A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California

European Geosciences Union (EGU) | May 7th, 2018

This study is focused on nitrogen loading from a wide variety of crop and land-use types in the Central Valley, California, USA, an intensively farmed region with high�

This study is focused on nitrogen loading from a wide variety of crop and land-use types in the Central Valley, California, USA, an intensively farmed region with high agricultural crop diversity. Nitrogen loading rates for several crop types have been measured based on field-scale experiments, and recent research has calculated nitrogen loading rates for crops throughout the Central Valley based on a mass balance approach. However, research is lacking to infer nitrogen loading rates for the broad diversity of crop and land use types directly from groundwater nitrate measurements. Relating groundwater nitrate measurements to specific crops must account for the uncertainty about and multiplicity in contributing crops (and other land uses) to individual well measurements, and for the variability of nitrogen loading within farms and from farm to farm for the same crop type. In this study, we developed a Bayesian regression model that allowed us to estimate land-use-specific groundwater nitrogen loading rate probability distributions for 15 crop and land-use groups based on a database of recent nitrate measurements from 2149 private wells in the Central Valley. The water and natural, rice, and alfalfa and pasture groups had the lowest median estimated nitrogen loading rates, each with a median estimate below 5 kg N ha -1 yr -1. Confined animal feeding operations (dairies) and citrus and subtropical crops had the greatest median estimated nitrogen loading rates at approximately 269 and 65 kg N ha -1 yr-1, respectively. In general, our probability-based estimates compare favorably with previous direct measurements and with mass-balance-based estimates of nitrogen loading. Nitrogen mass-balance-based estimates are larger than our groundwater nitrate derived estimates for manured and non-manured forage, nuts, cotton, tree fruit, and rice crops. These discrepancies are thought to be due to groundwater age mixing, dilution from infiltrating river water, or denitrification between the time when nitrogen leaves the root zone (point of reference for mass-balance derived loading) and the time and location of groundwater measurement.

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Stanford University | April 17th, 2019

