GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
VOLUME 24, NO. 4
WINTER 2015
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater
Conference and GRA’s 24th Annual Meeting 2015:
Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability
By Lisa O’Boyle, conference Chair; co-Chairs Steven Phillips and Jim Strandberg; and
Moderators Julie Chambon, John McHugh, Ted Johnson, Vicki Kretsinger Grabert,
Jean Moran, Tara Moran, Tim Parker, Jessica Watkins, Daniel Wendell, and Brett Wyckoff
T
he 30th Biennial Groundwater
Conference & GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting was held in
Sacramento on October 6 and 7, 2015,
around the theme of “Drought, Water
Quality, and Sustainability.” With California now in the fourth year of an epic
drought, the subject of groundwater attracted 230 attendees to explore topics
including groundwater contaminants
and their cleanup, innovative approaches to groundwater management
challenges, and compliance with the
landmark Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act of 2014. The event
included nine concurrent sessions covering these topics and more, plus the
Collegiate Colloquium that showcased
the cutting-edge research of California’s
groundwater students, a plenary session
reviewing the state of water resources
in California, presentations by GRA’s
2015 Northern (Michelle Sneed, USGS)
and Southern (John Izbicki, USGS) California David Keith Todd Distinguished
Lecturers, a legislative update, and the
GRA awards ceremony. A field trip set
the stage by exploring the integration
of groundwater, surface water, recycled
water, and ecosystem health before the
conference, and key groundwater lead-
award for her oral presentation in the
Collegiate Colloquium, and Sarah Beganskas from UC Santa Cruz received
the award for her poster presentation in
the Student Poster Session. GRA’s Southern California Branch sponsored a $500
award to each student.
ers provided a look to the future in the
closing panel. Attendees also viewed an
array of student and professional poster
presentations, and gathered information
from 20 exhibitors.
Notably, The David Huntley Student
Competition Award was created by
GRA in honor of the renowned professor and his tireless efforts to mentor
students in hydrogeology and contaminant transport. Two students were
selected for the David Huntley Student
Competition Award at the 30th Biennial
Groundwater Conference: Katherine
Ransom from UC Davis received the
Conference co-sponsors were Geosyntec Consultants, DHI Water &
Environment, and GEI Consultants. The
conference co-chairs were aided in coordination of this successful event by an active planning committee, which included
representatives of thirteen cooperating
organizations. A summary of the conference topics follows.
Plenary Session: Status of
California Water Resources
(Moderated by Tim Parker, Parker
Groundwater)
The plenary session included keynote
presentations by California Department
of Water Resources (DWR) Director
Mark Cowin, Association of California
Water Agencies (ACWA) Executive
Director Tim Quinn, and California
Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
Executive Administrator Rich Matteis.
Continued on page 5…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 1
The Groundwater Resources Association of California is dedicated to resource management that
protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President, Ted Johnson
Water Replenishment
District of Southern Califnoria
562-275-4240
Vice President, Chris Petersen
GEI Consultants, Inc. 916-631-4597
Treasurer, R.T. Van Valer
Roscoe Moss Company
323-263-4111
Inside this Issue
Secretary, Steven Phillips
US Geological Survey
916-278-3002
Features
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference
and GRA’s 24th Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water
Quality & Sustainability
1
DIRECTORS
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally
Occurring Compounds of Regulatory Concern
17
GRA Honors the California Department of
Water Resources
38
David K. Todd Lecturers for 2016
39
GRA 2015 Lifetime Achievement Awards Goes to
USGS Research Hydrologist Dr. John Izbicki
Columns & Corners
To contact any GRA Executive Officer by email,
go to www.grac.org/officers.asp
41
David Abbott
Consulting Geologist
Murray Einarson
Haley & Aldrich
510-879-4544
Thomas Harter
University of California, Davis
530-752-1130
Brad Herrema
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
805-882-1493
Adam Hutchinson
Orange County Water District
714-378-3214
President’s Message
Upcoming Events
26
Technical Corner
28
California Legislative Corner
31
Lisa O’Boyle
Geosyntec Consultants
510-285-2788
Federal Legislative/Regulatory Corner
32
Tim Parker
Parker Groundwater
Chemist’s Corner
33
Student/Research Corner
34
James Strandberg
West Yost Associates
925-949-5800
Organizational Corner
42
Branch Highlights
44
HYDROVISIONS is the official publication of
the Groundwater Resources Association of
California (GRA). GRA’s mailing address is
1215 K Street, Suite 940, Sacramento, CA
95814. Any questions or comments concerning
this publication should be directed to the
newsletter editor at editor@grac.org or faxed to
(916) 231-2141.
3
John McHugh
Santa Clara Valley Water District
408-265-2607
EDITOR
Steven P. Phillips
editor@grac.org
EDITORIAL BOARD
Adam Hutchinson | David Von Aspern
Kristen Calderon | Lisa O’Boyle | Tim Parker
Vicki Kretsinger Grabert
Abigail McNally
Indra Designs, Inc.
530-520-6368
Emily Vavricka
EEC Environmental
714-667-2300
Brett Wyckoff
California Department of Water Resources
916-651-9283
To contact any GRA Director by email, go to
www.grac.org/directors.asp
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
Sarah Kline
916-446-3626 | skline@grac.org
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 2
President’s Message
GRA Rocks!
By Ted Johnson
W
ell, I am writing my last President’s Message for HydroVisions while on break during
GRA’s November 18–19 conference
on Naturally Occurring Compounds
of Regulatory Concern (NOCORC) in
Garden Grove. As I reflect back on my
two years as President, and as an original
and continuous member of GRA since
its formation in early 1992, it strikes me
that this NOCORC conference is yet
another great example of the terrific and
timely educational events GRA puts on
for the groundwater industry. Typical
for a GRA event, this conference is full
of high-level and leading-edge research
and practical information from experts
in their fields that can be put to use by
geoscientists and other water resources
professionals across the globe.
I had to look it up. In the past two
years alone, GRA has organized over
40 high-quality events covering a broad
range of topics, including conferences,
GRACasts (webcasts), workshops/short
courses, the Contemporary Groundwater Issues Council, and our travelling
northern- and southern-California David Keith Todd Distinguished Lecture
Series. I think this would be an amazing
number of events for any profit-based
organization with full-time, paid staff to
pull off, but to think that all of this was
done by volunteers in their spare time,
with assistance from our association
management company, makes it truly
remarkable and reflects the passion of
the organization’s members.
GRA is run by an elected, volunteer
Board of Directors composed of 15
individuals from across the state who
dedicate many hours to managing
the organization’s activities related to
finances, events, membership, commu-
nications, education, legislation, student
scholarships, etc. Supporting the Board
is SmithMoore, our association management company, and a host of volunteers,
ranging from retired Board members
to students, who participate on committees. At the local level, volunteers
manage the five GRA Branches (Central
Coast, Sacramento, San Francisco Bay
Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southern
California) that organize dinner meetings with guest speakers to cater to the
local scene.
Obviously, GRA is a volunteer
organization that is only as successful as the volunteers make it. We are
always looking for more members and
more volunteers. So, if you are not a
member, please become one, and if you
are able to donate some time to assist
at the Branch or state level, we would
love to hear from you. Just contact our
Administrative Director, Sarah Kline, at
skline@grac.org for more information.
Speaking of volunteers, one of the
pleasures of being President is being
able to present the President’s Award
at the Annual Meetings to recognize
those individuals that he/she feels went
“above and beyond” in their service to
the organization. From my perspective,
in 2015, the following individuals did
just that, and received the President’s
Award: Lisa Kullen O’Boyle for her
energetic leadership of the 2015 Biennial Groundwater Conference, and her
work on the Education Committee and
David Keith Todd Distinguished Lecture
Series; R.T. VanValer for his tremendous
work and passion as GRA’s Treasurer;
Steve Phillips for his outstanding and
consistent efforts in producing GRA’s
annual newsletter, HydroVisions; Tim
Parker for his dedication to organizing
GRACasts, workshops, conferences,
and legislative activities related to the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; and Thomas Harter for his
consistent leadership in organizing the
Modeling and Watershed workshops
and Contemporary Groundwater Issues
Council. My sincere thanks goes to
these individuals for their contributions
to GRA this past year.
What about the Drought and
Groundwater?
Changing topics, I’ve written a lot
about the drought, and related groundwater impacts, in my previous articles;
it is still in the news and still a serious
topic, so I wanted to include a briefing
in my last column. We are now in the
autumn of 2015, and the fifth year of
drought is upon us (so far). At the time
of this writing, we are below normal for
precipitation, and according to the U.S.
Drought Monitor, 97% of California is
in drought. The hopes for a droughtbusting El Niño grow daily, and the
experts say it is not a question of if it
will occur, but when and how hard. So
far, though, it seems to have been an “El
Wimpo,” as I have heard Dr. Bill Patzert,
Continued on the following page…
The statements and opinions expressed in GRA’s HydroVisions and other publications are those of the authors and/or contributors, and are not necessarily those of the GRA, its
Board of Directors, or its members. Further, GRA makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this publication
and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents. No warranty of any kind, implied or expressed, or statutory, is given with respect to the contents of this
publication or its references to other resources. Reference in this publication to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation
name is for the information and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 3
President’s Message
GRA Rocks! – Continued
a climatologist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, call a disappointing El
Niño in earlier years. He is famous for
good meteorological sound bites, and in
August this year he was predicting that
the warm ocean temperatures along the
equator definitely had the potential of
creating the “Godzilla” of El Niños,
meaning monstrous. We have seen some
baby Godzillas in southern California
so far this year, causing mudslides
that trapped cars on major highways;
plus, the world’s strongest recorded
hurricane, named Patricia, landed in
Mexico, and there’s been floodin’ down
in Texas—these are all attributable to El
Niño. Despite some recent snow flurries
in the Sierras, which might be typical for
this time of year, we will have to wait
to see how much of a snow pack winter
brings to help fill the reservoirs come
spring and summer.
one or more undesirable impacts occurring, such as depletion of groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, land
subsidence, and/or chronic lowering
of groundwater levels. They have published tables and maps on these basins/
subbasins on their web site, which can
be accessed here. Half of these basins/
subbasins are in the Central Valley; the
DWR recently released a NASA report
showing that land in the San Joaquin
Valley is sinking faster than ever—nearly
2 inches per month in some locations!
The cause of this subsidence is excessive
pumping during drought conditions,
which has caused groundwater levels to
fall, in some areas, 100 feet deeper than
their previous record lows. When will
it stop? Nobody knows. This is a very
serious condition. To obtain the report
summary and the full report, click on
the link here.
How has the drought affected the
state of groundwater in California? The
short answer, based on my day job, is
that it’s not good. Groundwater levels
are down almost everywhere across the
state. In one of the basins my district
manages, for example, the groundwater
levels are down to their lowest level in
55 years. They have dropped 60 feet
since the drought started in the fall of
2011, and 215,000 acre-feet have been
lost from storage. Keep in mind that this
is happening in a “well managed, adjudicated basin” that has a very successful
groundwater replenishment program
that uses imported and recycled water
to replace much of the overdraft. We
still rely on precipitation to provide
over half of the replenishment water;
if it doesn’t rain, we have a (hopefully)
short-term decline in water levels until
the balance can be restored. Once the
drought is over, we will try to restore
groundwater to optimal levels to prepare for the next drought.
The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is well
on its way to try to help California
groundwater basins reach equilibrium.
The DWR has been working feverishly
to put together numerous elements of
SGMA to assist with the compliance
schedule (see in this issue of HydroVisions GRA’s presentation of the Kevin
J. Neese award to DWR at the Biennial
Groundwater Conference). Groundwater basin managers are working on their
basin boundaries, forming sustainability
agencies, figuring out how to work with
neighboring basins and determine water
budgets, and thinking about how to
put together groundwater sustainability
plans. I have to wonder if these critically
overdrafted basins can survive the 20plus years allowed by SGMA to come
into sustainability. Will undesirable
results become too pronounced prior
to that timeframe such that they will be
forced to take expedited actions? The
simple math is that for sustainability to
be reached in overdrafted basins, either
pumping needs to be reduced, recharge
increased, or a combination of both.
Will El Niño be the savior? We shouldn’t
count on that.
The Department of Water Resources
(DWR) has identified 21 basins/subbasins in the state that are in critical
overdraft; these basins/subbasins have
Time’s Up!
I have greatly enjoyed my time serving as President of GRA for the past two
years. I thank the Board of Directors
for having faith in me to lead, for their
strength and commitment to help run
the organization, and for their support
during some challenging times, including a change in management companies,
a change in IT support, the flurry of activity related to enacting SGMA and following up on its requirements, helping
to make well logs publically available,
and the retirement of some longstanding
Board Members who wanted to make
room for newcomers; this selfless act
led to an influx of new Board Members
with new and exciting ideas, but we collectively miss the mentoring and advice
of those who retired. We met all of these
challenges and continued to be relevant,
make membership grow, develop great
events, and remain financially stable.
I feel very lucky to be part of such a
dedicated and knowledgeable group of
professionals, and will continue to serve
on the Board to help in any way I can.
GRA is by far the most engaged, active,
and outstanding association with which
I have been involved.
Rock on!
TJ
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 4
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th Annual
Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued from page 1
Mark Cowin, DWR Director, paints
a picture of the current state of water
resources in California.
Tim Quinn, ACWA Executive
Director, describes where we need to
be headed with water management.
Rich Matteis, Farm Bureau Executive
Administrator, discusses the need for
stakeholder collaboration.
Mark Cowin noted that water year
2015 was one of the driest on record and
the fourth year of a historically severe
drought. Reservoir storage is very low,
and the state and federal governments
are working hard to better integrate
their respective reservoir and conveyance operations at a regional level. The
current addressing of severe drought
conditions while preparing for severe
floods should be considered the new
normal as California continues to see
increasingly extreme weather events.
With the drought has come increased
reliance on groundwater resources, and
associated historic groundwater-level
lows and severe land subsidence. Director Cowin is hopeful that California is
really making the changes needed to
improve the management of our water
resources. Governor Brown’s principles
of subsidiarity are incorporated into
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA); locals must take
control in high- and medium-priority
basins, form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), and
become sustainable on a tight schedule,
or the state will step in. This is the most
important legislation passed during the
Director’s career, and likely since 1914,
when surface water became regulated
in California. DWR has an extraordinary amount of work to do, which is
laid out in the California Water Action
Plan, SGMA and the Groundwater
Sustainability Program Draft Strategic
Plan. In closing, he quoted former
DWR Director Harvey O. Banks
(1957) by saying “Groundwater looms
very large in the total water picture
in California and the formation and
implementation of plans to meet our
needs for the water in the future,” and
SGMA seems to provide the change in
trajectory needed to mange groundwater resources sustainably.
new sustainability agencies to register
wells, measure extractions, require
reports, manage extractions, and assess
fees. Local agencies are already evaluating current conditions and existing
plans, identifying data gaps and needs,
considering governance structures and
forming partnerships, and laying the
groundwork to form new GSAs. Despite such progress, he said that local
managers cannot solve this alone, and
the state must take steps to provide
wet-period replenishment water; DWR
is in fact responsible for preparing a
report on water available for groundwater replenishment. Success in 2040
means making tough decisions locally
to limit pumping where necessary, fixing the Delta, creating new surfacestorage capacity, operating surface
reservoirs and the Delta to maximize
groundwater recharge, and implementing a portfolio of management options
to reduce demand.
Tim Quinn started off by complimenting Mark Cowin and DWR on
the remarkable work and progress
they are making. He also said that the
drought crisis is real, legislation was inevitable, and that ACWA fought hard
to lead the development of SGMA.
The state’s comprehensive water plan,
in a nutshell, includes increasing conservation, increasing surface-water
and groundwater storage, fixing the
Delta, raising the bar on groundwater
management, providing safe drinking
water to all, and investing in habitat
and watersheds; SGMA is just part of
the plan. SGMA requires GSAs to form
by June 30, 2017, and empowers these
Likewise, Rich Matteis complimented Mark Cowin and DWR on their
diligence. He also noted that the drought
crisis has hit the agricultural sector and
that the Farm Bureau supports implementation of SGMA, as it supports
protection of property and groundwater
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 5
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
rights, local control of groundwater,
and working with water districts on
groundwater management. The 2015
drought impacts on agriculture include
542,000 acres fallowed, over 30,000
direct and related agricultural jobs
lost, revenue reductions of about 20%
compared to 2014, surface-water shortages of 8.7 million acre-ft, higher water
and pumping costs, and tree damage.
Drought response actions by farmers
and ranchers include fallowing, additional investment in water-use efficiency,
increased water transfers, voluntary
agreements to provide instream flows
for fish, crop substitutions, increased
dry-land farming, paying higher water
costs to maintain permanent crops
(trees), removal of older orchards and
delaying replanting, reduced irrigation
regimes with lower crop yields, and use
of on-farm water storage. He noted a
number of challenges related to SGMA,
including limited time and funding to
establish GSAs, handling unmanaged
rural areas, critical need for stakeholder
education on SGMA and water rights,
anxiety about the future of water availability for agriculture, competing interests in GSA formation dialogues, and
recharge not being deemed a “beneficial
use.” The Farm Bureau has a number of
initiatives to help support members with
SGMA implementation, including preparation of SGMA materials, conducting
workshops, collaboration with ACWA
and California Water Foundation on
implementation efforts, and working
with DWR on regulations development.
The Farm Bureau has taken a support
position on new surface-water storage
and has been actively engaged on a
number of SGMA follow-up legislative
proposals. An active, interesting halfhour Q&A session followed.
More information is available at:
DWR http://www.water.ca.gov/
groundwater/
ACWA http://www.acwa.com
CFBF http://www.cfbf.com
Inorganic and Organic
Contaminants – New Trends,
Methods and Regulations
(Moderated by Dr. Julie Chambon,
Geosyntec Consultants)
Dr. Rula Deeb of Geosyntec Consultants presented an overview of the Stateof-the-Practice for Addressing Polyfluoroalkyl and Perfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS) Impacts. She provided general
background on these emerging contaminants, including the history of regulatory
actions for these substances, and recent
advances in understanding toxicity. Numerous challenges are associated with
the characterization and remediation of
these compounds, and current research
continues to expand on these topics. She
presented case studies of recent investigations for PFAS characterization at several
Air Force Bases, and gave an overview of
two recently published scientific papers.
She emphasized the analytical challenges
and research needs, and concluded that
this ongoing research is only the beginning when it comes to addressing PFAS
issues in the environment.
Dr. Andrew Manning of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) discussed the
characterization of background hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) concentration
in the Sacramento Valley. California’s
recent implementation of a drinkingwater MCL of 10 μg/L for Cr(VI) has
created a need to better understand
controls on background Cr(VI) concentrations in the state. In this study,
environmental tracer data, such as
δ18O,δ2H, and 3H concentrations, were
used to characterize the age and recharge
sources of groundwater with elevated
Cr(VI) concentrations. Two groups of
elevated Cr(VI) concentration were
identified: (1) irrigated water with high
Cr(VI) concentrations due to mobilization of Cr(VI) in the unsaturated zone of
irrigated areas; and (2) 1,000 to 10,000
year-old water with elevated Cr(VI)
concentrations, most likely due to long
residence time in the unsaturated zone.
He concluded that the findings of this
study should be used to prioritize data
collection for future research.
Dr. Nels Ruud of the Department
of Pesticide Regulation presented an
historical overview of the Department’s
Ground Water Protection Program,
from its beginning in the early 1980s
to the 2014 revisions of the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Act. The
program mandates are: (1) collection of
environmental fate data to characterize
pesticide mobility and persistence; (2)
identification of potential groundwater
contaminants, resulting in the development of a groundwater protection
list; (3) monitoring pesticides on the
groundwater protection list; (4) collection of monitoring data from other
public agencies, consolidated in the
Well Inventory Database; (5) formal
review of detected pesticides; and (6)
adoption of regulations to modify water
use to protect groundwater in vulnerable areas.
