An Update of the Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System Transient Model, Nevada and California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | October 31st, 2016

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has revised the regional-scale Death Valley regional groundwater flow system (DVRFS) numerical model with new data and interpretations s

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has revised the regional-scale Death Valley regional groundwater flow system (DVRFS) numerical model with new data and interpretations since the original numerical flow model was published in 2004 (Belcher (2004); re-published as Belcher and Sweetkind [2010]). Since the original publication of the DVRFS flow model, additional data have been collected and interpretations have been made. Cooperators such as the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Energy, and Nye County, Nevada, recognized a need to update the existing regional numerical flow model to maintain its viability as a groundwater management tool for regional stakeholders. For the purposes of this report, the version of the DVRFS numerical flow model documented in Belcher and Sweetkind (2010) and Faunt, Blainey, and others (2010) is designated as DVRFS v. 1.0. The updated version, as presented in this report, is referred to as DVRFS v. 2.0. Knowledge of basin water balances and the magnitude of interbasin groundwater flow is the basis for regional groundwater management and water-resource planning in the Great Basin of Nevada (Scott and others, 1971). Rapid population growth, arid conditions, and increased water use have led to development of available groundwater resources. Groundwater use in some alluvial-fill basins has resulted in continued water-level declines and land subsidence. Adjacent bedrock aquifers are increasingly being targeted for additional development. Such groundwater development may potentially impact local and regional water quantity and quality, existing water rights, and wildlife habitats. An understanding of hydrogeologic processes that control the rate and direction of groundwater flow in southern Nevada is necessary to assess the potential effects of any proposed large-scale groundwater development. Potential water-resource conflicts exist because of disparate interests in the region, particularly with respect to the development of groundwater resources to meet agricultural, municipal, and industrial water demand and the need to protect habitat for endangered and threatened species. Water demands in the Amargosa Farms area from agricultural and suburban development, and rapidly urbanizing areas in Las Vegas and Pahrump Valleys place increasing pressure on existing groundwater resources. In addition, several solar-energy facilities have been proposed within the Death Valley region; water demands for these facilities will vary. Natural groundwater discharge at springs and seeps sustains habitat for numerous species, many of which are threatened, endangered, or otherwise considered sensitive. In 2004, the USGS documented a calibrated numerical flow model of the DVRFS (Belcher, 2004). The model, DVRFS v. 1.0, incorporated elements of several precursor numerical models but defined the boundaries of the regional flow system slightly different than in previous versions. The model simulates transient groundwater flow conditions in the DVRFS from 1913 through 1998. The report was subsequently revised and published as a USGS Professional Paper (Belcher and Sweetkind, 2010). Since release of DVRFS v. 1.0 in 2004, continued use of the model by cooperators, stakeholders, and interested parties in the region has demonstrated the need to improve specific aspects (such as the flow into northern Yucca Flat and parts of the Amargosa Desert), to update it with more recently acquired geologic and hydrologic data, and to extend the simulation period.

Assessing potential effects of changes in water use with a numerical groundwater-flow model of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2012

