Groundwater Management Principles and Strategies to Monitor, Analyze and Minimize Impacts to Drinking Water Wells: A Framework for State Action to Support Drought Resilient Communities

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 15th, 2021

This framework was developed in response to support drinking water access for groundwater-dependent communities.

This framework was developed in response to support drinking water access for groundwater-dependent communities.

Groundwater Quality in the San Fernando–San Gabriel Groundwater Basins, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | March 31st, 2012

Groundwater residence time estimates obscured by anthropogenic carbonate

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | April 21st, 2021

Groundwater is an important source of drinking and irrigation water. Dating groundwater informs its vulnerability to contamination and aids in calibrating flow models. He

Groundwater is an important source of drinking and irrigation water. Dating groundwater informs its vulnerability to contamination and aids in calibrating flow models. Here, we report measurements of multiple age tracers (14C, 3H, 39Ar, and 85Kr) and parameters relevant to dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) from 17 wells in California’s San Joaquin Valley (SJV), an agricultural region that is heavily reliant on groundwater. We find evidence for a major mid-20th century shift in groundwater DIC input from mostly closed- to mostly open-system carbonate dissolution, which we suggest is driven by input of anthropogenic carbonate soil amendments. Crucially, enhanced open-system dissolution, in which DIC equilibrates with soil CO2, fundamentally affects the initial 14C activity of recently recharged groundwater. Conventional 14C dating of deeper SJV groundwater, assuming an open system, substantially overestimates residence time and thereby underestimates susceptibility to modern contamination. Because carbonate soil amendments are ubiquitous, other groundwater-reliant agricultural regions may be similarly affected.

Groundwater salinity in the southern San Joaquin Valley

American Association of Petroleum Geologists | August 1st, 2018

Water salinity in the San Joaquin Valley is a function of depth, location, and stratigraphy. This paper presents a reconnaissance study of water salinity within Kern Coun

Water salinity in the San Joaquin Valley is a function of depth, location, and stratigraphy. This paper presents a reconnaissance study of water salinity within Kern County, California, using chemical analyses from oil field produced water and water wells as well as geophysical logs. Log analysis indicates that the base of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) (<10,000 mg/L) slopes from northwest to southeast. Lab analyses show that USDWs extend to depths as great as 1900 m (6233.5 ft) southeast of Bakersfield. This area receives the greatest amount of fresh water recharge from streams flowing westward from the Sierras. The marine Olcese Sand is more saline than the overlying and underlying aquifers and separates the aquifers into an upper and lower USDW. Log analysis also indicates a zone of higher salinity separating zones of lower salinity in this area. Salinities in the west are higher, and depths to base USDW are variable. Although waters in many sands in the western valley are more saline than 3000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS), numerous wells contain waters between 3000 and 10,000 ppm at depths of less than 600 m (1968.5 ft), particularly in the nonmarine Tulare Formation. At North Belridge field, a salinity reversal is apparent below 2100 m (6890 ft). Waters above this depth are approxi- mately 40,000 mg/L TDS, whereas water salinities below 2200 m (7218 ft) range from 10,000 to 32,000 mg/L. Extremely high salinities are found in several wells less than 30 m (98 ft) deep, primarily in the northwestern area. These may be perched aquifers or lie adjacent to unmapped agricultural drainage sumps and do not reflect salinities in the regional aquifer.

Groundwater Transport: Handbook of Mathematical Models

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 1st, 1984

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 10. Concerns over groundwater pollution have resulted in the passag

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 10. Concerns over groundwater pollution have resulted in the passage of legislation during the last decade calling for pollution control and remedial measures to ensure proper drinking water quality. There are two main types of groundwater pollution caused by man: (1) pollution caused by the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers over agricultural lands, where the source of contamination covers a relatively large area, and (2) pollution caused by industries and municipalities, which is generally more localized. For the second type, because the contamination in the groundwater is localized, the design of any remedial measure requires knowledge of the extent of the contaminant plume. Various mathematical methods may be used for estimating the size, shape, and development of a localized contaminant plume. It is the need for these mathematical methodologies that forms the main impetus for the preparation of this monograph.

Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater

Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater quality is degraded by constituents that occur naturally (e.g., arsenic). In many urban and rural areas, groundwater quality degradation has resulted from a wide range of human (anthropogenic) activities. Groundwater remediation is necessary to improve the quality of degraded groundwater for beneficial use. Drinking water supply is the beneficial use that typically requires remediation when groundwater quality is degraded. Contaminants in groundwater can come from a many sources, naturally occurring and anthropogenic. Examples of naturally occurring contaminants include heavy metals and radioactive constituents, as well as high concentrations of various salts from specific geologic formations or conditions. Climate change that results in altered precipitation, snowfall patterns, and rising sea levels may exacerbate salt water intrusion and flooding of low-lying infrastructure and urban facilities. These phenomena will add new challenges to protection of groundwater from contamination. In addition, groundwater can be contaminated by anthropogenic sources with organic, inorganic, and radioactive constituents from point and non-point sources. These anthropogenic sources include industrial sites, mining operations, leaking fuel tanks and pipelines, manufactured gas plants, landfills, impoundments, dairies, septic systems, and urban and agricultural activities. The contaminant having the most widespread and adverse impact on drinking water wells is arsenic, followed by nitrates, naturally occurring radioactivity, industrial/commercial solvents, and pesticides. Groundwater remediation removes constituents, hereafter called contaminants, which affect beneficial use of groundwater. Groundwater remediation systems can employ passive or active methods to remove contaminants. Passive groundwater remediation allows contaminants to degrade biologically or chemically or disperse in situ over time. Active groundwater remediation involves either treating contaminated groundwater while it is still in the aquifer (in situ) or extracting contaminated groundwater from the aquifer and treating it outside of the aquifer (ex situ). Active in situ methods generally involve injecting chemicals into the contaminant plume to obtain a chemical or biological removal of the contaminant. Ex situ methods for treating contaminated groundwater can involve physical, chemical, and/or biological processes.