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that ach

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan adoption. Meeting this goal requires GSAs to avoid causing any of the six undesirable results that are central to SGMA, including undesirable result number 4 (UR No. 4) – “significant and unreasonable degraded water quality” throughout the basin. Unlike most other undesirable results, UR No. 4 is the subject of robust federal, state and local regulatory regimes carried out by a number of different entities. While the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards have the broadest responsibilities to protect groundwater quality, many other agencies also have relevant responsibilities. The other distinctive feature of UR No. 4 is that groundwater management that prevents chronic lowering of groundwater levels may be insufficient to prevent significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality. For example, significant changes in groundwater pumping can potentially mobilize naturally occurring constituents or cause migration or expansion of contaminant plumes even when the extracted amount is within the basin’s sustainable yield. This Guide is intended to assist GSAs along with other agencies and stakeholders in understanding the meaning of UR No. 4, and to provide insights into how GSAs can successfully fulfill their legal responsibilities regarding groundwater quality. To avoid UR No. 4 under SGMA, this Guide recommends that GSAs do the following: 1. Understand the existing regulatory regime for groundwater quality and, as necessary, confer with entities that have regulatory authority over groundwater quality in their basins. (See Section 3 of this Guide). 2. Consider existing federal, state and local groundwater quality standards when developing groundwater quality minimum thresholds in their basins. Federal, state or local regulatory requirements were established after careful scientific study, legal review and procedural steps mandated by law. They are designed to protect public health and welfare, and they provide the clearest indication of the point beyond which there is a real risk of an undesirable result. (See Section 3.1). 3. Work closely with their Regional Water Quality Control Boards to address all groundwater quality issues. GSAs working in the Central Valley are especially encouraged to work with the Central Valley Regional Board to address salt and nutrient groundwater contamination. Programs in this region are continuing to evolve and will require that GSAs remain aware of changing regulatory requirements. Additionally, there are many groundwater quality monitoring efforts in this region that are generating a lot of groundwater quality data. These efforts should be aligned with any groundwater monitoring efforts being undertaken by GSAs. (See Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3.2). 4. Use existing groundwater quality data and information to (1) assess and prioritize groundwater quality issues in their basins, (2) meet requirements that GSPs include a description of current and historical groundwater conditions within the basin and (3) serve as either the basis for or a complement to local groundwater quality monitoring programs developed by GSAs. 5. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 3.2) if they identify groundwater quality problems that either arose or were exacerbated after January 1, 2015: • Where there is a significant groundwater quality problem that is clearly under the purview of another agency, confer with that agency and seek to confirm a reasonable plan to address the groundwater quality problem. If such a plan exists, the water quality problem and the plan should be referenced in the GSP. Section 3 and Table 1 in the Guide provide information on existing regulatory programs and the agencies responsible for their enforcement. • Where a significant groundwater quality problem is not clearly under the purview of another agency, or the responsible agency is unable to confirm a reasonable plan to address the problem, confer with Regional or State Board staff, and perhaps affected parties, to identify a reasonable plan to address the problem. If no reasonable plan is identified, and remediating the problem is impractical, excessively wasteful of resources or otherwise infeasible, the GSA should include in the Plan an explanation of the problem and the reasons why remediation is impractical or infeasible. 6. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 5) if they are planning projects or actions that may affect groundwater quality: • Assess the potential impacts that the projects or actions are likely to have on groundwater quality over time. If the GSA concludes that the proposed project or action could have unacceptable adverse impacts on water quality, GSAs should consider options such as revising the project to avoid or mitigate the project’s impacts or developing alternative projects that avoid water quality problems. • Ensure regulatory compliance for any GSP management actions (e.g., recharge projects, water banking) that have the potential to negatively impact water quality in their basins or adjacent basins. (Sections 3 and 5 provide information on regulatory requirements and considerations associated with groundwater recharge and active basin management, respectively.) 7. Develop supplemental groundwater monitoring networks where necessary. Many basins being managed under SGMA have significant water quality data gaps. Thus, GSAs in many basins will likely need to develop or expand local groundwater quality monitoring networks. Decisions to do so should be informed by (1) the extent and quality of existing groundwater quality in the region, (2) the level of groundwater development, (3) the severity of existing groundwater quality issues and their proximity to domestic or irrigation wells, public water supply sources or other vulnerable users, (4) current or proposed groundwater management actions or projects, (5) local resources, and (6) the hydrogeologic complexity of the basin. GSAs are not responsible for enforcing existing water quality standards or collecting data to support existing water quality programs. However, they are responsible for avoiding “significant and unreasonable” degradation of water quality in their basins. Working with federal, state and local water quality monitoring and enforcement entities will help GSAs understand groundwater quality issues in their basins, enabling them to develop GSPs that avoid UR No. 4.

A hybrid machine learning model to predict and visualize nitrate concentration throughout the Central Valley aquifer, California, USA

Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) | June 9th, 2017

Intense demand for water in the Central Valley of California and related increases in groundwater nitrate concentration threaten the sustainability of the groundwater res

Intense demand for water in the Central Valley of California and related increases in groundwater nitrate concentration threaten the sustainability of the groundwater resource. To assess contamination risk in the region, we developed a hybrid, non-linear, machine learning model within a statistical learning framework to predict nitrate contamination of groundwater to depths of approximately 500m below ground surface. A database of 145 predictor variables representing well characteristics, historical and current field and landscape-scale nitrogen mass balances, historical and current land use, oxidation/reduction conditions, groundwater flow, climate, soil characteristics, depth to groundwater, and groundwater age were assigned to over 6000 private supply and public supply wells measured previously for nitrate and located throughout the study area. The boosted regression tree (BRT) method was used to screen and rank variables to predict nitrate concentration at the depths of domestic and public well supplies. The novel approach included as predictor variables outputs from existing physically based models of the Central Valley. The top five most important predictor variables included two oxidation/reduction variables (probability of manganese concentration to exceed 50 ppb and probability of dissolved oxygen concentration to be below 0.5 ppm), field-scale adjusted unsaturated zone nitrogen input for the 1975 time period, average difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration during the years 1971–2000, and 1992 total landscape nitrogen input. Twenty-five variables were selected for the final model for log-transformed nitrate. In general, increasing probability of anoxic conditions and increasing precipitation relative to potential evapotranspiration had a corresponding decrease in nitrate concentration predictions. Conversely, increasing 1975 unsaturated zone nitrogen leaching flux and 1992 total landscape nitrogen input had an increasing relative impact on nitrate predictions. Three-dimensional visualization indicates that nitrate predictions depend on the probability of anoxic conditions and other factors, and that nitrate predictions generally decreased with increasing groundwater age.