Seema Turner of Ramboll Environ
presented a case study illustrating the
use of compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) to develop a conceptual site
model at a chlorinated solvent site. Carbon and chlorine stable isotopes were
analyzed for tetrachloroethene (PCE)
and trichloroethene (TCE) in both soil
vapor and groundwater samples. The
CSIA results, combined with other lines
of evidence, indicated that the presence
of PCE and TCE resulted from different
processes. PCE originated from a single
source; TCE was found to have originated from multiple off-site sources.
The refined conceptual site model was
used to support the development of an
adapted remediation strategy.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 6
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
Managing Groundwater
to Meet the Challenges of
Drought and Climate Change
(Moderated by Tara Moran,
Stanford University’s Water in the
West Program)
Christina Buck of the Butte County
Department of Water and Resource
Conservation presented recent updates
to the Butte Basin Groundwater Model
(BBGM). These updates were motivated
by a need to better understand the role
that changing water demands and
hydrology have had on groundwater
conditions in the region. In addition to
extending historical model simulations
from 1999 to 2014, updates to the
BBGM include migration to an updated
version of the IWFM model code and
the integrated IWFM Demand Calculator (IDC). Importantly, the IDC can be
used to simulate agricultural water demand, which accounts for the majority
of groundwater use in the area. By incorporating land-use data, growth projections and climate-change scenarios,
the BBGM will be used to explore how
groundwater conditions may change in
the future, and will support long-term
sustainable water-resource planning in
the region.
Christina Buck describes the Butte
Basin Groundwater Model
Attendees
Christian Petersen of GEI Consultants discussed the role of innovative
technologies and tools employed by
the City of Roseville to reduce their
groundwater dependence. Until 1971,
groundwater was the sole water source
for the City of Roseville. Since that time
the City has developed many regional
partnerships to: (1) foster data sharing through a web-based information
portal; (2) collaboratively develop a
groundwater model to support the development of an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) program; and (3) develop
an ASR program to capture springtime
flows and recharge the groundwater
basin. Partnerships with scientific and
industry partners have led to the use
of innovative technologies (well flowprofiling using dye-tracer methods and
spinner logging) for evaluation of preferential flow, and the use of innovative
materials (stainless steel well casing and
silica beads) for improved well efficiency
and longevity.
Rick Viergutz of Ventura County
discussed the successes and challenges
the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) experienced in
implementing an Emergency Ordinance
requiring significant reductions in agricultural groundwater pumping. It expanded its agricultural water allocation
program (Irrigation Allowance Index
(IAI)) agency-wide while it reduced
the pumping allocations. It worked
extensively with growers to improve the
IAI program and ensure access to training and tools required to plan for crop
water allocations. The Agency found
agricultural planning timescales did not
align with Agency allocation cutbacks;
this may have hindered the near-term
success of achieving pumping cutbacks.
Since the Emergency Ordinance, the
FCGMA has become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency, and is developing
a Groundwater Sustainability Plan and
exploring the development of a water
market to serve as an alternative to the
IAI allocation system. Jeremy Kobor of O’Connor Environmental discussed the development
of an integrated hydrological model to
assist in habitat restoration planning
for endangered salmonid populations
in two Russian River tributary watersheds. The model was developed using
the MIKE SHE model code, which
can be used to model surface watergroundwater hydraulic gradients, a key
component in classifying stream reaches
based on low-flow water availability
conditions relative to habitat requirements. The model simulated the impacts
of changing groundwater pumping and
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 7
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
streamflow regimes on low-flow salmonid habitat requirements. Model results
suggest that releasing an additional 0.6
cfs during low-flow summer months
would increase salmonid habitats nearly
two-fold during this critical period.
Session 2A: New Perspectives
in Oil, Gas, and Groundwater
(Moderated by Jessica Watkins,
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board)
John Borkovich of the State Water
Resources Control Board gave an
update on the Water Board’s implementation of Senate Bill 4 Requirements.
He discussed the Model Criteria for
Groundwater Monitoring in Areas of
Oil and Gas Well Stimulation (Model
Criteria) adopted by the Water Board on
July 7, 2015. The Model Criteria outline
groundwater monitoring methods to be
used in assessing the potential effects of
well stimulation treatments, describe
sampling and testing requirements, and
prioritize potential sources of drinking
water. Monitoring is intended to characterize baseline water quality conditions, and detect potential impacts to
beneficial-use waters from well stimulation treatments. The Water Board’s
review of area-specific groundwater
monitoring plans will occur in parallel
with DOGGR’s well stimulation permit
review process. Water Board staff will
collaborate with stakeholder groups
to develop performance measures for
evaluation of the Model Criteria by
March 1, 2016.
Peter Zawislanski of Terraphase
Engineering, Inc., presented Monitoring Potential Impacts from Well
Stimulation in California Groundwater:
The Challenge of Detecting a VeryLow-Probability Release. He gave an
overview of well stimulation treatment
(WST) in California, over 90 percent of
which occurs in western Kern County.
He discussed reasons for the low likelihood of a WST fluid release to protected
groundwater, and why the concentra-
Exhibit hall was lively with engaging conversations throughout the event.
tions of any WST constituents in a potential release would likely be very low
due to attenuation. He also highlighted
the importance of establishing baseline
conditions in groundwater, because the
required monitoring parameters include
crude oil components that may already
be present in hydrocarbon-producing
areas, and general minerals that are
naturally elevated in deep aquifers.
Murray Einarson of Haley & Aldrich,
Inc., presented Overview of Groundwater Monitoring Technologies to Support
Groundwater Monitoring in California
Oil and Gas Fields (California SB4
Monitoring Program). He gave an overview of various groundwater monitoring
technologies that are appropriate for
SB4 groundwater monitoring programs,
including generating vertical-head and
solute-concentration profiles. This presentation was based on a comprehensive
review paper prepared for LLNL in support of the State Water Board’s Model
Criteria. Many attendees were surprised
to learn that thousands of engineered
multi-level monitoring systems have been
installed in California in the last 30 years
to depths up to 4,000 feet.
Dr. Janice Gillespie of California
State University, Bakersfield, presented
Using Oilfield Data to Map the Deep
Aquifer System in the San Joaquin
Valley, Kern County, California. She
discussed how data from geochemical
analyses in oil and water wells, as well
as geophysical logs, were used to determine the depth to underground sources
of drinking water (USDW) in various
oilfields throughout Kern County.
USDW depth is controlled by a number
of factors, including location, depth,
and stratigraphy.
Collegiate Groundwater
Colloquium
(Moderated by Dr. Jean Moran,
California State University, East Bay)
Four students presented their
research findings during the oral
portion of the seventh annual Collegiate Groundwater Colloquium. The
Collegiate Colloquium offers an opportunity for practicing groundwater
professionals to learn about students’
recent research, and gives students an
opportunity to present their work to
an audience of groundwater professionals. Submissions are solicited from
undergraduate and graduate students
through their faculty advisors and can
be on any topic related to groundwater
occurrence, contamination, remediation
or management. This year, four graduate students from California universities
gave presentations on topics ranging
from surface water-groundwater modContinued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 8
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
Fresno
Fresno
Stanislaus
Sanger
Counties
Waterford
Modesto
Urban Areas
Orange Cove
Parlier
Fowler
Study Wells
Reedley
Selma
Fresno
Orosi
Dinuba
Kingsburg
Manure
Septic
Patterson
Fertilizer
Turlock
Ivanhoe
Natural
Livingston
Lemoore
Hilmar
Lemoore Station
Newman
Hanford
Woodlake
Visalia
Kings
Merced
Tulare
Lindsay
Gustine
Corcoran
Porterville
Tulare
Merced
Chowchilla
Madera
Los Banos
Terra Bella
Pixley
Earlimart
Dos Palos
Figure 1. Predicted median fractional contributions, for each source
of nitrate, normalized by well. Each well was given a median starting
contribution of 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, and 0.1 for manure, septic, fertilizer, and
natural sources, respectively. Final median contributions are only significantly different from the starting values in light of significant evidence in
the tracer concentrations.
eling to innovative methods of monitoring drinking-water aquifers in areas of
oil production.
Katherine Ransom, a PhD student
at UC Davis working with Professor
Thomas Harter, showed the results of
a Bayesian mixing model for nitrate
sources in groundwater for the San
Joaquin Valley (figure 1). The Bayesian
model treats source contributions from
dairy manure, synthetic fertilizer, and
septic waste probabilistically, buildingin statistical variation at each well. In
general, central-tendency values for
each fractional source correlated with
expected land use surrounding the wells.
Michael Harrison, a graduate student
at California State University Los Angeles
working with Professor Barry Hibbs, described a geochemical and isotopic study
of sources of water and dissolved constituents in El Camino Real Creek, which
is within the Malibu Creek Watershed.
Stable isotopes reveal endmember signatures for imported water, local water,
and evaporated water sources (figure 2),
while patterns in nitrate and phosphorus
indicate transformative processes, such
as denitrification and vegetation uptake,
along with mixing and dilution. The goal
Figure 2. Isotopic signatures of waters in the Malibu
Creek Watershed.
of the study is to provide
hydrochemical and sourceflow information in advance
of regulatory action.
Douglas ‘Gus’ Tolley, a
PhD student at UC Davis
working with Professor
Thomas Harter, presented
results from the Scott Valley Integrated Hydrologic
Model, which combines a
water-budget model with a
groundwater-surface water
MODFLOW model. The calibrated
model was used to evaluate stream flow
in the Scott River for scenarios with
in-lieu recharge or temporary managed
aquifer recharge (figure 3). The results
indicate that it may be possible to
maintain connectivity of the Scott River
throughout the summer, or at least decrease the length of time that it is disconnected, without reducing pumping
or investing in new infrastructure.
Andrew Renshaw, a recent graduate
from the master’s program at California State University East Bay, showed
results from a statistical model that can
be applied to inform monitoring plans
in areas of hydrocarbon production.
Figure 3. Flow difference from basecase at
USGS stream gauge when managed
aquifer recharge is practiced. Flows are
reduced relative to basecase during January–March, when streamflow averages
about 800–1,000 cfs. Streamflow is increased relative to basecase by about 4 cfs
during the low-flow months of September–October, when average streamflow is
about 20–30 cfs. Values are averaged for
the 21-year simulation period; error bars
show one standard deviation.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 9
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
Figure 4. Multivariate statistics, including Partial
Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA),
effectively predicts whether a shallow groundwater
sample shows evidence of a produced-water chemical
signature, with an error rate of less than 1%. These
techniques can provide groundwater monitoring
programs within regions of contrasting water chemistry, such as oil fields, with a preliminary method of
examining mixing between the two waters.
Multivariate statistics, including Partial Least Squares – Discriminant Analysis (PLS-
DA), effectively predicts whether a shallow groundwater sample (GAMA) shows
Utilizing
six relatively common chemirecharge (irrigation return), and more
evidence of a produced water (wastewater produced during unconventional oil
extraction)
chemical
signature
than a 1%
error rate.
Utilizing six relatively
cal
analyses
(Ca,
Cl, with
Mg,lessSO4,
TDS
variability
in the interaction of surface
common chemical analyses (Ca, Cl, Mg, SO4, TDS and Na) multivariate statistics in
and
Na),
multivariate
statistics
act
as
a
water
and
groundwater.
conjunction with hydrogeochemical analysis act as a useful tool for distinguishing
useful
for
distinguishing
betweentool
shallow
groundwater
and deeply between
seated formation waters. These
Scott
of the USGS pretechniques can
provide groundwater
monitoring
programs within
regionsPaulinski
of
shallow
groundwater
and
deeplycontrasting water chemistry such as oil fields with a preliminary
method
of
sented
Development
of a Groundwater
seated
formation
waters,
examining
mixing between
the two and
waters.point to
Model using MODFLOW-USG, Los
individual wells where further chemical
Angeles County, California. Driven by
monitoring could be targeted (figure 4).
the complexity of the geologic setting in
the Los Angeles region, and its influence
Innovative Tools for Data
on basin hydrology, a 3-D sequenceManagement, Visualization
stratigraphic model was developed,
and Modeling
documenting the faulting, folding and
(Moderated by Steven Phillips, USGS)
other characteristics of 13 sequences.
To simulate groundwater flow through
Hedeff Essaid of the USGS presented
the basin, the unstructured-grid (USG)
Modeling the Impact of Irrigation and
version of MODFLOW was used to
Irrigation-Related Diversions and Pumpexplicitly incorporate pinched-out units,
ing on Streamflow and Surface Water
lateral flow from one unit to those juxta– Groundwater Interactions. Using the
posed by faults, etc. The model includes
USGS watershed modeling tool GSabout 130,000 acre-ft/yr of recharge
FLOW, she simulated surface-water and
in spreading basins and about 35,000
groundwater flow in the Upper Smith
acre-ft of injection along the seawater
River basin, Montana, to understand the
barriers. The use of MODFLOW-USG
hydrologic effects of local agricultural
significantly improved model fit over
activities. Despite minimal calibration,
previous versions.
the model fit was sufficient to draw
reasonable conclusions, and gain insight,
from comparisons of model results from
pre-development and developed (irrigated) conditions. These comparisons
showed that agricultural activities, which
involved irrigation using diverted surface
water and pumped groundwater, led to
increased evapotranspiration, decreased
streamflow, increased groundwater
Everett Ferguson of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California
presented Sequence Stratigraphy as a
Tool to Understand the Depositional
Environment and Potential Groundwater Contamination Migration in a
Groundwater Basin. Using the 3-D
sequence-stratigraphic model developed
by the USGS, described previously; sam-
pling and analyses for water age and
source; 2-D groundwater flow modeling
along a vertical section; and installation
of two multi-completion well sites, the
study team was able to show that there
is potential for downward migration of
contaminants near an anticline in the
Central Basin. These results, coupled
with relatively deep contaminant
detections, are driving continued and
expanded monitoring efforts, and more
detailed future study.
Tony Cauchi of GHD, who traveled far for this conference, presented
Development of an Audit Framework
for Management of Victorian Government Groundwater Assets, Australia.
On average, groundwater represents
less than 15% of water use in Victoria,
but is a critical supply during droughts.
Victoria’s observation well network
includes, and informs management of,
the southern Murray-Darling Basin,
a key agricultural area for Australia.
The focus of his talk was on an audit
framework for the well network developed to ensure quality control, increase
confidence in the data, optimize performance, and result in defensible data.
Visualization tools were developed to
query and evaluate the data, greatly
improving access and transparency.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 10
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
Maximizing Managed Aquifer
Recharge and Conjunctive Use
(Moderated by Brett Wyckoff of DWR)
Adam Hutchinson of Orange County
Water District (OCWD) presented Maximizing Conjunctive Use at OCWD. He
described the Coastal Plain of Orange
County groundwater basin, which
provides groundwater to over 2.5 million people. Overdraft of the basin and
seawater intrusion were recognized early
in the 20th century. The application of
conjunctive use by OCWD, which was
formed in 1933, has evolved over time
and has become more elaborate, not only
to maintain and increase storage in the
basin, but to create a hydraulic barrier
to seawater intrusion. Conjunctive water
management contributes 250,000 acre-ft/
yr of recharge to the basin. Conjunctive
water management tools used by OCWD
to effectively keep groundwater storage
within a defined operational range include
in-lieu recharge, conveying recycled water
to recharge basins, and collaborating with
other agencies in the watershed.
Robert Beggs of Brown and Caldwell
presented Assessing Water Quality
Impacts for Conjunctive Use in Yolo
County, California. He discussed an
evaluation of potential water-quality
effects, including nitrate migration, on
planned conjunctive use in eastern Yolo
County. Based on groundwater apparent age and isotopic data, fertilizer applications to irrigated agricultural lands
appeared to be the greatest source of
nitrate to groundwater in the study
area. CFC analysis showed that vertical
migration of groundwater in the study
area was rapid, which is thought to be
facilitated by wells completed in multiple zones and improperly abandoned
wells. They found that using lowernitrate water from Cache Creek to
enhance groundwater recharge would
help dilute existing nitrate and salts
over time. This dilution effect would
offset the potential vertical acceleration
of salt movement caused by increased
pumping during dry periods.
Jeff Meyer of Montgomery and Associates presented Sustainability: The
Evolving Role of Managed Aquifer
Recharge in Arizona. He discussed how
the practice of managed aquifer recharge
(MAR), which is growing in Arizona,
has been aided by regulatory programs
that provide incentives for increased use
of renewable water supplies and reduced
reliance on mined groundwater. Arizona
has created a water-storage credit system
that allows accrual of credits, which have
market value, for offsetting groundwater
withdrawals. The uses of MAR and
treated wastewater are increasing in Arizona as the use of long-term banking of
limited surface-water supplies is decreasing. Examples of a diverse range of MAR
projects in Arizona highlighted important
considerations for the design, permitting,
and operation of MAR projects as they
relate to hydrogeologic, regulatory, and
economic constraints and opportunities.
Margaret Snyder of Tucson Water
presented The Importance of Maintaining
Constructed Basins in Colorado River
Sourced Managed Aquifer Recharge
Projects. She discussed using desication, surface disturbance, and sediment
removal for rehabilitation of recharge basins to maintain favorable recharge rates
and basin integrity. Tucson Water uses
a significant volume of Colorado River
water for recharge, which contributes 670
tons of solids to their recharge basins per
year. She showed examples of the three
rehabilitation techniques, explained the
positive and negative aspects of each, and
concluded that desiccation and plowing
should be standard operating procedures;
ignoring maintenance results in slower
infiltration. Ongoing maintenance reduces long-term costs by maximizing time
between rehabilitations.
Remediation Technologies
and Site Cleanup Objectives
(Moderated by John McHugh,
Santa Clara Valley Water District)
Dr. Grant Carey of Porewater Solutions explained the use of DNAPL mod-
els to estimate cleanup times, including
consideration of back diffusion, using a
case study in Florida. Modeling of back
diffusion or mass discharge can aid project managers in the decision to use natural versus active remediation. Borings
were used to determine the DNAPL pool
thickness. Modeling was conducted on
semi-rectangular aerial zones of different
pool thicknesses. The model results were
in general agreement with an estimated
cleanup time from another investigator.
Sensitivity analysis indicated that the
thickness of low-permeability layers,
retardation factor and groundwater velocity are the factors that cause the most
change in model results.
Safaa Dergham of Ramboll Environ
described integrated remedial technologies applied to a site that was a former
aerospace equipment testing facility. It
is underlain by three drainage basins
resting in, and surrounded by, fractured
bedrock. Five remedial technologies are
used to reduce TCE, and NDMA:
• A pump-and-treat system with
hydraulic containment
• In-situ thermal disruption
• In-situ chemical oxidation of source
areas with injected permanganate
into trenches and borings
• A pilot project to evaluate enhanced
biostimulation using a lactate
solution
• A pilot phytoremediation project.
Mark O’Neill of Geosyntec Consultants described remediation at the
Former Naval Air Station at Alameda,
where both in-situ chemical oxygenation (ISCO) and in-situ bioremediation
were used to remediate benzene and ethylbenzene. Tidal influence limited winter
bioventing operations, and biovent fans
overheated and required replacement.
Persulfate-based ISCO can be coupled
to Aerobic ISB. ISCO does not sterilize
soil. Combined remedial approaches
shortened the remedial timeframe and
lowered project costs.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 11
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
Kelly Houston of ARCADIS presented a case study of a large-scale plume
cleanup using dynamic groundwater
circulation, which was well-paired with
Grant Carey’s presentation. She provided a large-scale example of contaminant storage and movement influenced
by variation in permeability and back
diffusion. Traditional pump-and-treat
was employed for 10 years at the site,
followed by the introduction of a new
system of wells to both extract and
inject water. The addition of injection
wells increased vertical gradients and
induced flushing of the moderately lowpermeability sediments. The new regime
of dynamic groundwater circulation
considerably decreased contaminant
mass and cleanup time.