Assessment of Interconnected Subbasins

Butte County | June 30th, 2017

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that achieve sust

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of adoption. All critically overdrafted basins must adopt GSPs by January 31, 2020; all other medium and high priority basins must complete GSPs by January 31, 2022. Since many subbasins are hydrologically connected to adjoining subbasins, sustainable groundwater management will require accounting for groundwater interactions with adjoining subbasins. Often, adjoining subbasins will use different analytical methods or apply different levels of technical rigor. Many GSAs are concerned that different methodologies for developing interbasin flows can lead to different results that will call into question the ability to achieve sustainability and would potentially create issues with SGMA compliance. This effort evaluated opportunities and barriers for agencies to account for interconnected basin dynamics through the collaboration of technical experts focused on a portion of the northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management (NSVIRWM) Plan area. As interbasin flows (i.e., groundwater flow between interconnected basins) cannot be directly measured, the project reviewed available tools to investigate how they may or may not be suitable for use in estimating interbasin flows within the region. This process highlighted areas for local agencies to consider in addressing interbasin issues, developed a framework for analysis in other areas of the state, and identified areas where the state and federal government can assist local agencies implementing SGMA. This report is developed to provide summary level information appropriate for decision makers, with more detailed technical information and examples provided in the appendices or by reference. Interbasin flow is groundwater entering or exiting a defined subbasin through its boundaries in the subsurface and may vary significantly in space and time based on the dynamics of inflow and outflow from the basins. Interbasin flows are driven by differences in groundwater levels (i.e. head gradients) across the basin boundary. Groundwater levels are, in turn, impacted by processes on the land surface. Land use and crop acreages drive water demand in a subbasin and indirectly drive groundwater pumping, which has a direct effect on groundwater levels (i.e., groundwater heads). The direction and magnitude of interbasin flow depends on the groundwater head gradient across the basin boundary and the conductivity of the aquifer materials. It is widely recognized that the groundwater subbasins in the Sacramento Valley, and throughout the Central Valley, are interconnected to varying degrees. The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin includes many subbasins, extends over a wide geographic area, and includes numerous established and eligible GSAs. With interconnected subbasins, management decisions and actions in one subbasin may influence one or more adjoining subbasins. Such influence may positively or negatively impact sustainability. Thus, interbasin flows become critical to both GSAs’ development of GSPs and to DWR reviewing GSPs.

Assessment of Interconnected Subbasins: Regional Collaboration and Model Selection Process

Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRA) | October 3rd, 2017

In basins with complex spatial and temporal variations in water budget components, integrated groundwater-surface water modeling is the best approach to quantify and eval

In basins with complex spatial and temporal variations in water budget components, integrated groundwater-surface water modeling is the best approach to quantify and evaluate interbasin groundwater flows.

California’s Central Valley Groundwater Study: A Powerful New Tool to Assess Water Resources in California’s Central Valley

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | June 16th, 2009

Competition for water resources is growing throughout California, particularly in the Central Valley. Since 1980, the Central Valley’s population has nearly

Competition for water resources is growing throughout California, particularly in the Central Valley. Since 1980, the Central Valley’s population has nearly doubled to 3.8 million people. It is expected to increase to 6 million by 2020. Statewide population growth, anticipated reductions in Colorado River water deliveries, drought, and the ecological crisis in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta have created an intense demand for water. Tools and information can be used to help manage the Central Valley aquifer system, an important State and national resource. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has released results from a study on the largest water reservoir in the State of California, the Central Valley groundwater system. The findings show continued loss of stored groundwater in the southern part of the valley (see figure below). Since about 1960, groundwater has been depleted by almost 60 million acre-feet, which is, on average, enough to supply every resident of California with water for 8 years. In order to complete the study, the USGS developed an extensive, detailed three-dimensional (3D) computer model of the hydrologic system of the Central Valley (Faunt, 2009). The Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM) simultaneously accounts for changing water supply and demand across the landscape, and simulates surface water and groundwater flow across the entire Central Valley. This new hydrologic modeling tool can be used by water managers to understand how water moves through the aquifer system, predict water-supply scenarios, and address issues related to water competition in California and the Central Valley including: Conjunctive water use (interdependent use of surface water and groundwater); Conservation of agricultural land; Land-use change, including environmental concerns and urbanization, and its effects on water resources; and Effects of climate change.

Center for Biological Diversity vs. Lincoln County Water District

Nevada Appellate Courts | January 25th, 2024

This case examines whether the State Engineer has the authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one "superbasin" based on a shared source of water

This case examines whether the State Engineer has the authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one "superbasin" based on a shared source of water for purposes of the water's administration and management. We also look at whether the State Engineer complied with due process in creating the superbasin at issue here.

