Recharge in the Ames Valley Basin: Making It Happen (2.91 MB)

ABSTRACT & POWERPOINT PRESENTATION 

Recharge in the Ames Valley Basin: Making It Happen 

Phyllis S. Stanin 

Vice President/Principal Geologist 

Todd Engineers 

Alameda, California 

Managed Aquifer Recharge Symposium 

January 25-26, 2011 

Irvine, California 

Symposium Organizers: 

• National Water Research Institute 

• Orange County Water District 

• Water Research Foundation 

www.nwri-usa.org/rechargesymposium2011.htm

Recharge and Supply Allocation in the Ames Valley Basin – Making It Happen 

Daniel Craig, Phyllis Stanin, and Edwin Lin, Todd Engineers, Alameda, California and 

Marina West, Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, Yucca Valley, California 

The three water providers in the Ames Valley Groundwater Basin—Bighorn Desert-View Water 

Agency, Hi-Desert Water District, and the County of San Bernardino—are cooperating to 

construct an enhanced recharge facility to mitigate overdraft. Selection of the spreading grounds 

were based on a hydrogeologic conceptual model of the basin, a field investigation including 

surface geophysics to identify faults and other impediments to recharge, and an analysis of 

groundwater mounding. A feasibility study and numerical modeling confirmed the promising 

location for recharge and benefits to the basin perennial yield. But particle tracking also 

highlighted the fact that enhanced recharge at the selected location provided selective benefits 

to certain wells and was not ideal for benefiting water levels in all groundwater wells. 

To prevent the need for additional recovery wells and to allow benefits to the agency committing 

financial resources to the recharge project, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was 

developed to manage pumping. The MOU is a key component of the Groundwater Management 

Plan (GWMP) being developed by the producers and contains flexible terms to move the 

recharge project forward for the benefit of all parties in the basin. 

The MOU/GWMP allows for total future pumping allocations to exceed average basin perennial 

yield during future dry years. Imported water recharge will be conducted to increase storage 

and supplement supply. Purchasers of imported water for replenishment can benefit their 

pumping allocation. Ongoing monitoring of basin water levels and storage will be conducted, 

and depending on groundwater storage changes, pumping allocations may be reduced. Rules 

for monitoring, supply evaluation, and implementation of future changes in pumping allocations 

are included in the MOU/GWMP. 

This cooperation allows the spreading grounds to be sited in the best hydrogeologic location 

while maintaining key project benefits including pumping credits to the agency committing 

resources to the recharge project, benefits to downgradient pumpers, and benefits to the 

groundwater resource to operate the basin in a more sustainable manner for long-term supply.

Todd Engineers 

Phyllis Stanin 

Dan Craig 

Edwin Lin 

Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency 

Marina West 

Todd Engineers

Presentation Outline 

• Ames Valley Basin and Recharge Site Selection 

Location, location, location! 

Hydrogeology v. Infrastructure 

• Development of the Groundwater Model 

Recharge Feasibility 

Basin Water Balance 

Recharge Water Transport 

• Principals of Agreement for Groundwater 

Management 

What are the rules? 

RULES 


Ames Valley Groundwater 

Basin 

Ames Valley 

Yucca Valley 

San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

• North of Yucca 

Valley in the 

Mojave Desert 

• Landers –1992 

earthquake 

• Alluvial basin 

covers >150 

square miles 



247 


San 

Bernardino 

Mountains 

Ames Valley 


Emerson 

Dry Lake 

• Bounded on the 

west by San 

Bernardino Mts. 

• Basin floor 

elevation 3,000 

feet msl 

• Ephemeral 

washes from 

mountains drain 

to dry lakes 

62 




• Bedrock highs and 

compartmentalization 

Reche 

Pipes 

Giant 

Rock 

• USGS‐defined 

subbasin boundaries 

along major faults 

• Pumping in Pipes and 

Reche subbasins 

• Giant Rock 

undeveloped 




Morongo Basin 

BDVWA 

Pipeline 

• Water Agencies: 

• Bighorn‐Desert View 

Water Agency (BDVWA) 

• Hi‐Desert Water District 

(HDWD) 

• County Service Area (CSA) 

BDVWA 

HDWD 

CSA 

• Groundwater is the 

sole water supply 

• Physical solution to 

overdraft managed by 

Ames Stipulated 

judgment 

• Morongo Basin 

Pipeline for SWP 

recharge 


Potential Recharge of 

Imported Water 

• State Water Project (SWP) water available to 

BDVWA through Mojave Water Agency 

(MWA) and the Morongo Basin Pipeline 

• Pipeline capacity and allotment set 

• BDVWA and MWA partners on selecting and 

implementing an enhanced recharge project 

• Site selection based on hydrogeology; 

institutional framework for shared benefits 


Precipitation Isohyets 

10 

8 

4 

6 

• Average 4 in/yr 

in the basin 

• No recharge on 

basin floor 

• More than 10 

in/yr in the 

watershed 

• Recharge from 

upland 

drainages 


Recharge from Upland 

Drainages 

Pipes Wash 

• Underflow and 

subsurface inflow 

• Primarily from 

Pipes Wash 

• Permeable paleochannels 

beneath 

Pipes Wash 


Groundwater Flow 

• Groundwater 

flows East‐ 

Northeast 

• Mirrors surface 

drainage in west 

• Impacted by 

shallow bedrock 

and faulting 


Considerations for MAR Project 

WEST 

Faults 

Pipes 

Wash 

Pipes Wash Recharge Project: 

Permeable channel 

Available storage 

Complex faulting 

Benefit existing pumping wells? 

