Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D.

Bredehoeft

i
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Groundwater Resource Development

i
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Please Consider Donating

The Groundwater Project relies on private funding for book production
and management of the Project.

Please consider making a donation to the Groundwater Project

so books will continue to be freely available.

Thank you.

ii
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Authors

iii
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the authors
(to request permission contact: permissions@gw-project.org). Commercial distribution
and reproduction are strictly prohibited.
Copyright
GW-Project works can be downloaded for free from gw-project.org. Anyone may use and
share gw-project.org links to download GW-Project’s work. It is not permissible to make
GW-Project documents available on other websites nor to send copies of the documents
directly to others.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Copyright © 2020 Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft (The Authors)

Published by the Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2020.

Konikow, Leonard F.
Groundwater Resource Development: Effects and Sustainability / Leonard F.
Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft - Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2020.
96 pages.

ISBN: 978-1-7770541-4-4

Domain Editors: John Cherry and Eileen Poeter

Board: John Cherry, Stephen Moran, Everton de Oliveira and Eileen Poeter

iv
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Steering Committee: John Cherry, Allan Freeze, Paul Hsieh, Ineke Kalwij, Douglas Mackay, Stephen
Moran, Everton de Oliveira, Beth Parker, Eileen Poeter, Ying Fan, Warren Wood, and Yan
Zheng.
Cover Image: Marcy I. Konikow

Dedication

Dedicated to the generous sharing of groundwater knowledge.

v
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

The Groundwater Project Foreword

The United Nations Water Members and Partners establish their annual theme a
few years in advance. The theme for World Water Day of March 22, 2022, is “Groundwater:
making the invisible visible.” This is most appropriate for the debut of the first
Groundwater Project (GW-Project) books in 2020, which have the goal of making
groundwater visible.
The GW-Project, a non-profit organization registered in Canada in 2019, is
committed to contribute to advancement in education and brings a new approach to the
creation and dissemination of knowledge for understanding and problem solving. The
GW-Project operates the website https://gw-project.org/ as a global platform for the
democratization of groundwater knowledge and is founded on the principle that:

“Knowledge should be free and the best knowledge should be free knowledge.” Anonymous

The mission of the GW-Project is to provide accessible, engaging, high-quality,

educational materials, free-of-charge online in many languages, to all who want to learn
about groundwater and understand how groundwater relates to and sustains ecological
systems and humanity. This is a new type of global educational endeavor in that it is based
on volunteerism of professionals from different disciplines and includes academics,
consultants and retirees. The GW-Project involves many hundreds of volunteers associated
with more than 200 hundred organizations from over 14 countries and six continents, with
growing participation.
The GW-Project is an on-going endeavor and will continue with hundreds of books
being published online over the coming years, first in English and then in other languages,
for downloading wherever the Internet is available. The GW-Project publications also
include supporting materials such as videos, lectures, laboratory demonstrations, and
learning tools in addition to providing, or linking to, public domain software for various
groundwater applications supporting the educational process.
The GW-Project is a living entity, so subsequent editions of the books will be
published from time to time. Users are invited to propose revisions.
We thank you for being part of the GW-Project Community. We hope to hear from
you about your experience with using the books and related material. We welcome ideas
and volunteers!

The GW-Project Steering Committee

September 2020

vi
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Foreword
For centuries humans have been pumping aquifers but it wasn’t until 1935, when
C.V. Theis at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) introduced the unsteady-state
solution to the groundwater flow equation, that the effect of aquifer storage in confined
aquifers was taken into account based on the physics of the system. This was the start of
the modern era of assessment of aquifer exploitation and sustainability in which all of the
potential sources of extracted groundwater are conceptualized for the aquifer water
budget. However, surprisingly for many aquifers around the world where there is reliance
on the extracted water, the water budget is not well understood, or is insufficiently
quantified to serve for effective water management.
Depletion of aquifers is the norm in many countries. When an aquifer is pumped
for a substantial period of time, such as years or decades, the answers to the questions:
‘Where is the pumped water coming from? and What is changing with time?’ often are not
known. Hence, many aquifers enter into depletion without understanding of what is
happening.
This book (Groundwater Resource Development: Effects and Sustainability)
provides the concepts and principles that underpin understanding of aquifer depletion and
sustainability. It explains the role that groundwater recharge plays in sustainability of
groundwater exploitation. Although simple in theory, the role of groundwater recharge
has remained elusive in the quest for science-based water management.
The authors of this book, Lenny Konikow and John Bredehoeft (both emeritus of
the USGS), have played key roles in the development and applications of the most
advanced computer models for simulating aquifer exploitation and have long been leaders
in the quest to integrate the appropriate models and concepts into sustainable groundwater
development.

John Cherry, The Groundwater Project Leader

Guelph, Ontario, Canada, September 2020

vii
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Preface
This book discusses ideas associated with development of groundwater at the
macro scale, including how well pumpage affects surface water, groundwater storage, and
the long-term sustainability of groundwater development. We do not focus on well
hydraulics, well interference, or design of wells or well fields. Instead, we begin with where
water comes from when one pumps a single well and proceed to the scale at which an entire
aquifer system is developed. These ideas date back to a paper by Theis (1940) on the source
of water derived from wells. Theis (1940) noted that all pumpage is balanced by a loss of
water somewhere, with the loss during early time coming largely from storage. As time
advances, pumpage tends to be balanced increasingly by some combination of increases in
recharge and decreases in discharge.

Acknowledgements
We appreciate the thorough and useful reviews of and contributions to this book by
the following individuals:

❖ Hedeff Essaid, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California,
USA;
❖ Helen Seyler, Hydrogeologist, Delta-h Groundwater Systems, Cape Town, South Africa;
❖ Keith Lucey, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Arvada, Colorado, USA;
❖ Mary Anderson, Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA;
❖ Maris Sunaitis, Hydrogeologist, Delta-h Groundwater Systems, Cape Town, South
Africa; and,
❖ Judith Schenk, Senior Project Manager, Lytle Water Solutions, Highlands Ranch, CO,
USA.

We thank John Cherry and Eileen Poeter for their continued encouragement and
suggestions. We greatly appreciate the input and assistance from Virginia McGuire for
High Plains aquifer information; from Marcy Konikow for Figures 2 and 3; from Heather
Welch for data on the Big Sunflower River; from Carmen San Juan and Don Sweetkind for
Figure 14; from Paul Barlow for Figures 8a, 15, and 16; and from David Prudic for the
Paradise Valley case study, background discussions, and illustrations. We are grateful for
Amanda Sills’ oversight and production of this book and to Elhana Dyck for copyediting,
both of the Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; as well as the support of
Everton de Oliveira of the Groundwater Project, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Leonard Konikow
John Bredehoeft

viii
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Table of Contents
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................. V

THE GROUNDWATER PROJECT FOREWORD ................................................................................ VI

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................ VII

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... VIII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................IX

1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1

2 GROUNDWATER USE ............................................................................................................. 1

3 SUSTAINABILITY OF GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 2

3.1 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 WATER BALANCE ..................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 THE SYSTEM PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 5
3.4 PUMPING ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.5 LONG-TERM PUMPING EQUILIBRIUM (DEVELOPMENT) ................................................................... 8
3.6 A NEW PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 9

4 STORAGE DEPLETION ............................................................................................................. 9

4.1 SOME EFFECTS OF STORAGE DEPLETION ..................................................................................... 10

Economic and Societal Benefits ................................................................................................ 10
Water-Level Declines ................................................................................................................ 10
Land Subsidence ....................................................................................................................... 11
Sea-Level Rise ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 METHODS TO ESTIMATE DEPLETION .......................................................................................... 11
Head Changes ........................................................................................................................... 12
Models ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Water Budgets .......................................................................................................................... 12
Gravity Measurements ............................................................................................................. 13
GRACE Remote Sensing ............................................................................................................ 13
Subsidence ................................................................................................................................ 13
Confining Layers ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.3 MAGNITUDE OF STORAGE DEPLETION ........................................................................................ 14

5 CAPTURE .............................................................................................................................. 18

5.1 STREAMFLOW DEPLETION ........................................................................................................ 19

5.2 CAPTURE OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION .......................................................................................... 22
5.3 CAPTURE OF SPRING DISCHARGE ............................................................................................... 23
5.4 ESTIMATING THE MAGNITUDE AND TIMING OF STREAMFLOW DEPLETION ......................................... 24
5.5 METHODS TO ESTIMATE CAPTURE ............................................................................................. 26

6 CASE STUDIES ILLUSTRATING GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT DYNAMICS ......................... 27

6.1 CASE STUDY 1: HYPOTHETICAL STREAM-AQUIFER SYSTEM ............................................................. 28

Description of Problem ............................................................................................................. 28
Simulation Model...................................................................................................................... 30
ix
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Base Case: No Recharge and No ET (No Phreatophytes) .......................................................... 31

Low ET Case (Phreatophytes).................................................................................................... 34
ET and Recharge Case (Phreatophytes and Rainfall) ................................................................ 36
Running the Model ................................................................................................................... 39
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 39
6.2 CASE STUDY 2: PARADISE VALLEY, NEVADA ...................................................................... 40
Description of Study Area ......................................................................................................... 40
Paradise Valley Simulation Model ............................................................................................ 46
An Initial Steady State............................................................................................................... 47
Transient Historical Simulation ................................................................................................. 48
Simulated Future Development ................................................................................................ 48
The Lesson of the Paradise Valley Example .............................................................................. 49

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................ 51

8 EXERCISES ............................................................................................................................ 52

Exercise 1) Effects of Well Location (Distance from Well to River) ........................................... 52

Exercise 2) Lower Ratio of Streamflow to Pumping .................................................................. 53
Exercise 3) Analytical Solution for Streamflow Depletion ......................................................... 54

9 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 55

10 BOXES .............................................................................................................................. 62

BOX 1 - REGIONAL UNCONFINED AQUIFER SYSTEM: THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER ........................................... 62
BOX 2 - STORAGE DEPLETION IN A THICK CONFINING LAYER: DAKOTA AQUIFER SYSTEM ................................. 64
BOX 3 – RUNNING AND POST-PROCESSING THE MODEL FOR CASE STUDY 1 ................................................. 66

11 EXERCISE SOLUTIONS ....................................................................................................... 77

Exercise 1 Solution: Effects of Well Location (Distance from Well to River) ............................. 77
Exercise 2 Solution: Lower Ratio of Streamflow to Pumping .................................................... 86
Exercise 3 Solution: Analytical Solution for Streamflow Depletion ........................................... 93

ABOUT THE AUTHORS ................................................................................................................. 95

MODIFICATIONS TO ORIGINAL RELEASE ....................................................................................... A

x
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

1 Introduction
When one installs a supply well, it is usually with the hope that the well will reliably
provide water for a long time (that is, its use will be sustainable for future generations). The
science of hydrogeology has developed principles that can potentially (1) guide
development projects that are created to last for a long time, and/or (2) assess the longevity
of an existing development.
In this Book it is our intent to discuss the ideas associated with development of
groundwater at the macro scale. We do not focus on well hydraulics, well interference, or
design of wells or well fields. Instead, we begin with where the water comes from when
one pumps a single well and proceed to the scale in which we develop an entire aquifer
system. These ideas are not new; they date back to a paper by Theis (1940) on the source of
water derived from wells -- many investigators think this is Theis’ best paper. Theis (1940)
noted that all pumpage is balanced by a loss of water somewhere, with the loss during early
times coming largely from groundwater storage. Theis (1940) concludes that “After
sufficient time has elapsed … further discharge by wells will be made up at least in part by an increase
in the recharge if previously there had been rejected recharge. … further discharge by wells will be
made up in part by a diminution in the natural discharge.” (Rejected recharge is water available
to potentially enter the aquifer but cannot because of aquifer storage capacity or
conductance limitations.)
There are a number of processes and environmental consequences involved in
groundwater development. Many relevant ideas are discussed in other Groundwater
Project books, including: the basic theory of groundwater flow and transport, multiphase
flow, unsaturated zone flow, the physics of recharge, the geologic occurrence of
groundwater, groundwater-surface water interactions; and the related topics of land
subsidence/consolidation and coastal hydrogeology/seawater intrusion.

