Benefits and Economic Costs of Managed Aquifer Recharge in California

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 14th, 2016

Groundwater management is important and challenging, and nowhere is this more evident than in California. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) projects can play an important ro

Groundwater management is important and challenging, and nowhere is this more evident than in California. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) projects can play an important role in ensuring California manages its groundwater sustainably. Although the benefits and economic costs of surface water storage have been researched extensively, the benefits and economic costs of MAR have been little researched. Historical groundwater data are sparse or proprietary within the state, often impairing groundwater analyses. General obligation bonds from ballot propositions offer a strategic means of mining information about MAR projects, because the information is available publicly. We used bond-funding applications to identify anticipated MAR project benefits and proposed economic costs. We then compared these costs with actual project costs collected from a survey, and identified factors that promote or limit MAR. Our analysis indicates that the median proposed economic cost for MAR projects in California is $410 per acre-foot per year ($0.33 per m3 per year). Increasing Water Supply, Conjunctive Use, and Flood Protection are the most common benefits reported. Additionally, the survey indicates that (1) there are many reported reasons for differences between proposed and actual costs ($US 2015) and (2) there is one primary reason for differences between proposed recharge volumes and actual recharge volumes (AFY): availability of source water for recharge. Although there are differences between proposed and actual costs per recharge volume ($US 2015/AFY), the ranges for proposed costs per recharge volume and actual costs per recharge volume for the projects surveyed generally agree. The two most important contributions to the success of a MAR project are Financial Support and Good Communication with Stakeholders.

Bulletin No. 39-57, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1956-1957, Volume II, Precipitation and Water Level Data Central Coastal and Los Angeles Regions

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 16th, 1958

Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume I Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume III Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume IV

Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume I Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume III Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume IV

Bulletin No. 39-57, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1956-1957, Volume III, Precipitation and Water Level Data Lahontan, Colorado River Basin, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regions

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 16th, 1958

Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume I Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume II Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume IV

Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume I Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume II Bulletin No. 39-57 Volume IV

Bulletin No. 39-57, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1956-1957, Volume IV Cross-Indexes

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 16th, 1958

Bulletin 39-57, Volume I Bulletin 39-57 Volume II Bulletin 39-57 Volume III

Bulletin 39-57, Volume I Bulletin 39-57 Volume II Bulletin 39-57 Volume III

Bulletin No. 39-57, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1956-57, Volume I, Text

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 16th, 1958

Click here for: Volume II,Volume III, Volume IV

Click here for: Volume II,Volume III, Volume IV

Bulletin No. 39-58, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1957-1958, Volume I

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 1st, 1960

Bulletin No. 39-58, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1957-1958, Volume II, Precipitation and Water Level Data, Central Coastal and Los Angeles Regions

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 1st, 1960

Bulletin No. 39-58, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1957-1958, Volume III, Precipitation and Water Level Data, Lahontan, Colorado River Basin, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regions

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 1st, 1960

Bulletin No. 39-59, Water Supply Conditions in Southern California during 1958-1959, Volume III, Water Level Data Lahontan, Colorado River Basin, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regions

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | May 1st, 1961

California Hydrogeologically Vulnerable Areas Map

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 31st, 2012

In response to Executive Order D-5-99, State Water Board staff created a map where published hydrogeologic information indicates soil or rock conditions that may be more

In response to Executive Order D-5-99, State Water Board staff created a map where published hydrogeologic information indicates soil or rock conditions that may be more vulnerable (or susceptible) to groundwater contamination: ”Hydrogeologically Vulnerable Areas.” The map was created due to groundwater concerns over releases of MTBE, primarily from leaking underground storage tank sites. However, areas that are vulnerable to MTBE may also be vulnerable to other contaminants released at the surface. The map was created in 2000 using Department of Water Resources (DWR) and US Geological Survey publications. Data from these publications were used to identify areas where geologic conditions are more likely to allow recharge at rates substantially higher than in lower permeability or confined areas of the same groundwater basin. The identified areas are associated by a metadata table (in the following pages) which identifies (1) DWR basin name and number, (2) published source of information (i.e., title, date, author, and appropriate page, figure, table, or plate number), and (3) specific criteria upon which the vulnerability category is based. Groundwater resources underlying designated (i.e., published) recharge, rapid infiltration, or unconfined areas were considered categorically more vulnerable to potential contaminant releases than groundwater underlying areas of slower recharge, lower infiltration rates, or intervening low permeability deposits (i.e., confining layers).