City of Barstow, et al v. City of Adelanto, el al (Mojave Basin Area cases)

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | December 5th, 2002

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed May 30, 1990, by the City of Barstow and the Southern California Water Company. The complaint alleged that the cumulative increase in water use in the upper part of the Mojave Basin caused or threatened to cause a reduction in the natural flow of water to the central part of the Mojave Basin. Water users included downstream agriculture (many alfalfa farms), aquaculture, recreational lakes, homeowner associations, and upstream burgeoning municipalities. In the center of the basin is the smaller, low-income town of Barstow, which was concerned about its water supply. A 1993 Stipulated Judgment set forth a proposed physical solution that did not apportion production rights on the basis of preexisting legal water rights, and parties representing over 80 percent of verified water production in the basin agreed to its terms. However, some farmers with overlying rights chose not to stipulate to the judgment. On appeal, the court stated that in considering a stipulated physical solution involving equitable apportionment, the water rights of parties that did not join the stipulation must also be considered. The adjudication set out a complex system to reduce production a producer’s free production allowance (FPA) over time, but withdrawals remain significant in three out of the five subareas. The judgment also contained unique provisions for assuring that the water needs of endangered and other species and their habitat would be protected. One outcome of the adjudication was that many farmers in the western Alto Subarea sold or leased their base annual production (BAP) rights or leased their FPA to municipalities, and population in the Alto Subarea almost doubled. The Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base east of Barstow is a federal Superfund site."

Data Measured on Water Collected from Eastern Mojave Desert, California

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) | August 18th, 2017

In March of 2000 field collection of water from the Eastern Mojave Desert resulted in the measurement of stable isotope, radiocarbon, tritium, and limited dissolved nobl

In March of 2000 field collection of water from the Eastern Mojave Desert resulted in the measurement of stable isotope, radiocarbon, tritium, and limited dissolved noble gases. This work was follow-on to previous studies on similar systems in southern Nevada associated with the Nevada Test Site (Davisson et al., 1999; Rose and Davisson, 2003). The data for groundwater from wells and springs was never formally published and is therefore tabulated in Table 1 in order to be recorded in public record. In addition 4 years of remote precipitation data was collected for stable isotopes and is included in Table 2. These studies, along with many parallel and subsequent ones using isotopes and elemental concentrations, are all related to the general research area of tracing sources and quantifying transport times of natural and man-made materials in the environment. This type of research has direct relevance in characterizing environmental contamination, understanding resource development and protection, designing early detection in WMD related terrorism, and application in forensics analysis.

Death Valley lower carbonate aquifer monitoring program—Wells down gradient of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository: U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement DE-FCO8-02RW12162 Final Project Report

Inyo County | July 1st, 2005

Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and California—Hydrogeologic framework and transient ground-water flow model

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2010

A numerical three-dimensional (3D) transient groundwater flow model of the Death Valley region was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for the U.S. Department of Ener