2 Groundwater Use
Groundwater withdrawals in the United States and globally expanded dramatically
during the last half of the 20th century. Estimates of groundwater withdrawals in the United
States are available from the United States Geological Survey for every five-year period
since the 1940s. These data (Figure 1) show a steady growth through the 1970s, followed by
a more or less stabilization of groundwater use. In 2015, total groundwater withdrawals
were about 114 km3/yr (82,300 million gallons per day [MGD]), and 69 percent of the
groundwater withdrawals was used for irrigation and 18 percent was used for public
supply (data from Dieter et al. 2018). Approximately half the population of the world
depends upon groundwater for its drinking water supply, and groundwater supplies about
43 percent of the global irrigation water supply (Siebert et al., 2010; WWAP, 2015). Total
global groundwater use in 2010 was approximately 982 km3/yr, and about 70 percent of
1
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

that was used for irrigation (Margat and van der Gun, 2013). As of 2010, the country with
the largest groundwater use was India (about 250 km3/yr) -- more than the second and third
largest users combined (China and the United States, with about 110 km3/yr each). This
large and expanding use of groundwater is the primary driving force for concerns about
groundwater depletion and sustainability of groundwater pumping.

Figure 1 - Total fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States from 1945 to 2015 (data
source: Guyton, 1950; https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/wu).

3 Sustainability of Groundwater Development

Groundwater is often characterized as a “renewable resource.” Yet data now
accumulating indicate that much of the current development of groundwater is depleting
the resource at rates that cannot be sustained -- in many places groundwater is being
“mined” at high rates -- contradicting its renewability over human timeframes. This poses
a challenge to groundwater scientists and managers -- can the resource be developed in a
sustainable manner, and if so, how can that goal be accomplished? This is the premier task for the
groundwater community in the 21st Century.
“Groundwater sustainability” has been defined in various ways. Alley et al. (1999)
define groundwater sustainability as “development and use of groundwater in a manner
that can be maintained for an indefinite time without causing unacceptable environmental,
economic, or social consequences.” However, they note that “the definition of
‘unacceptable consequences’ is largely subjective and may involve a large number of
criteria.” It might, for example, include streamflow depletion, drying of springs or
wetlands, loss of vegetation, and/or water-level declines in wells. Price (2002) argues that
sustainability should be related to a specific time period over which it is to be evaluated.
The concept of safe yield of a groundwater system is often used by water managers
to place limits on the total number of wells and/or total pumping from a given aquifer. This
need arises because groundwater is a common pool resource in which extraordinarily high

2
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

usage by one or more parties may be highly beneficial to those parties (and their self-
interests) but harmful to the long-term viability of the resource (through excessive
depletion) and to everyone else’s continued future use of the common resource.
Overdevelopment of an aquifer is a classic example of “The Tragedy of the Commons”
(Hardin, 1968).
Meinzer (1923) defined safe yield as “the rate at which water can be withdrawn from
an aquifer for human use without depleting the supply to such an extent that withdrawal
at this rate is no longer economically feasible” (Alley and Leake, 2004). Freeze and Cherry
(1979) state, “Todd (1959) defines the safe yield of a groundwater basin as the amount of
water that can be withdrawn from it annually without producing an undesired result. Any
withdrawal in excess of safe yield is an overdraft.” Freeze and Cherry (1979) indicate that
there is widespread dissatisfaction with the term among hydrologists. Alley and Leake
(2004) indicate that the dissatisfaction arises in large part because the term is vague.
Misinterpretation implies a fixed underground water supply. Groundwater supply
depends on the particular locations of wells and is only fixed when the locations of wells
are specified. A yield that is safe from one perspective, such as depletion of groundwater
storage, might not be so safe from the standpoint of discharge areas of aquifers, such as
lakes, springs, and wetlands (Alley and Leake, 2004). Pumping rates that are considered
safe by well owners may yield streamflow depletion that is an undesired result for surface-
water users. Freeze and Cherry (1979), among others, suggest that an optimization
approach within a socioeconomic framework would be a better way to assess an optimal
(rather than safe) level of development in a groundwater basin.
The desirability and value of sustainable development of groundwater, and
management approaches to help achieve that, have been discussed by Gleeson et al. (2012).
Sustainable groundwater development seeks to preserve the resource for use by future
generations. But “sustainability” should be assessed in a larger perspective that includes
impacts on surface-water flows, other environmental consequences (e.g., land subsidence
and water-quality changes), as well as other linkages, such as socio-economics (Alley and
Leake, 2004; Hiskock et al., 2002; Kendy, 2003; MacEwan et al., 2017; National Research
Council, 2013; and Van der Gun and Lipponen, 2010).
In contrast, “groundwater mining” is the removal of water from storage in the
aquifer that cannot be renewed (or replaced) within a human timeframe (Thomas, 1955;
and Bredehoeft and Alley, 2014). By definition, such rates of groundwater development
cannot be maintained indefinitely. However, the length of time that such mining can
continue depends on the stock of groundwater in storage (i.e., the volume of recoverable
groundwater in the aquifer) and the rate of withdrawal through wells. Clearly there are
cases in which substantial rates of groundwater development and mining can continue for
decades and even centuries. It is possible that the economic, social, and political benefits of
the water provided by such groundwater mining may be very large, and that some mining
is acceptable within a socioeconomic framework.

3
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

If sustainable development of a groundwater resource is not practically achievable,

then the question might be whether to manage the resource in order to extend its life or just
let development eventually lead to functional limitations on groundwater withdrawals.
Should non-sustainable groundwater development (sometimes called “overdraft” or
“overexploitation”) ever be considered acceptable? Should society weigh the shorter-term
economic and societal benefits of a time-limited use of the groundwater resource in an
aquifer against the “costs” and environmental effects of the development, and how would
that be done? Price (2002) points out that many developments in human history were non-
sustainable, but contributed substantially to human progress. Perhaps non-sustainable
groundwater development (groundwater mining) is acceptable to society if it is done with
a full knowledge and understanding that such groundwater use can only continue for a
limited (but reliably estimated) time. Depletion of groundwater resources without an
understanding of its existence, timing, and consequences should be considered
unacceptable policy. Hydrogeologists can provide that predictive understanding, which
offers a long-view scientific basis for policy makers and water managers to make sound
and defensible policy decisions.

3.1 Basic Assumptions

In considering the impacts of groundwater development, we make a number of
basic assumptions that simplify the discussion; they are:
1. All water molecules under consideration have the same composition -- in other
words we are not considering groundwater transport of differing quality water.
2. The groundwater flow equation describes the material (mass) balance -- and
Darcy’s Law can be applied to obtain the direction and rate of groundwater flow
at any point within the system. The dependent variable within the groundwater
system being considered is hydraulic head.
3. Groundwater systems exist over long periods of time prior to development. Before
development they are in a kind of steady state or long-term dynamic equilibrium
in which short-term and seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and recharge
average out over the longer-term period.
4. Conservation of the mass of water within the system is preserved.
All of these assumptions can be relaxed; needless to say, one must take care in relaxing
these ideas.

3.2 Water Balance

Conservation of mass is a basic principle for understanding groundwater flow.
Combining this principle (as a continuity equation) with Darcy’s Law yields a partial
differential equation describing changes in head and flux through a groundwater system
in response to stresses and boundary conditions. This is discussed in another Groundwater
Project book that describes the principles of groundwater flow, including the
groundwater flow equations. We can also present a simpler but useful algebraic equation

4
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

that describes a water balance in an aquifer. A quantitative global water balance statement
for a groundwater system can be expressed as Equation 1:
∆𝑉/∆𝑡 = (𝑅0 + ∆𝑅𝑡 ) – (𝐷0 + ∆𝐷𝑡 ) – 𝑄𝑡 (1)
where:
∆𝑉 = change in the volume of water in storage in the aquifer (L3)
∆t = length of a time increment of interest (T)
∆𝑉/∆𝑡 = global (aquifer-wide) rate of change in storage (L3/T)
𝑅0 = total recharge rate into the undisturbed natural system (the virgin
recharge) (L3/T)
∆𝑅𝑡 = global change in recharge caused by the pumping (L3/T)
𝐷0 = total discharge rate from the undisturbed system (prior to
development) (L3/T)
∆𝐷𝑡 = global change in discharge caused by the pumping (L3/T)
𝑄𝑡 = global rate of pumping during the time period, t (L3/T)

3.3 The System Prior to Development

Prior to development (Q=0) one assumes that on average the recharge to a
groundwater system is balanced by the discharge, and there is no long-term change in
storage (∆𝑉 =0). This is especially true when considering that groundwater systems evolve
over geologic time. Admittedly there are wet and dry years, as well as seasonal and even
daily variability in precipitation and recharge, but over the long-term it is reasonable to
assume that the annual fluctuations balance out. Under this assumption:
𝑅0 = 𝐷0 (2)
for conditions prior to development (Figure 2). In many investigations considerable effort
is spent in trying to estimate the undisturbed (or “natural”) recharge, R0. Usually it is best
to estimate both the undisturbed recharge and discharge simultaneously, as they must be
equal and constrain one another. As explained in the “A New Perspective” section of this
book, the undisturbed recharge is not as important in analyzing groundwater development
as many people think.

5
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 2 - Schematic illustration of the natural

groundwater balance, the long-term average balance
between recharge and discharge in an undisturbed
(natural) groundwater system (Konikow and Bredehoeft,
2020).

This is not to say that some aquifer systems cannot continue to undergo slow
transient changes in their water balance over tens of thousands of years or longer if they
are relatively large and somewhat slow to respond to major changes in climate and/or sea
level during “recent” geologic times. If climate change near the end of the Pleistocene has
caused a substantial reduction of average recharge rates to the aquifer, the new recharge
regime cannot balance or maintain the discharge from the system. One implication of this
imbalance is that the system will continue to drain (and water in storage will be reduced
over time) as the system tries to reach a new equilibrium condition and discharge is
reduced accordingly. If the properties and boundary conditions of the aquifer are such that
reaching this new equilibrium would take centuries to millennia, then we can today see
groundwater systems that are still responding to the vast changes in climate, glacial extent,
and sea level 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. Groundwater occurring in such systems is
sometimes referred to as “fossil water” because it is essentially nonrenewable under
present climatic conditions. One example is the Nubian aquifer of North Africa, where
modern natural predevelopment discharge (and storage depletion) was estimated to be
about 86 m3/s (2.7 km3/yr) prior to development (about 1960 and earlier), while natural
recharge was close to zero (Voss and Soliman, 2014). But such examples are the exception
rather than the rule -- most aquifer systems were in balance (between recharge and
discharge) prior to human development.

3.4 Pumping
When a well is pumped, it introduces a new discharge from the system. As
elucidated by Theis (1940), water to supply the well comes from (or is balanced by) three

6
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

potential sources: (1) an increase in the recharge to the aquifer caused by the pumping, (2)
a decrease in groundwater discharge from the aquifer caused by the pumping, and (3) a
reduction in groundwater storage in the aquifer system, or some combination of the three.
This principle simply means that water mass is conserved, and that additional (new)
discharge by pumping must be balanced or compensated by changes in other elements of
the aquifer’s water budget (as graphically illustrated in Figure 3). Based on the equivalency
expressed in Equation 2, one can simplify the quantitative global water balance statement
for the system (Equation 1) to:
∆𝑅𝑡 − ∆𝐷𝑡 − ∆𝑉/∆𝑡 = 𝑄𝑡 (3)

Figure 3 - Schematic illustration of the developed

groundwater balance required to offset a new pumping
stress in an aquifer; V is the change in storage, D is
the change in groundwater discharge, and R is the
change in recharge (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

We define a new quantity (∆𝑅𝑡 − ∆𝐷𝑡 ) as the capture (Lohman et al., 1972). That is,
capture encompasses the changes in recharge and discharge caused by drawdown and
changes in hydraulic gradients resulting from pumping a well, and represents water
“captured” by the well that otherwise would not have entered the groundwater system or
otherwise would have discharged from the groundwater system naturally. When the
change in the volume of water in storage, ∆𝑉, is negative, the change represents a depletion
of the volume (or mass) of groundwater stored in the aquifer. The balance depicted in
Figure 3 holds regardless of whether the individual terms are all represented as rates or as
cumulative volumes. It is important to distinguish capture from capture zone, which
represents the three-dimensional, volumetric portion of a groundwater flow field that
discharges to a well (Anderson, et al., 2015; Barlow et al., 2018). The capture zone may or
may not include the area where capture is occurring.