Guide for Developing Onsite Water Systems to Support Regional Water Resilience

Pacific Institute | January 26th, 2023

Across the United States, urban communities face growing water challenges, from water scarcity to flooding, pollution, aging water infrastructure, and more. These challen

Across the United States, urban communities face growing water challenges, from water scarcity to flooding, pollution, aging water infrastructure, and more. These challenges present risks, but also an opportunity to rethink how we manage water, including adopting circular approaches in new buildings that reduce their water footprint and improve urban water resilience. Onsite water systems, for example, collect, treat, and reuse water from onsite sources, including wastewater, rainwater, and stormwater, for non-potable water uses like toilet flushing, outdoor irrigation, and cooling. Onsite water systems have the potential to provide multiple benefits for a site, water and wastewater systems, ecosystems, and communities. They can, for example, help companies mitigate water- related risks, like water shortages that threaten to disrupt business operations, and support corporate water stewardship goals. For communities, onsite water systems can enhance water supply reliability, improve water quality, reduce localized flooding, and increase urban green space. The realization and magnitude of benefits will vary with the type of system, scale of adoption, and other context-specific factors. This guide helps site developers consider how onsite water systems can be planned, designed, and operated to provide multiple benefits, and contribute to planning and designing onsite water systems that advance water resilience, support equity, support the environment, and protect public health at the site, water system, and community scales. For each of these outcomes, the guide provides sample questions to consider, stakeholders to engage, resources to examine, and analyses to perform.

Guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water: the role of scientific uncertainty, risk assessment decisions, and social factors

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (Springer) | January 8th, 2019

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. Ther

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. There are currently no federal PFAS drinking water standards despite widespread drinking water contamination, ubiquitous population-level exposure, and toxicological and epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects. Absent federal PFAS standards, multiple U.S. states have developed their own healthbased water guideline levels to guide decisions about contaminated site cleanup and drinking water surveillance and treatment. We examined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) water guideline levels developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies to protect people drinking the water, and summarized how and why these levels differ. We referenced documents and tables released in June 2018 by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) to identify states that have drinking water and groundwater guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS that differ from EPA’s health advisories (HAs). We also gathered assessment documents from state websites and contacted state environmental and health agencies to identify and confirm current guidelines. Seven states have developed their own water guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS ranging from 13 to 1000 ng/L, compared to EPA’s HA of 70 ng/L for both compounds individually or combined. We find that the development of PFAS guideline levels via exposure and hazard assessment decisions is influenced by multiple scientific, technical, and social factors, including managing scientific uncertainty, technical decisions and capacity, and social, political, and economic influences from involved stakeholders. Assessments by multiple states and academic scientists suggest that EPA’s HA is not sufficiently protective. The ability of states to develop their own guideline levels and standards provides diverse risk assessment approaches as models for other state and federal regulators, while a sufficiently protective, scientifically sound, and enforceable federal standard would provide more consistent protection.

Hexavalent Chromium Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | May 4th, 2023

The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is responsible for adopting drinking water standards. Primary drinking

The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is responsible for adopting drinking water standards. Primary drinking water standards, as defined in section 116275 of the California Safe Drinking Water Act (Health & Safety Code (HSC), div. 104, pt. 12, ch. 4, section 116270 et seq.), must be set in accordance with the requirements of HSC 116365. The purpose of the proposed regulation addressed in this Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) is to adopt a primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium in drinking water consisting of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and pertinent monitoring and reporting requirements. Consistent with title 1 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2003(a), the economic impact method used for the assessment was the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

How much potable water is saved by wastewater recycling? Quasi-experimental evidence from California

Resources, Conservation & Recycling (Elsevier) | October 6th, 2021

Recently, California has made large investments in wastewater recycling to replace applications that use potable water. It may be expected that the use of recycled water

Recently, California has made large investments in wastewater recycling to replace applications that use potable water. It may be expected that the use of recycled water reduces potable water use, but such an equivalency is not assured. The addition of recycled water infrastructure in a large Californian water district creates a natural experiment where this work tests how recycled water usage affects primary potable water. This is done using econometric methods for causal inference in an observational setting that mirror a randomized control trial (RCT). From 2001 to 2014, a number of public parks were given recycled water infrastructure, while others in those regions remained exclusively on potable supply. A two-way fixed effects regression is used to produce a difference-in-differences estimate of the average treatment effect of recycled water on total and potable water usage. The results indicate that potable water usage is reduced significantly when a park is connected to the recycled water supply. The estimated rate of displacement in the study period is 81.7%, meaning each unit of recycled water use avoided 0.817 units of potable water usage, which implies the connection of parks to recycled water supply increases total water use. The analysis provides, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical estimate of the water savings claimed by urban water recycling programs, and the first empirical estimate of displacement using quasi-experimental methods. The methodology can be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of recycling programs around the world.