A numerical three-dimensional (3D) transient groundwater flow model of the Death Valley region was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for the U.S. Department of Energy programs at the Nevada Test Site and at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Decades of study of aspects of the groundwater flow system and previous less extensive groundwater flow models were incorporated and reevaluated together with new data to provide greater detail for the complex, digital model. A 3D digital hydrogeologic framework model (HFM) was developed from digital elevation models, geologic maps, borehole information, geologic and hydrogeologic cross sections, and other 3D models to represent the geometry of the hydrogeologic units (HGUs). Structural features, such as faults and fractures, that affect groundwater flow also were added. The HFM represents Precambrian and Paleozoic crystalline and sedimentary rocks, Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, Mesozoic to Cenozoic intrusive rocks, Cenozoic volcanic tuffs and lavas, and late Cenozoic sedimentary deposits of the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system (DVRFS) region in 27 HGUs. Information from a series of investigations was compiled to conceptualize and quantify hydrologic components of the groundwater flow system within the DVRFS model domain and to provide hydraulic-property and head-observation data used in the calibration of the transient-flow model. These studies reevaluated natural groundwater discharge occurring through evapotranspiration (ET) and spring flow; the history of groundwater pumping from 1913 through 1998; groundwater recharge simulated as net infiltration; model boundary inflows and outflows based on regional hydraulic gradients and water budgets of surrounding areas; hydraulic conductivity and its relation to depth; and water levels appropriate for regional simulation of prepumped and pumped conditions within the DVRFS model domain. Simulation results appropriate for the regional extent and scale of the model were provided by acquiring additional data, by reevaluating existing data using current technology and concepts, and by refining earlier interpretations to reflect the current understanding of the regional groundwater flow system. Groundwater flow in the Death Valley region is composed of several interconnected, complex groundwater flow systems. Groundwater flow occurs in three subregions in relatively shallow and localized flow paths that are superimposed on deeper, regional flow paths. Regional groundwater flow is predominantly through a thick Paleozoic carbonate rock sequence affected by complex geologic structures from regional faulting and fracturing that can enhance or impede flow. Spring flow and ET are the dominant natural groundwater discharge processes. Groundwater also is withdrawn for agricultural, commercial, and domestic uses. Groundwater flow in the DVRFS was simulated using MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey 3D finitedifference modular groundwater flow modeling code that incorporates a nonlinear least-squares regression technique to estimate aquifer parameters. The DVRFS model has 16 layers of defined thickness, a finite-difference grid consisting of 194 rows and 160 columns, and uniform cells 1,500 meters (m) on each side. Prepumping conditions (before 1913) were used as the initial conditions for the transient-state calibration. The model uses annual stress periods with discrete recharge and discharge components. Recharge occurs mostly from infiltration of precipitation and runoff on high mountain ranges and from a small amount of underflow from adjacent basins. Discharge occurs primarily through ET and spring discharge (both simulated as drains) and water withdrawal by pumping and, to a lesser amount, by underflow to adjacent basins simulated by constant-head boundaries. All parameter values estimated by the regression are reasonable and within the range of expected values. The simulated hydraulic heads of the final calibrated transient model generally fit observed heads reasonably well (residuals with absolute values less than 10 meters) with two exceptions: in most areas of nearly flat hydraulic gradient the fit is considered moderate (residuals with absolute values of 10 to 20 meters), and in areas of steep hydraulic gradient along the Eleana Range and western part of Yucca Flat, southern part of the Owlshead Mountains, southern part of the Bullfrog Hills, and the north-northwestern part of the model domain (residuals with absolute values greater than 20 meters). Groundwater discharge residuals are fairly random, with as many areas where simulated flows are less than observed flows as areas where simulated flows are greater. The highest unweighted groundwater discharge residuals occur at Death Valley, Sarcobatus Flat (northeastern area), Tecopa, and early observations at Manse Spring in Pahrump Valley. High weighted-discharge residuals were computed in Indian Springs Valley and parts of Death Valley. Most of these inaccuracies in head and discharge can be attributed to insufficient representation of the hydrogeology in the HFM and(or) discharge estimates, misrepresentation of water levels, and(or) model error associated with grid-cell size. The model represents the large and complex groundwater flow system of the Death Valley region at a greater degree of refinement and accuracy than has been possible previously. The representation of detail provided by the 3D digital hydrogeologic framework model and the numerical groundwater flow model enabled greater spatial accuracy in every model parameter. The lithostratigraphy and structural effects of the hydrogeologic framework; recharge estimates from simulated net infiltration; discharge estimates from ET, spring flow, and pumping; and boundary inflow and outflow estimates all were reevaluated, some additional data were collected, and accuracy was improved. Uncertainty in the results of the flow model simulations can be reduced by improving on the quality, interpretation, and representation of the water-level and discharge observations used to calibrate the model and improving on the representation of the HGU geometries, the spatial variability of HGU material properties, the flow model physical framework, and the hydrologic conditions.