Groundwater Regulation and Integrated Water Planning

Quevauviller, Philippe; Batelaan, Okke; Hunt, Randall J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23576-9_8

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prioritization of different types of errors, therefore, is a local decision depending on social and political priorities (Acreman et al, ; Quevauviller et al, ). The flexibility of the KGE and the ability to decompose mean squared error into its various components (Gudmundsson et al, ; Gupta et al, ) make it a valuable tool for evaluating analytical models and depletion apportionment equations, so that water managers in locations without existing numerical models can choose appropriate tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Pumping Impacts on Real Stream Networks: Testing the Performance of Simple Management Tools

Zipper

Dallemagne

Gleeson

et al. 2018

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying reductions in streamflow due to groundwater pumping (“streamflow depletion”) is essential for conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water resources. Analytical models are widely used to estimate streamflow depletion but include potentially problematic assumptions such as simplified stream‐aquifer geometry and rely on largely untested depletion apportionment equations to distribute depletion from a well among different stream reaches. Here, we use archetypal numerical models to evaluate the sensitivity of five depletion apportionment equations to stream networks with varying drainage densities, topographic relief, and groundwater recharge rates; and statistically evaluate the sources of error for each equation. We introduce a new depletion apportionment equation called web squared which considers stream network geometry, and find that it performs the best under most conditions tested. For all depletion apportionment equations, performance decreases with increases in drainage density, relief, or recharge rates, and all equations struggle to estimate depletion in short stream reaches. Poorly performing apportionment equations tend to underestimate streamflow depletion relative to numerical model results, leading to a negative bias and underpredicted variability, while error in the best performing apportionment equations tends to be due to imperfect correlation. From a management perspective, apportionment equations with error due to bias and variability are preferable as they correctly identify which reaches will be affected and can be statistically corrected. Overall, these results indicate that the web squared method introduced here, which explicitly considers stream geometry, performs the best over a range of real‐world conditions, and will be most accurate in flatter and drier environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Pumping Impacts on Real Stream Networks: Testing the Performance of Simple Management Tools

Zipper

Dallemagne

Gleeson

et al. 2018

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The prioritization of different types of errors, therefore, is a local decision depending on 512 social and political priorities (Acreman et al, 2014;Quevauviller et al, 2016 2016). Due to the high effort, expertise, and data required to make a site-specific numerical 568 model (Table 1), analytical models paired with depletion apportionment equations may be an 569 essential management tool that can be used to screen pumping wells to avoid excessive 570 depletion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater pumping impacts on real stream networks: testing the performance of simple management tools

Zipper¹,

Dallemagne²,

Gleeson³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plain Language Summary 51Pumping groundwater for human uses such as irrigation can reduce flow in streams by 52 intercepting water which otherwise would have eventually flowed into the river channel or 53 causing water to flow out of the stream into the subsurface. This 'streamflow depletion' reduces 54 the water available to downstream users and ecosystems. Due to a lack of data and resources, 55 relatively simple ('analytical') groundwater models are often used to estimate pumping impacts, 56 but they are based on unrealistic assumptions, such as linear streams. In this study, we introduce 57 a new 'depletion apportionment' equation used to estimate pumping impacts that considers the 58 spatial configuration of real stream networks. By comparing it to more complex ('numerical') 59 groundwater models, we find that our new equation works better than existing equations under a 60 variety of conditions. All of the depletion apportionment equations we test perform best in 61 flatter, drier settings where streams are spaced further apart. Finally, we compare the causes of 62 error among equations, which have different implications for water management decisions. 63Overall, our results show that stream geometry is an important factor to consider when making 64 groundwater pumping decisions, and the new depletion apportionment equation introduced here 65 is a useful tool for water managers. 66

show abstract

“…State plans, which examine water needs and sustainability across multiple watersheds and basins, may include subsections on specific groundwater basins, yet tend to employ a coarser/lower resolution due to the larger scope of the region they address. Watershed plans adopt the surface‐water basin as the unit of analysis and may or may not include groundwater, depending on the concerns and focus of those producing the plans as well as the connectivity between surface and groundwater (Foster and Ait‐Kadi 2012; Quevauviller et al 2016, also see The Rio Fernando de Taos Watershed‐based Plan, New Mexico 2020). Further, groundwater basins are unconnected from surface water basins would not be included (Foster and Ait‐Kadi 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Groundwater conditions and the factors that affect them vary greatly from place to place (Quevauviller et al 2016). For groundwater management to be effective, a clear understanding of the geologic, hydrologic, ecologic, and sociologic boundaries of the system and their interactions are essential (Foster and Ait‐Kadi 2012; Foster et al 2015; White et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Plans in the United States: Regulatory Frameworks and Management Goals

Gage

Milman

2020

Groundwater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundwater management plans are an important tool for preventing and addressing degradation and depletion of the resource. Through plans, water users and regulators set forth goals and identify strategies to address the needs of multiple resource users while considering physical constraints of the groundwater resource. This research examines the status of groundwater management plans in the United States, identifying in which states groundwater management plans are produced and the circumstances that lead to the inclusion of quantifiable goals in those plans. Findings indicate that legal and regulatory requirements for quantifiable goals can lead to the development of more comprehensive groundwater management plans, and, that such goals can be set even when uncertainties exist.

show abstract

Groundwater Regulation and Integrated Water Planning

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Groundwater Pumping Impacts on Real Stream Networks: Testing the Performance of Simple Management Tools

Groundwater Pumping Impacts on Real Stream Networks: Testing the Performance of Simple Management Tools

Groundwater pumping impacts on real stream networks: testing the performance of simple management tools

Groundwater Plans in the United States: Regulatory Frameworks and Management Goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About