A multi-isotope (B, Sr, O, H, and C) and age dating (3H–3He and14C) study of groundwater from Salinas Valley, California: Hydrochemistry, dynamics, and contamination processes

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 31st, 2002

The chemical and isotope (11B/10B, 87Sr/86Sr, 18O/16O, 2H/H, 13C/12C, 14C, and 3He/3H) compositions of groundwater from the upper aquifer system of the Salinas Valley in

The chemical and isotope (11B/10B, 87Sr/86Sr, 18O/16O, 2H/H, 13C/12C, 14C, and 3He/3H) compositions of groundwater from the upper aquifer system of the Salinas Valley in coastal central California were investigated in order to delineate the origin and processes of groundwater contamination in this complex system. The Salinas Valley has a relatively deep, confined ‘‘400- foot’’ aquifer, overlain by a ‘‘180-foot’’ aquifer and a shallower perched aquifer, all made up of alluvial sand, gravel and clay deposits. Groundwater from the aquifers have different 14C ages: fossil (14C = 21.3 percent modern carbon (pmc) for the 400-foot aquifer and modern (14C = 72.2–98.2 pmc) for the 180-foot aquifer. Fresh groundwater in all aquifers is recharged naturally and artificially through the Salinas River. The two modes of recharge can be distinguished chemically.We identified several different saline components with distinguishable chemical and isotopic fingerprints. Saltwater intrusion in the northern basin has C1 concentrations up to 1700 mg/L, a Na/Cl ratio less than seawater, a marine Br/Cl ratio, a Ca/Cl ratio greater than seawater, d11B between +17 and +38% and 87Sr/86Sr between 0.7088 and 0.7096. Excess dissolved Ca, relative to the expected concentration for simple dilution of seawater, correlates with 87Sr/86Sr ratios, suggesting base exchange reaction with clay materials. (2) Agriculture return flow is high inNO3 and SO4, with a 87Sr/86Sr = 0.7082,d11B = 19% and d13C between 23 and 17%. The 3H–3He ages (5–17 years) and 14C data suggest vertical infiltration rates of irrigation water of 3–10 m/yr. (3) Nonmarine saline water in the southern part of the valley has high total dissolved solids up to 3800 mg/L, high SO4, Na/Cl ratio >1, d11B between +24 and +30%, and 87Sr/86Sr = 0.70852. This groundwater may have acquired its geochemical signature from leaching of sedimentary rocks associated with the Coast Range marine deposits of Mesozoic to early Cenozoic age. The combination of different geochemical and isotopic fingerprints enables us to delineate the impact of salt sources in different areas of the valley and to reconstruct the origin of the SO4-enriched NO3-depleted saline plume that is located west of the city of Salinas. We suggest that the latter is derived from a mixture of different natural saline waters rather than from anthropogenic contamination.

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water Technical Report 1: Project and Technical Report Outline

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 2nd, 2012

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water Technical Report 2: Nitrogen Sources and Loading to Groundwater

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 2nd, 2012

Nitrate loading to groundwater in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley is widespread and chronic, and is overwhelmingly the result of crop and animal agricultural ac

Nitrate loading to groundwater in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley is widespread and chronic, and is overwhelmingly the result of crop and animal agricultural activities. Urban wastewater, septic systems, and other sources may have significant localized impact. Due to long transit times, the impact on groundwater resources is a legacy for years and decades to come.