7
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

3.5 Long-Term Pumping Equilibrium (Development)

In every case of groundwater development some water must be removed from
storage in order to create a cone of depression that will create a local head gradient adjacent
to the well that causes groundwater to flow into the well. However, commonly the intent
is to end up with a system that will persist through time (i.e., where the pumping will be
sustainable indefinitely, or at least can be maintained for some acceptably long period of
time). Development that can persist through time is one in which eventually storage is no
longer being depleted and pumping is balanced by capture:
∆𝑉/∆𝑡 = 0 (4)
In this new equilibrium (or dynamic equilibrium) pumping is balanced entirely by
capture. From this perspective the questions for an investigator or water manager are:
1. What are the changes in recharge and/or discharge brought on by the
pumping -- what is the capture?
2. Can the system that now includes the pumping reach a new equilibrium in which
storage is no longer being depleted?
3. If a new equilibrium can be reached, how long will that take to occur?
4. If a new equilibrium cannot be achieved, for how long can the pumping be
maintained?
5. Is the capture acceptable from a water (and environmental) policy and
management perspective?
The answers to these questions depend upon the particulars of the system being
considered. For example, where pumping is situated relative to discharge often makes a
difference -- both in the feasibility of reaching a new equilibrium and in how long it takes.
It makes a big difference where wells are located in a groundwater system.
At early times after a well starts to pump and the cone of depression begins to
develop, the pumped water is derived exclusively from a reduction (or depletion) in the
volume of water stored in the aquifer. As the cone of depression spreads out and begins to
affect aquifer boundaries, more and more of the water pumped from the well will be
balanced by capture (Figure 4). This time dependence is a key to understanding and
predicting the effects of groundwater development. The time scale for the response curves
depends on the hydraulic properties of the aquifer and the distance of the well from
recharge and discharge locations. But as noted by Bredehoeft and Alley (2014), this
transition period can be very long -- perhaps years to decades to centuries -- especially if
the system under development is dominated by water-table conditions with large
storativity. The pumping rate itself does not affect the relative (or fractional) responses
shown in Figure 4, but will be proportional to the actual volumetric magnitude of the
effects. A quantitative method to estimate the timing of capture is presented in detail in the
section of this book titled “Estimating the Magnitude and Timing of Streamflow
Depletion.”

8
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 4 - Sources of water to a well can change with time (from Konikow
and Leake, 2014, as modified from Alley et al., 1999, and Barlow and
Leake, 2012).

3.6 A New Perspective

For many these ideas represent a new perspective. One must understand the
dynamics of the groundwater system to assess development impacts. The static
information on what was the undisturbed recharge is not nearly as important as the
dynamics of capture. This comes as a shock to many who consider undisturbed (“natural”)
recharge to be all important in evaluating sustainable groundwater development
(Bredehoeft, 2007; Bredehoeft et al., 1982). It is a common misconception that groundwater
development is “safe” if the average annual rate of groundwater withdrawal from an
aquifer does not exceed the average annual rate of natural recharge (Alley and Leake, 2004).
Bredehoeft et al. (1982) call this the “water-budget myth” and clarify that hydraulically
maintainable development depends on pumping becoming balanced by capture.
Describing the dynamics of how a particular groundwater system functions is best
done today with a well-calibrated numerical groundwater model, as is illustrated later in
this book with two case studies. Such a model solves the groundwater flow equation for
the specified boundary and initial conditions and provides the global mass balances (water
budgets) described by Equations 1 through 4.

4 Storage Depletion
As discussed, one factor that contributes to balancing of groundwater pumping is
the removal of water from storage in the pore spaces of the subsurface saturated zone.
Coincident with storage depletion are water-level declines, either from a declining water
table in an unconfined aquifer or from lowering of the potentiometric head in a confined
aquifer. Groundwater storage depletion and accompanying water level declines have a
number of consequences.

9
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

The volume of water that an aquifer releases from storage per unit surface area per
unit decline in head in response to pumping is characterized by the dimensionless storage
coefficient (S ) (Lohman et al., 1972). In a confined aquifer, the water released from storage
is derived from the expansion of water and compression of the aquifer as the head declines.
In an unconfined (or “water table”) aquifer, the primary source of water from storage comes
from gravity drainage of the pore spaces as the water table declines, and S is essentially
equivalent to the dimensionless specific yield (Sy) (Lohman et al., 1972). In confined
aquifers, values of S typically range from 5×10-5 to 5×10-3, whereas for unconfined aquifers
the values of Sy typically range from 0.01 to 0.30 (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Consequently,
a given (or unit) withdrawal rate in a confined aquifer will result in greater drawdown near
the well and a cone of depression that spreads faster and further than would result from an
identical withdrawal rate in an unconfined aquifer.

4.1 Some Effects of Storage Depletion

Economic and Societal Benefits
Where groundwater storage depletion is large, even larger volumes of groundwater
have been withdrawn and used. These uses provide water for drinking, for factories, and
for agriculture, and therefore have great value. Such beneficial use and value must be
carefully weighed when considering the economic and environmental effects and costs of
the storage depletion. For example, substantial and continuing groundwater depletion
might adversely impact the availability of water for irrigated agricultural productivity (e.g.,
CAST, 2019). Water managers and policy makers, of course, must also make their decisions
in light of the legal framework applicable to their areas -- a framework that is highly
variable from one political entity to another (even within a single nation).

Water-Level Declines
Water levels always decline in response to pumping. This is normal and not always
a problem. However, if water-level declines in an aquifer or in an individual well are
substantial, it can have detrimental physical and economic effects. Large water-level
declines lead to reduced well yields and increased energy costs because of the greater lift
required to move water from the well to the discharge point at or above the land surface.
One reason that a greater lift results in a reduced well yield is because most pumps with a
fixed power rating and capacity will produce a discharge of water in an inverse relation to
the magnitude of the lift. For a flowing artesian well, the reduced water levels (or heads)
will reduce the gradient driving the flow to the land surface, and hence reduce or eliminate
the flow discharging from the well. In an unconfined aquifer, lowering the water table will
also reduce the saturated thickness of the aquifer adjacent to the open or screened interval
of the wellbore, and that will consequently reduce the effective transmissivity of the aquifer
at the well, which in turn will reduce the well yield. In a confined aquifer, even as the
potentiometric head drops, the aquifer will remain fully saturated, except in extreme

10
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

circumstances. It is possible that the head can decline to a level below the elevation of the
top of the aquifer, in which case the confined aquifer will start to drain and dewater.
However, this is a rare occurrence.
If the water level in a well drops below the pump intake, the well will “go dry.”
This will have economic impacts on the well owner, who then must choose among several
costly alternatives, including lowering the pump (if possible), deepening the existing well,
drilling a new deeper well, abandoning the well and the former use of its produced water,
or purchasing water (or water rights) and conveyance infrastructure for an alternate source
of water supply if one is available and such transfers are legally allowable.

Land Subsidence
Groundwater storage depletion and the concomitant water-level declines can also
have some poroelastic effects and consequences. The most common, widespread, and
consequential is land subsidence, which can damage infrastructure and is widely
recognized to be associated with groundwater use and storage depletion. Examples of
affected areas include the Houston, Texas, area, the Central Valley of California, Mexico
City, Bangkok, Tokyo, Jakarta, Venice, and other areas including those discussed by
Galloway et al. (1999) and Poland (1984). The mechanisms whereby groundwater
withdrawals can cause land subsidence are discussed in more detail in other Groundwater
Project books. In summary, if the aquifers contain clayey lenses or layers, then lowering the
heads can reduce the pore pressure in these materials, which in turn causes them to
compress in an inelastic manner as the clay mineral structure itself realigns in a more
compact (and irreversible) manner.

Sea-Level Rise
Most depleted groundwater ultimately finds its way into the oceans -- the ultimate
sink. In a sense, groundwater depletion can be viewed as a large-scale, long-term transfer
process of water from the continents to the oceans. If the long-term cumulative volume of
depleted groundwater is large enough, it can contribute to sea-level rise, and there is good
evidence that it has (e.g., Sahagian et al., 1994; Konikow, 2011; Church et al., 2011; Dӧll et
al., 2014). The studies indicate that in the first decade of the 21st century, global groundwater
depletion may have contributed 0.3 to 0.4 mm/yr to sea-level rise -- about 10 percent of the
observed sea-level rise.

4.2 Methods to Estimate Depletion

Measuring or estimating the change in the volume of groundwater in storage over
a time period is not straightforward as it cannot be measured directly. Estimations can rely
on several alternative approaches, but all require the use of some unmeasured and
uncertain properties and/or fluxes.

11
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Head Changes
Perhaps the most direct approach to estimating depletion is to map the changes in
head over the affected area of the aquifer and integrate those with estimates of the storage
coefficient (or storativity; specific yield for unconfined aquifers). An example of this
approach is presented for the High Plains aquifer as provided in Box 1. The storativity
can vary horizontally and vertically, and in some cases, one may need to account for that
variation to estimate reliable regional average values.

Models
This approach is inherent to the way that a numerical groundwater flow model
simulates the hydrodynamic responses in an aquifer. As part of its numerical solution of
the governing groundwater flow equation, a model that is calibrated to observed changes
in head (and/or fluxes) in the aquifer will provide calculations of changes in groundwater
storage during each model time step, as well as cumulatively for the time period from the
start of the model simulation, in its water budget output. Examples of simulation models
applied to aquifers having substantial depletion include Faunt et al. (2009) for the Central
Valley of California and Clark and Hart (2009) for the Mississippi Embayment aquifer.

Water Budgets
One can also use a water budget approach for estimating depletion. For example,
Kjelstrom (1995) used pumpage data in conjunction with other water budget estimates for
the Snake River Plain aquifer in Idaho and eastern Oregon to estimate the changes in
groundwater storage. But this approach has limited applicability because of the large
uncertainties in estimates for all of the water budget elements. The difficulty arises because
the change in storage may be small relative to the fluxes in and out of the aquifer so that
errors in the estimated fluxes may exceed the magnitude of the rate of storage change.
Nevertheless, a fair number of studies have been published using large scale (or even
global) models of atmospheric and land-surface processes to estimate groundwater
depletion, which is calculated as a residual in the budget equation (e.g., Wada et al., 2010).
In its simplest form, depletion equals the difference between recharge and pumpage.
Recharge is assumed to equal precipitation minus runoff and evapotranspiration, and
pumpage estimates are typically based on land-use characterization and expected water
use rather than on direct measurements of withdrawals. A primary difficulty here is that
these approaches generally cannot simulate or predict the very effects and processes
discussed in this book -- namely that pumpage will be balanced by a combination of
increased recharge and decreased discharge -- because the water budget approaches do not
simulate the hydrodynamic changes within a groundwater flow system nor its relation to
surface water. Therefore, these global water-balance approaches tend to substantially
overestimate the magnitude of groundwater storage depletion because they erroneously
ignore capture and/or its hydrodynamic processes.

12
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Gravity Measurements
Another alternative approach to estimating groundwater depletion is through
geophysical methods. Where groundwater depletion occurs, the mass of material in the
Earth’s subsurface is reduced, and this affects the Earth’s gravity field. Very sensitive
gravity measurements repeated over time can detect relatively small changes in the gravity
field. If these gravity changes are derived solely or primarily from changes in total water
storage (TWS), then the observed gravity changes can be used to estimate groundwater
depletion if other possible contributors to changes in TWS are negligible or can be reliably
estimated (such as changes in surface-water storage, snow and ice, and vadose zone/soil
moisture). Land-based surface gravity measurements were repeated annually over several
years in Arizona to estimate changes in groundwater storage in alluvial aquifers (Pool and
Anderson, 2008). However, they reported that correlations between gravity-based
estimates of storage change and water-level changes in observation wells were sometimes
only poor to moderate.