Managing Groundwater
and Surface Water as
One Resource
(Moderated by Daniel Wendell,
Groundwater Dynamics)
Daniel Wendell of Groundwater Dynamics gave an overview of the subject,
stating that groundwater pumping in
California’s valley-fill aquifers is best
viewed as just another form of surfacewater diversion, and that groundwater
pumping is only sustainable to the
degree we accept associated impacts
to surface-water flows, surface-water
rights, and the environment. For example, groundwater pumping in the
Central Valley has turned many streams
from gaining to losing systems since the
early 1900s. In the Sacramento Valley, increased groundwater pumping
depletes flows to the Delta, leading to
less water for environmental needs and
export, especially during dry years. He
noted that tens of billions of dollars of
water rights are at stake; therefore, any
successful and durable groundwater
management plan will require some
form of legally-binding determination
of groundwater rights limited to an
agreed-upon sustainable yield. Better
recognition of this fact would help focus
and expedite the SGMA process.
Tony Cauchi of GHD in Melbourne
Australia noted that Australia only
recently emerged from a “millennial drought.” In light of this event,
Melbourne Water has sought to better
understand and protect groundwaterdependent features of its local waterways
and catchments. GHD conducted a technical review of groundwater-dependent
ecosystems (GDEs) in these areas,
prioritized the GDEs, and engaged stakeholders. The GDE sites were assigned
qualitative attributes, and ranked using
a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
(MCDA) approach. High-priority GDEs
were subject to further assessment prior
to establishment of long-term groundwater and surface-water monitoring
networks. An important aspect of the
approach was evaluating the dependence
on, or role of, groundwater at each site.
This included developing conceptual
hydrogeological models for each GDE to
illustrate the hydrological processes that
influence local GDE health. Based on this
work, strategies were then developed for
the long-term monitoring and management of GDE health.
Bob Anderson of Golder Associates
discussed how water development issues in Washington paralleled California’s recent SGMA. The eastern half
of Washington is an arid desert with
extensive agricultural development.
When it became apparent in the 1970s
that groundwater pumping was causing
perennial streams to dry up, minimum
in-stream-flow
requirements
were
adopted. However, these requirements
were statistically based and therefore
violated a certain percentage of time.
This, and increasing water demands,
led to calls for better management.
Management by watershed was found
too unwieldly, and two large management areas were subsequently defined:
the Office of Columbia River, and the
Puget Sound Partnership. The state has
since spent $200M to develop 375,000
acre-ft/yr of new water supplies via 30
projects. Lessons learned include the
need to build trust amongst stakehold-
ers, acknowledgment of individual interests, and the need for models to have
a clear conceptual basis that requires a
lot of “hand holding.”
Robert Gailey, R.M. Gailey Consulting Hydrogeologist, discussed the role
that water markets could play in promoting groundwater management and
conjunctive use. He noted that the state
is in deficit, on average, with regards
to water supplies and that this is made
up for by groundwater basin overdraft.
Indeed, groundwater overdraft is now
relied upon in many areas to maintain
property valuations, loan underwriting,
and long-term economic investments.
He noted that SGMA was created to
address the overdraft situation and that
water markets could help in this process
by mitigating adverse economic impacts
associated with bringing supply and demand back into balance. He noted that
water markets require clearly defined
water rights, which includes quantification, assignment, and protection of
these rights. In addition, healthy markets require transparency and a “critical
mass” of participants. Water markets
could help reallocate sustainable water
supplies through time as local needs
change. He then provided an example
of how markets could counteract economic impacts of regulation.
Water Quality Improvements:
Advances in Recycled Water
Recharge, Back-diffusion of
VOCs, and Salinity in the San
Joaquin Valley
(Moderated by Jim Strandberg,
West Yost Associates)
Dr. Grant Carey of Porewater
Solutions kicked off the panel with a
presentation on recent advances in
simulating the back-diffusion of VOCs
from fine-grained units in source areas
to more permeable aquifer materials,
resulting in longer times for groundwater remediation. Analytical solutions
do not account for back-diffusion or
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 12
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
enhanced biodegradation rates. Challenges for numerical models include
small grid spacing and time steps. Dr.
Carey, in collaboration with professors at the Universities of Toronto
and Guelph, have developed a new
approach using ISR-MT3DMS v5.3,
an in-situ remediation (ISR) version of
the code, available in the public domain
in 2016. Packages include BioRedox
RCT, Contact Time Calculator, NAPL
Depletion Model, and Local Domain
Approach (large model linked to local,
one-dimensional model(s)). He presented
a case study of a Florida site with a beach
sand aquifer; a continuous, thin clay
layer beneath the site; other discontinuous fine-grained layers; and multiple thin
suspended-DNAPL layers in the source
zone. Within two years of operating a
hydraulic isolation system, decreasing
VOC concentrations in groundwater
leveled off due to back-diffusion. A
two-dimensional numerical model with
a 2-inch-thick TCE DNAPL pool on an
8-inch-thick clay lens was developed to
simulate remediation timeframes and
conduct sensitivity analyses. The greatest
influences on remediation time were the
thickness of layers with low hydraulic
conductivity, retardation coefficient,
and groundwater velocity in the aquifer
adjacent to the fine-grained layer.
Jeffrey Hansen of the USGS presented results from an assessment of
long-term groundwater salinity trends
in San Joaquin Valley. TDS concentrations measured from 2004 to 2012 as
part of the State Water Board’s GAMA
Priority Basin Project indicate that San
Joaquin Valley groundwater exceeds
the Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L in
17% of the aquifer, and exceeds 1,000
mg/L in 12% of the aquifer. The study
included assembling all relevant USGS
data to characterize the vertical profile
of TDS concentrations and comparing
the results to TDS concentrations reported in studies performed 100 years
ago to identify long-term trends and
anthropogenic factors. Historic con-
centrations of TDS from 489 samples
collected throughout the SJV in 1910
(Mendenhall, 1916) were compared to
a data set from 1993 to 2011 (GAMA/
NAWQA) consisting of 415 samples.
He compared the TDS concentrations,
and those for available cations and
anions, for five facies identified within
the SJV; Northern, Northeast, Southeast, Western, and Valley Trough. The
findings indicated that (1) TDS concentrations increased in the Western SJV,
primarily due to increasing sulfate; (2)
ion composition has been altered; (3)
bicarbonate increased most, notably in
the Eastern SJV; (4) increases in TDS
correlate to land-use changes; and (5)
shallow groundwater high in TDS is
being driven downward in the aquifer
over time, raising the salinity of the
system as a whole.
Ted Johnson of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California
presented results from a study to identify
reliable groundwater tracers to monitor recycled water fate, transport, and
dilution for permit compliance at the
Montebello Forebay recharge project.
Two artificial sweeteners, Acesulfame
Potassium (Ace-K) and Sucralose, met
the criteria for an ideal tracer of recycled water. Limited previous research
indicated both are stable compounds
not removed at conventional wastewater treatment plants, persistent in
groundwater, and good indicators of
anthropogenic influence on water. The
study, conducted at WRD’s Research
Basin (Basin) at the Montebello Forebay
Spreading Grounds, consisted of an extensive program to monitor the tracers
in approximately 40 acre-ft of recycled
water introduced to the Basin from midJuly to mid-August, 2015. He presented
detailed results, noting that Ace-K and
Sucralose are useful indicators of water
with an anthropogenic influence, and
that Ace-K is more persistent, and is
therefore a better tracer for long travel
times. However, significant variability in
source-water concentrations indicated
The new GRA Director Emeritus designation is described and the first class of
Emeriti are introduced. L-R: Ted Johnson
presents certifications to Sarah Raker,
Vicki Kretsinger Grabert, David Von
Aspern, and not pictured, Brian Lewis.
that the constituents were not useful or
reliable, in this case, for recycled-water
contribution (RWC) percentage calculations. Chloride and specific conductance
appear to be the most useful compounds
at the Montebello Forebay for determination of RWC.
Land Use Planning in an Era
of Sustainable Groundwater
Management
(Moderated by Vicki Kretsinger
Grabert, Luhdorff & Scalmanini,
Consulting Engineers)
Toby O’Geen of UC Davis presented
recent research activities on A Soil
Agricultural Banking Index for California. California’s response to successive
drought years has heightened interest
in identifying groundwater recharge
opportunities, particularly opportunities for infiltrating excess stormwater
on suitable agricultural lands. He described the index which was developed
to provide preliminary guidance on
locations where groundwater recharge
on agricultural land is potentially
feasible. The index includes numerous
variables related to potential for deep
percolation, residence in the root zone,
topographic and chemical limitations,
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 13
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
and soil surface conditions (including
soils modified by deep tillage). While
the soil model and index do not account
for deep vadose-zone characteristics or
hydrogeologic conditions, the index is a
useful preliminary screening tool.
Marty Spongberg of Amec Foster
Wheeler highlighted the ways in which
Green Storm Water Augments Sustainable Groundwater Objectives, including examples of innovative stormwater
infiltration Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that have been designed and
implemented at a variety of sites ranging from schools and office building
to recycling and other commercial
facilities. NPDES permits recently
adopted in California have provisions
that encourage stormwater capture
and infiltration. Dischargers not utilizing stormwater management strategies
must demonstrate that they are technically or economically infeasible. He offered estimates of the potential volume
recharged to groundwater compared to
the volume otherwise discharged to surface water when such BMPs are absent.
Although the potential for groundwater
quality impacts is a concern, he reported
that groundwater monitoring results
indicate
well-designed
infiltration
BMPs are unlikely to result in adverse
groundwater-quality effects.
Gary Woodard of Montgomery &
Associates spoke about Improved Estimates of Groundwater Sustainability
through Municipal Demand Modeling,
including insights gained through use of
a model developed to better understand
long-term changes in water demand. He
described how most municipal water
providers across the U.S. have experienced significant declines in municipal
water demand. However, groundwater
models generally incorporate simplistic assumptions to produce demand
forecasts, which do not capture the
complexity and interconnected demand
components. He vividly illustrated this
point with an analogy of a “dog-hair
demand curve,” i.e., decadal population
projections successively readjusted due
to factors such as being overly conservative, over-reacting to short-term
events, and ignoring or misinterpreting
long-term trends. He explained detailed
models that his firm has developed that
disaggregate demand to individual factors and also link water supply factors
to demand, including changing tastes
in landscaping and water features such
as pools, sociodemographics, efficiency
standards, new technology, conservation and economics. The latter linkages demonstrate the value of dynamic
municipal water demand modeling as a
useful tool when evaluating groundwater sustainability.
Gary Woodard:
“Dog-Hair Demand Curve”
Closing Session: Looking Into
the Future
(Moderated by Ted Johnson, Water
Replenishment District of Southern
California)
Dr. Erik Ekdahl of the State Water Resources Control Board talked
about the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) and the
Water Board’s role as a backstop in case
some areas are not in compliance. He
described the best-case scenario as one
where the Water Board does not do anything, implying successful management
of the 127 high- and medium-priority
basins. A worst-case scenario would be
if many of these basins become fragmented into silos, carving out multiple
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
(GSAs) within single basins or subbasins due to conflicts or protection of
jurisdictions. Fragmentation would not
provide economies of scale, and could
make water-budget calculations far
more difficult. “The more fragmented
you are, the more likelihood of possible
state intervention,” he cautioned, and
that state intervention likely will mean
pumping reductions, since the Water
Board has no authority to pursue more
creative solutions, including replenishing groundwater basins. Dr. Ekdahl
noted that counties should be getting
more involved with SGMA; conservation during times of plenty will be important to allow recharge opportunities;
and that the state should review how it
currently manages stormwater, and look
at ways to recharge it, such as through
dry (vadose-zone) wells.
Dr. Thomas Harter of UC Davis
explained that we are in a pioneering
time—the start of a new chapter of
groundwater in California. Instead of
evaluating local-scale point sources of
recharge and pollution, we must broaden our outlook to entire basin-scale
problems and large non-point pollution
sources such as agricultural fields and
practices. Discharges to both surface
water and groundwater must be evaluated and understood to clarify the big
picture of water interactions and replenishment. Since agriculture represents
80% of human water use in California,
to achieve sustainability it will require
increased efficiencies. Likewise, the use
of agricultural chemicals will need to
be changed or reduced to protect water
quality. Effective modeling tools, and
the data to build and calibrate them, are
necessary for managing water resources
on a large scale. Agriculture is being
challenged to do business in new ways,
and is financially limited, so it may take
a generation to evolve from ‘no reporting and unlimited pumping’ to ‘cutting
back, metering, reporting, and being
regulated.’
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 14
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
Dr. Jay Lund of UC Davis talked
about looking at the issue through
SGMA “goggles,” or maybe a SGMA
“monocle,” but either way we need to
adjust our prescription on how we look
at water in California. We live in exciting times now, and it is amazing that
during this drought, when California
has lost 1/3 of its water supply, it is still
doing okay. The dry times are likely to
continue, so we need to know how to
adjust. There should be a statewide water accounting system for surface water
and groundwater. There should be incentives for recharge; the farming community, for example, has vast acreage,
and should be incentivized to capture
water for recharge. The state will need
a more structured system to track all the
de-centralized water systems, and manage together the economic, ecosystem,
and regulatory changes that lie ahead.
Chris White of the Central California
Irrigation District discussed the formation
of CCID in 1871, and how the presentday management practices of the District
evolved. CCID covers 10 subbasins, each
managed differently. There are hundreds
of wells in CCID, and subsidence is a
key issue, as it affects the ability to divert
water through canals that now have low
spots and reverse gradients in places. The
footprint of CCID crosses 4 counties and
includes 7 communities; this will make it
very challenging for them to meet SGMA
compliance. He drew a laugh when talking about the new sustainability act, and
the challenge of compliance, by joking
that SGMA should have three more letters added: “OMG!” Their solutions to
reach sustainability will include water
conservation, modernization of centuryold infrastructure, low-interest loans
and grants for farmers, working with
water exchange contractors, identifying
groundwater storage areas, developing
a shallow-aquifer recharge facility, and
other means.
Dr. Noah Diffenbaugh of Stanford
University, an expert on climatology,
talked about the current drought and
At the reception, Eric
Sandberg steps forward
to draw a raffle ticket,
while attendees network and view posters
in the background.
Reception attendees
network, view posters,
and enjoy the warm
evening.
how it is arguably the most severe in
recorded history. He explained that
what makes this drought serious is the
combination of low precipitation and
warm temperatures. With future warming trends, this combination of effects,
and the associated drought intensity,
will be increasingly likely to occur. He
also discussed the current El Niño phenomenon and described it as one of the
strongest on record. To break the current drought, however, we would need
several moderately wet years to make
up the rainfall deficit over time, versus
a deluge in just one year.
After the five presentations were
made, it was opened up for audience
Q&A. One question was “What should
we expect if the drought continues 5
more years?” Dr. Ekdahl would expect
more legislation and an accelerated
SGMA process. A re-examination of
California’s water rights system would
also likely be initiated. Dr. Harter
thought that this would push a lot of envelopes and we would need to determine
by how much we are willing to deplete
our groundwater resources. Dr. Lund
thought we could look to Australia
and how they dealt with their 12-year
drought. Mr. White recognized that we
would just manage the best we can. Dr.
Diffenbaugh was optimistic that we will
have some wet years ahead, but cautioned that they may not be enough to
break us out of the drought, especially if
we have warm temperatures.
Continuing on the drought theme
and associated concerns, Dr. Lund said
that we are seeing more droughts now.
They used to average about once per
generation, but now are averaging two
to three per generation. Dr. Diffenbaugh
said that we can expect these drought
conditions more frequently simply due
to warming. Dr. Ekdahl said that we
cannot continue to assume that groundwater can make up for diminishing
surface-water supplies. Dr. Harter said
that federal and state governments can
better organize to collect, disseminate,
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 15
Feature
Summary of the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting 2015: Drought, Water Quality & Sustainability – Continued
and communicate data. Finally, an
audience member asked “Do we just
keep ‘freaking out’ each time there is a
drought, or is there a better way?” Dr.
Lund answered by reminding us that
people respond well to hurricanes, tor-
nadoes, recessions, etc., so it is human
nature to adapt and adjust to adverse
conditions thrown our way.
FIELD TRIP
Field trip participants spent the day before the conference traveling to four sites around the Sacramento area
to learn about Integrating Groundwater, Surface Water,
Recycled Water, and Ecosystem Health in Sacramento
County.
The day started at Beals Point Recreation Area at
Folsom Lake with views of historically low water levels
behind Folsom Dam. Rob Swartz, Manager of Technical
Services with the Regional Water Authority (RWA) and
Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA), set the stage
for the day with a discussion of the history of integrated
water management and groundwater management in the
Sacramento area.
Steve Nugent, Carmichael Water District’s General
Manager, led the group on a tour of the District’s Membrane Microfiltration Water Treatment Facility, which was
constructed to look like a single-story residential building
to blend into the upscale neighborhood. Attendees learned
about conjunctive use and groundwater remediation efforts,
and got a peek at an active UV remediation well on-site.
In a surprising and unfortunate turn of events, the tour
bus broke down, so the group enjoyed lunch on the shady
lawn of the District’s facility and then heard impromptu
portions of talks scheduled for later in the day. The presenters and attendees did an amazing job of staying positive and making good use of the time.
During the field trip lunch, Sandi Matsumoto of The
Nature Conservancy describes the direct connection
between groundwater levels, surface water flows, and
ecosystem health.
The next stop was the Freeport Regional Water Project Intake Facility, which has the capacity to pump 185
MGD from the Sacramento River for use by the East Bay
Municipal Utility District and Sacramento County Water
Agency. Forrest Williams, Executive Director of the Freeport Regional Water Authority, and Darrell Eck, Executive
Director of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, discussed the background and regional importance of
the facility and then Hal Vandeloo, Associate Civil Engineer with the Sacramento County Water Agency, led the
group on a tour of the intake.
Focus shifted in the afternoon to explore the nexus of
wastewater reuse, surface water flows, groundwater elevations, and ecosystem health at the Cosumnes River Preserve. Jesse Roseman, Project Director with The Nature
Conservancy, gave a walking tour and discussed ongoing
studies that demonstrate the direct connection between
groundwater levels, surface water flows, and ecosystem
health. Future studies are planned to determine what
groundwater elevation is necessary to maintain a healthy
ecosystem. Earlier in the day at lunch, attendees also had
an opportunity to hear from Sandi Matsumoto, Associate Director of Integrated Water Management with The
Nature Conservancy.
The day ended with a presentation about current and
proposed recycled water projects from Linda Dorn, Environmental Program Manager with the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. Attendees learned about
a proposed project to use recycled water for crop irrigation
and habitat restoration in lieu of groundwater pumping
that could raise groundwater elevations by up to 30 feet,
among other environmental benefits. Watch a video about
this project here. Jose Ramirez, the District’s Recycled Water Program Manager, was originally scheduled to deliver
this presentation during a tour of the Sacramento Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant; however, the tour was unable
to make this stop due to bus delays.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 16
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally
Occurring Compounds of Regulatory Concern
By Murray Einarson, Symposium Chair; Ted Johnson, Tony Daus, Emily Vavricka, and Jean Moran
O
n November 18–19, 2015,
GRA convened its first technical symposium devoted to
naturally- occurring contaminants in
groundwater. Recent groundwater research and monitoring shows that many
regulated chemical compounds occur
naturally in California groundwater. In fact, a decade-long study by researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) recently concluded that natural
contaminants are more prevalent in
California groundwater than humanmade contaminants. Metals such as
chromium, arsenic, and uranium are
naturally occurring and are commonly
detected in groundwater at problematic concentrations. Recent studies also
show that nitrate and perchlorate accumulate naturally in arid climates, such
as the American Southwest. Even many
organic compounds, such as benzene,
methane, and tert butyl ether (TBA; a
gasoline oxygenate) are naturally occurring in California groundwater. The two-day symposium, held in
Anaheim, CA, was attended by more
than 70 environmental consultants, regulators and academic and government
researchers. Cooperating Organizations
included the USGS, the California
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and the Orange
County Water District (OCWD).