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water Technical Report 3: Nitrogen Source Reduction to Protect Groundwater Quality

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 2nd, 2012

Although reduction of anthropogenic loading of nitrate to groundwater aquifers will not reduce contamination in the short term (due to long travel times), reduction effo

Although reduction of anthropogenic loading of nitrate to groundwater aquifers will not reduce contamination in the short term (due to long travel times), reduction efforts are a critical component of any long term solution to the problem of high nitrate in drinking water. Technologies are available for reducing the transfer of nitrate to groundwater from surface sources. Such technologies involve (1) reducing the amount of nitrogen (N) discharged or applied to the land and (2) controlling the amount of water applied to land which serves as the carrier of nitrate. Many of these source control methods require changes in land management and upgrading of infrastructure.

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water Technical Report 4: Groundwater Nitrate Occurrence

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 2nd, 2012

This report reviews the hydrogeology and groundwater quality in the Tulare Lake Basin (TLB) and Salinas Valley (SV). We also assembled groundwater quality data from near

This report reviews the hydrogeology and groundwater quality in the Tulare Lake Basin (TLB) and Salinas Valley (SV). We also assembled groundwater quality data from nearly two dozen local, state, and federal agencies and other sources into a dataset, here referred to as the (Central) California Ambient Spatio-Temporal Information on Nitrate in Groundwater (CASTING) dataset. The dataset combines nitrate concentrations from 16,709 individual samples taken at 1,890 wells in the Salinas Valley (SV) and from 83,375 individual samples taken at 17,205 wells in the Tulare Lake Basin (TLB) collected from the 1940s to 2011, accounting for a total of 100,084 samples from 19,095 wells. Almost 70% of these samples were collected from 2000 to 2010; only 15% of the samples were collected prior to 1990. Half of all wells sampled had no recorded samples prior to 2000.

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water Technical Report 5

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 31st, 2012

This report explores methods and costs of remediation of groundwater nitrate contamination in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley. Groundwater cleanup, or remediati

This report explores methods and costs of remediation of groundwater nitrate contamination in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley. Groundwater cleanup, or remediation, is one of the most difficult actions in the environmental sciences, even when done on the scale of a small contaminant plume (1000s of cubic meters). Remediation of entire groundwater basins has never been attempted at the scale and depths of the Salinas Valley and Tulare Lake Basin, on the order of billions of cubic meters. This analysis shows that direct remediation to remove nitrate from large groundwater basins is extremely costly and not technically feasible. In situ remediation, though technologically infeasible as a regional remedy, is appropriate in certain areas of shallow groundwater with high contaminant levels. Traditional pump and treat (ex situ) methods are too slow to produce results on the regional scale in an acceptable time frame, prohibitively expensive, and impractical to implement. A novel form of pump-and-treat remediation is possible in the study area, but not yet widely practiced. By monitoring the nitrogen content of pumped irrigation water, and taking that ambient nutrient source into account when calculating additive fertilizer amounts, farmers can reduce the amount of nitrogen input to the aquifer. Such an approach is not unlike phytoremediation and is herein called “pump-and fertilize.” Pump-and-fertilize is part of an effective nutrient management program. Due to the nature of irrigation with groundwater, it is as much a source reduction method as it is a form of groundwater remediation. Hot spot and pump-and-fertilize remediation alone will not solve the problem of groundwater nitrate contamination. A new approach is needed that combines regional groundwater and nitrogen management strategies. This approach would include monitoring, source reduction, maximization of clean groundwater recharge across agricultural landscapes, pump-and-fertilize, and in situ treatment targeted at shallow, high-concentration plumes to place regional water quality on a trajectory toward improvement. Modeling and monitoring of regional groundwater quality are integral to an effective long-term management strategy.

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water Technical Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 2nd, 2012

The purpose of the first three sections of this document is to provide a detailed guide to the current state of nitrate treatment alternatives that can be used as a refe

The purpose of the first three sections of this document is to provide a detailed guide to the current state of nitrate treatment alternatives that can be used as a reference tool for the drinking water community. The remainder of this document focuses on nitrate treatment of drinking water in California and specifically in the Tulare Lake Basin and the Salinas Valley.