Bedrock 

Low 

Permeability 

Aquifers 

Storage 

Shallow 

Bedrock 


Surface Geophysical Program 

• 15 electrical 

resistivity 

transects 

• Fault locations 

• Vadose zone 

lithology 

• Offset water 

levels? 


Electrical Resistivity Profiles: 

Do Faults Offset Water Levels? 

Depth (feet) 

0 

229 

459 

Pipes Fault across Whalen Wash 

YES! 

Depth (feet) 

0 

229 

459 

Pipes Fault across Pipes Wash 

NO! 


Site Selection - Field 

Investigation 

• Sonic drilling with continuous core 

• Vadose zone properties 

• Monitoring well installation 

• Supported recharge site 

selection 


Pipes Wash Recharge Site 

• Benefits to 

basin water 

budget? 

• Benefits to 

basin wells? 

• How best to 

manage the 

basin? 


MODFLOW Model Development 

Model Objectives: 

1. Recharge Feasibility 

2.Fate of Recharge Water 

3. Basin‐wide Water 

Budget 

Pipes Wash 

Recharge Site 


MODFLOW Model Development 

• Faults as flow barriers and 

hydraulic conductivity 

zones –site conceptual 

model 

• Boundary Conditions: 

West : Time‐varying 

specified flux 

North‐South: No flow 

East: Specified head 

Top: Time‐varying 

recharge (return flows) 

Pipes Wash 

Recharge Site 


Model Recharge of Septic 

Return Flows 

• 20% consumptive use 

for indoor water use 

• Recharge Lag Time: 

Ave. depth to water ‐ 230 

ft 

Vadose zone modeling 

(CHEMFLO) 

Ave. vadose zone travel 

time ‐ 1 year 

Pipes Wash 

Legend 

Recharge (feet/day) 

>0.00025 

0.000151 - 0.00025 

0.000101 - 0.00015 

0.000051 - 0.00010 

0.000050 or less 


Model Water Budget 

Pipes and Reche Subbasins 

2,000 

1,500 

Annual Water Budget 

DRAFT 

1,000 

Return Flow 

t 

e 

‐F 

cre 

A 

500 

0 

‐500 

‐1,000 

‐1,500 

‐2,000 

‐2,500 

Subsurface Inflow 

Subsurface Outflow 

Pumping 

Annual Storage 

Change 

‐3,000 

5 

‐9 

4 

9 

1 

6 

‐9 

5 

9 

1 

7 

‐9 

6 

9 

1 

8 

‐9 

7 

9 

1 

9 

‐9 

8 

9 

1 

0 

‐0 

9 

9 

1 

1 

‐0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

‐0 

1 

0 

2 

3 

‐0 

2 

0 

2 

4 

‐0 

3 

0 

2 

5 

‐0 

4 

0 

2 

6 

‐0 

5 

0 

2 

7 

‐0 

6 

0 

2 

8 

‐0 

7 

0 

2 

9 

‐0 

8 

0 

2 


Model Calibration 

• Calibrated to wells in Pipes and Reche Subbasins 

• Steady –state 1994 and 2007 

• Transient calibration 1994 ‐ 2009 

• Calibration parameters: 

• Recharge rates and 

distribution 

• Aquifer and fault barrier 

hydraulic conductivity 

• Trial‐and‐error and 

PEST auto‐calibration 

methods 


Model Results – Recharge 

Feasibility 

Pipes 

Wash 

• Mounding 

associated with 

continuous 

recharge 

• Sufficient 

storage capacity 

for mound 

• Upgradient wells 

do not benefit 

directly 


Model Results – Recharge 

Feasibility 


Where does the water go? 

• Particle tracking 

to estimate 

contribution to 

wells 

• Develop 

institutional 

framework to 

assign equitable 

benefits from 

recharge 


Draft Principles of 

Agreement 

• Baseline pumping allotment assigned to 

Basin Participants 

5‐year production average 

Adjusted upward to allow agency planning for 

routine delivery of recharge water 

Baselines could be adjusted downward in the 

future to ensure sustainable groundwater supply 

• Entities assigned a storage account 

• Water can be transferred between accounts 

• 5 percent storage fee to BDVWA 

RULES 


Storage Account Concept 

Water Purchased and delivered via Morongo Pipeline 

Water delivered to Participant Customers 

BDVWA HDWD County MWA 

Storage Balance transfers 

Cumulative Storage 

Participating Agencies can purchase and recharge SWP water and 

maintain a water storage account for usage flexibility

Ames Valley Recharge: 

Making it Happen 

• Allows recharge delivery to mitigate overdraft 

• Provides benefits to project applicant BDVWA 

• Alternative to Stipulated Judgment 

• Cooperative, sustainable solution to local 

groundwater management 


Questions?

Recharge in the Ames Valley Basin: Making It Happen (2.91 MB)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?