The event featured a mix of invited
speakers and those selected from abstracts solicited prior to the event.
Lunch on Day 1 featured an invited presentation on the toxicity and regulation
of naturally-occurring compounds by
Dr. Bruce Macler from US EPA. Day 1
ended with a panel discussion followed
by a lively reception, review of posters,
and discussions with invited service and
technology vendors. Five poster presentations were on display, and seven
technical vendors, selected for their
services and/or technologies pertaining
to assessments of naturally-occurring
compounds in groundwater, exhibited
during the symposium. These technical
vendors were BESST, Inc.; Blaine Tech
Services; Cascade Drilling; Confluence
Environmental Field Services; Gregg
Drilling & Testing, Inc.; National EWP;
and Yellow Jacket Drilling Services.
The symposium began with opening
remarks by GRA President Ted Johnson
of the Water Replenishment District of
Southern California (WRD) and Symposium Chair Murray Einarson of Haley
& Aldrich. Dr. Miranda Fram, program
leader for the California Groundwater
Ambient Monitoring and Assessment
(GAMA) program at the USGS, opened
the symposium with a stellar keynote
presentation. She is a co-author of
the above-referenced article entitled
“Metrics for Assessing the Quality of
Groundwater Used for Public Supply,
CA, USA: Equivalent-Population and
Area,” in the journal Environmental
Science and Technology, which asserts
that naturally-occurring trace elements
are more prevalent at high concentrations than either nitrate or organic
compounds. The study relies on more
than ten years of data collected by the
USGS under GAMA. Dr. Fram outlined
in detail the methods used to quantify
affected aquifer areal-proportions and
affected equivalent-populations. She
showed results comparing individual
constituents, including high concentrations of arsenic, for which the arealproportion exceeds 10% in 32 GAMA
study areas, along with relatively high
areal proportions for boron, manganese, fluoride, molybdenum, strontium,
and uranium. Although the statewide
areal-proportion for trace elements
is 19%, the population-proportion
is only 8.9%. In contrast, organic
compounds are represented at a much
lower areal-proportion (1.9%), but at a
similar population-proportion (6.3%),
reflecting the disparate sources for trace
elements (natural) and organics (industrial). When looked at from the equivalent-population standpoint, six study
areas within the Transverse and Selected
Peninsular Ranges, which includes Los
Angeles and Orange County, account
for about 80% of the equivalent-population relying on groundwater with high
concentrations of organic compounds.
Dr. Fram concluded by emphasizing the
large number of interesting geochemical
and hydrologic stories that continue to
come from the unique GAMA data set.
Dissolved Metals and
Radionuclides
Moderated by Tony Daus,
Principal Hydrogeologist with
GSI Environmental
Dr. John Izbicki, USGS, and recipient
of GRA’s 2015 Lifetime Achievement
Award, kicked off the session with a very
Dr. John Izbicki, USGS
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 17
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
interesting presentation on hexavalent
chromium (Cr(VI)) occurrence and geochemistry in California’s public-supply
wells. Dr. Izbicki has spent a significant
part of his career studying trace element
occurrence in groundwater and his talk
reflected his deep understanding of the
processes affecting Cr(VI) behavior in
the subsurface. He has concluded that
groundwater basins most impacted by
elevated natural Cr(VI) often share several similarities. For example, these basins typically are found in the Southern
CA deserts and the Central Valley where
ultramafic rocks are the source material
for sediments. Groundwater basins with
elevated natural Cr(VI) concentrations
are typically oxic and alkaline, display
higher pH and redox conditions, and
have relatively thick unsaturated zones.
Elevated Cr(VI) is often found with
other oxyanions having similar properties such as selenium, vanadium and
uranium. The concentrations of Cr(VI)
also appear to increase with groundwater age due to the weathering of primary
silicate minerals, which raises the pH.
been closely studied for many years by
PG&E. In fact, the groundwater data
set includes more than 1,100 samples
obtained between 2006 and 2015. He
provided some interesting perspectives
on the challenge of identifying “background” concentrations of Cr(VI) and
other constituents given the variability
in groundwater concentrations at a local scale and the long history of agricultural land use in the valley. The task of
understanding the nature, extent, and
source of Cr(VI), TDS, nitrate and other
trace metals requires careful thought
and analysis.
Mary Stallard of Weiss Associates
presented an interesting case study
regarding elevated naturally-occurring
Cr(VI) at a large cleanup site in Davis,
CA, and the complexities of establishing background or ambient concentrations. She reported that Cr(VI) can vary
significantly over short distances. The
potential mechanisms affecting background Cr(VI) concentrations include
those presented by Dr. Izbicki, plus
widely fluctuating groundwater elevations, fertilizer use and organic matter
associated with agricultural land use.
Up to this point in the session, the
presentations were focused on the
occurrence and extent of naturallyoccurring Cr(VI) in groundwater. Steve
Bigley of the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD) then discussed efforts
being undertaken by the CVWD to
comply with the lower MCL for Cr(VI)
and the revised arsenic standard, and
the associated challenges. The extent of
Cr(VI) in Coachella Valley groundwater
is widespread; over 50 wells are close to
or exceeding the new Cr(VI) MCL of 10
ppb. The CVWD had extensive experience from preparing to meet the arsenic
MCL, but the more widespread and
variable distribution of elevated Cr(VI)
made compliance with the revised MCL
much more complex. After extensive
pilot testing, both strong-base anion
(SBA) and weak-base anion (WBA)
were selected treatment technologies,
depending on the well characteristics.
The costs to treat groundwater and
meet the new MCL for Cr(VI) will likely
be in the hundreds of millions of dollars
when fully implemented.
Deborah Proctor of ToxStrategies
discussed the development of the Cr(VI)
MCL and the underlying questions and
uncertainties in the revised drinkingwater standard. The revised MCL was
based on a study using mice exposed to
very high levels of Cr(IV). One of the
fundamental questions raised about
the original research was whether mice
are more susceptible to Cr(VI) than hu-
Mr. Kevin Sullivan, PG&E
Kevin Sullivan, PG&E’s Remediation
Program Director, provided observations regarding the occurrence in
groundwater of Cr(VI), nitrate and a
host of other constituents in the Hinkley Valley. Hinkley Valley lies in the
Mojave Desert and its groundwater has
Steve Bigley, Coachella Valley
Water District
Ms. Mary Stallard, Weiss Associates
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 18
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
Deborah Proctor, ToxStrategies
Dr. Bruce Macler, US EPA
mans. For example, rats exposed to the
same levels of Cr(VI) did not show the
same toxicological effects. She provided
an interesting description of the Mode
of Action for ingested Cr(VI) and the
new research supporting the conclusion
that Cr(VI) at concentrations well above
10 ppb is protective of sensitive human
populations.
Dr. Bruce Macler of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was the
lunchtime speaker. His talk, entitled Addressing Mother Nature’s Gifts: Risks
and Controls for Natural Constituents
of Drinking Water, was a frank discussion of risk versus regulatory risk, the
latter of which is constrained by statute
and precedent, uses conservative precautionary principles, and focuses on
sensitive subpopulations. He addressed
the ‘usual suspects,’ including arsenic,
which he deemed the most risky chemical contaminant in drinking water, owing to effects observed at levels near the
MCL, the variety of adverse effects, and
the high degree of human sensitivity.
Another ‘usual suspect,’ radon, carries
a lung-cancer risk when it is transferred from water to air, but regulating
drinking-water activity is problematic
because the ambient air activity is significantly higher than that transferred
from water. Less well-known constituents that carry risk and were discussed
include manganese, sulfate, strontium,
and vanadium. Dr. Macler also discussed anthropogenic constituents with
a natural component, including nitrate,
perchlorate, fluoride, and chromium.
Although an extremely rare occurrence,
the risk of methemoglobinemia in infants is well-studied and is the basis of
nitrate and nitrite MCLs. Interestingly,
Dr. William Motzer of Todd Groundwater presented the efforts by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency to understand and predict the
potential impact of recharging recycled
water into the Paso Robles and Santa
Margarita aquifers in the Seaside Basin.
The proposed recharge program consists
of using both vadose-zone wells and
deeper injection wells. Of particular
concern was the potential leaching
of Cr(VI), arsenic and lead from the
overlying Aromas Sand when recharging through the vadose-zone wells. The
quartz grains of the Aromas are coated
with oxides containing Cr(VI), lead and
arsenic. Extensive laboratory testing
and geochemical modeling found that
desorption would likely occur during
recharge into the Aromas resulting in
increased concentrations of these metals;
however, concentrations would likely be
in the low ppb range. Direct recharge
into the deeper injection wells did not
appear to create a water-quality concern.
he outlined possible secondary effects
of nitrate, including developmental
damage in animals, inhibition of iodide
uptake by the thyroid, and an association between fecal bacteria and nitrate
ingestion in infants. He outlined current
thoughts on the health risk of Cr VI and
consideration of new data on its mode
of action of carcinogenicity, and on new
modeling efforts related to setting an
EPA MCL for perchlorate. Finally, he
reminded listeners of ‘our little friends,’
the viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and algae, especially emerging pathogens such
as cyanobacteria and legionella, which
have been in the news of late, but are
seldom seen in treated drinking water.
After lunch, Tony Daus pinch-hit for
Dr. Chin Man Mok in his presentation
on statistical methods that may be used
to better quantify background concentrations of dissolved constituents. Current methods to establish background
concentrations typically are very simplistic and consider the temporal and or
spatial distribution of a single constituent, essentially relying on a single line of
evidence. More robust approaches for
establishing background concentrations
were presented that consider the relationships between all the constituents,
including cluster analysis, discriminant
analysis, and principal component
analysis. These methods are frequently
used in other industries to look for
patterns and trends when mining or
analyzing datasets, and are well-suited
for environmental applications.
Dr. Shahnewaz Mohammad, an independent consultant, presented the results
of his doctoral dissertation examining
the presence of naturally-occurring arsenic in the Humboldt River watershed
in northern Nevada. The watershed is
highly mineralized, well known for its
sulfide deposits and geothermal activity,
and is a complex system where the river
gains in some reaches and loses in others. The role of groundwater in affecting
the concentrations of arsenic in the river
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 19
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
Day 2 of the symposium
began with a session on:
Nitrate, Perchlorate and
Salinity
was closely examined with extensive field
work supported by geochemical and
physical modeling. He concluded that
evaporation of water in the Humboldt
River plays a key role in increasing arsenic concentrations, particularly in the
lower watershed.
Bryant Jurgens of the USGS provided
an overview of USGS work to better
understand the presence and mobility
of uranium (U) in groundwater in the
eastern San Joaquin Valley. Sediments in
the eastern San Joaquin Valley originate
from the granitic Sierra Nevada and
contain U-bearing minerals. The USGS
found that U detections are increasing
over time in public supply wells. The
cause for this increase appears to be
linked to changes in land use (increasing
agricultural) in the Central Valley over
the last 100 years. Summer irrigation results in an increase in biological activity,
namely plant growth, in the soils within
the root zone. This results in an increase
in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide
in the vadose zone, which in turn leads
to an increase in soil-water bicarbonate concentrations. Bicarbonate forms
complexes with U, which then migrate
to the water table. Pumping from watersupply wells drives strong downward
groundwater flow and deeper migration
of U toward the production wells. Mr.
Jurgens suggested that the SGMA could
help reduce the severity of the U detections in groundwater through more
active recharge during the winter when
many plants are dormant.
Dr. Scott Fendorf of Stanford University discussed the mechanisms that lead
to mobility of trace metals and metalloids in the subsurface during managed
aquifer recharge. An understanding of
these mechanisms allows for appropriate planning and design of recharge
facilities. He examined the role of
manganese oxides, nitrate and dissolved
oxygen (oxidative release mechanism)
in the mobility of uranium and chromium in sediments. Arsenic, however, is
typically released through reduction in
Moderated by Murray Einarson,
Principal Hydrogeologist with
Haley & Aldrich
Dr. Scott Fendorf, Stanford University
the valence state from As(V) to As(III)
and the dissolution of Fe(III) oxides, releasing As hosted by those iron oxides.
The extent of the As contamination in
south Asia is particularly troubling, as
one sixth of the shallow groundwater
is contaminated with As derived from
sediments originating in the Himalayas.
Closer to home, Dr. Fendorf reported
on his work to better understand the
presence of As in groundwater within
the Orange County Replenishment
system and develop a solution to the
problem. In this case, As was released
when infiltrating very pure treated water, which was very low in calcium and
magnesium; this led to destabilization
of arsenate complexes in the soil profile,
resulting in a pulse of As into the underlying groundwater. A simple fix was
instituted, whereby the water was conditioned prior to recharging, reducing
the potential to inadvertently release As.
The afternoon ended with a lively
panel discussion and Q&A period followed by a reception in the exhibit hall.
Panelists included Drs. Fendorf, Moran,
Jackson, Izbicki, and Fram. Topics discussed included anthropogenic factors
affecting the occurrence and distribution
of naturally-occurring metals in groundwater, and the evolving picture of toxicity and regulation of naturally-occurring
metals in California groundwater.
Dr. Andrew Jackson of Texas Tech
University gave an informative presentation on the sources, characterization
and impact of natural perchlorate in the
environment and its co-occurrence with
nitrate. He described how perchlorate
(ClO4-) is produced naturally in the
atmosphere, likely from photochemical oxidation of Cl- or ClOx, and/or
by their reaction with O3. Naturallyproduced ClO4- is deposited worldwide
through wet and dry deposition. In
many arid areas, natural ClO4 has accumulated along with other atmospherically deposited species, e.g., NO3- and
Cl-, resulting in a substantial reservoir
of ClO4- in the unsaturated zone of
dryland environments. These ClO4reservoirs are sufficiently large in some
areas to have a substantial impact on
groundwater quality where irrigation
from agriculture or urbanization is sufficient to flush accumulated salts into
underlying aquifers. The subsurface
Dr. Andrew Jackson, Texas Tech
University
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 20
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
fate of ClO4- is controlled by vertical transport, microbial degradation,
and plant uptate. Compound-specific
isotope analysis (CSIA) can be used to
differentiate sources, but the isotopic
composition of natural ClO4- is not yet
fully understood. Indigenous natural
perchlorate should be considered when
evaluating areas with low-level ClO4concentrations, or when evaluating
receptor exposure.
Dr. Jean Moran of California State
University East Bay focused on geochemical and isotopic tracers of salinity. She
explained that salinization of fresh water
is a slow, insidious problem that affects
water resources in many arid and semiarid regions, including the Central Valley
of California. Salinity is often accompanied by undesirable constituents, such as
fluoride, radium, boron, selenium, and
arsenic. The various sources of salinity include formation water, water-rock
interaction, seawater intrusion in coastal
aquifers, and various anthropogenic
sources, such as municipal wastewater,
fertilizers, animal waste, road salt, etc.
She showed how ratios of common ions,
including chloride, iodide, bromine, and
boron can be very useful to differentiate the sources of salinity. Rare-isotope
halide tracers are also useful tools for differentiating salinity sources in California
groundwater.
Dr. Richard Pleus of Intertox discussed methods for evaluating the
toxicity of goitrogens that inhibit iodide
uptake. There are several natural and
anthropogenic chemical agents found in
water and food that inhibit iodide uptake
to the thyroid gland, including nitrate,
thiocyanate, and perchlorate. Given sufficient dose and exposure, these agents
can prevent iodide from entering the
thyroid, which may ultimately affect the
production of thyroid hormone. However, while some epidemiological studies
report associations between thyroidal
effects and these agents at low doses,
well-conducted toxicology and pharmacology studies report that the doses
required to attain this adverse effect are
high (e.g., hundreds of mg per day for
weeks of exposure). Dr. Pleus pointed
out that there is an inconsistency in how
regulatory agencies develop acceptable
exposure levels for these goitrogens
that have the same mechanism of action (MOA). For example, US EPA and
the State of California have based their
perchlorate risk assessments on iodide
uptake inhibition (IUI)—a non-adverse
effect. However, nitrate, which has the
same MOA, has risk assessments based
on an entirely different effect (blue baby
syndrome), which is adverse and occurs
at a dose higher than that which causes
the initiation of IUI. The inconsistency
in how these chemicals with the same
MOA are assessed for an acceptable
exposure either leads to an overly conservative guideline for perchlorate or an
inadequately protective nitrate guideline.
Dr. Reo Ikawa of the Geological
Survey of Japan, currently working
with the USGS in San Diego, discussed
geochemical tracers used to investigate
groundwater movement in a coastal
aquifer system in San Diego. He showed
how geochemical analyses can be used
to provide insights into regional flow
systems in coastal aquifers; these aquifers are often impacted by seawater
intrusion, which limits groundwater
use. Chemical results from 15 USGS
multiple-depth monitoring well sites
provide 3-D data sets from five major
river basins in San Diego County and
Baja California. Water-quality data have
also been collected from various surfacewater sites and municipal, domestic
and irrigation wells. Dr. Ikawa and his
team have found that groundwater with
the highest chloride concentrations occurs at relatively shallow depths (100
m or less). Some samples contained
hypersaline groundwater, with chloride
concentrations significantly higher
than seawater. Results from this study
show that the upper 100 m is the zone
of active groundwater flow. Further, he
concluded that the upper 100 m of the
coastal aquifer is recharged primarily by
a mixture of precipitation and imported
water. Regional groundwater movement
is dominated by precipitation at higher
elevations, resulting in travel times
as long as several thousands of years.
The shallowest portion of the aquifer
is recharged by coastal precipitation
and irrigation. There is also evidence of
seawater intrusion during pre-modern
times. The source of the hyper-saline
groundwater in Quaternary strata is
under investigation.
Steve Deverel of HydroFocus gave
an interesting presentation on selenium
and salinity associated with irrigation
and drainage in the San Joaquin Valley. He described the discovery of
waterfowl morbidity and mortality in
Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in
1982; this revelation greatly increased
environmental concern about agricultural drainage in the San Joaquin
Valley and throughout the western
US. Western-valley drainage systems
removed high-selenium (Se) shallow
groundwater underlying agricultural
fields, which was transported to the
refuge. Naturally-occurring soil salinity
in low-lying areas of the western San
Joaquin Valley resulted from low precipitation, high evapotranspiration rates
and deposition onto the alluvial fans of
saline sedimentary deposits eroded from
the Coast Range. Leaching of soil salts
and associated Se, primarily present in
the most oxidized and highly mobile
form (selenate), was the primary process
that led to high Se and salt concentrations in agricultural drainage water.
Evapoconcentration of shallow groundwater resulted in the highest reported
Se concentrations, ranging into several
thousands of micrograms per liter. Displacement of this highly concentrated
groundwater by low-salinity irrigation,
deep percolation, and flow to drainage
systems occurs slowly over time and the
extent is proportional to the length of
time since drainage-system installation.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 21
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
Terry Watkins of GEOSCIENCE
discussed isolated-aquifer-zone testing
for yield and water quality to aid in well
design. Isolated-aquifer-zone testing is
conducted by constructing a temporary
well within a borehole opposite a specific formation of interest. This is typically done by installing a 20 ft section of
perforated pipe, on the end of drill pipe,
into the borehole at the desired depth.
Filter-pack material (i.e., gravel) is then
placed in the annular space between the
perforated pipe and the borehole wall.
Bentonite seals are placed above and
below the filter pack to seal the zone
surrounding the perforated pipe. Once
the seals are verified, water is pumped
from the zone at a high rate until field
water chemistry parameters (i.e., pH,
TDS, EC, temperature, etc.) have stabilized and the turbidity has reached an
acceptable level (typically less than 10
NTU). During pumping, the water level
and production rate are closely monitored and recorded. Once the turbidity
is low enough, water-quality samples
are collected, and the perforated pipe is
removed from the borehole and cleaned
before being reinstalled within the borehole opposite the next desired zone. Using the production data obtained during
pumping of multiple zones (i.e., flow
rate, pumping water level, and drawdown), and lithological and geophysical
Terry Watkins, GEOSCIENCE
data, production estimates for specific
zones in a borehole, as well as the completed well, can be calculated. Using
these production estimates combined
with the water-quality results from
isolated-aquifer-zone testing, mass-balance calculations can be performed to
predict the water chemistry of the final
well design. Mr. Watkins presented an
impressive case study that demonstrated
how zone testing prior to well design
and construction can optimize water
quantity and quality.
