Evaluation of Ground‐Water and Surface‐Water Exchanges Using Streamflow Difference Analyses1

Abstract: In the karstic lower Flint River Basin, limestone fracturing, jointing, and subsequent dissolution have resulted in the development of extensive secondary permeability and created a system of major conduits that facilitate the exchange of water between the Upper Floridan aquifer and Flint River. Historical streamflow data from U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations located in Albany and Newton, Georgia, were used to quantify ground‐water and surface‐water exchanges within a 55.3 km section of the Flint River. Using data from 2001, we compared estimates of ground‐water flux using a time adjustment method to a water balance equation and found that these independent approaches yielded similar results. The associated error was relatively large during high streamflow when unsteady conditions prevail, but much lower during droughts. Flow reversals were identified by negative streamflow differences and verified with in situ data from temperature sensors placed inside large spring conduits. Long‐term (13 years) analysis showed negative streamflow differentials (i.e., a losing stream condition) coincided with high river stages and indicated that streamflow intrusion into the aquifer could potentially exceed 150 m³/s. Although frequent negative flow differentials were evident, the Flint River was typically a gaining stream and showed a large net increase in flow between the two gages when examined over the period 1989‐2003. Ground‐water contributions to this stream section averaged 2‐42 m³/s with a mean of 13 m³/s. The highest rate of ground‐water discharge to the Flint River occurred during the spring when regional ground‐water levels peaked following heavy winter and spring rains and corresponding rates of evapotranspiration were low. During periods of extreme drought, ground‐water contributions to the Flint River declined.     

Wind‐Powered Desalination: An Estimate of Saline Groundwater in the United States1

James Androwski, Abraham Springer, Thomas Acker, and Mark Manone, 2011. Wind‐Powered Desalination: An Estimate of Saline Groundwater in the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(1):93‐102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00493.x Abstract: Increasing scarcity of freshwater resources in many regions of the world is leading water resource managers to consider desalination as a potential alternative to traditional freshwater supplies. Desalination technologies are energy intensive and expensive to implement making desalination using renewable energy resources a potentially attractive option. Unfortunately, saline groundwater resources are not well characterized for many regions hindering consideration of such technologies. In this assessment, we estimate the saline groundwater resources of the principal aquifers of the United States using a geographic information system and correlate these resources to wind resources potentially sufficient to supply the energy demand of desalination equipment. We estimate that 3.1 × 10¹⁴ m³ saline groundwater, total volume, are contained in 28 of the country’s principal aquifers known to contain saline groundwater. Of this volume, 1.4 × 10¹⁴ m³ saline groundwater are co‐located with wind resources sufficient for electrical generation to desalinate groundwater.     

Evaluation of Rio Grande Management Alternatives Using a Surface‐Water/Ground‐Water Model1

Abstract: Previous investigations observed significant seepage losses from the Rio Grande to the shallow aquifer between Socorro and San Antonio, New Mexico. High‐resolution telescopic modeling was used along a 10‐km reach of the Rio Grande and associated drains and canals to evaluate several management alternatives aimed at improving river conveyance efficiency. Observed data consisted of ground‐water and surface‐water elevations, seepage rates along the Rio Grande and associated canals and drains, and borehole geology. Model calibration was achieved by adjusting hydraulic conductivity and specific storage until the output matched observed data. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the system was responsive to changes in hydrogeologic properties, especially when such alterations increased vertical connectivity between layers. The calibrated model predicted that removal of the low flow conveyance channel, a major channel draining the valley, would not only decrease river seepage by 67%, but also decrease total flow through the reach by 75%. The decreased flow through the reach would result in increased water logging and an average increase in ground‐water elevations of 1.21 meter. Simulations of the system with reduced riparian evapotranspiration rates or a relocated river channel also predicted decreased river seepage, but to a much lesser degree.     

Transboundary Groundwater Policy: Developing Approaches in the Western and Southwestern United States1

Hathaway, Deborah L., 2011. Transboundary Groundwater Policy: Developing Approaches in the Western and Southwestern United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(1):103‐113. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00494.x Abstract: The western and southwestern United States include dozens of groundwater basins that cross political boundaries. Common among these shared groundwater basins is an overlay of differing legal structures and water development priorities, typically, with insufficient water supply for competing human uses, and often, a degraded ecosystem. Resolution of conflicts over ambiguously regulated groundwater has clarified transboundary groundwater policy in some interstate basins, while transboundary groundwater policy in international basins is less evolved. 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. Some efforts seek to fit groundwater policy into existing surface water allocation procedures; some strive for a better fit – incorporating scientific understanding of key differences between groundwater and surface water into policy frameworks. In some cases, neither policy nor precedent exists. The collective experience of these and other cases sets the stage for improved management of transboundary groundwater; as such, challenges and successes of these approaches, and those contemplated in several hypothetical model agreements, are examined.     