GRACE Remote Sensing

A much larger scale of gravity measurement is provided by the GRACE satellites
(Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, a mission jointly sponsored by the United
States and Germany), which are a pair of coupled satellites to measure spatial and temporal
changes in the Earth’s gravity field (e.g., Tapley et al., 2004; Famiglietti and Rodell, 2013;
and Famiglietti et al., 2015). GRACE has provided useful information about global changes
in TWS, as well as global groundwater depletion for many large aquifer systems (e.g.,
Famiglietti et al., 2011; Tiwari et al., 2009; and Rodell et al., 2009). However, GRACE data
provide estimates of total change in water storage over a relatively large footprint -- a
resolution on the order of 100,000 km2 as discussed by Scanlon et al. (2016). This scale is
much larger than many aquifers. Although the accuracy is on the order of 1.5 cm of
equivalent water height, the low spatial resolution of GRACE limits its ability to provide
groundwater depletion data at a scale amenable for water managers to use effectively as
discussed by Alley and Konikow (2015). Furthermore, the analysis of GRACE data still
faces the challenge of separating all the components contributing to total water storage
change as explained by Scanlon et al. (2015). Hence, using this approach to estimate
groundwater depletion is most applicable to large aquifers in arid to semi-arid climatic
areas and requires some caution in interpretation.

Subsidence
An estimate of the minimum value for groundwater storage depletion in an area
undergoing land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals can be made by calculating
the volume of subsidence. The groundwater storage depletion volume must equal or
exceed the subsidence volume because the removal of pore water and the subsequent
compaction of the sediments are the drivers for the subsidence. For example, in the Gulf
Coastal Plain near Houston, Texas, the volume of land subsidence was estimated by
13
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Konikow (2013) using maps of historical subsidence (1906–2000). The calculated

cumulative subsidence volume was 10.5 km3. For comparison, the cumulative water budget
from a numerical model calibrated to field observations made from 1891 to 2000 indicates
that 10.8 km3 of groundwater was removed from storage in the unconsolidated clay units
as the clays compacted and subsidence progressed -- essentially all of it during the 20th
century according to Kasmarek and Robinson (2004). The small difference of less than 3
percent provides good support for the use of the subsidence approach, as well as for the
quality of the model calibration and resulting reliability of the model calculations. For
comparison, the volume of groundwater depletion derived from storage losses in
interbedded clays (and associated with land subsidence) represents about 36 percent of the
total groundwater storage depletion of 28.9 km3, with the remaining depletion derived
from storage losses in the sand layers (Kasmarek and Robinson, 2004).

Confining Layers
It is well established that confining layer storage is a significant source of water
when confined aquifers are developed (e.g., Theis, 1940; Jacob, 1946; Hantush, 1960;
Bredehoeft et al., 1983). In a regionally extensive confined aquifer, direct recharge may be
limited to outcrop areas at the margins of the aquifer’s extent. So a stress on the aquifer in
the form of groundwater withdrawal from wells distant from the outcrop area cannot be
readily balanced by an increase in recharge. Thus, drawdown propagates large distances
laterally and changes in vertical hydraulic gradients induce leakage from adjacent
confining beds. Because the hydraulic conductivity of confining beds is low relative to that
of the aquifer, precluding timely propagation of the head change to the other side of
confining bed, that leakage will be derived primarily from storage depletion in the
confining beds over timeframes of decades to centuries. In fact, the magnitude of storage
depletion in the confining units can be much greater than the storage depletion in the
confined aquifer itself. An example of this occurred in the Dakota Aquifer system as
explained in Box 2. Konikow and Neuzil (2007) summarize a number of approaches for
estimating the volume of depletion from confining units. Most methods require
measurements or estimates of the hydraulic conductivity and specific storage properties of
the confining layer, as well as observations of head changes within the confining layer.
However, such data are rarely available because water supply wells rarely have open
intervals in confining units. Konikow and Neuzil (2007) offer a simplified method that is
based on head changes in the confined aquifer at the boundary with low-permeability
confining units.

4.3 Magnitude of Storage Depletion

Groundwater storage depletion is becoming recognized as an increasingly serious
global problem that threatens sustainability of water supplies (e.g., Schwartz and Ibaraki,
2011). Long-term cumulative groundwater storage depletion, both in the United States and
globally, was estimated by Konikow (2011; 2013) using calibrated groundwater models,
14
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

analytical approaches, gravity-based analyses, and/or volumetric budget analyses for

multiple aquifer systems. Estimates were derived from bringing together information from
the literature and from new analyses.
Long-term cumulative depletion volumes in the United States were assessed for 40
separate aquifers or areas as shown in Figure 5 and one broader land-use category
(agricultural and land drainage where the water table has been permanently lowered).

Figure 5 - Cumulative long-term volumetric groundwater storage depletion in the United States during
1900-2008, in km3 (modified from Konikow, 2013). The three aquifers with the highest depletion volumes are
identified. Hachured areas are where a shallow aquifer overlies a deeper aquifer.

Estimated total groundwater depletion in the United States during the 20th century
was approximately 800 km3, increasing by about 25 percent during the next 8 years for a
total of 1,000 km3 during 1900-2008. The rate of groundwater depletion has increased
markedly since about 1950 (Figure 6), with maximum rates occurring during the recent
period (2001–2008) when the depletion rate averaged almost 25 km3 per year (compared to
9.2 km3 per year average for the 1900-2008 timeframe). Two large aquifer systems in the
northwestern United States showed long-term negative depletions, in other
words, water-table rises thus increased groundwater storage. This is attributable primarily
to the diversion and application of surface water for irrigation purposes, which increases
recharge above rates that occur naturally.

15
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 6 – Five-year averaged rates of groundwater

depletion in the United States, 1900 through 2008. Final value
represents average rate during 3-year period, 2006 through
2008 (from Konikow, 2015).

Depletion volumes for individual aquifer systems vary substantially across the
United States (Figure 5). The three aquifer systems having the largest depletion volumes
are the High Plains aquifer (341 km3), the Mississippi Embayment aquifer system (182 km3),
and the Central Valley of California (145 km3). However, this does not tell the whole story.
For example, because the High Plains aquifer encompasses a very large area (~450,000 km2),
the average depletion over the entire area is less than in some other systems, and depletion
is nonuniform - being much greater in its southern part. Another way to assess the
magnitude of aquifer depletion is to normalize the depletion volume by the area of the
aquifer, yielding a measure of depletion intensity (Konikow, 2015). During the 20th century,
the highest depletion intensities occurred in three relatively small basins in southern
California. However, during the beginning of the 21st century, the highest depletion
intensity was in the Central Valley of California, which has an area of about 52,000 km2.
The aquifer-wide depletion intensity there averaged 0.075m/yr during 2001-2008
(Konikow, 2015). Consistent with this measure, the Central Valley has been experiencing
increasing water shortages, additional water-level declines, and accelerated land
subsidence in the most affected parts of the valley since 2000 (Faunt et al., 2016).
Groundwater storage depletion and capture can be measured in terms of
nondimensional fractions relative to pumpage (Konikow and Leake, 2014). Reliable
estimates of cumulative pumpage in the United States are available for the United States as
a whole for 1950-2005, during which the cumulative withdrawals were approximately 5,340
km3 (Kenny et al., 2009). During that same time period, the total net groundwater storage
depletion was about 812 km3 (Konikow, 2013). Thus, about 15 percent of the total pumpage
was derived from a reduction in the volume of groundwater in storage; that is, the long-
term depletion fraction is about 0.15 and the capture fraction is about 0.85. But depletion
fractions vary widely throughout the United States. There are adequate withdrawal and
depletion data available for 31 specific areas or aquifers within the United States. The mean
depletion fraction for these areas is 0.39 and the mean capture fraction is 0.61 (Konikow
and Leake, 2014). Overall, even though groundwater storage depletion is a serious problem

16
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

in many places, it is evident that over periods of years to decades that capture is generally
larger than depletion and constitutes an even more serious concern.
To assess the potential contribution of groundwater depletion to sea-level rise, one
can make a bounding calculation by assuming that the oceans represent an ultimate sink
for essentially all depleted groundwater. Then the contribution of groundwater storage
depletion to sea-level rise can be estimated by spreading the volume of depletion across the
surface area of the oceans (a total area of about 3.61×108 km2). On this basis, groundwater
depletion in the United States alone would account for (or balance) as much as 2.2 mm of
sea-level rise during the 20th century. During this 100-year period, the observed rate of
sea-level rise averaged about 1.7 mm/yr. Thus, groundwater depletion in the United States
alone can explain about 1.3 percent of the observed global sea-level rise during the 20th
century.
Groundwater storage depletion is a global problem. Konikow and Kendy (2005)
note that excessive groundwater depletion affects major regions of North Africa, the
Middle East, South and Central Asia, North China, North America, and Australia, as well
as localized areas throughout the world. Konikow (2011) estimated the cumulative global
groundwater depletion, as well as its equivalent sea-level rise for 1900-2008 (Figure 7).
Obtaining data on water-level changes from many parts of the world is extremely difficult,
so the resulting depletion estimates have a greater uncertainty than those for just the United
States. The total depletion volume is on the order of 4,500 km3, which could explain about
12.6 mm of sea-level rise. However, during the most recent part of this evaluated time
period (2001-2008), the rate of global groundwater depletion had increased from an average
of 33.7 km3/yr during the 20th century to approximately 145 km3/yr (equivalent to a sea-level
rise contribution of 0.40 mm/yr). For these same reference time periods, the rate of sea-level
rise had increased from about 1.7 mm/yr to about 3.1 mm/yr. Therefore, during the first
part of the 21st century, global groundwater depletion can explain almost 13 percent of the
observed rate of sea-level rise.

Figure 7 - Estimated cumulative global groundwater storage

depletion, 1900-2008, and equivalent contribution to sea-
level rise (from Konikow, 2011).

17
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

5 CAPTURE
The second mechanism that contributes to balancing of groundwater pumpage is
capture - a combination of increased recharge and decreased discharge of groundwater
(Lohman et al., 1972; Bredehoeft and Durbin, 2009; Leake, 2011; Barlow and Leake, 2012;
and Barlow et al., 2018).
The decrease in groundwater discharge typically represents a reduction in the
discharge to surface water, such as streams, lakes, wetlands, springs, drains, estuaries,
and/or along coastlines. However, evapotranspiration is also a type of discharge from a
groundwater system that also can be captured. In fact, in areas where surface water is
sparse or absent, as in closed desert basins, the reduction in groundwater discharge (and
capture) can primarily encompass a reduction in evapotranspirative losses from the
groundwater system as the water table declines over time.
Capture also includes increases in recharge in response to pumping and water-level
declines. For example, if a lowland area has a water table that lies at or immediately below
the land surface, precipitation falling onto that surface cannot infiltrate to recharge the
aquifer because no pore space is available to absorb it -- all the pore spaces are already fully
saturated. This potential recharge is “rejected.” However, if the water table drops because
of pumping, then future precipitation onto this same land surface area will be able to
infiltrate the soil and recharge the groundwater system. Also, increases in recharge in
response to pumping can occur where surface water features intersect aquifers. If
drawdown due to pumping is so large as to reverse the hydraulic gradient, then where
groundwater flow was formerly directed from the aquifer to the stream it now becomes
directed from the stream into the aquifer. This seepage loss from the stream is usually
termed “induced infiltration.”
But in general, capture typically is composed mostly of streamflow (or other surface
water) depletion. In the United States, groundwater discharge represents from 15 to 90
percent of total annual streamflow -- about 50 percent on average (Winter et al., 1998). Thus,
any reduction in groundwater discharge supporting streamflow can have serious
detrimental consequences. Streamflow depletion is most often observed as a reduction in
the base flow (or low flows) of streams. In the extreme, streams can go dry (Figure 8). Such
streamflow depletion is of great concern for water-supply managers, for those with senior
rights to use surface water, and because of potential environmental impacts. In fact,
streamflow depletion due to groundwater pumping has been the subject of several United
States Supreme Court cases in recent years, whose decisions have clearly recognized the
relation between groundwater and surface water (Alley and Alley, 2017).