Rob Gailey, an independent consultant, described how modifying existing
supply wells can improve the quality of
water pumped from the wells. His case
study involved a well in the Central Valley with high nitrate concentrations, but
the characterization method described
can be used to improve the quality of
water containing other natural and manmade contaminants. He first described
how vertical profiling of flow and solute
distribution can be used to characterize
the vertical variability in aquifer properties and aquifer chemistry. Profiling tools
described included the small-diameter
profiling and sampling tools developed
by the USGS, which are now available
commercially from BESST, Inc. Mr. Gailey described how the profiling data can
be used to design well modifications to
improve water quality. Such modifications include sealing and/or perforating
select portions of the well, repositioning
the pump, and using in-well valves to
control blending. He also described
how unpumped water-supply wells can
act as vertical conduits for contaminant
migration.
Gary Eppich of LLNL gave an excellent talk titled A Critical Evaluation of
the Utility of δ11B in the Identification
of Nitrate Sources on a Regional Scale.
He explained that it is often difficult
to determine the source(s) of NO3- in
groundwater, and that the isotopic
composition of boron (δ11B) in groundwater may be useful in distinguishing
NO3- sources in certain ambiguous
cases, as boron is a co-contaminant with
NO3- in some fertilizers, wastewaters,
and animal manures. He presented
a case study that used groundwater
samples collected from shallow domestic drinking-water wells in a region in
San Diego County, CA, characterized
by high-NO3-, to assess whether δ11B
can be used alongside δ15N-NO3- and
δ18O-NO3- to determine the source(s)
of NO3- in these waters. Geochemical
trends observed in these waters strongly
suggest that the primary control on
δ11B is not anthropogenic contamination, but rather, boron derived from the
dissolution from alluvial sediments and
crystalline basement rocks, with possible isotopic fractionation caused by
boron sorption to clays and bio-uptake
by crops. He concluded that due to the
abundance of natural boron sources and
sinks in most environments, δ11B may
be of limited utility in the identification of NO3- source(s) in environments
where background δ11B is variable and
cannot be constrained to a narrow set
of values.
Naturally Occurring Organic
Compounds
Moderated by Ted Johnson, Chief
Hydrogeologist at the Water
Replenishment District of Southern
California and current President of GRA
Dr. Michael Hyman of North Carolina State University presented Naturally
Occurring Tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA)
in Groundwater. He explained that TBA
is frequently detected in groundwater as
a biodegradation product of gasoline
oxygenates, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), or as a direct oxygenate itself, and can also leach out of PVC.
His research has also found that TBA
can be generated during aerobic microbial oxidation of isobutane. Isobutane is
found in gasoline at concentrations up
to 4% by weight, and is also a minor
but significant component of natural
gas, and is therefore frequently present during natural gas exploration and
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 22
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
Dr. Michael Hyman, North Carolina
State University
production activities. TBA was found to
be produced at relatively low levels as
isobutane was metabolized by a variety
of alkane-oxidizing bacteria, and they
have developed two methods to use
isotopically-labeled substrates to differentiate between MTBE and isobutane
as sources of TBA. Whereas isobutanemetabolizing bacteria produced relatively low levels of TBA, they found that
methane-oxidizing bacteria created significantly higher levels of TBA. In each
case evaluated, TBA was produced from
isobutane oxidation attributed to the
activity of non-specific monooxygenase
enzymes. The results are interpreted to
understand the microbial production of
TBA from metabolism or co-metabolism
of isobutane, and therefore the potential
threat to groundwater quality.
Dr. Justin Kulongoski of the USGS
presented High Methane Concentrations in Los Angeles Groundwater. The
work was part of the USGS investigation into groundwater quality near oil
fields within the Los Angeles Basin and
included the collection of groundwater
samples from 38 monitoring wells at
17 locations across the basin. Shallow
(~100 m), moderate, and deep (~600
m) monitoring wells within or near oil
fields, along with three control sites
upgradient from oil fields, were sampled
Dr. Justin Kulongoski, USGS
and analyzed for a comprehensive suite
of constituents, including dissolved
hydrocarbon gases (C1-C6) and their
isotopes. Results show concentrations
of methane gas ranged from 0.002 to
150 mg/L, which is up to five times
saturation values, suggesting an external
source. Based on isotopic analyses, microbial methanogenesis (biogenic) was
identified as the primary source of the
methane, versus thermogenic, and CO2
reduction was identified as the main
formation pathway. In addition, 14C
was measured in the samples to provide
an estimate of groundwater residence
time (age). The 14C values ranged from
<1 to 130.1 percent modern carbon and
inversely correlate with methane concentration, suggesting an increase in dissolved methane with groundwater age.
The methane concentrations, isotopic
analyses, and groundwater radiocarbon
results indicate that the excess methane
in Los Angeles groundwater originated
from relatively shallow microbial production, rather than the migration of
deeper thermogenic methane associated
with oil fields in the basin.
Lisa Molofsky of GSI Environmental, in Houston, presented Sources
of Variability in Dissolved Methane
Concentrations. She discussed groundwater sampling techniques for methane
and how those techniques may affect
analytical results, potentially leading to
false conclusions. Recent increases in
shale gas and oil extraction have highlighted the need to distinguish between
baseline methane concentrations and
those potentially resulting from gas or
oil extraction activities. Accomplishing
this can be difficult, particularly where
different sampling and analytical methods are used and/or water quality varies
naturally. She presented case studies in
the Appalachian basin where dissolved
methane and ethane data were derived
from three common and commercially
available sampling methods, including
open-system, semi-closed-system, and
closed-system methods. Findings suggested that it is best to sample wells using
in-line (i.e., closed-system) sampling devices when methane concentrations are
thought to be elevated (above approximately 20 mg/L), or if effervescence is
observed or suspected. To demonstrate
effervescence and pressure building, she
gave a live demonstration by shaking
and opening a soda bottle (and spraying
the moderator a little bit!). The findings
also showed that where concentrations
were lower than approximately 20 mg/L
and no effervescence was present, all
three methods produced similar results.
Matt Landon of the USGS presented
Relative Contribution of Geogenic and
Anthropogenic Sources of Benzene in
Aquifers used for Public Supply, California. He and his team looked at the
source, transport, and receptor variables
affecting the occurrence of benzene and
other selected hydrocarbons based on a
statistical evaluation of data from three
sources: the SWRCB’s GAMA Program
(1,973 wells), California Division of
Drinking Water (12,417 wells), and
the USGS National Water Information
System (1,105 wells). Of the hydrocarbons analyzed, benzene was the
most frequently detected, but at a low
percentage (1.7%) and generally at low
concentrations (median of 0.024 micrograms per liter). The benzene detections
were more often attributed to geogenic
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 23
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
(natural) sources (45% of detections)
than to anthropogenic sources (27% of
detections). The remaining detections
(28%) may be from geogenic, anthropogenic, or a mixture of sources. Benzene concentrations were most strongly
correlated with reducing conditions, regardless of groundwater age and depth,
and occurred most frequently, and at
the highest concentrations, in old, saline
groundwater with reducing conditions.
Groundwater with these characteristics
is typically deep (>180 meters) and
unaffected by anthropogenic sources.
Benzene occurred somewhat less frequently in recent, shallow groundwater
with reducing conditions. Evidence for
geogenic sources of benzene include:
(1) higher concentrations and detection
frequencies with increasing well depth,
groundwater age, and proximity to oil
and gas fields; and (2) higher salinity
and lower chloride/iodide ratios in old
groundwater with detections of benzene, consistent with interactions with
oil-field brines. In summary, a bimodal
distribution of benzene was found, with
higher concentrations in both shallow
groundwater (from anthropogenic
sources) and deep groundwater (from
geogenic sources near natural oil fields),
and lower concentrations in the middepth aquifers.
Mr. Matt Landon, USGS
Naturally Occurring
Compounds of Aesthetic
Concern
Moderated by Emily Vavricka,
EEC Environmental
Ted Johnson of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California
gave a presentation that focused on
iron, manganese, total dissolved solids
(TDS), and chloride, and explained how
WRD is dealing with these problematic
constituents in the Central and West
Coast groundwater basins. He outlined
WRD’s groundwater monitoring program and provided data for over 700
monitoring and supply wells in the two
basins, including for anthropogenic
compounds, such as trichloroethylene
(TCE), regulated under primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and
constituents regulated under secondary MCLs, such as manganese, iron,
and TDS. The data showed that the
secondary-MCL constituents exceeded
their respective MCLs more often than
those with primary MCLs. Even though
these secondary-MCL compounds are
not a health concern, lead and manganese at high concentrations can cause
discoloration and metallic taste, and
high TDS and chloride can be harmful
to vegetation, as well as affect taste. To
resolve these issues, the water is treated
either with oxidation/filtration, sequestration, or reverse osmosis (for TDS),
or the water is simply not used. Efforts
to control high TDS resulting from
seawater intrusion began in the 1950s
and included the construction and operation of seawater intrusion barriers.
Mr. Johnson concluded by reiterating
the fact that these constituents are an
ongoing problem in the two basins and
that efforts continue to keep these pesky
constituents under control.
Roy Herndon of the Orange County
Water District (OCWD) gave the final
talk of the symposium on the aesthetic
concerns affecting water quality in
northern Orange County, namely col-
Mr. Roy Herndon, OCWD
ored groundwater. Colored groundwater in the northern portion of the
groundwater basin is caused by natural
organic compounds, such as humic and
fulvic acids, which have leached into
the groundwater from organic matter,
including wood and plant material that
was buried during depositional processes in the Deep aquifer. This water
varies in color from pale yellow to dark
brown. Even though the color has no
harmful effects, it is an issue of public
acceptance that has caused drinkingwater wells to be shut off due to public
complaints. Mr. Herndon explained
that when water is pumped from the
Principal Aquifer (main drinking-water
aquifer), an upward vertical gradient
occurs and causes upwelling, whereby
water is drawn upward from the Deep
aquifer. He concluded by providing
some solutions the OCWD has devised
to help alleviate issues with colored
water and the upwelling from the Deep
aquifer. To prompt retail water agencies
to use this colored water, the retail agencies are incentivized to operate wells in
the areas affected by colored water and
to remove the color in this already highquality water by using high-efficiency
ultrafiltration membranes, resulting in
excellent-quality water they can serve
their customers.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 24
Feature
Highlights of GRA’s Symposium on Naturally Occurring Compounds of
Regulatory Concern – Continued
The symposium ended with a group
discussion and reflection that captured
the key points from the two-day event.
It seemed that nearly everyone—speakers and attendees—participated in the
discussion. There was a broad consensus
that GRA’s effort to convene a symposium that focused on a broad spectrum
of naturally-occurring contaminants
was an unprecedented success. Many
were interested in continuing the discussion even when the clock struck 5:00
PM, signaling the end of the event!
There were many comments regarding
the abundance of naturally-occurring
contaminants in California groundwater. However, those compounds are variably distributed in the state’s groundwater basins owing to California’s varied
geologic and hydrogeologic settings.
The vertical distribution of deleterious naturally-occurring compounds is
particularly variable, owing to the geologic and geochemical stratification of
California’s thick sedimentary aquifers.
Such geochemical stratification, however, affords opportunities to optimize
water quality in supply wells if the vertical variation in groundwater chemistry
is characterized and incorporated into
well design. In situations where wells
are already constructed, innovative
methods for retrofitting wells are being
developed to improve the quality of
blended groundwater extracted from
the wells. There was broad agreement
that societal growth in California has
affected the occurrence of naturallyoccurring contaminants in groundwater—usually for the worse. Continued
population growth, possible reduced
recharge, and evolving regulatory levels
for naturally-occurring compounds will
ensure that these compounds remain
an important focus of contaminant
hydrogeologists and water purveyors in
California for years to come. Be on the
lookout for a sequel to this successful
symposium in the future!
NEW IN 2016!
MARCH 1–2, 2016
WESTMINSTER, CO
D E T E C T I O N // T R E AT M E N T // R E G U L AT I O N
Brought to you by the producers of the RemTEC Summit, the Emerging
Contaminants Summit is a BRAND NEW event dedicated to the latest
developments in the detection, fate and transport, risk assessment,
treatment and regulation of emerging contaminants.
GRA INVITES YOU TO ATTEND THE
EMERGING CONTAMINANTS SUMMIT!
REGISTER WITH GRAC15 AND SAVE 15%!
WWW.CONTAMINANTSSUMMIT.COM
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 25
Upcoming Events
Dates & Details
Groundwater Resources Association of California
presents
Role of Models and Data in
Implementing SGMA
GRA EVENTS & KEY DATES
(Please visit www.grac.org for
detailed information, updates, and
registration unless noted)
FEB 8-9, 2016 – UC DAVIS, CA
About the Workshop
GRA Workshop
Role of Models and Data in
Implementing SGMA
Feb. 8-9, 2016 | UC Davis, CA
GRA 25th Annual Meeting
Sept. 28-29, 2016 | Concord, CA
GRA Symposium
Oil, Gas and Groundwater
in California
Nov. 2-3, 2016 | Bakersfield, CA
For information on how to sponsor or
exhibit at an upcoming event, please
contact Sarah Kline at skline@grac.org.
T
he Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) went into effect on
January 1, 2015, and draft regulations on the development of Groundwater
Sustainability Plans (GSPs) will be coming out in January 2016. The local
GSPs will be due by January 31, 2020 for critically overdrafted basins, and two
years later for the other high- and medium-priority basins.
To help the newly-forming Groundwater Sustainability Agencies get a running
start, GRA is organizing a workshop to provide information on the role that models
and data play in meeting SGMA requirements and enabling well-informed management decisions. The two-day workshop features topics critical to the success of GSP
development and implementation, including:
• The State perspective on models and data in support of GSP development &
implementation
• Water budgets – what they are, minimum data requirements, how best to
quantify, and how they inform basin management
• “Undesirable results” – modeling and data approaches, and case studies
• Case studies of models currently used in basin management
• Addressing uncertainty in data and models
• Leveraging key data sources and data management considerations
• Post-audits, updating, and continual improvement of models
• Including economics in models & providing decision support
• How to use model results in GSP development and implementation
• Monitoring vs. Models – the challenge of developing a successful GSP with
finite resources
• Neighborly water budgets – how to coordinate monitoring and models for
mutual success
Please save the dates for this timely workshop, and watch for additional announcements, coming soon.
Additional Information
Contact Steve Phillips (sphillip@usgs.gov; 916-278-3002).
Sponsor and Exhibitor Opportunities
If you are interested in exhibiting your organization’s services or products, or being an event cosponsor, use our online registration form. For additional information
regarding sponsorship and advertising opportunities, see GRA’s 2015 Ad Kit.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 26
Upcoming Events
SAVE THE DATE
Toward Sustainable
Groundwater in Agriculture
2nd International Conference
Linking Science and Policy
JUNE 28-30, 2016 – BURLINGAME, CA
HYATT REGENCY AT THE SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
T
June 28-30, 2016
E
V
Sponsored
Hagan Endowed
Chair
HyattM.Regency
at the
San Francisco Airport
SA by the Robert
Organized
by
Water
Education
Foundation
and
E
TH UC Davis Burlingame,
CA
University of California
!
E
T
DA
Sponsored by the Robert M. Hagan Endowed Chair
his three-day conference will provide scientists, policymakers, agricultural
This three-day
will provide scientists,
and environmental stakeholders,
local, stateconference
and federal governmental
offipolicymakers,
agricultural
and
environmental
cials, and consultants with the latest scientific, management, legal
and policy
advances for sustaining our groundwater
resources
in agricultural
regions around
stakeholders,
local,
state and federal
governmental
the world.
officials, and consultants with the latest scientific,
management,
legal
policy
Additional Groundwater
Workshops
setand
for June
27 advances for sustaining
Program Highlights:
our groundwater resources in agricultural regions
around the world.
Groundwater is the lifeline for many rural and agricultural regions and their asAdditional Groundwater Workshops set for June 27
sociated cultures and populations around the globe and a cornerstone of global food
production. Groundwater constitutes nearly half the world’s drinking water and
Program Highlights:
much of the world’s irrigation water supply. Drought; overuse; groundwater salinity;
is the lifeline
for manyactivities
rural and agricultural
andfarming,
their associated
nonpoint source Groundwater
pollution from
agricultural
(includingregions
animal
culturesactivities);
and populations
around the globe
and a cornerstone
of global
food at
production.
ranching, and forestry
and groundwater
quality
and quantity
conflicts
Groundwater
nearly half
the world’sand
drinking
waterthe
andhealth
much of
the world’s
the urban-rural interface
haveconstitutes
reached global
dimensions
threaten
and
livelihood of this irrigation
planet. water supply. Drought; overuse; groundwater salinity; nonpoint source pollution
from agricultural activities (including animal farming, ranching, and forestry activities); and
This special conference
will
buildand
upon
research
andatpresentations
from thehave
2010
groundwater
quality
quantity
conflicts
the urban-rural interface
reached global
International Groundwater
Conference.
The
June
28-30,
2016,
conference
will
feadimensions and threaten the health and livelihood of this planet.
ture plenary sessions and technical sessions on a wide range of topics.
This special conference will build upon research and presentations from the 2010
International Groundwater Conference. The June 28-30, 2016, conference will feature plenary
sessions
and technical sessions on
a wide range
of topics.15, 2016
Abstract
Submission—Extended
Deadline:
January
Go to http://ag-groundwater.org to access the abstract submittal form.
Abstract Submission -- extended deadline: January 15, 2015
Go to http://ag-groundwater.org to access the abstract submittal form
Visit http://ag-groundwater.org to learn more about potential topics for discussion, review materials
from 2010, and learntomore
submitting
abstract
for
Visit http://ag-groundwater.org
learn about
more about
potentialan
topics
for discussion,
review
the 2016 event. materials from 2010, and learn more about submitting an abstract for the 2016 event.
Sponsorship opportunities
andspace
exhibitare
space
are available.
ContactBeth
Beth Stern
Sponsorship opportunities
and exhibit
available.
Contact
Stern
bstern@watereducation.org
for
more
information.
bstern@watereducation.org for more information.
Watch the Foundation’s
website
at www.watereducation.org/internationalgroundwater2016
Watch the Foundation’s
website
at www.watereducation.org/international
for
information
about
speakers,
sponsors
exhibitors
– and
registration
information.
groundwater2016 for information about speakers, and
sponsors
and
exhibitors
– and
registration information.
Organized by
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 27
Technical Corner
Wells and Words
By David W. Abbott P.G., C.Hg., Consulting Hydrogeologist
Part 2 – Yield-Depression Curves for Evaluating Well Development
Effectiveness, or Whether to Rehabilitate a Well
• the aquifer is homogenous and isotropic over the area
influenced by the pumping test
• the aquifer has uniform thickness and infinite areal extent
• the aquifer receives no recharge from any source
• the pumped well penetrates and receives water from the
full thickness of the aquifer
• the well efficiency (welleff) during pumping is 100%
• all water removed from the well comes instantaneously
from aquifer storage
• horizontal and laminar flow exists throughout the well
and aquifer
• the water table or potentiometric surface has no slope.
The C-J equation provides essentially the same results as
the Theis equation2 when the argument (u) in the well function [W(u)] of the Theis equation is ≤ 0.05, where u = [(1.87
× r2 × S) ÷ (T × te)] and r, S, T, and te are as defined below.