Surface Water Seepage Effects on Shallow Ground‐Water Quality Along the Rio Grande in Northern New Mexico1

Abstract: Interactions between surface irrigation water, shallow ground water, and river water may have effects on water quality that are important for both drinking water supplies and the ecological function of rivers and floodplains. We investigated water quality in surface water and ground water, and how water quality is influenced by surface water inputs from an unlined irrigation system in the Alcalde Valley of the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico. From August 2005 to July 2006, we sampled ground water and surface water monthly and analyzed for concentrations of major cations and anions, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and water levels. Results indicate that irrigation ditch seepage caused an increase in ground water levels and that the Rio Grande is a gaining stream in this region. Temporal and spatial differences were found in ion concentrations in shallow ground water as it flowed from under the ditch toward the river. Ground‐water ion concentrations were higher when the ditch was not flowing compared with periods during peak irrigation season when the ditch was flowing. Ditch inputs diluted ion concentrations in shallow ground water at well positions near the ditch. Specifically, lower ion concentrations were detected in ground water at well positions located near the ditch and river compared with well positions located in the middle of an agricultural field. Results from this project showed that ditch inputs influenced ion concentrations and were associated with ground‐water recharge. In arid region river valleys, careful consideration should be given to management scenarios that change seepage from irrigation systems, because in some situations reduced seepage could negatively affect ground‐water recharge and water quality.     

Mason Valley Groundwater Model: Linking Surface Water and Groundwater in the Walker River Basin,Nevada1

Carroll, Rosemary W.H., Greg Pohll, David McGraw, Chris Garner, Anna Knust, Doug Boyle, Tim Minor, Scott Bassett, and Karl Pohlmann, 2010. Mason Valley Groundwater Model: Linking Surface Water and Groundwater in the Walker River Basin, Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(3):554-573. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00434.x Abstract: An integrated surface water and groundwater model of Mason Valley, Nevada is constructed to replicate the movement of water throughout the different components of the demand side of water resources in the Walker River system. The Mason Valley groundwater surface water model (MVGSM) couples the river/drain network with agricultural demand areas and the groundwater system using MODFLOW, MODFLOW’s streamflow routing package, as well as a surface water linking algorithm developed for the project. The MVGSM is capable of simulating complex feedback mechanisms between the groundwater and surface water system that is not dependent on linearity among the related variables. The spatial scale captures important hydrologic components while the monthly stress periods allow for seasonal evaluation. A simulation spanning an 11-year record shows the methodology is robust under diverse climatic conditions. The basin-wide modeling approach predicts a river system generally gaining during the summer irrigation period but losing during winter months and extended periods of drought. River losses to the groundwater system approach 25% of the river’s annual budget. Reducing diversions to hydrologic response units will increase river flows exiting the model domain, but also has the potential to increase losses from the river to groundwater storage.     

Riparian Ground‐Water Flow Patterns Using Flownet Analysis: Evapotranspiration‐Induced Upwelling and Implications for N Removal1

Abstract: Ground‐water flow paths constrain the extent of nitrogen (N) sinks in deep, stratified soils of riparian wetlands. We examined ground‐water flow paths at four forested riparian wetlands in deep, low gradient, stratified deposits subjected to Southern New England’s temperate, humid climate. Mid‐day piezometric heads were recorded during the high water table period in April/May and again in late November at one site. Coupling field data with a two‐dimensional steady‐state ground‐water flow model, flow paths and fluxes were derived to 3 m depths. April/May evapotranspiration (ET) dominated total outflux (44‐100%) while flux to the stream was <10% of total outflux. ET exerted upward ground‐water flux through shallow carbon‐rich soils, increasing opportunities for N transformations and diverting flow from the stream. Dormant season results showed a marked increase in flux to the stream (27% of the total flux). Riparian sites with deep water tables (naturally or because of increased urbanization or other hydrologic modifications) or shallow root zones may not generate ground‐water upwelling to meet evaporative demand, thereby increasing the risk of N movement to streams. As water managers balance issues of water quality with water quantity, they will be faced with decisions regarding riparian management. Further work towards refining our understanding of ET mediation of N and water flux at the catchment scale will serve to inform these decisions.     