18
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 8 - There is a relation between groundwater pumping and streamflow depletion.

a) Groundwater pumped from the Mississippi River alluvial aquifer for flood irrigation of a rice field in
the Mississippi Delta, USA (Photograph by David E. Burt, Jr., United States Geological Survey; source:
Barlow and Leake, 2012). b) A Delta stream (Big Sunflower River) that is nearly dry during the summer
because of loss of base flow (Photograph by Matt Hicks, United States Geological Survey; source:
Barlow and Clark, 2011).

5.1 Streamflow Depletion

Streamflow depletion arises from both a reduction in the discharge of groundwater
into a stream and an increase in recharge from the stream to the aquifer as gradients are
reduced or reversed between the aquifer and the stream. Both constitute capture, and both
result in a depletion of streamflow downstream from the capture area.
An idealized representation of the sequence of changes for stream-aquifer
interaction and its response to pumping is depicted in Figure 9. The simplified schematic
illustration shows that under natural (predevelopment) conditions (Figure 9a) the average
recharge to the saturated zone equals the average discharge to the stream (assuming no
evapotranspiration from the water table and ignoring any short-term variations in
precipitation that may affect recharge rates or stream stage). After a well is drilled and
begins pumping (Figure 9b), a cone of depression develops and water is removed from
storage. The drawdown reduces the gradient towards the stream and flow from the aquifer
to the stream (i.e., groundwater discharge) is decreased. After more time, in some cases the
hydraulic gradient at the stream-aquifer boundary may be reversed, which locally reverses
the flow direction and induces water in the stream to flow into the aquifer, thereby
increasing recharge (Figure 9c). When pumping becomes fully balanced by capture, the
heads will have stabilized and there will be no additional drawdown or removal of water
from storage. The time it takes for this to occur is called the “time to full capture”
(Bredehoeft and Durbin, 2009). At this time, the system will have attained a new
equilibrium condition, and the pumping rate will be sustainable (or maintainable) from a
hydraulic perspective. However, the streamflow depletion may have detrimental effects on
downstream users and ecosystems, and may not be acceptable. If the pumping is turned
off (Figure 9d), this sequence is reversed and groundwater levels begin to recover, and
groundwater discharge to the stream increases. Given sufficient time, groundwater heads

19
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

may return to their original levels, and recharge and discharge in the system will again
achieve a long-term equilibrium condition (Figure 9e).

Figure 9. Effects of pumping groundwater from a hypothetical water-table aquifer that

discharges to a stream. Sequence shows progressive changes to groundwater flow
and streamflow before, during, and after pumping at a hypothetical well site (from
Leake and Barlow, 2013; as modified from Heath, 1983; Alley et al., 1999).

The capture and streamflow depletion can be manifested in several ways. During
low-flow periods in a stream, the groundwater discharge constitutes a larger fraction of the
total streamflow than during high-flow periods, so a given reduction in groundwater
discharge would be more easily detectable. So, where groundwater pumping and storage
depletion is affecting streamflow, we would expect to see the clearest signal in the low-flow
records for the stream. For example, this is indeed evident in the records of a stream gage
20
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

on the Sunflower River, Mississippi, USA, located within the area of the heavily pumped
Mississippi Embayment regional aquifer system (Figure 10). The data show a significant
decline in the minimum daily mean flow for each year shortly after groundwater use and
storage depletion noticeably accelerated.

Figure 10 - Relation between groundwater depletion and stream discharge.

a) Cumulative groundwater depletion in the Mississippi Embayment regional aquifer
system, USA, 1955 through 2008 (Konikow, 2013). b) Annual minimum mean daily
streamflow for the Big Sunflower River, Mississippi, USA, showing effects of
withdrawals from the aquifer on base flow of the stream and indicating streamflow
depletion after the late 1970s; data are missing for 1998-2002 (modified from Welch
et al., 2010).

Another type of low-flow characteristic is how often (or for how long) a stream goes
dry. If streamflow depletion is affecting the flow of the stream, then the frequency of days
during which there is no flow in the stream might increase or the lengths of dry stream
reaches might increase. The Cache River in northeastern Arkansas, USA, also lies within
the boundaries of the Mississippi Embayment aquifer, and the number of zero-flow days
first increased after 1980, shortly after groundwater depletion had increased (Figure 11).
Another aspect of this phenomenon is that stream reaches that were perennially flowing
prior to groundwater development can go intermittently dry so that those stream reaches
are no longer considered to be perennial, as seen in western Kansas (Figure 12).

21
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 11 - The number of days during a year (1965-2015) that the Cache
River at Egypt, Arkansas, USA, is dry (shown as black dots) increased
markedly after cumulative groundwater depletion (red curve) in the
Mississippi Embayment regional aquifer system became significant.

Figure 12 - Map showing major perennial streams in Kansas as of 1961 and

2009. In western Kansas, which is underlain by areas of the High Plains aquifer
that have undergone substantial groundwater-level declines and storage
depletion since the 1950s, many streams or stream reaches that had been
considered perennial in 1961 were no longer so in 2009 (modified from Kansas
Department of Agriculture, 2010).

5.2 Capture of Evapotranspiration

Groundwater evapotranspiration includes both evaporation from the water table
and transpiration through plant roots that tap the uppermost part of the saturated zone.
Evaporative losses from the water table involves a flux through the unsaturated zone to the
atmosphere. This flux will be largest if the distance from the water table to the soil surface
is shortest (that is, the water table is at or immediately below the land surface). It is also
expected that there exists a depth below which evaporation from the water table becomes
negligible. Similarly, transpiration from the saturated zone by phreatophytes depends on
root penetration, which is most extensive when the water table is shallowest. Phreatophytes
are plants that depend for their water supply upon groundwater that lies within reach of
22
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

their roots (Robinson, 1958). However, there is a maximum depth that plant roots can
penetrate. The limiting depth of the water table -- below which no evapotranspiration can
occur -- is called the extinction depth or cutoff depth (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988).
Overall, the groundwater evapotranspiration flux is inversely proportional to the
depth of the water table below the land surface. Thus, as the water table declines in
response to pumping and storage depletion, the potential evapotranspiration will decrease
(i.e., it is captured). An extreme example of this effect is illustrated by photos of a riparian
zone of a stream in an arid climate, where a long-term loss of vegetation due to large
water-table declines reflects a capture of evapotranspiration (Figure 13).

Figure 13 - Loss of riparian vegetation where the water table declined: a) 1942 photograph of a reach of the
Santa Cruz River south of Tucson, Arizona, showing stands of mesquite and cottonwood trees growing in the
riparian zone of the river (left photograph, Arizona Game and Fish Department); b) photograph of the same
site in 1989 showing that the riparian vegetation has largely disappeared (right photograph, R.H. Webb,
USGS). Data from two nearby wells indicate that the water table has declined more than 30 m because of
pumping; this pumping (and its consequences) appears to be the principal reason for the vegetation loss
(Healy et al., 2007).

The potential for salvaging groundwater evapotranspiration to help balance

groundwater pumping was recognized by Theis (1940). With the goal of optimizing well
locations and minimizing drawdown and streamflow depletion, Theis (1940) stated
“pumps should be placed as close as economically possible to areas of … natural discharge
where ground water is being lost by evaporation or transpiration by non-productive
vegetation.” A small decrease in the rate of groundwater evapotranspiration over a large
area can yield a large volume of water.

5.3 Capture of Spring Discharge

Spring discharge is in part a function of local and regional hydraulic gradients. The
spring elevation is fixed, but the distal heads can decline due to pumping, which reduces
the head gradient towards the spring. This will reduce the flow towards the spring, which
reduces its discharge -- exactly the same mechanism that causes streamflow depletion. This
effect has been observed in long-term discharge measurements at regional springs in
southern Nevada, USA (Figure 14), for example, as well as in springs in North Africa
(Margat et al., 2006). It is not uncommon for springs to go dry because of groundwater
23
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

development in the spring’s source area. But dry springs can recover. Manse Spring (shown
in Figure 14), having gone essentially dry in 1977 (although small intermittent winter flows
were reported after that), started to flow again in the late 1990s (San Juan et al., 2010). The
recovery of spring flow was in response to reduced pumping and rising groundwater levels
since 1980, and discharge was reported to be about 1.9×106 m3/yr in 2011 (Halford and
Jackson, 2020).

Figure 14 - Annual discharge from regional springs in Pahrump Valley,

Nevada, 1875-1978, showing trend of decreasing spring flow after onset of
pumping (modified from San Juan et al., 2010).

5.4 Estimating the Magnitude and Timing of Streamflow Depletion

The factors controlling the timing of streamflow depletion by groundwater capture
are essentially the same factors that control the response of an aquifer to a pumping well.
These include the geometry, dimensions, and hydraulic properties of the aquifer; the
locations and hydraulic characteristics of aquifer boundaries, including streams; and the
horizontal and vertical distances between wells and streams (Barlow and Leake, 2012).
Barlow and Leake (2012) note that the two most important factors are the distance between
a pumping well and a nearby stream and the hydraulic diffusivity of the aquifer (which is
defined as the ratio of the transmissivity to storage coefficient). The magnitude of the
streamflow depletion will be proportional to the magnitude of the rate of pumping,
although the timing is not affected by the pumping rate.
Perhaps the best way to predict the magnitude and timing of streamflow depletion
in response to pumping is to develop and calibrate a reliable simulation model that
accurately (or adequately) represents all of the governing factors in a stream-aquifer
system. Numerical groundwater modeling software, such as the public-domain
MODFLOW software, offer a framework for accomplishing this. Numerical models can
readily account for heterogeneities and irregular or nonlinear boundaries. However, if
certain simplifying assumptions about the system can reasonably be made, then it is
possible to apply an analytical solution, which can offer a faster way to make an estimate

24
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

(e.g., Glover and Balmer, 1954; Theis and Conover, 1963). Commonly required assumptions
include (but are not limited to): (1) a semi-infinite, homogeneous, isotropic aquifer, (2)
aquifer transmissivity remains constant with time, and (3) the bounding stream is a straight
line and fully penetrates the aquifer. As summarized by Barlow and Leake (2012), Glover’s
analytical solution allows one to compute the total rate of streamflow depletion with time,
𝑄𝑠 (𝑡), as shown in Equation 5.
𝑄𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝑄𝑤 erfc (𝑧) (5)
where:
𝑄𝑠 (𝑡) = total rate of streamflow depletion with time (L3/T)
𝑄𝑤 = pumping rate of the well (L3/T)
erfc = complementary error function (dimensionless)
𝑧 = √(𝑎2 𝑆)/(4𝑇𝑡) (dimensionless)
𝑎 = distance from the well to the stream (L)
𝑆 = storage coefficient (dimensionless)
𝑇 = transmissivity (L2/T)
𝑡 = time (T)
To simplify the mathematical complexities of the analytical solutions, Jenkins (1968)
used a semi-analytical approach in which he introduced the concept of a stream depletion
factor (sdf), which had units of time and was defined as Equation 6.
sdf= a2⁄D (6)
where:
𝐷 = hydraulic diffusivity, 𝐷 = 𝑇/𝑆 (L2/T)
As described by Barlow and Leake (2012), the value of sdf for a given pumping location is
a relative measure of how fast streamflow depletion will occur in response to new
pumping. A high value of D will result in a relatively low value of sdf and a relatively fast
response of streamflow depletion to pumping. Values of sdf at every location in an aquifer
can be calculated using a numerical model and then mapped for use by water managers to
readily assess and compare potential impacts of new wells on streamflow for various well
locations.
As an illustrative example of streamflow depletion dynamics, we can look at
northeastern Arizona, USA, where base flow of streams is maintained in part by
groundwater discharge from the C aquifer. Leake et al. (2005) developed a numerical model
of this aquifer to help assess the possible effects of the proposed withdrawals from the C
aquifer. They calculated potential streamflow depletion for two possible pumping
scenarios (Figure 15). The two withdrawal scenarios were simulated for a 51-year period of
withdrawals followed by 50 years during which there were no withdrawals. Scenario A
included a nearly constant withdrawal rate of about 9.0 ft3/s (0.25 m3/s), and scenario B
simulated a more variable pumping rate with a maximum withdrawal rate of about 15.9
25
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

ft3/s (0.45 m3/s). The results show that streamflow depletion was undetectable for the first
few years after withdrawals began, but then increased steadily during the rest of the
withdrawal period. However, the depletion rate at the end of the withdrawal period was
between 0.3 and 0.4 ft3/s (0.008 and 0.011 m3/s) for both scenarios -- substantially less than
the withdrawal rates, largely because of the large distances of 20 miles or more between the
wells and the streams.
An important lesson in these results is that the streamflow depletion continued to
grow for decades after the pumping had stopped (Figure 15). These lag times complicate
the management of water resources in stream-aquifer systems.