This condition usually occurs when the elapsed time (te) of
pumping during an aquifer test is large and the effective radius
from the center of the well is small for a given Storage (S) and
Transmissivity (T). The C-J equation is:
Equation A
where,
s = drawdown (dd) in feet (ft);
Q=
discharge in gallons per minute (gpm);
T = transmissivity in gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft);
te = elapsed time of pumping in days;
r = distance from the center of the well to the point at
which dd is measured in ft; and
S = Storativity (unitless).
If the equation is re-arranged, then it is clearly expressed as
a linear function with variables Q and s determined by any set
of given constants (T, te, r, and S):
Equation B
Plots of Q versus dd on arithmetic graph paper produce a
straight line through the origin with a slope equal to the value
within the square brackets if the welleff is 100%. Furthermore,
dividing the equation by Q yields the specific drawdown4,5, or
the inverse of the specific capacity (SC) on the left-hand side
of the equation.
Equation C
Note that for every te there is a unique SC for any given set
of T, r, and S.
Figure 1: Yield-Depression* Curve at Various Elapse Times
0
30 minutes
60 minutes
0.5 day
20
1 day
40
Drawdown in Feet
T
he Yield-Depression (y-d) curve is a fundamental feature of the well1. The y-d or well characteristic curve2
provides an accessible and, when systematically used,
simple and powerful tool for field analysis of the hydraulic
characteristics of a well, and aquifer responses during various
stages of well development and/or well rehabilitation. The
Theis non-equilibrium well equation and Cooper-Jacob (C-J)
non-equilibrium equation3, with their associated assumptions,
form the basis for the proper collection of data during hydraulic testing and appropriate interpretation of y-d curves.
The following assumptions3,4 must be thoroughly understood
in order to apply the non-equilibrium formulae to y-d curves
given various observed field conditions:
60
T = 40,000 gpd/ft
S = 0.075 (unconfined)**
R = 1 foot
100 percent efficient throughout the range of discharges.
The Specific Capacity is the discharge divided by the drawdown.
80
100
Curve A
* Calculated from the modified non-equilibrium equation of Cooper-Jacob (1946)
describing the shape and response of the cone of depression.
** must be determined with an observation well.
120
140
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
Discharge in gpm
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
Figure 1 shows a family of y-d curves computed with Equation B for a well tapping an unconfined aquifer (T = 40,000
gpd/ft and S = 0.075), with an effective well radius of one
foot, and 100% efficiency. The projections were conducted
at various te of pumping (30 minutes, 60 minutes, 0.5 days,
and 1 day) and produce a systematic family of y-d curves
or formation-loss curves6 that diverge from the origin of the
graph. The longer the te of pumping at a given Q, the greater
the dd, unless a recharge boundary is encountered by the
cone of depression or, more simply, the SC decreases with te
of pumping.
Continued on page 30…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 28
Technical Corner
Driller’s Logs Are of Primary Importance
By John McHugh, Chair of GRA’s Technical Committee
E
fficient groundwater extractions and management rely
on an understanding of subsurface geology. This also
applies to collection of representative water levels and
water-quality samples. Characterization of subsurface materials is based on information collected at the time of drilling, often as a part of boring or well installations. The Well
Completion Report (WCR, a.k.a. drillers’ log) is the official
record of the boring or well, and should include any information gathered during drilling and well installation. The WCR
can have attached pages with supplemental information,
including location maps, lithology, geophysical logs, wellconstruction profiles, water levels, water quality, hydraulic
tests, and any other useful information. The importance of
good-quality logs and their use to develop an understanding
of stratigraphy and a site conceptual model is discussed in an
old, but still relevant paper by Regan, et al., The Need for
Improved Use of Geologic Data in Groundwater Investigations (ASTM STP, 1992).
Recently, several state institutional developments are
changing the creation, submission, and accessibility of drillers’ logs. Therefore, this is a good time to review the importance of best practices for recording hydrogeologic information during drilling, construction, development, and testing.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) now
makes WCRs available to the public with the passage of Senate Bill 83. DWR has developed an informative website with
more detailed information about the new law. The website
is here. Also, DWR developed an Online System for Well
Completion Reports (OSWCR, pronounced like the movie
award) to complete the forms. The online system site is here.
Information collected sometimes is recorded in reports;
however, the WCR is the proper document of record. The
information in a WCR should include at least the following:
• Drilling method
•Drill rig and drilling system behavior—for example:
drilling rate; rig chatter; mud pressure, additives, weight,
and viscosity; and the associated time and depth of the
drill bit
• The initial internal color and moisture of retrieved materials
•Percent sample recovery, including reasons for poor
recovery—for example: interruption of soil collection
because of wedged clasts (rejection) or loss of sand or finegrained sediments (fall out)
• Field interpretation of the materials returned to the surface
(lithology), and if the materials are from the sample
horizon or ex situ, such as slough
• Other information, including: blow counts, loss of circulation,
and results from geotechnical tests (pocket torvane and/or
penetrometer), dilatancy tests, and sieve analysis for grainsize distributions.
Lithology may further be refined and interpreted after
drilling has been completed; however, without the onsite context of the relevant information, misinterpretations are more
likely. Methods of drilling and sampling are important to the
timing and context of the lithologic logging. If sampling is
incomplete, the missing lithologic record could be interpreted
in the field, since it is aided by other contemporaneous information and supplemented by the driller’s interpretation.
The lithologic log should include the classification system
employed, e.g., the ASTM D2487-10 Standard Practice for
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System). Consistency in how the subsurface
sediments are described will improve comparisons between
logs, which are commonly done for construction of cross
sections and site conceptual models. Geologic details, including fining-upwards sequences, indicative colors, fossils, and
erosional surfaces, if noted, are important for developing the
geological genesis and sequence stratigraphy. Water levels
(first water encountered, water levels at specific depths, static
water levels, and pumping and recovery water levels) should
also be recorded.
Well construction should be documented, including a
labeled well profile with the static water level. Well design
and construction are important to understand the hydraulic
relationship between the well and formations. Problems that
occur during installation, if understood, can lead to better
decisions regarding well development or the need for well
replacement. If the sediments opposite the well screen have
low hydraulic conductivity (naturally or from the drilling
process), then tests and measurements performed later (both
hydraulic and water-quality tests) are less likely to represent
aquifer properties.
Boring or well logging should be conducted from a location close enough to observe the drilling, cuttings, core,
addition of drilling mud additives, and provide reasonable
communication with the driller and the driller’s helper(s).
Preservation of the cuttings is important for interpretation
by field staff or by others even at a later date. The cuttings
should be properly packed and labeled with the following:
boring identification, initials of the logger, date, time, and
depth interval. The cuttings or core segments should be
placed in correct order and alignment for storage.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 29
Technical Corner
Wells and Words – Continued from page 28
0
100 Percent
75 Percent
50 Percent
20
25 Percent
Curve A from Figure 1
40
Series 5
Series6
Drawdown in Feet
Series8
60
4
Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. de Ridder, 1991, Analysis and Evaluation
of Pumping Test Data (2nd edition), Pub. 47, International Institute
for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 377 p.
T = 40,000 gpd/ft
S = 0.075 (unconfined)**
t = 1 day
R = 1 foot
Solid line - 100% efficient throughout the range of discharges.
Dashed line - recalibrated for change in well efficiency at
greater yields: 2% decline for every 200 gpm.
100
120
5
Errata: In Part 1 of this series, “specific drawdown” was mistakenly
called “specific discharge”. Specific drawdown is the inverse of specific
capacity.
* Calculated from the modified non-equilibrium equation of Cooper-Jacob (1946)
describing the shape and response of the cone of depression.
** must be determined with an observation well.
140
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
Discharge in gpm
Helweg, Otto J., V.H. Scott, and J.C. Scalmanini, 1984, Improving Well and Pump Efficiency, American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO, 158 p.
2
3
Driscoll, Fletcher G., (editor), 1986, Groundwater and Wells (2nd
edition), Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN, 1089 p.
Series7
80
Detay, Michel, 1997, Water Wells: Implementation, Maintenance,
and Restoration, John Wiley Sons, NY, 379 p.
1
Figure 2: Yield-Depression* Curve at Various Well Efficiencies
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
Figure 2 shows another family of y-d graphs using the same
parameters given for Figure 1, and using only Curve A, but
the pumping welleff was varied from 25% to 100% (solid
lines) throughout the ranges in Q. Deeper pumping water
levels, or larger dd’s, occur when the overall welleff is smaller
from well-losses6; higher Qs from a well are less efficient than
lower Qs. Hence, the dashed lines represent a 2% (assumed
for this example) decline in the well-loss for each 200 gpm
increase in pumping rate. Note that the y-d curves become
curvilinear and are described by a quadratic formula due to
the effects of turbulent flow, increases in Q, and technical
equipment installed in the well1.
In general, plots of Q versus dd (or depth to water) at similar
te of pumping (e.g., 1 hour) yield a quadratic relationship for
a given T, r, and S; without well-losses7 in and near the pumping well, the relationship is linear. A minimum of three steps
should be conducted during a step-dd test; four or more steps
are preferred for better definition of the y-d curve. Note that
the y-d curve must project to the origin (0 gpm, 0 ft of dd) of
the graph and the curve often follows a quadratic relationship.
The Qs selected for the step-dd test typically are one-third,
one-quarter (or less) of the maximum obtainable Q of the well
or pump. The recommended te of the steps depends on the
hydraulic signals received from the well and the aquifer, but
should be at least 30 minutes provided the assumptions listed
above are met. Hint: the first step in a formal step-dd test can be
conducted for 1 or 2 hrs without compromising the remainder
of the test; this can be done to determine whether any boundaries were encountered by the cone of depression within that time
interval, whether casing storage has been exceeded, and a local
T estimate of the aquifer. At the end of the step-dd test, recovery
data are collected and plotted to estimate the T using the last Q
of the step-dd test, the weighted average Q of the entire step-dd
test, or both. This calculation is so simple that I usually estimate
T both ways and compare them to the hydraulic information
provided in the first step. Stay tuned for Part 3.
Bierschenk, William H., 1963, Determining Well Efficiency by Multiple Step-Drawdown Tests, International Assoc. of Science Hydrology
Publication 64, pp. 493-507.
6
7
Poehls, D.J. and G.J. Smith, 2009, Encyclopedic Dictionary of
Hydrogeology, Academic Press, Amsterdam, 517 p.
Driller’s Logs Are of Primary
Importance – Continued
Methods of sample collection should be planned such
that they agree with the objectives of the boring, well, or
study. A good and reliable conceptual hydrogeologic model
is usually developed from site logging, which should initially
be continuous to guide future logging endeavors. Downhole
geophysical logging can aid in interpretation of the subsurface materials, but cannot replace good lithologic logging
and preservation of samples.
Good planning prior to drilling leads to better lithologic
logging and overall documentation. The review of nearby
logs and geologic studies will help the logger anticipate
encountered materials. To aid in logging, office notes, field
guides, and tools should be brought out to the drill site. If
possible, bring a portable table and chair. I have never felt
over-prepared for logging.
In conclusion, field-data documentation and interpretation immediately during and after completion of a boring or
well serves many important purposes. The WCR should be
the primary document of record. Lithology and stratigraphy
are key components to an effective conceptual hydrogeologic
model. Water-level and water-quality data derived from the
boring or wells are associated with the subsurface descriptions based on the drillers’ log. Poor or inadequate descriptions of the lithology and construction details allow for
misinterpretation of subsurface conditions, and by extension,
potentially poorly-designed monitoring or production wells
and remediation systems.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 30
California Legislative Corner
Legislative Update
By Tim Parker, GRA Legislative Committee Chairman, Chris Frahm and Rosanna Carvacho, GRA Legislative Advocates
G
RA’s Legislative Committee and
Board had another very active
year in the Capitol, tracking more
than 35 bills, many of which tried to make
changes to the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. As
you know, GRA was very supportive of
the SGMA and looked very closely at all
bills that dealt with the SGMA to determine if they would have a detrimental
effect on the Act’s effectiveness.
GRA also conducted the most successful Legislative Symposium to date
with over 80 participants. The Symposium, titled “The Infancy of California’s
Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act – What’s Next?,” was held on April
29th in cooperation with the California Groundwater Coalition (CGC). A
diverse group of speakers was featured,
including both Legislators and other state
officeholders, such as Governor Brown’s
Deputy Legislative Affairs Secretary Martha Guzman–Aceves and Water Board
Member Dorene D’Adamo. Each speaker
provided GRA members with a candid
look at “what’s happening” in the state
this year regarding water policy, with the
ever-present backdrop of the drought.
SB 20 (Pavley) – As introduced,
it would have made well completion
reports (well logs) available to the public. The policy of public well logs was
passed as part of the budget, so this bill
was substantially amended. GRA took a
support position on the introduced bill.
• GRA’s Contemporary Groundwater
Issues Council focused on the SGMA,
heard from DWR and SWRCB on
their SGMA plans, and conducted
several breakout groups on data and
models for SGMA implementation.
• Formed a new Sustainable Groundwater
Management (SGMa) Committee,
through which several SGMA
implementation-related GRA events
have been conceptualized, planned
and initiated.
SB 226 (Pavley) and AB 1390 (Alejo)
– These two bills, which are contingent
on each other, make changes to the
groundwater adjudication process in
California. GRA submitted comments
to the authors of both bills, encouraging them to do more to harmonize their
legislation with the SGMA so that adjudication could not be used to circumvent or delay the SGMA process in the
future. Both of these bills were signed by
the Governor on October 9th.
• GRA was appointed to the Advisory
Committee for Water Storage
Improvement Program and has
submitted comments to the California
Water Commission on draft regulations
to support the availability of funds for
groundwater storage under the $2.7B
designated for storage projects in
Proposition 1.
GRA also had a number of activities
in support of SGMA implementation
including:
GRA took official positions on three
bills this year, and submitted comments
on two. Those bills are:
AB 454 (Bigelow) – Adds one year to
each of the deadlines for forming a management agency under the SGMA and
adopting a plan. GRA took an oppose
position on the bill, which was not heard in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 13 (Pavley) – Makes numerous
technical and clarifying amendments to
the SGMA and related sections of the
Water Code, including allowing mutual
water companies and investor-owned
utilities to participate in a groundwater sustainability agency through a
memorandum of agreement or other
legal agreement. GRA took a support
position on the bill, which was signed
by the Governor on September 3rd.
•
•
•
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 31
Federal Legislative and Regulatory Corner
The Federal Corner
By Jamie Marincola, U.S. EPA
During Recent Droughts,
Central Valley Groundwater
Levels Reached Historical
Lows and Land Subsidence
Intensified
T
his year, groundwater levels
in many wells in California’s
Central Valley are at or below
historical low levels. In addition, from
2007 through 2015, land subsidence
that correlates to areas with large
groundwater-level declines has strongly
increased in two large agricultural
areas near the towns of El Nido and
Pixley, according to a new article by
the U.S. Geological Survey. Along with
the article, USGS also launched a new
website on Land Subsidence in California. Follow these links to the article
and new website.
New EPA Guidance on
Use of Monitored Natural
Attenuation for Inorganic
Contaminants in Ground
Water at Superfund Sites
This new monitored natural attenuation (MNA) policy document for inorganic contaminants expands on, and
is designed to be a companion to, the
1999 MNA guidance. Together, these
policy documents provide guidance on
the consideration of MNA for a broad
range of contaminants at Superfund
sites. This 2015 MNA guidance, consistent with the 1999 MNA guidance,
indicates that multiple “lines of evidence” should be obtained to evaluate
whether MNA should be considered as
part of the site’s selected response action. The 2015 MNA guidance builds
on the tiered approach established in
the 1999 policy and recommends a
phased analytical approach tailored
specifically for inorganic contaminants.
View or download at https://clu-in.
org/9283.1-36.
EPA Reaches $55 Million
Settlement for Soil Clean-up
at South-Bay Superfund Site
EPA reached a $55 million settlement
with Shell Oil Company and the U.S.
General Services Administration for
the cleanup of contaminated soil at the
Del Amo Superfund Site in Los Angeles, CA. The cleanup work will prevent
surface exposure of industrial chemicals and reduce sources of groundwater
contamination from the 280-acre site.
The Del Amo facility was the site of a
synthetic rubber manufacturing plant
that was built in the 1940s and ceased
operations in 1972. Benzene, propane,
butylene and butane, used to produce
synthetic rubber, were disposed in unlined pits and ponds and covered with
soil, resulting in contamination of soil
and groundwater. Part of the cleanup
will involve injecting chemicals into the
ground in three locations to accelerate
the breakdown of the contamination
deep within the soil. In addition, a
vacuum system will extract and filter
harmful vapors trapped within the soil.
For more on the site, click here.
33 Injection Wells Shut Down
in California
This October, The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) issued orders to shut
down 33 underground injection wells
that were previously permitted to inject
into non-exempt, non-hydrocarbonbearing aquifers with a concentration
of total dissolved solids less than 3,000
mg/l. The order came as a result of an
agreement with US EPA to address
compliance issues related to the State’s
program regulating Class II injections.
Click here to read more about EPA’s
review of California’s UIC program.
Jamie Marincola is an Environmental
Engineer at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 9 Water Division. For more information on any of
the above topics, please contact Jamie at
415-972-3520 or marincola.jamespaul@
epa.gov.
2016 Advertising Rates
FULL COLOR
WEB EDITION
•
4 ISSUES
ANNUALLY
1X4X
Business Card Ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1/3 Page Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1/2 Page Horizontal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2/3 Page Vertical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Full Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$95.. . . . . . . $90. per issue
$185.. . . . . . $160. per issue
$365.. . . . . . $290. per issue
$500.. . . . . . $400. per issue
$750.. . . . . . $600. per issue
The above prices assume advertisements are received as high resolution PDF files.
For additional information, visit www.grac.org or contact
Sarah Kline, GRA Administrative Director, at skline@grac.org or 916-446-3626.
TO ADVERTISE IN HYDROVISIONS CALL 916-446-3626 TODAY
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 32
Chemist’s Corner
Why Should We Care About Data Qualifiers?
By Bart Simmons
T
he current EPA Contract Lab
Program (CLP) Statement of
Work (SOW) specifies the use of
data qualifiers, including those below.
If additional qualifiers are used, their
explicit definitions should be included in
the Case Narrative. The current SOW
uses 12 qualifiers. Examples:
J: The reported value is an estimate.
For example, if a compound was
detected, and the concentration was
less than the Quantitation Limit, but
greater than or equal to the Method
Detection Limit (MDL). This flag is
also used for Tentatively Identified
Compounds (TICs).
U: The material was analyzed for, but
was not detected above the level of
the associated value. The associated
value is either the sample quantitation
limit or the sample detection limit.
UJ: The material was analyzed for,
but was not detected. The associated
value is an estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.
R: The sample results are rejected due
to serious deficiencies in the ability to
analyze the sample and meet qualitycontrol criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.
The EPA CLP qualifiers are often
used in non-CLP testing, but there is no
universal set that applies to all types of
analyses, nor a universal specification
for their use (Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, EPA QA/G-8).
Pitfalls
In reporting Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), for example, EPA
8015C: Nonhalogenated Organics
by Gas Chromatography is a gas
chromatography-flame ionization detector (GC-FID) method which involves
dividing the chromatogram into three
“A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.”
GERTRUDE STEIN
windows: TPH-Gas, TPH-diesel, and
TPH-motor oil. A lab might report concentrations for each window, even if the
sample chromatogram does not match
the chromatogram of a gasoline, diesel,
or motor-oil standard. Labs should at
least use a qualifier to state that the patterns did not match. I was involved in
one criminal case in which a commercial
lab Quality Assurance Officer admitted
on the stand that even though the lab
had reported TPH-diesel results, there
was in fact no diesel in the samples.
Qualifiers may also alert the data user
to interferences in the testing, which
may be of interest. Generally, labs will
report what was included in the sample
analysis request form, period. TICs
might or might not be included in the
request, and in the lab report.
Data qualifiers are sometimes ignored in the preparation of a project
report. The person who ignores quali-
fiers in a project report does so at her/his
own risk. Ideally, a data quality section
should be included, which discusses any
limitations of the data. The data quality report should discuss whether Data
Quality Objectives (DQOs) were met,
and also whether the project objectives
were met (data might not meet DQOs
but might still meet project objectives).
