifers used for public water supply (PWS). Using a simple numerical model, we examine the impact of several pumping scenarios on leakage from an unconfined aquifer to a confined aquifer and conclude that a single inactive multi-aquifer well can contribute nearly 10% of total PWS well flow over a wide range of pumping rates. This leakage can occur even when the multi-aquifer well is more than a kilometer from the PWS well. … An important implication is that, if an unconfined aquifer is contaminated, multi-aquifer wells can increase the vulnerability of a confined-aquifer PWS well.”

The drawing below summarizes the situation:

Figure from article

Although multi-aquifer wells represent only one type of preferential flow pathway for volatile organic contaminates, the modeling results presented in this article indicate that, where they exist, multi-aquifer wells could be a major factor contributing contaminants to impacted confined-aquifer PWS wells. As a result, multi-aquifer wells, including those that are seasonally active, can lead to situations that may affect public health.

[Please note: I have quoted and paraphrased freely from the article, but the interpretation is my own!]

Transboundary Groundwater Policy

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

February 2011 article:Transboundary Groundwater Policy: Developing Approaches in the Western and Southwestern United States,” by Deborah L. Hathaway.

This paper identifies and contrasts approaches to transboundary groundwater policy, drawing from recent conflicts and cooperative efforts, including those associated with the interstate compacts on the Arkansas and Pecos Rivers; the Hueco and Lower Rio Grande Basins shared by New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico; and the Mexicali Basin in California and Mexico.

While interstate and international allocation of shared groundwater resources has received little formal policy development as compared to that for surface waters, nevertheless, the allocation of shared groundwater resources does occur across political boundaries. The author notes interstate and international allocation and management of shared groundwater resources may be viewed as having evolved in the context of three general situations: (1) through existing surface water agreements where a surface water ? groundwater connection exists and is recognized, (2) de facto ground- water allocation, and (3) dialog over groundwater allocation. Specific cases are examined.

The author concludes, although continuing scientific investigation must not be underestimated, the challenge in implementing agreements will not likely be scientific. Rather, identifying the appropriate governance mechanisms, and, selecting the necessary tradeoffs under shortage conditions, will constitute the challenges in achieving effective transboundary groundwater management.

[Please note: I have quoted and paraphrased freely from the article, but the interpretation is my own!]

Wind-Powered Desalinization

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

February 2011 article: “Wind-Powered Desalination: An Estimate of Saline Groundwater in the United States,” by James Androwski, Abraham Springer, Thomas Acker, and Mark Manone.

How’s this for far thinking? The authors estimate the saline groundwater resources of the principal aquifers of the United States and correlate these resources to wind resources potentially sufficient to supply the energy demand of desalination equipment.

A lot of assumptions? Certainly. But, we know where the ground water exists and we know where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain. Matching the two in a GIS, they conclude 1.4 e14 m3 (110 billion acre-feet) saline groundwater are co-located with wind resources sufficient for electrical generation to desalinate groundwater.

[Please note: I have quoted and paraphrased freely from the article, but the interpretation is my own!]

Recharge and Aquifer Discharge

Monday, November 15th, 2010

December 2010 article: “Analytical Solutions to the Linearized Boussinesq Equation for Assessing the Effects of Recharge on Aquifer Discharge,” by Kevin G. Boggs, Robert W. Van Kirk, Gary S. Johnson, Jerry P. Fairley, and P. Steve Porter.

The authors develop a general understanding of how variations in aquifer recharge are reflected in discharge. Analytical solutions to the linearized Boussinesq equation governing flow in an unconfined

Eastern Snake River Aquifer

aquifer provide a unified mathematical framework to quantify relationships among lag time, attenuation and distance between aquifer recharge and discharge and the effect of an up-gradient no-flow boundary.

Don’t you just love modeling-speak? In plain terms, the authors look at how quickly recharge events affect an aquifer and how far away the effects are felt. The mathematics may make sense only to us geeks, but the findings can be important.

They illustrate their results with application to the economically critical Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer in Idaho. In this aquifer, detectable annual and decadal cycles in discharge can result from recharge no farther than 20 and 60 km away from the discharge point, respectively. The effects of more distant, long-term recharge can be detected only after a time lag of several decades.

[Please note: I have quoted and paraphrased freely from the article, but the interpretation is my own!]

Classifying aquifers

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

October 2010 Article: An Aquifer Classification System and Geographical Information System-Based Analysis Tool for Watershed Managers in the Western U.S., by Scott M. Payne and William W. Woessner.

Example of aquifer mapping

I wish I had a dollar for every classification system ever proposed. This one, however, got my attention because it seems widely applicable, repeatable, and reduces sometimes cumbersome complex databases and analyzes to straightforward terminology and graphical representations. Moreover, it’s based on a watershed scale.

The proposed classification system uses basin geology, aquifer productivity, water quality, and the degree of groundwater/surface water connection as classification criteria. The approach is based on literature values, reference databases, and fundamental hydrologic and hydrogeologic principles. The proposed classification system treats dataset completeness as a variable and includes a tiered assessment protocol that depends on the quality and quantity of data. The hierarchical approach is designed to improve communication between groundwater professionals and natural resource managers, similar to the classification system for natural rivers developed by Rosgen.

Classification systems always seem to involve different opinions over how things should be lumped, split, summarized, inspected, detected, neglected, and selected, and this one is no exception. The paper went through three full rounds of reviews before reaching tentative acceptance. Many thanks go to the reviewers who offered so many helpful comments.

[Please note: I have quoted and paraphrased freely from the article, but the interpretation is my own!]

You say “ground water,” I say “groundwater.”

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

Acknowledging, “Language evolves, and it is clear that the one-word spelling of groundwater has become the preferred usage both nationally and internationally,” William M. Alley, Chief, Office of Groundwater — Note the usage! — has announced a transition to the one-word form for USGS publications. You can see the full text at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw09.03.html.

JAWRA is one of the few journals which had continued to follow the two-word usage in deference to our many USGS authors. With USGS now going to the one-word form, there seems little reason for JAWRA to keep its policy. Therefore, all new manuscripts should use “groundwater.” Manuscripts already in our system may continue with the two-word rule, though we will encourage authors to switch as they prepare revisions. We expect to have the transition largely complete by 2010.