Figure 15 - Streamflow depletion as a function of time for two scenarios of

groundwater pumping from the C aquifer, northeastern Arizona, USA (from Barlow
and Leake, 2012, as modified from Leake et al., 2005).

5.5 Methods to Estimate Capture

For real-world problems in typically complex hydrogeologic environments,
numerical models “… are the only approach to compute capture from different features”
(Barlow and Leake, 2012). Models are widely used tools in groundwater analysis. The
beauty of the model is that it can be used to project how a particular system might respond

26
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

to different stresses in the future. There are too many unknowns and uncertainties in the
problem to predict accurately and uniquely a future result. On the other hand, one can
project how a system might respond, or a range of responses, and at the same time, given
potential errors in input data, place some confidence interval about a future projection. This
is useful in attempting to understand and manage the system. In other words, one can ask:
if we do this, what is the resulting projected future state of the system.
Barlow and Leake (2012) provide an example of such an analysis for the Upper San
Pedro Basin aquifer system in southern Arizona, USA, which was studied by Leake et al.
(2008). Using this model, which included a representation of the evapotranspiration
process, they assessed the response of the system to pumping a hypothetical well at various
locations. The results for one such well are plotted in Figure 16 and show the shifting
tradeoff over time between groundwater storage change and capture as sources of water to
balance the pumpage. Furthermore, it illustrates that salvaged evapotranspiration can be a
substantial component of the total capture. The streamflow depletion includes both
induced infiltration (increased recharge to the aquifer) and decreased discharge of
groundwater to the stream, though these are not shown separately in the plot (though the
typical model output will include sufficient information to allow the user to do this).

Figure 16 – Model-computed streamflow depletion, evapotranspiration capture,

storage change, and total capture for the location of one hypothetical well that
pumps for 100 years in the Upper San Pedro Basin, Arizona (from Barlow and
Leake, 2012; after Leake et al., 2008).

6 CASE STUDIES ILLUSTRATING

GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT DYNAMICS
In an effort to illustrate these principles it is useful to examine both a simple
hypothetical aquifer system as well as a groundwater development case. Development of

27
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

a simulation model for a simplified hypothetical problem offers the advantage of having
control over the system and complete knowledge and definition of hydraulic properties
and boundary conditions. For an illustrative example of a well-documented field problem,
we look to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Regional Aquifer System Analyses
(RASA) studies. As part of one RASA study, an agricultural development in Paradise
Valley, Nevada, USA, was studied in detail. We review the highlights and lessons of this
study, which illustrate how the principles of development are applied to a complex system.

6.1 Case Study 1: Hypothetical Stream-Aquifer System

Description of Problem
When a hypothetical system is stressed in a simulation model, the responses can be
analyzed and interpreted without the uncertainty normally associated with complex field
systems. Furthermore, additional factors or complexities can be added in individual
increments, thereby simplifying the analysis of cause and effect. Thus, the links and
relations between stresses and responses (causes and effects) can be more clearly and
definitively identified.
For this purpose, we identify a hypothetical desert basin with a perennial stream
along one edge of the valley, based on one designed and used by Barlow and Leake (2012)
to illustrate the effects of pumping on streamflow. We modify their example problem,
similarly to the modifications of Konikow and Leake (2014), to illustrate additional effects
of pumping a well on the hydrology of such a stream-aquifer system (Figure 17). Among
other changes, we add more realistic and variable land-surface elevations that will induce
spatially varying evapotranspiration (ET) losses, which vary as a function of the depth to
the water table. ET consists of both direct evaporation from the water table surface and
transpiration by plants. Substantial groundwater use by phreatophytes is evidenced by
diurnal fluctuations of the water table (e.g., Butler et al., 2007). Groundwater evaporation
is greatest when the water table is at or very close to the land surface. As the water table
becomes deeper, the transport distance for water vapor between the water table and the
atmosphere increases and dissipation of humidity in the soil is hindered, hence the
evaporative flux from the saturated zone decreases. Transpiration is generally the larger
component of ET. As the depth to the water table increases, the percentage of plant roots
that are sufficiently long and deep to penetrate the water table tends to decrease, and the
greater the energy requirement needed to lift water over the larger distance to the land
surface. At some point, the water table may be so deep that no roots can reach it.

28
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 17 - Hypothetical and idealized desert basin aquifer with a

perennial river along its eastern side and mountain front recharge along its
western side (modified from Barlow and Leake, 2012).

The hypothetical aquifer is 32.2 km (20 mi) wide by 64.4 km (40 mi) long, with a
total area of 2,072 km2 (800 mi2). The river is in good hydraulic connection with the alluvial
aquifer; the specified flow into the upstream end of the river is 20,000 m3/d. It is assumed,
for simplicity, that there is neither direct precipitation on the river nor evaporation from
the river, and that the inflow to the upstream end of the river is constant. Mountain front
recharge totaling 1,688 m3/d is uniformly distributed along the western boundary of the
basin. The hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is 15.2 m/d and its thickness averages about
150 m, which is much smaller than its lateral extent. The specific yield is 0.20. The
rectangular aquifer is surrounded by impermeable boundaries, including along the distal
side of the river. There is one fully penetrating well located near the center of the system,
at a distance of 8.05 km (5 mi) from the river. It pumps at a rate of 2,026 m3/d (0.83 ft3/s).
The land surface is represented as having three terrace levels above the river
(Figure 18). The elevation differences between adjacent terraces is about 1 m, with the
highest elevations being the furthest from the river. Note that the land-surface elevation is

29
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

not assumed to coincide with either the streambed elevation or the water surface in the
river. Rather, the head in the river is assumed to vary linearly between the upstream and
downstream heads shown in Figure 17 and to remain constant in time.

Figure 18 - Topography of the hypothetical stream-aquifer system; a) map view, b) cross-sectional view along
line A-A', showing approximate predevelopment water table. Water depth in the river is not shown to scale
(Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Simulation Model
A two-dimensional numerical model was developed to simulate transient
groundwater flow in this system. The model was developed using the MODFLOW-NWT
code, (Niswonger et al., 2011). Streamflow was represented using the Streamflow Routing
Package (SFR2) (Niswonger and Prudic, 2005). The model domain was discretized into 80
rows and 40 columns of square cells within a single model layer. The grid spacing was 805
m in each direction. Layer thickness varied depending on the water-table position. For
simplification in the model, it was assumed that the streambed elevation can be specified
as the linearly varying river heads shown in Figure 17 and that the water depth would
remain constant and uniform at 0.001 m.
In the model, evapotranspiration (ET) is assumed to vary as a linear function of the
depth to the water table (Figure 19). The ET Surface is the water-table elevation at which
the maximum value of evapotranspiration loss occurs (assumed to coincide with the land
surface). The extinction depth (or cutoff depth) is that depth of water table at which ET no
longer occurs. The ET rate varies linearly between those two limits.

30
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 19 - The linear function relating ET rate (QET) to

depth of the water table in the MODFLOW-NWT model
(h is the head [water level]) (Konikow and Bredehoeft,
2020).

Base Case: No Recharge and No ET (No Phreatophytes)

To develop a “base case” for assessing the effects of pumping, a scenario was first
developed for a case with no areally diffuse recharge (from precipitation) and no ET losses
(no phreatophytes), but including mountain front recharge as a specified flux in all cells
along the western edge of the aquifer (represented as injection wells in the model). To
develop initial conditions for a 200-year transient simulation, a steady-state run was made
first to calculate self-consistent heads and fluxes for predevelopment (initial) conditions
with no pumpage. Then it was assumed that the single well would pump for 200 years at a
rate of 2,026 m3/d and a transient simulation was run to simulate changes in heads and
fluxes resulting from the imposition of this new pumping stress.
The calculated heads for predevelopment conditions (Figure 20a) show that
recharge into the aquifer is dominated by inflow (stream infiltration) from the river along
its northern reaches, and discharge of groundwater back out to the river along its southern
reaches. The influence of mountain front recharge on the water table distribution is notably
smaller than that of the river. Comparison of predevelopment heads with those computed
after 200 years of pumping (Figure 20b) indicates that the drawdown from the well has
only a small effect on the flow pattern.

31
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 20 - Map showing calculated water-table elevations in the hypothetical

stream-aquifer system for the base case in which there is no areal recharge and no
ET: a) for predevelopment conditions, and b) after 200 years of pumping. The head
values are relative to an arbitrary datum (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

The water budget for the predevelopment case is listed in Table 1. It shows that
during predevelopment conditions, most of the inflow and all of the outflow were between
the river and the aquifer. The streamflow also changed during the simulation (Table 2). The
stream discharge at the downstream end of the model was 21,688 m3/d during
predevelopment conditions and decreased to 19,790 m3/d after 200 years of pumping. The
streamflow reduction of 1,898 m3/d is balanced by the sum of the increase in stream
infiltration to the aquifer (1,074 m3/d) plus the reduction in groundwater discharge to the
river (824 m3/d).

Table 1 - Groundwater budgets for model base case for predevelopment conditions and after 200 years
of pumping one well. All flux values are in m3/d.
Predevelopment t = 200 Years
IN Mountain Front Recharge 1,688 1,688
Change in Storage 0 128
Stream infiltration 5,785 6,859
Total 7,473 8,675
OUT Wells 0 2,026
Outflow to stream 7,473 6,649
Total 7,473 8,675

Table 2 - Streamflow budgets for model base case for predevelopment conditions and
after 200 years of pumping one well. All flux values are in m3/d.
Predevelopment t = 200 Years
River Inflow 20,000 20,000
River Outflow 21,688 19,790
The components of the water budget changed substantially during the 200-year
transient simulation period (Figure 21). After the pumping begins, well discharge is

32
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

initially balanced completely by groundwater storage depletion. However, over time, more
and more well discharge becomes balanced by capture and less and less by storage
depletion. After about 17.5 years of pumping, the amount of capture exceeds the amount
of storage depletion. After 200 years, only 6.3 percent of pumping is being balanced by
groundwater storage depletion while 93.7 percent of well pumping is being balanced by
capture. In this case, capture is made up entirely of streamflow depletion. Streamflow
depletion is composed of both induced infiltration in the upstream reaches of the river and
reduced groundwater discharge to the river in its downstream reaches. As seen in
Figure 21, the quantity of induced infiltration is always somewhat greater than the
reduction in groundwater discharge in this particular aquifer system. The relative
contributions in any particular system will always depend on the hydraulic properties and
boundary conditions governing that system.

Figure 21 - Calculated changes in the water budget of the hypothetical

desert basin aquifer during the 200-year simulation period for the base
case model. Capture is the sum of its components represented by the
dashed lines (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

The changes in the water budget and in the sources of water balancing the pumping
can also be viewed in a nondimensional way (Figure 22). These fractions can be based on
either annual rates or on cumulative volumes. As with the flow rates shown in Figure 21,
the fractional sources based on annual rates cross at about 17.5 years, after which capture
provides most of the water being pumped by the well. However, when viewed from the
perspective of cumulative volumes of water pumped, the crossover does not occur until
much later in time -- at about 46 years after pumping started.

33
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 22 - Nondimensional sources of water being pumped based on both

annual rates (dashed lines) and cumulative volumes (solid lines) for the base case
model (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Low ET Case (Phreatophytes)

To illustrate the effects of evapotranspiration (ET) on the flow system, the base case
was modified by allowing the ET process to be represented in the simulation model. The
extinction depth was set to 6.0 m, and the maximum ET rate was limited to a relatively low
rate of 1.72×10-5 m/d (6.28 mm/yr), yielding a linear change in ET between the extinction
depth and a water table depth at the land surface (Figure 23).