Estimating Evapotranspiration and Seepage for a Sinkhole Wetland From Diurnal Surface‐Water Cycles1

Abstract: This study used measured diurnal surface‐water cycles to estimate daily evapotranspiration (ET) and seepage for a seasonally flooded sinkhole wetland. Diurnal surface‐water cycles were classified into five categories based on the relationship between the surface‐water body and the surrounding ground‐water system (i.e., recharge/discharge). Only one class of diurnal cycles was found to be suitable for application of this method. This subset of diurnal cycles was used to estimate ET and seepage and the relative importance of each transfer process to the overall water budget. The method has limited utility for wetlands with erratic hydrologic regimes (e.g., wetlands in urban environments). This is due to violation of the critical assumption that the inflow/outflow rate remains constant throughout the day. For application to surface‐water systems, the method is typically applied with an assumed specific yield of 1.0. This assumption was found to be invalid for application to surface‐water systems with a noncylindrical pond geometry. An overestimation of ET by as much as 60% was found to occur under conditions of low pond stage and high water loss. The results demonstrate the high ET rates that can occur in isolated wetlands due to contrasting roughness and moisture conditions (oasis and clothesline effects). Estimated ET rates ranged from 4.1 to 18.7 mm/day during the growing season. Despite these large ET rates, seepage (recharge) was found to be the dominant water loss mechanism for the wetland.     

Variations in Base‐Flow Nitrate Flux in a First‐Order Stream and Riparian Zone1

Abstract: Nonpoint source pollution, which contributes to contamination of surface waters, is difficult to control. Some pollutants, particularly nitrate (), are predominantly transmitted through ground water. Riparian buffer zones have the potential to remove contaminants from ground water and reduce the amount of that enters surface water. This is a justification for setting aside vegetated buffer strips along waterways. Many riparian zone hydrologic models assume uniform ground‐water flow through organic‐rich soil under reducing conditions, leading to effective removal of ground‐water prior to discharge into a stream. However, in a small first‐order stream in the mid‐Atlantic coastal plain, base‐flow generation was highly variable (spatially and temporally). Average base‐flow loads were greater in winter than summer, and higher during a wetter year than in dryer years. Specific sections of the stream consistently received greater amounts of high ground water than others. Areas within the riparian zone responsible for most of the exported from the watershed are termed “critical areas.” Over this 5‐year study, most of the exported during base flow originated from a critical area comprising less than 10% of the total riparian zone land area. Allocation of resources to address and improve mitigation function in critical areas should be a priority for continued riparian zone research.     

Efficient and Practical Approaches to Ground‐Water Right Transfers Under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine and the Snake River Example1

Abstract: Water right transfers are one of the basic means of implementing changes in water use in the highly appropriated water resource systems of the western United States. Many of these systems are governed by the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, which was not originally intended for application to ground‐water pumping and the conjunctive management of ground water and surface water, and thus creates an administrative challenge. That challenge results from the fact that ground‐water pumping can affect all interconnected surface‐water bodies and the effects may be immeasurably small relative to surface water discharge and greatly attenuated in time. Although we may have the ability to calculate the effects of ground‐water pumping and transfers of pumping location on surface‐water bodies, mitigating for all the impacts of each individual transfer is sufficiently inefficient that it impedes the transfer process, frustrates water users, and consequently inhibits economic development. A more holistic approach to ground‐water right transfers, such as a ground‐water accounting or banking scheme, may adequately control transfer third‐party effects while reducing mitigation requirements on individual transfers. Acceptance of an accounting scheme can accelerate the transfer process, and possibly reduce the administrative burden.     

Estimating Water Budgets and Vertical Leakages for Karst Lakes in North‐Central Florida (United States) Via Hydrological Modeling1

Lin, Zhulu, 2011. Estimating Water Budgets and Vertical Leakages for Karst Lakes in North‐Central Florida (United States) Via Hydrological Modeling. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1‐16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00513.x Abstract: Newnans, Lochloosa, and Orange Lakes are closely hydrologically connected karst lakes located in north‐central Florida, United States. The complex karst hydrology in this region poses a great challenge to the hydrological modeling that is essential to the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for these lakes. We used a Hydrological Simulation Program – Fortran model coupled with the parallel Parameter ESTimation model calibration and uncertainty analysis software to estimate effectively the hydrological interactions between the lakes and the underlying upper Floridan aquifer and the water budgets for these three lakes. The net results of the lake‐groundwater interactions in Newnans and Orange Lakes are that both lakes recharge the underlying upper Floridan aquifer, with the recharge rate of the latter one magnitude greater than that of the former. However, for Lochloosa Lake, the net lake‐groundwater interaction is that the lake gains water from groundwater in a significant amount, approximately 40% of its total terrestrial water input. The annual average vertical leakages estimated for Newnans, Lochloosa, and Orange Lakes are 6.0 × 10⁶, ?8.9 × 10⁶, and 44.4 × 10⁶ m³, respectively. The average vertical hydraulic conductance (K_v/b) of the units between a lake bottom and the underlying upper Floridan aquifer in this region are also estimated to be from 1.26 × 10^?4 to 1.01 × 10^?3 day^?1.