Labs may use unnecessary qualifiers.
In one recent case, a lab used a qualifier
for Waste Extraction Test (WET) results
because the pH of the WET extracts
following extraction was different than
the initial extraction solution of 5.0. The
qualifier was unnecessary and confusing,
because the WET procedure does not
specify measuring the pH of the extracts.
In the esoteric world of environmental testing, data qualifiers can make a
real difference.
Bart can be reached at
bartonps@aol.com.
Picture
Picture
Picture
Your
Your
Your
Research
Research
Research
Featured
Featured
Featured
inin
in
HydroVisions
HydroVisions
HydroVisions
Call
Call
Call
for
for
for
Submissions
Submissions
Submissions
HydroVisions
HydroVisions
HydroVisions
is looking
is is
looking
looking
forfor
submissions
forsubmissions
submissions
from
from
from
students
students
students
engaged
engaged
engaged
in groundwater
inin
groundwater
groundwater
research,
research,
research,
to to
highlight
to
highlight
highlight
in our
inin
our
Student
our
Student
Student
Corner.
Corner.
Corner.
{ {{
DoDo
you
Do
you
know
you
know
know
of of
a of
student
aa
student
student
with
with
with
something
something
something
to to
share?
to
share?
share?
•
Articles
• • Articles
Articles
•
Research
• • Research
Research
Papers
Papers
Papers
•
Summary
• • Summary
Summary
Blurbs
Blurbs
Blurbs
ForFor
further
For
further
further
information,
information,
information,
please
please
please
contact:
contact:
contact:
editor@grac.org,
editor@grac.org,
editor@grac.org,
subject
subject
subject
“Student
“Student
“Student
Corner”
Corner”
Corner”
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 33
Student/Research Corner
Economic Feasibility of Groundwater
Banking on Agricultural Land
By J. Luis Rodriguez Arellano, M.S.1, 2 Samuel Sandoval-Solis, Ph.D.3, 4 and Helen E. Dahlke, Ph.D.3
Introduction
G
roundwater banking (GB) is an
application of conjunctive use
of at least two water sources,
typically surface water and groundwater, used for aquifer replenishment.
GB for later recovery of stored water
using agricultural land as percolation
ponds (Ag-GB) is a practice that currently is undergoing extensive research.
Particularly, there is a critical need to
assess the economic feasibility of AgGB. If an Ag-GB program is deemed
economically feasible, it has a greater
likelihood to be implemented.
To test this idea, Orland-Artois water
district (OAWD) is used as a case study
and alfalfa as the test crop. OAWD is an
irrigation district located in northern Sacramento Valley (Figure 1), in the northern part of the Colusa Groundwater
Sub-Basin. OAWD contracts every two
years with the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) to receive 53,000 acre-ft/year of
surface water; however, water demands
are greater than the surface water supplied by BOR, so groundwater (GW) is
pumped from the aquifer to help meet
irrigation needs. The increasing acreage
of permanent crops with high water
demands (orchards) has prompted a new
concern in OAWD as groundwater is
extracted faster than it replenishes.
Figure 1.
(Left) Study
area location
Figure 2.
(Below)
Conceptual
framework
Figure 1. Study area location
1
2
Modeling Approach
This study consists of four components (Figure 2, top of the figure) to estimate the economic feasibility of Ag-GB
in the study area. In Step 1, agricultural
water demands are calculated based
on land use, crop evapotranspiration
(ET), and precipitation. In Step 2, water
demands are fed into the water massbalance model to estimate aquifer storage in a given year using the continuity
3
4
Continued on the following page…
Figure 2. Conceptual framework
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 34
Student/Research Corner
Economic Feasibility of Groundwater Banking on Agricultural Land – Continued
A hydrologic period of analysis of
21 years (Jan, 1993 to Dec, 2013) is
used in this study. This period contains
three years of a major, ongoing drought
(calendar years 2011–2013) and a wet
period (1995–1998), which will provide
valuable insight about the effects of
climate on agronomics and GB in the
area. Water deliveries from 1993 to
2013 were provided by OAWD. The
time span considered shows the general
cropping trend in the area moving from
field crops (e.g., grains, tomatoes) to
permanent crops (e.g., almonds, pistachios) (Figure 3).
Aquifer Mass Balance
A simple one-bucket mass-balance
groundwater model was built to estimate aquifer storage, inflows and outflows of the study area. This model calculates GW recharge, extractions, and
storage on an annual basis. Inputs to the
model consist of water-delivery records
from OAWD, and calculated water
demands. A mass-balance calculation is
performed at every time step. The model
was calibrated by comparing the simulated GW storage with that estimated
using contours of GW depth based on
DWR’s annual GW-level data collected
in the study area, an estimate of the safe
yield, and an average thickness of the
unconfined aquifer. Aquifer gains and
losses not associated with GW recharge
and extraction (i.e., GW lateral fluxes)
are calibration parameters used to
match the predicted and observed GW
storage. This model considers only the
unconfined aquifer underlying the study
16,000
14,000
12,000
ACRES
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
Field
Permanent
Pasture
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1993
-
1994
2,000
Rice
Figure
3. Cropping
patterns in OAWD
betweenin
1993
and 2013. Field=tomatoes,
berries,and
other field
crops;Field=tomatoes,
Permanent= almonds,
Figure
3. Cropping
patterns
OAWD
between 1993
2013.
pistachios, and other deciduous; Pasture= alfalfa and pasture
berries, other field crops; Permanent= almonds, pistachios, and other deciduous;
Pasture= alfalfa and pasture
TOTAL PRESENT-VALUE PUMPING SAVINGS ($M)
1993-2013
equation under different scenarios. In
Step 3, costs and benefits of Ag-GB are
estimated; changes in aquifer storage
are used to estimate changes in GW
levels to assess economic impacts on
pumping and crop production. Finally
in Step 4, costs and benefits derived
from Ag-GB are evaluated to determine
the economic feasibility. Steps 2, 3, and
4 are briefly explained herein. Refer to
Rodriguez-Arellano (2015) for details
about equations and assumptions used
in these methods.
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$-
0
50
Savings E&G
100
150
200
250
300
PROPOSED CONVEYANCE CAPACITY Q (CFS)
Savings MODG
Costs E&G
Costs MODG
350
400
450
Cost Baseline
Figure
4. Total
present-value
pumping
costs combinations
and savings
forwdifferent
combinations
Figure
4. Total
present-value
pumping costs and
savings for different
of Q and
(Unmodified SAGBI)
of Q and w (Unmodified SAGBI)
area (i.e., change in storage estimated
for this study does not include that associated with changes in pressure in the
confined portion of the aquifer system).
Ag-GB is evaluated in the model as an
alternative water management strategy.
The model estimates GB capacity and
the amount of surface water available
for Ag-GB (SWA). SWA is proposed as
the water volume of daily flows above
the 90th percentile in the Sacramento
River near Red Bluff diversion dam,
from which OAWD receives its water.
GB capacity is calculated taking into account soil type (w) and proposed water
diversion capacities for Ag-GB purposes
(Q). Soils suitable for Ag-GB are selected
using the Soil Agricultural Groundwater
Banking Index (SAGBI; Saal, 2014).
SAGBI ranks soils according to their
likely performance for Ag-GB on the
basis of physical and chemical characteristics. The top three ranked soils are considered in this study: Excellent, Good,
and Moderately Good. Excellent and
Good soils are grouped together (E&G)
and Moderately Good soils are a group
of their own (MODG). The extent of
these soils in the study area is determined
using a GIS application.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 35
Student/Research Corner
Economic Feasibility of Groundwater Banking on Agricultural Land – Continued
Agronomic Model and
Economic Feasibility
The economic implications of Ag-GB
are estimated considering changes in:
(1) Pumping costs derived from Ag-GB
implementation, and (2) Farming costs,
which include changes in cost of surface
water and groundwater, production costs
(i.e., establishment and production) and
additional costs likely to take place upon
Ag-GB implementation (e.g., additional
labor, berms, pesticides). All results are
converted to present value. Costs associated with GW pumping increase with
deeper GW levels. The effect of Ag-GB
on GW levels is used to estimate the potential economic consequences of Ag-GB
in terms of Pumping Costs. These annual
costs are converted to present value and
multiplied by their corresponding annual
total pumped water. The sum of these
present-value costs is the total pumping
cost in the period of analysis. Finally, total pumping savings are estimated as the
difference between pumping costs with
no Ag-GB and those under an Ag-GB
scenario (i.e., each combination of w and
Q yields a different result).
The economic feasibility is calculated
using a net-benefit approach. Cost (increased cost of surface water, ΔCSW),
and savings derived from Ag-GB are
compared for all combinations of w
and Q. Results are presented in terms of
pumping and farming cost savings compared to a No Ag-GB Baseline scenario.
$5.00
$5.00
$4.00
$4.00
$3.00
$3.00
$2.00
$2.00
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
MODG
MODG
E&G
E&G
E&G
E&G
Q
Q
250
250
Q
Q
200
200
Q
Q
150
150
Q
Q
427
427
Q
Q
400
400
Q
Q
350
350
Q
Q
300
300
Q
Q
250
250
Q
Q
200
200
Q
Q
100
100
Q
Q
150
150
Q Q 50 Q 50 Q 25 Q 25 Q 5 Q 5
Q Q 50 Q 50 Q 25 Q 25 Q 5 Q 5
100
100
MODG
MODG
E&G
E&G
Q
Q
300
300
E&G
E&G
MODG
MODG
Q
Q
350
350
E&G
E&G
MODG
MODG
Q
Q
400
400
E&G
E&G
MODG
MODG
Q
Q
427
427
MODG
MODG
MODG
MODG
MODG
MODG
MODG
MODG
$$-
MODG
MODG
$1.00
$1.00
MODG
MODG
ANNUAL
ANNUALNET
NETBENEFIT
BENEFIT($/ACRE-FEET)
($/ACRE-FEET)
$6.00
$6.00
Figure 5. Average annual net benefits ($/acre-feet) from pumping savings (Unmodified SAGBI)
Figure
5. Average
net benefits
($/acre-feet)
fromSAGBI)
pumping savings
Figure 5. Average
annual netannual
benefits ($/acre-feet)
from pumping
savings (Unmodified
(Unmodified SAGBI)
ANNUALIZED
ANNUALIZEDNET
NETBENEFITS
BENEFITSAG-GB
AG-GBALFALFA
ALFALFA
GROWERS
GROWERS($/ACRE)
($/ACRE)
OAWD receives water from the
Tehama-Colusa Canal through five
turnouts with a maximum Q of 427 cfs.
However, this study considers a range
of Q values rather than a single one.
The rationale for this is the fact that
OAWD may not be able to distribute
427 cfs onto Ag-GB fields in a limited
time frame (24 hours in this case). To
minimize the probability of crop damage, the model estimates the maximum
amount of water that can be infiltrated
in one day (i.e., every day there is excess
water in a year). These considerations
are evaluated using a simple linear optimization model.
$30.00
$30.00
$25.00
$25.00
$20.00
$20.00
$15.00
$15.00
$10.00
$10.00
$5.00
$5.00
$$-
0
0
50
50
100
100
150
200
250
300
150
200
250
300
PROPOSED CONVEYANCE CAPACITY Q (CFS)
PROPOSED CONVEYANCE CAPACITY Q (CFS)
AG-GB alfalfa grower E&G
AG-GB alfalfa grower E&G
Non Ag-GB grower E&G
Non Ag-GB grower E&G
350
350
400
400
450
450
Ag-GB alfalfa grower MODG
Ag-GB alfalfa grower MODG
Non Ag-GB grower MODG
Non Ag-GB grower MODG
Figure 6. Average annual net benefits for Ag-GB alfalfa growers and non Ag-GB growers under different combinations of Q and
Figure 6. Average
annual netannual
benefits fornet
Ag-GB
alfalfa growers
non Ag-GB
growers growers
under different
combinations
of Q and
Figure
6. Average
benefits
forand
Ag-GB
alfalfa
and
non Ag-GB
w
w
growers under different combinations of Q and w
Results
Figure 4 shows pumping savings derived from implementation of Ag-GB.
Results suggest that Qs greater than 250
cfs would not yield greater savings. This
is due to the banking capacity of the
soils. The greatest pumping cost savings
are yielded by alfalfa fields with MODG
soils. These savings are compared to
ΔCSW to determine net benefits from
Ag-GB in terms of pumping costs in
OAWD (Figure 5). The annual net benefits range from $0.16/acre-ft to $4.78/
acre-ft. When comparing only pumping
savings versus ΔCSW, all combinations
of Q and w show potential to be eco-
nomically feasible. However, it would
be prudent to consider combinations
of Q greater than 50 cfs, because this
will make the benefits more significant
(greater than $1/acre-ft).
Finally, annualized net benefits in
terms of farming costs are presented in
Figure 6. Here, net benefits are grouped
in two categories: alfalfa growers
using their land for Ag-GB (Ag-GB
alfalfa grower), and the rest of growers
in OAWD (Non Ag-GB growers).
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 36
Student/Research Corner
Economic Feasibility of Groundwater Banking on Agricultural Land – Continued
Discussion and Conclusions
The main constraints for implementation of
Ag-GB identified in this study are: (1) existence of
suitable soils, (2) types of crops grown on these soils,
(3) water infrastructure, and (4) availability of excess
water. These constraints are illustrated in Figure 7,
which serves as a first screening for determining if
Ag-GB seems operationally viable. Other limiting
factors, such as water quality and institutional concerns, can be added. Based on these considerations, it
is concluded that OAWD has the elements necessary
for implementation of Ag-GB. Furthermore, results
from the model suggest that this practice has potential
to be economically feasible. These results, however,
represent a rough approximation of the overall hydrologic behavior in the study area and the potential
economic impacts of implementing Ag-GB. Close attention must be given to: (a) limitations to how much
water can be diverted onto Ag-GB fields regardless
of how much water is available in streams as excess
water (a function of the type of soil and acreage), (b)
diverting small amounts of water (50 cfs or less) for
Ag-GB is likely to raise more costs than benefits, and
(c) participation of all growers in the irrigation district
is an important component to keeping repayment of
Ag-GB implementation costs low.
The application of a comprehensive groundwater
model will determine more accurately if the behavior
of the underlying aquifer allows for similar economic
benefits to those estimated in this study to take place.
It is important to point out that incentives (monetary or not) for growers participating in Ag-GB will
play a key role in implementing Ag-GB programs.
Another challenge is keeping suitable soils and crops
overlapping (i.e., alfalfa on Excellent and Good soils) over
Figure 7. Operational viability of Ag-GB
Figure 7. Operational viability of Ag-GB
time. Other crops, such as row crops, vineyards, orchards,
1
and even fallowed land have been tested for Ag-GB; vineyards
Former Hydrologic Sciences Graduate Group student. University of
California at Davis
were found to be highly successful (Bachand et al., 2014).
2
David Ford Consulting Engineers
However, water-quality concerns are significant due to fertil3
izers and pesticides used, and potential increased leaching of
Assistant professor, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources.
University of California at Davis
natural contaminants (e.g., U, Se). At a larger scale, alfalfa,
4
grapes, and fallowed land cover about 1.2 million acres in the
Water Resources Specialist, University of California Cooperative Extension
Central Valley with Excellent and Good soils according to
References
SAGBI. Assuming that 1 foot of excess water can be mobilized
Bachand, P. A., Roy, S. B., Choperena, J., Cameron, D., & Horwath, W.
to these soils, 1.2 million acre-ft of water could be banked in
R. (2014). Implications of Using On-Farm Flood Flow Capture To Reone day (O’Geen et al., 2015)! Of course, it would be chalcharge Groundwater and Mitigate Flood Risks Along the Kings River,
lenging to convey this amount of water in one day, but clearly,
CA. Environmental science & technology, 48(23), 13601-13609.
Ag-GB has potential to change the way water is managed in
O’Geen, A., Saal, M., Dahlke, H., Doll, D., Elkins, R., Fulton, A., Fogg,
California if implemented wisely. A paradigm shift is needed to
G., Harter, T., Hopmans, J.W., Ingels, C., Niederholzer, F., Sandoval
depart from dated mentalities on groundwater to make room
Solis, S., Verdegaal, P., & Walkinshaw, M. (2015). Soil suitability infor implementing Ag-GB in the future of California water
dex identifies potential areas for groundwater banking on agricultural
management.
lands. California Agriculture, 69(2), 75-84.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 37
Feature
GRA Honors the California Department of Water Resources
California Department of Water Resources conducts numerous important
activities over the last decade advancing groundwater management
A
t the 30th Biennial Groundwater Conference and 24th
Groundwater Resources Association Annual Meeting, Ted Johnson, the GRA President (2014-2015),
presented to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) the
Kevin J. Neese Award for its many
efforts toward advancing groundwater
management in the state of California.
Mary Scruggs, Supervising Engineering
Geologist, accepted the 2015 Kevin J.
Neese Award on behalf of DWR.
Over the last several years, DWR
has provided a significant amount of
technical and financial support to local
agencies to advance groundwater planning, management, and conjunctive use
through its Regional Partnerships, Integrated Regional Water Management,
and Drought Grant programs.
DWR also created the Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim), which has
greatly improved our understanding of
the hydrology of the Central Valley.
In 2010, DWR began implementation of the California Statewide
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
(CASGEM) Program. The CASGEM
Program partners with local agencies
to systematically monitor groundwater
elevations in California’s groundwater
basins, and makes these data available
to the public through an online system.
In 2013, DWR published the California Water Plan Update with greatly
enhanced groundwater content and
coverage. DWR used groundwater
elevation data from the CASGEM Program to create maps of hydrogeologic
conditions and to show how water
levels have changed over time. A GIS
tool was created to estimate the change
in groundwater storage over specified
Mary Scruggs accepts the Kevin J.
Neese Award on behalf of DWR.
GRA President Ted Johnson presented
the award. Photo by Tim Parker.
time periods in some groundwater basins. DWR also surveyed water agencies and entities in order to determine
the extent that conjunctive-use and
water-management projects are being
implemented in California. In 2015,
DWR published a stand-alone groundwater document containing individual
reports of groundwater conditions in
the state’s 10 hydrologic regions.
In 2014, the historic Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) was passed by the legislature
and signed into law by the governor;
DWR was identified as the department
that would implement major portions
of the new law. Due to many activities
and a compressed time-frame, DWR
quickly began implementation of
SGMA. Some of the activities involved
in this implementation include:
• Drafting of a Strategic Plan for
the Groundwater Sustainability
Program
• Conducting significant outreach to
stakeholders
• Developing a process for
prospective Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to
notify DWR of their intent
• Developing regulations for
modifying the basin boundaries
identified in Bulletin 118
• Developing regulations for
Groundwater Sustainability Plans
(GSPs)
• Identifying critically overdrafted
basins
• Planning for Bulletin 118 updates
• Prioritizing the state’s groundwater
basins.
The recent passing of SB 83 modified
the California Water Code to require that
DWR provide public access to previously
confidential Well Completion Reports
(WCRs). As part of the implementation of the new law, DWR developed
a web-based tool to enable electronic
submittal of WCRs (Online System for
Well Completion Reports, or OSWCR).
OSWCR is also being modified for future
public access to the WCRs.
During the ongoing drought, DWR
has provided significant drought response,
planning, and reporting activities.
These accomplishments clearly show
how deeply DWR is involved in promoting effective groundwater resource
management in California. DWR’s job
doesn’t stop here; it is fully engaged in
implementation of SGMA and will be
meeting, and assisting local agencies to
meet, new milestones for years to come.
The Kevin J. Neese Award celebrates
significant accomplishment by a person
or entity that fosters the understanding,
development, protection, or management of groundwater in California. In
2015, GRA recognizes the many accomplishments of DWR that embody the
spirit of the Keven J. Neese Award.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 38
Feature
David K. Todd Distinguished Lecturers for 2016
G
RA proudly announces the speakers for the sixth year
of its David Keith Todd Distinguished Lecture Series.