Figure 23 - Relation between evapotranspiration rate and depth to the water table
as represented in the MODFLOW model for the Low-ET Case (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

The steady-state predevelopment scenario was simulated first with the addition of
ET, followed by 200 years of pumping identical to the pumping rate in the base case. The
calculated water budget for this case (Table 3) shows that the relatively low ET rate per unit
area becomes a substantial stress for the aquifer when spread out over the large extent of

34
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

the aquifer (about four times that of the pumping stress). This presence of ET in the
predevelopment model results in groundwater loss and therefore lowers the groundwater
level. This additional ET stress under predevelopment conditions (8,163 m3/d) lowers heads
enough to induce almost twice the infiltration from the river into the aquifer (compare 5,785
m3/day in Table 1 to 9,702 m3/day in Table 3). The lower heads also cause a 57 percent
reduction in groundwater discharge back out to the river in the downstream reaches of the
river (compare 7,473 m3/d in Table 1 to 3,231 m3/d in Table 3). The actual ET rate varies
spatially because the depth to the water table varies, and over the area of the aquifer
averages 1.5 mm/yr. Because of this additional ET consumptive loss relative to the base
case, under predevelopment conditions the streamflow out of the last river reach is reduced
to 13,530 m3/d (compared to 21,688 m3/d in the base case with no ET). That is, the ET loss
from the aquifer is completely balanced by a reduction in streamflow out of the study area.

Table 3 - Groundwater budgets for model case with low ET rate for predevelopment conditions and after
200 years of pumping one well. All flux values are in m 3/d.
Predevelopment t = 200 Years
IN Mountain Front Recharge 1,688 1,688
Change in Storage 0 63
Stream Infiltration 9,702 11,199
Total 11,390 12,950
OUT Wells 0 2,026
Evapotranspiration 8,163 7,844
Discharge to Stream 3,231 3,084
Total 11,394 12,954

During the 200-year pumping period, the water table declines somewhat, and the
depth-dependent ET loss is reduced by just 4 percent (relative to predevelopment rates).
This represents captured ET, which helps offset (or balance) the pumping (Figure 24).
Compared to the base case with no ET losses, after 200 years of pumping the induced
infiltration rate into the aquifer is almost twice as high, and the groundwater discharge rate
to the river is almost half as much as in the base case. Streamflow depletion is smaller than
in the base case and total capture now includes a component of salvaged ET. Because total
capture has increased, the groundwater storage depletion has decreased relative to the base
case. The net effect on streamflow is that after 200 years, the streamflow out of the
downstream end of the river is reduced from a predevelopment value of 13,530 m3/d to
11,885 m3/d (compared to a reduction from 21,688 m3/d to 19,790 m3/d in the base case).

35
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 24 - Nondimensional sources of water being pumped based on

annual rates for the base case model (dashed lines) and for the case with
low ET (solid lines) (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

ET and Recharge Case (Phreatophytes and Rainfall)

The final scenario modeled applied a diffuse recharge rate at a uniform average
long-term rate of 9.0×10-5 m/d (32.8 mm/yr) to represent recharge from precipitation and
irrigation. The maximum ET rate was increased from the previous scenario to 2.8×10-4 m/d
(103 mm/yr); the extinction depth was kept at 6.0 m. The calculated water budget for the
simulation results in this case (Table 4) shows that the ET and diffuse recharge are now the
dominant components of the water budget for both predevelopment conditions and the
transient pumping conditions. However, considering all diffuse surface fluxes together, the
difference between the total diffuse recharge and the total ET is much smaller -- a net
discharge by ET flux of just 8,157 m3/d, which is not very different from the ET flux in the
previous case and represents about four times that of the pumping stress.

Table 4 - Groundwater budgets for predevelopment conditions and after 200 years of pumping for case
with both diffuse recharge and ET. All flux values are in m3/d.
Predevelopment t = 200 Years
IN Mountain Front Recharge 1,688 1,688
Diffuse Recharge 186,479 186,479
Change in Storage 0 0
Stream Infiltration 7,439 8,089
Total 195,606 195,256
OUT Wells 0 2,026
Evapotranspiration 194,636 193,260
Discharge to Stream 975 974
Total 195,611 196,260

This volumetric rate averaged over the surface area of the aquifer is equivalent to
1.5 mm/yr. But it does vary spatially (Figure 25). Because diffuse recharge is applied
uniformly over the area of the aquifer, whereas ET varies as a function of depth to the water

36
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

table, the net surface flux is greatest where the depth to water is the greatest and ET is the
lowest, such as the western edge of the aquifer furthest from the river (Figure 25a). The net
surface flux is the most negative (ET loss greater than recharge) closer to the river, where
the depth to water is minimal and ET is highest. Note that the north-south banding shown
in Figure 25a derives from the stepped terraces of the land surface topography (Figure 18).
Contours of change in surface flux after 200 years (Figure 25b) show that the change in ET
is small, except very close to the pumping well where depth to the water table increases the
most after pumping starts; of course, the contours in Figure 25b parallel the drawdown
around the well.

Figure 25 – Net surface flux is the difference between recharge and evapotranspiration: a) Net surface flux
(recharge minus ET) for predevelopment conditions, and b) change in net surface flux after 200 years of
pumping (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

The large fluxes of recharge and ET combined with the nonuniformity of the ET,
visibly affect the head distribution in the stream-aquifer system (Figure 25). Comparing
Figure 25 with Figure 20b, it is evident that heads near the western edge of the aquifer are
generally higher than in the base case (no recharge or ET) because recharge generally
exceeds ET in most of that band, whereas heads near the eastern edge (close to the river)
are generally lower in Figure 26 because ET exceeds recharge in that band. This also induces
infiltration along a greater length of the river in the ET/Recharge case than in the base case,
as reflected by the angle that the head contours intersect the river. The predevelopment
stream infiltration into the aquifer is almost 30 percent greater than in the base case, though
smaller than in the previous low-ET case. The predevelopment aquifer discharge to the
stream is much smaller than in base case, as reflected by the angle that the head contours
intersect the river. The predevelopment stream infiltration into the aquifer is almost 30
percent greater than in the base case, though smaller than in the previous low-ET case. The
predevelopment aquifer discharge to the stream is much smaller than in the base case, and

37
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

also smaller than in the previous low-ET case, in large part because the head distribution
only allows groundwater discharge to the river along a short downstream reach of the river.

Figure 26 - Calculated water-table elevations after 200 years of

pumping for the case in which there is both diffuse areal recharge
and ET. Head is relative to an arbitrary datum. (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

After 200 years of pumping, the rate of change in storage is zero. This indicates that
the system has reached a new equilibrium state by this time, and as seen in Figure 27, the
new equilibrium was attained after about 75 years of pumping. In contrast, a new
equilibrium had not been reached in 200 years with identical pumping for both the base
case and the low-ET case. The primary reason for the change in relations here is that the
much higher absolute magnitude of ET in this case permits much more of this ET discharge
to be captured (or salvaged) to offset (or balance) the pumping, and it can happen faster
than streamflow depletion. It is faster because streamflow capture requires time for the
drawdown effects to propagate to the stream boundary, whereas ET capture occurs
immediately and locally as the water table declines. Furthermore, recharge in this model
scenario is a specified flux condition, and it is not affected by pumping or by drawdown.
Because ET salvage is so fast and so large, the impact of pumping on streamflow is much
less than in either previous case. Similarly, less groundwater storage depletion is needed
to balance pumping. When storage depletion reaches zero, it means that heads have
stabilized and no additional drawdown is occurring. This is the very definition of an
equilibrium condition in an aquifer.

38
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 27 - Simulated nondimensional sources of water being pumped

based on annual rates for the case with ET and recharge (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

After 200 years of pumping, the stream infiltration into the aquifer has decreased
by 9 percent, but the groundwater discharge to the river has stayed at about the same low
rate. The streamflow leaving the downstream end of the river is 13,536 m3/d during
predevelopment conditions, and that is reduced to 12,884 m3/d after 200 years of pumping.
This decrease in streamflow of about 652 m3/d over time is less than half that in the low-ET
case, and the fractional (nondimensional) proportion of pumping balanced by streamflow
depletion is smaller than in the low-ET case (compare Figure 27 with Figure 24). Again, this
is because a much greater fraction of pumping is more readily balanced by salvage (or
capture) of ET losses from the aquifer.

Running the Model

The procedure for obtaining the model files, running the three scenarios presented
for Case Study 1, post-processing the model outputs, and viewing the model results are
explained in Box 3. The post-processing includes: creating contour maps of head and
drawdown, plots of the water budget through time, calculating changes in streamflow with
time, and plotting well hydrographs (i.e., water level as a function of time in a well).

Summary
Idealized hypothetical aquifers can be simulated to illustrate cause and effect
relations in stream-aquifer systems. The simulations presented here have shown that
groundwater withdrawn by wells must be balanced by a combination of increased
recharge, decreased discharge, and depletion of groundwater in storage in the aquifer. An
archive of the models, including input and output files, used to simulate the three primary
scenarios described in this section are available in the file “CaseStudy1--Models.zip” as part
of the online Supplemental Materials for this book. ET losses from the water table
constitute one form of groundwater discharge, and lowering the water table can reduce ET

39
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

losses. The reduction in ET can be viewed as salvaged ET, which helps balance pumping
from wells. This might have environmental implications because of impacts on surface
vegetation and changes in climatic conditions in areas where the evapotranspired water
was contributing to precipitation. Additional changes in the fluxes between the aquifer and
the bounding river also help to balance pumping, but constitute streamflow depletion. This
might have environmental and legal implications because of impacts on aquatic ecosystems
and existing surface water rights.
Salvaged ET can be a large component of capture. A small decrease in the ET rate
over a large area can yield a large volume of water. Most salvaged ET offsets and reduces
streamflow depletion. In a field setting, confirmation of ET salvage may be very difficult.
If the flow in the river were small enough that the effects of pumping caused reaches
of the river to go dry, then pumping would have to be balanced by more storage depletion.
The rate of head decline would be larger and the system could not reach a new equilibrium
if there were no additional sources of capture.

6.2 CASE STUDY 2: PARADISE VALLEY, NEVADA

Unlike hypothetical examples, real-world groundwater systems are complex and
heterogeneous, and there are never enough data available to define their properties and
boundary conditions uniquely, accurately, and precisely. Hence, analyses of such systems
are always made in light and consideration of this uncertainty. Any model developed for
field aquifer systems is always an approximation and always subject to improvement as
additional data become available. But hydrogeologists are typically tasked with analyzing
field systems -- that is our job and that is our challenge -- and the complexity and
uncertainty do not preclude us from developing reliable and useful models for the task at
hand. Therefore, we next provide an illustrative example of an analysis of an aquifer system
that has been developed in historical times.

Description of Study Area

Paradise Valley, located in north-central Nevada, USA, is a typical valley in the
Basin and Range topographic province of Nevada and western Utah in the western United
States (Figure 28). It is a north-south trending valley, approximately 40 miles long by 10
miles wide (64 km by 16 km), extending north from the valley of the Humboldt River. The
town of Winnemucca is situated along the Humboldt River to the southwest of Paradise
Valley. Paradise Valley is surrounded by mountains to the east, north, and west, and open
to the valley of the Humboldt River to the south.

40
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 28 - Location of Paradise Valley study area and Humboldt River

drainage basin in Nevada, western United States (modified from Prudic
and Herman, 1996).

The region is arid. A 100-year rainfall record in Paradise Valley indicates that the
average precipitation is approximately 8 inches per year (200 mm/yr) (Prudic and Herman,
1996). Direct recharge from precipitation on the valley floor is assumed to be negligible.
Two streams enter the valley from the northeast: Martin Creek and the Little Humboldt
River. Martin Creek has been continuously monitored since the early 1920s (Figure 29). The
locations of these two streams are shown in Figure 30.