Dr. Miranda Fram (northern California) and Behrooz
Mortazavi (southern California) have enthusiastically accepted the 2016 David Keith Todd Lectureship. The objective
of this program is to foster interest and excellence in applied
groundwater science and technology through GRA-sponsored
lectures at California universities, and at local and statewide
GRA events. This objective furthers a key GRA objective:
to develop scientific educational programs that promote the
understanding and effective implementation of groundwater
assessment, protection, and management.
GRA held Dr. David Keith Todd in the highest esteem for his
enormous contributions to groundwater science and technology,
and in 1999 awarded him GRA’s Lifetime Achievement Award.
We pay tribute to his legacy as a groundwater science and education leader by naming the series in his honor. Lecturers for this
series go through a nomination and evaluation process that ensures highly-qualified individuals are selected to represent GRA
and David Keith Todd’s legacy.
Dr. Fram will generally give presentations in northern California, and Mr. Mortazavi will generally give presentations in
southern California. Each lecturer will provide a minimum
of five lectures, including two at GRA Branch Meetings and
two at academic institutions along with a “wrap-up” lecture
at GRA’s Annual Conference and Meeting held during the fall.
Lecture Series funding comes from sponsors; voluntary support from the lecturer’s institution, organization or firm; and
support from the universities hosting the lecturer. Universities
and GRA Branches interested in hosting a lecture should contact Wes Miliband with the GRA Education Committee (wes.
miliband@stoel.com) no later than December 31, 2015. Look
for the Lecture Series schedule to be posted on GRA’s website.
Miranda Fram, Ph.D.
(Northern California)
Geochemist
Program Chief,
Groundwater Ambient
Monitoring and Assessment
Priority Basin Project
United States Geological
Survey
Lecture: Quality of Groundwater Used for Public
Drinking Water Supplies in
California
Fram’s presentation provides an overview of the GAMA
Program Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP), and draws on
results from more than 10 years of GAMA-PBP studies to illustrate the primary factors affecting groundwater quality in
California. GAMA-PBP is a SWRCB program implemented by
the USGS and designed to assess the quality of groundwater
in aquifers used for drinking water supplies statewide, to help
better understand the risks to groundwater resources, and to
increase availability of information about groundwater quality
to the public. Groundwater provides approximately half of the
water used for public and domestic drinking water supplies in
California. Assessment of nearly all of the groundwater used
for public supply statewide indicated that about 20% has high
concentrations for one or more constituents of concern. High
concentrations are defined as greater than state and federal
maximum contaminant levels set for drinking water standards,
or for constituents without MCLs, other human-health based
benchmarks. On a statewide basis, trace elements, such as
arsenic, manganese, and uranium, were found to be more
prevalent at high concentrations than either nitrate or organic
compounds. However, different areas of the state had different
combinations of constituents prevalent at high concentrations,
reflecting three primary factors controlling groundwater quality. (1) Time: Wells may tap mixtures of groundwater with ages
ranging from just a few years to several tens of thousands of
years, and groundwater of different ages commonly has different chemical compositions. (2) Hydrogeologic conditions: The
geochemistry of sediments and rocks through which groundwater percolates determines which constituents are available
to dissolve into the water, and groundwater flow patterns
affect how these constituents move in the aquifers. (3) Human
activities: Anthropogenic contaminants, such as nitrate and
organic compounds, may be intentionally or unintentionally
introduced to groundwater in agricultural, urban, and industrial environments. Furthermore, groundwater pumping and
irrigation may cause changes to hydrogeologic conditions that
result in changes in groundwater quality.
Miranda Fram has been a geochemist with the U.S. Geological Survey California Water Science Center since 1997. She
received her Ph.D. from Columbia University in Geological
Sciences. While with USGS, she has worked and published on
a variety of water quality issues, ranging from characterizing
natural organic matter from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
environments, to tracking the fate of trihalomethanes in aquifer storage and recovery operations, to assessing water quality
in aquifers used for drinking water supplies statewide. Since
2012 she has been lead scientist and program chief for the
USGS implementation of the California State Water Resources
Control Board’s (SWRCB) California Groundwater Ambient
Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Priority Basin Project.
Continued on the following page…
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 39
Feature
David K. Todd Distinguished Lecturers for 2016 – Continued
Behrooz Mortazavi
(Southern California)
Principal
Water Resources
Engineering Inc.
Lecture: Role of Groundwater in Integrated Water
Resources Management
Many water agencies and
water resources authorities
in California and around
the world are interested
in increasing their supply
reliability during critically dry conditions. These entities continuously try to expand use of local resources in an effort to
improve water supply reliability in their region. Use of potable
groundwater, desalinated groundwater, and storage of surface
water or recycled water in the local aquifers are some of the
elements that can enhance water supply reliability. Implementation of these elements requires existence of water rights, and
existence of a viable water resources management plan. In
addition, water quality variations and geo-political dynamics
play an important role in the structure of these management
plans. This talk reviews political, environmental, and technical challenges for implementing an integrated resources plan.
EMWD’s local resource planning will be used as a case study
to demonstrate how EMWD used its available groundwater
resources to implement a successful integrated resources plan
in Southern California.
For over two decades, Behrooz Mortazavi was in charge
of developing and implementing water resources management
plans at Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), located
60 miles southeast of Los Angeles. During his tenure, EMWD
secured its groundwater water rights after an Indian Water
Rights Settlement, which was enacted by Congress; initiated
an Integrated Resources Plan; designed and implemented an
integrated recharge and recovery program to mitigate groundwater overdraft; and maximized the use of recycled water
to meet agricultural, environmental habitat, and municipal
irrigation demands in its jurisdiction.
The tools you need.
Eco-Rental Solutions has invested in a brand-new fleet of
Eco-Rental
Solutions
instrumentation. We provide the newest technology, offering
improved detection and better data logging, with reliable
performance to match!
The service you deserve.
3 Convenient
California Locations
Tustin, CA
949-398-4600
San Diego, CA
619-655-4662
Emeryville, CA
510-201-9448
We are extremely passionate about the environmental testing
equipment and instrumentation business. Our staff has over
100 years of combined experience and is committed to serving
your project needs. Let us provide your company an efficient,
user friendly, rental and sales process that will save you time
and money.
Rent with us. You’ll see the difference!
Equipment Rental,
Sales, and Service
• Self-certified Small Business
• Convenient 24/7 keypad entry
• Full stock of consumable field supplies
• Custom designed solutions for your equipment needs
eco-rentalsolutions.com
• Experienced, knowledgeable, and friendly staff
• Brand-new fleet of instruments, featuring the latest technology.
Rent from us today at eco-rentalsolutions.com
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 40
Feature
GRA 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award Goes to
USGS Research Hydrologist Dr. John Izbicki
D
r. John Izbicki, USGS Research Hydrologist, was
given GRA’s Lifetime Achievement Award at the 30th
Biennial Groundwater Conference and GRA’s 24th
Annual Meeting, held in Sacramento on October 6–7, 2015.
Presenting the award was GRA Director Murray Einarson of
Haley & Aldrich. A USGS veteran of more than 30 years, Dr.
Izbicki has contributed important and innovative scientific
knowledge on California-focused groundwater topics ranging from naturally-occurring chromium in the Mojave Desert
to the occurrence of selenium in the Central Valley; from processes that control recharge in thick vadose zones in Southern
California to vertical flow in water supply wells; and from
naturally-occurring nitrate, to seawater intrusion, to geologic
controls on mercury in a coastal Southern California aquifer.
Dr. Izbicki was a unanimous choice for GRA’s 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award. His research often involves the
development of novel and creative methods of data collection
and chemical analyses. For example, he was the lead developer
of technologies for performing high-resolution vertical flow
measurements and collection of depth-discrete groundwater
samples in actively-pumped wells. This new method of collecting groundwater samples and measuring in-well flow
facilitates the calculation of vertical profiles of hydraulic conductivity and aquifer concentrations of specific analytes. The
patented well-profiling technology developed by Dr. Izbicki
and others is now commercially available and constitutes an
important new technology for performing high-resolution vertical characterization of subsurface hydrogeologic conditions
and groundwater chemistry.
John Izbicki of USGS, recipient of GRA’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Photo by Anke Mueller-Solger.
One supporter of his nomination wrote “John is the type of
scientist who makes you think there may be more than one of
him, as his name comes up in so many contexts, on so many
different projects, and regarding so many research topics. From
the downhole sampling device nicknamed the ‘Izzymobile’ to
incorporation of new analytical methods for trace elements to
assembling a great research team, John’s projects are of high
quality and great significance.”
Another supporter characterized Dr. Izbicki’s contributions
this way: “While John’s accomplishments span multiple domains, there are several key commonalities. John has always
combined rigorous fieldwork and data collection with sophisticated analysis and modeling, addressed the linkage between
groundwater flow and geochemistry, and advanced basic science while addressing real world problems.”
For his many contributions to the understanding of California groundwater, Dr. Izbicki is particularly deserving of GRA’s
2015 Lifetime Achievement Award.
John Izbicki of USGS (right) receiving GRA’s Lifetime Achievement Award from Murray Einarson, a GRA Director. Photo
by Tim Parker.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 41
Organizational Corner
GRA Welcomes the Following New Members
AUGUST 6 – NOVEMBER 1, 2015
Joven, Ariana Potter, Reid
Crews, Jesse
Harrison, Michael
Valles, Richard
Bobbitt, John
Dominic, Kathryn
Freeman, Emma
Ludwig, Randy Bruneio, Jim Whiton, Ted
Nguyen, Tuan
Sperber, Michael
Snelgrove, Paul
Kassab, Bassam
Skov, Erik Skov
Elson, Kimberly
Burdick, Katie
Dockery, Randy
Dyer, Kelley
Kaltreider, Misty
Rathnayake, Dharme
Moore, Rebecca
Trevino, Jennifer
Chapman, Jonathan
Kincaid, Todd
Gaiser, Erik
Rivers, Shannon
Altare, Craig
Shamma, Rakan
Linker, Billy
Ricker, John
Matsumoto, Sandi
Eterbari, Behrooz
Beane, Kerry
Bilga, Navneet
Dewey, Thomas
Prakash, Pavithra
Luiz, Gary
Baugh, Steve
Flock, Laddie Dietrich-Foronda, Heidi
DuBay, Ann
Bloxom, Lyndsey
Morris, Daniel
Davis, Rachel
Pritchard, John
Mooney, Aisling
California Polytechnic
State University
Stanford University
California State University,
Los Angeles
Woodward Drilling Company, Inc.
Entropic Lifestyles
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
ENGEO
National EWP
GHD
PeneCore Drilling
PeneCore Drilling
PeneCore Drilling
Santa Clara Valley Water District
AECOM
Ahtna Facility Services, Inc.
Burdick & Company
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc
City of Santa Barbara
Solano County
TRC Solutions, Inc.
California State University
Monterey Bay
McGeorge School of Law
North Carolina State University
GeoHydros, LLC
Yellow Jacket Drilling Services
EBMUD
RMC Water and Environment
The University of Melbourne
Geosyntec Consultants
County of Santa Cruz
The Nature Conservancy
Agralogics Inc
Agralogics Inc
Agralogics Inc
Fresh Ph.D Graduate
The Water Group LLC
The Water Group LLC
The Water Group LLC
Amec Foster Wheeler
Sonoma County Water Agency
G3SoilWorks
WRD
County of Sacramento
Wood Rodgers, Inc.
Crawford Consulting, Inc.
Pavelchik, Matt
Forker, Susan
Stent, Peter
Kleven, Alana
Robertson, Craig
Kieta, Andrew
Wilkinson, James
DeBoer, William
Howard, Matthew
State Water Resources
Control Board
Green Environment inc
Willow Creek Ranch
CSUMB
Ahtna Facility Services, Inc.
Golden State Water Compnay
CAL EPA/DTSC
CH2M HILL
Mojave Water Agency
GRA Extends Sincere Appreciation
to the Co-Chairs and Exhibitors of
the Naturally Occurring Compounds
of Regulatory Concern Symposium
CO-CHAIRS:
Murray Einarson, Haley & Aldrich
Emily Vavricka, EEC Environmental
EXHIBITORS:
BESST, Inc. | Blaine Tech Services
Cascade Drilling | Confluence Environmental
Field Services | Gregg Drilling and Testing, Inc.
National EWP | Yellow Jacket Drilling Services
GRA Extends Sincere Appreciation
to the Co-Chairs, Exhibitors and
Sponsor of the New Groundwater
Sustainability Plans: Raising the Bar
on Groundwater Management
CO-CHAIRS:
Tim Parker, Parker Groundwater
Jim Strandberg, West Yost Associates
EXHIBITORS:
National Exploration, Wells & Pumps
Enviro-Tech Services Company
REFRESHMENT SPONSOR:
Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 42
Organizational Corner
2015 Contributors to GRA – Thank You
(As of 11/4/2015)
FOUNDER ($1,000 and up)
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Janie McGinn
Roscoe Moss Company
PATRON ($500-$999)
CORPORATE ($250-$499)
David Abbott
CHARTER ($100-$249)
Bob Abrams
Bob Cleary
Stanley Feenstra
Adam Hutchinson
Sally McCraven
Steven Phillips
Iris Priestaf
Brian Wagner
SPONSOR ($25-$99)
David Abbott
Lydia Beth Ainsworth
Charles Almestad
Matt Angell
Casey Armstrong
Peter Bennett
Douglas Bleakly
Ahnna Brossy
BSK Associates
Katie Burdick
Andres Cano
Alan Churchill
Bob Cleary
Vanessade la Piedra
Randy Dockery
Jessica Donovan
Joshua Ewert
Geoff Fiedler
Scott Gable
Erik Gaiser
Tim Gorham
Chip Gribble
Griffith & Masuda
Mark Grivetti
Dave Hamel
Thomas Harter
Thurston Hertler
HydroFocus, Inc.
Nicholas Johnson
Jurupa Community Services District
Bassam Kassab
Carol Kendall
Todd Kincaid
Ted Koelsch
Jeff Kubran
Michael LeBouef
Timothy Leo
Sigmund Lindner GmbH
Billy Linker
Richard Makdisi
MAR Systems Inc.
Mohsen Mehran
Rebecca Moore
Jean Moran
Alec Naugle
Aaron O’Brien
Tim Parker
Rob Pexton
Jon Philipp
Christine Pilachowski
Bryan Pilkington
William Pipes
Lisa Porta
George Reid
William Sedlak
Sigmund Linder GmbH
Erik Skov
Robert Smith
The Source Group, Inc.
Ross Steenson
Sylvia Stork
Kevin Sullivan
Eddy Teasdale
Mike Tietze
Ward Van Proosdij
Maria Vishnevskiy
Wagner & Bonsignore Engineers
Susan Williams
Jeremy Wilson
Jeremy Wire
SUPPORTERS
Mustafa Al Kuisi
Samantha Baldwin
Matthew Bates
Gabrielle Boisrame
Kit Custis
Melanie Schumacher
Amy Terrell
Stephanie Uriostegui
Michelle Wood
Jeffrey Zane
GRA Extends Sincere
Appreciation to the Chairs,
Sponsors and Exhibitors
of the 30th Biennial
Groundwater Conference
& 24th GRA Annual
Meeting
CHAIR:
Lisa O’Boyle, Geosyntec
Consultants
CO-CHAIRS:
Jim Strandberg,
West Yost Associates
Steve Phillips,
United States Geological Survey
CO-SPONSORS:
DHI Water and Environment
GEI Consultants
Geosyntec Consultants
LUNCH SPONSOR:
GHD
RECEPTION BAR SPONSOR:
Woodward Drilling Company, Inc.
EXHIBITORS:
Blaine Tech Services
Cascade Drilling
Confluence Environmental
Field Services
EnviroTech
EOS Remediation
GeoHydros, LLC
Gregg Drilling and Testing, Inc.
Health Science Associates
In Situ
National Exploration,
Wells & Pumps
Sigmund Linder
Solinst Canada, Ltd.
The Water Group
True Blue Technologies Inc.
Woodward Drilling Company, Inc.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 43
Branch Highlights
Southern California
By Emily Vavricka,
Branch Secretary
the model criteria are: (1) area-specific
required groundwater monitoring near
stimulation wells by operators, (2) requirements for designated contractor sampling
and testing, and (3) implementation of
regional-scale groundwater monitoring
by the State Water Board. Mr. Borkovich
gave an update on how SB4 and the recent
adoption of the Model Criteria have so
far been implemented and abided by the
oil and gas industry. Recently, DOGGR
and the State Water Board have also been
facing issues related to the Underground
Injection Control program, the definition
of beneficial waters, and what classifies an
“exempt” aquifer. In August, DOGGR
and the State Water Board proposed
aquifer exemption in an area of San Luis
Obispo to allow injection of produced
water into the aquifer. Mr. Borkovich’s
presentation ended with a lively Q&A
session, which addressed many relevant
concerns regarding future oil and gas
activities in California and the impact on
groundwater quality.
The Branch would again like to thank
all GRA Members and non-members for
attending the September event. A special
thank-you also goes out to all of our sponsors for 2015 for contributing to the So
Cal Branch scholastic fund.
O
n September 30, 2015, the GRA
Southern California Branch
held its monthly dinner meeting, which featured John Borkovich,
Groundwater Monitoring Section Chief,
State Water Resources Control Board.
Mr. Borkovich provided an overview
of the State Water Board’s Role in Oil
and Gas Activities in California. The
State Water Board and the California
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) are responsible for
the oversight and regulation of oil and
gas activities in California. Senate Bill 4
(SB4), which passed in 2013, called for
permitting and regulation of oil and gas
activities and required associated companies to conduct groundwater monitoring
before and after oil and gas activities. SB4
required the State Water Board to develop
criteria pertaining to monitoring of oil
and gas stimulation activities. On July
1, 2015, the State Water Board adopted
groundwater monitoring Model Criteria
for SB4. The three main components of
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 44
Parting Shot
La Brea Tar Pits, Los Angeles
L
ocated in metropolitan Los Angeles, the La Brea Tar
Pits contain one of the world’s richest, best preserved,
and studied assemblages of Pleistocene vertebrates, including at least 59 species of mammals and over 135 species
of birds. In total, over 3.5-million fossils representing 660
animal and plant species have been excavated from the La
Brea Tar Pits. The tar pits formed as asphalt seeped upward
from an underlying oil field for the past 40,000 years. The
asphalt, often covered with dust, leaves or water, would trap
herbivores, which would then attract carnivores and scavengers who would also became stuck and preserved in the tar.
Ice-Age megafauna include: mammoths, mastodons,
saber-toothed cats, camels, dire wolves, ground sloths, western horse, ancient bison, and short-faced bears. Beginning
in the 1970s, research started focusing on smaller specimens
and microfossils, such as mollusks, rodents, insects, lizards,
and pollen. Although many smaller species still survive, most
of the large Ice-Age mammals became extinct about 11,000
years ago. The paleontology of the La Brea Tar Pits contributed to a better understanding of the Los Angeles basin
during the last Ice Age, revealing a cooler and wetter climate.
The newly-named La Brea Tar Pits Museum (located in the
George C. Page Museum building) displays Ice-Age fossils
ranging in age from 10,000 to 40,000 years. The La Brea Tar Pits is a registered National Natural Landmark.
Outside of the Museum in Hancock Park, the Pleistocene Garden and iconic life-size replicas of extinct
mammals depict the life that once grew, and roamed, in the Los Angeles Basin.
For additional information refer to: http://www.tarpits.org/la-brea-tar-pits.
by John Karachewski, Ph.D.
Approximate GPS coordinates are: 34.062639° and -118.355541°
(www.geoscapesphotography.com)
www.geosyntec.com
Geosyntec Consultants is a proud sponsor of the
David Keith Todd Distinguished Lecture Series.
HYDROVISIONS – WINTER 2015 | PAGE 45