Figure 29 - Annual discharge of Martin Creek where it enters Paradise Valley, Nevada,
USA. [1,000 ac-ft = 0.000123 km3] (from Prudic and Herman, 1996).

41
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 30 - Groundwater levels in Paradise Valley, Nevada, spring 1968 (from Prudic and
Herman, 1996).

The annual discharge of Martin Creek is typical of a desert stream with wet and dry
years. The Little Humboldt River is a similar stream; it has a small reservoir in the
mountains to the east of Paradise Valley. There are only occasional measurements of the
flow of the Little Humboldt River during the period shown on Figure 29, 1923 to 1982. With
rare exceptions, all of the water from both Martin Creek and the Little Humboldt River
infiltrates and recharges the alluvial aquifer in Paradise Valley near the northern end of the
valley.
Western Nevada had a much wetter climate during the periods of Pleistocene ice
advances. Lake Lahontan occupied much of western Nevada during the advance. Paradise
Valley was on the fringe of the lake; two maximum rises of the lake extended into the lower
reach of Paradise Valley. During the glacial period there was a through-going stream in
Paradise Valley. This stream created a highly permeable alluvial deposit down the center
of the valley (Bredehoeft, 1963). Paradise Valley is filled with alluvial sediments to a depth
42
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

of 2,000 to 3,000 feet (600 to 900 m), but the thickness may exceed 8,000 feet (2,400 m) in the
center of the valley (Prudic and Herman, 1996). The alluvium is underlain by igneous,
metamorphic, and sedimentary consolidated rocks generally having low porosity and low
permeability. The valley bottom slopes gently from north to south toward the Humboldt
Valley. The water table generally mimics the topography of the valley floor (Figure 30).
The depth to water map (Figure 31) indicates a large area in the center of the valley
where the water table is less than 10 feet (3 m) below the land surface. This is an area where
phreatophytes flourished prior to groundwater development.

Figure 31 - Depth to groundwater in Paradise Valley, Nevada, prior to major development

(pre-1969) (from Prudic and Herman, 1996).

A reconnaissance investigation of Paradise Valley prior to significant development

indicated a valley with alluvium near fully saturated with groundwater (Loeltz et al., 1949).
Water from Martin Creek and the Little Humboldt River infiltrates into the alluvial aquifer

43
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

within a short reach of entering the valley, as usually do the flows in all other smaller
tributaries draining off the adjacent mountains. The reconnaissance studies (e.g., Loeltz et
al., 1949) suggested that the average annual recharge available from the two streams,
Martin Creek and the Little Humboldt River, was nearly 40,000 ac-ft/yr (0.05 km3/yr or 1.6
m3/s), which was balanced by discharge through evapotranspiration from a shallow water
table over much of the valley. As shown in Figure 31, the depth to the water table is less
than 30 ft (9.1 m) throughout the large central part of the valley. Groundwater discharges
as evapotranspiration; much of the discharge is transpiration by phreatophytes. The thick,
permeable, alluvial aquifer makes the area ideal for groundwater development.
Groundwater pumping in the area increased gradually during the 1950s and 1960s, but
accelerated markedly during the 1970s when it was discovered that Paradise Valley was a
good place for groundwater development (Figure 32).

Figure 32 - Pumping in Paradise Valley and the associated part of the Humboldt River Valley
(from Prudic and Herman, 1996). Net pumpage equals total pumpage minus the amount
estimated to return to basin-fill aquifer through infiltration of irrigation water. [1,000 ac-ft =
1.23 million m3 = 1.23x10-3 km3].

When irrigating, some of the water applied to a field is not used by the crop; rather,
it infiltrates into the soil as groundwater recharge from irrigation. This is especially true
where the water table is close to the land surface. The net pumping is the amount of
pumping used by the plants or evaporated -- the net pumping is the consumptive use.
Groundwater is used as the principal source for irrigation in the Paradise Valley
area, and wells generally irrigate fields located close to the wells. Most of the irrigation
wells in the area were drilled after 1969 and are located in the southern part of Paradise
Valley (Figure 33). As the pumpage increased rapidly between 1969 and 1981, a substantial
cone of depression developed in the area of heaviest pumping and irrigation in the
southern part of the valley (Figure 34). Water-table declines exceeded 80 ft (24 m) in the

44
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

center of the affected area. There was a decline of more than 10 ft (3 m) over a large area in
the lower part of Paradise Valley.

Figure 33 - Distribution of irrigated lands and irrigation wells in 1981 (from Prudic and
Herman, 1996).

As groundwater development increased during the 1960s and 1970s, there were
management concerns about what happens to groundwater in the valley with continued
pumping. Is the pumping sustainable? Would drawdown from pumping lower the water
table and capture much of the evapotranspiration -- leading to development that might be
sustained for a long period? But a quantitative basis for assessing these questions was
lacking. One approach to analyzing this question is to develop and calibrate a numerical
model of the groundwater system, and then use the model to simulate the impact of
continued development. In an effort to better understand the system, the USGS undertook

45
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

a comprehensive numerical groundwater model study, described by Prudic and Herman

(1996).

Figure 34 - Water-table decline, 1968 to 1982 (from Prudic and Herman, 1996).

Paradise Valley Simulation Model

A three-dimensional finite-difference model was developed for Paradise Valley
using the generic MODFLOW-88 model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). It was
conceptualized to represent varying saturated thickness, heterogeneous hydraulic
properties, recharge from stream leakage, inflow from adjacent bedrock, discharge from
evapotranspiration, and withdrawal by pumping wells (Figure 35). The grid used three
layers, 33 columns, and 89 rows of cells. Layer thicknesses were 600 to 1,200 ft (183-366 m).
Horizontal grid dimensions were 2,500 ft (762 m) on a side, and the center of each cell is
designated as a node. The Humboldt River was used to simulate the southern boundary of
flow in Paradise Valley, and it was simulated as a head-dependent flux boundary

46
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

condition. All other boundaries were represented as no-flow boundaries, although

specified fluxes are applied to some bounding cells to represent inflow from adjacent
bedrock (Prudic and Herman, 1996, for details).

Figure 35 - Schematic three-dimensional diagram that illustrates how the groundwater system in
Paradise Valley was subdivided into a finite system of rectangular cells for the purpose of numerical
analysis (modified from Prudic and Herman, 1996).

An Initial Steady State

The usual procedure in modeling a groundwater system is to first model the system
prior to development -- its undisturbed state. This procedure provides the best estimates of
natural inflow (recharge) to and outflow (discharge) from the system. One uses the model
to fit the observed undisturbed head distribution (Figures 30 and 31) and observed fluxes
(if known). In calibrating the model, one adjusts the inflows and outflows, including their
distribution, and the hydraulic parameters (such as hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer)
until an adequate (or best) fit is achieved. Prudic and Herman (1996) developed a

47
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

steady-state model to represent likely average conditions at the start of their transient
simulations (1948).
Once one has adequately modeled the initial state of the system, the model yields a
calculated water budget representative of the undisturbed system. Consistent with
Equation 2, the total inflows (recharge) and outflows (discharge) under steady-state
conditions are balanced (at a rate of about 74,000 ac-ft/yr [2.89 m3/s]). The Paradise Valley
groundwater system is thought to be very nearly undisturbed prior to 1948 and only
slightly developed during 1948-1969.

Transient Historical Simulation

Transient flow simulations were made for 1948-1982 to match the historical period
of record and help assess the reliability of the model. Although the model results show
substantial annual variability, Prudic and Herman (1996) report that about 60 percent of
the net pumpage was derived from a reduction in storage. Therefore, about 40 percent is
balanced by capture, consisting of reduced evapotranspiration, increased recharge from
streams, and decreased discharge to streams.

Simulated Future Development

It was considered that future development could potentially include a prolonged
total pumpage equal to about 72,000 ac-ft/yr (2.82 m3/s), an amount close to the long-term
average annual streamflow into Paradise Valley. To help clarify the consequences of doing
this, Prudic and Herman (1996) simulated the system under this scenario (among others)
for a 300-year period of pumping. Figure 36 shows how critical inputs and outputs respond
to the long 300-year period of pumping under the stresses of this proposed but hypothetical
scenario.

Figure 36. Model-calculated fluxes versus time for a scenario in which

pumping of 72,000 ac-ft/yr (2.82 m3/s) is distributed widely in Paradise
Valley (data from Prudic and Herman, 1996, scenario 5). Recharge
includes both mountain front recharge and infiltration from streams.

48
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

These results indicate that not all of the phreatophyte use is captured even after 300
years of pumping; about 14,000 ac-ft/yr (0.55 m3/s) of use remains. After 300 years, pumping
has induced an increase of approximately 12,400 ac-ft/yr (0.47 m3/s) in the net underflow
between the Humboldt River Valley and the Paradise Valley groundwater system (by
increasing underflow into Paradise Valley from the Humboldt River Valley by 10,700 ac-
ft/yr and decreasing underflow out of Paradise Valley into the Humboldt River Valley by
1,700 ac-ft/yr). There is still approximately 2,600 ac-ft/yr (0.10 m3/s) continuing to be
removed from storage. This means that after 300 years of pumping, the system still has not
quite reached a new equilibrium state.
The drawdown after 300 years resulting from the pumping associated with this
scenario exceeded 100 ft (30 m) in a large central part of the valley (Figure 37). In this
particular pumping scenario, the pumping was distributed throughout the valley in the
areas in which the phreatophytes grew. Drawdown in the area of riparian vegetation
maximizes the capture of evapotranspiration by the pumping.

The Lesson of the Paradise Valley Example

Paradise Valley is ideally suited to groundwater development. The valley is filled
with an alluvial aquifer that is both highly permeable and more than 2,000 feet (610 m) thick
in most of the valley. One can drill highly productive wells in the valley. The climate,
although arid, is well-suited for irrigated agriculture.
The model analysis indicates that the groundwater system in Paradise Valley was
in a state of long-term equilibrium prior to development of its groundwater resources, with
approximately 70,000 ac-ft/yr (2.7 m3/s) of recharge and discharge and shallow
groundwater levels throughout. The principal recharge was infiltration of water from both
Martin Creek and the Little Humboldt River, and the principal discharge was by riparian
phreatophytes.
In creating a groundwater development system that could be maintained for a long
period in Paradise Valley, the strategy was to install a pumping system that would lower
the water table the most in the area of the phreatophytes and “capture” their discharge.
Various alternative pumping arrangements are feasible. The scenario shown in figure 37
spreads the pumping widely up and down the valley and minimizes the drawdown for
that magnitude of pumping.

49
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure 37 - Drawdown after 300 years resulting from scenario with pumping 72,000 ac-
ft/yr (2.82 m3/s) from the locations distributed widely in the area of evapotranspiration near
the center of valley (from Prudic and Herman, 1996). Individual pumping wells are located
in model cells shaded blue.

In the example presented, a simulated pumping period of 300 years does not quite
produce a new steady-state (equilibrium) condition. At 300 years there is still
approximately 3 percent of water being removed from the system coming out of storage.
This hypothetical pumping in Paradise Valley also induces a net loss of approximately
12,400 ac-ft/yr (0.48 m3/s) from the alluvial aquifer of the adjacent Humboldt River Valley.
This is likely to be problematic because the additional loss of groundwater from the
Humboldt River Valley alluvium will likely affect the flow of the Humboldt River, which
is already fully appropriated. This is supported by observed trends in streamflow changes
in the Humboldt River between the gage upstream of Paradise Valley (at Comus, Nevada,
USA) and the next one downstream from Paradise Valley (near Imlay, Nevada, USA).
During 1946-1975, this reach of the river consistently gained an average of 31 ft3/s (0.88 m3/s)

50
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

in September, a month characterized by base flow dominance, but during 1987-2013, when
groundwater pumping was substantially larger in Paradise Valley and nearby areas, the
average September change in flow had been reduced to zero and the predevelopment gains
in flow had been lost (D. Prudic, written communication., 2018 based on data from the
USGS National Water Information System).
Even with these changes and consequences, from a hydraulic perspective the
pumping scenario depicted in Figures 36 and 37 can be maintained indefinitely, as long as
external factors (including climate change) do not change the average flows and capture
potential from incoming and adjacent streams and additional pumping wells are not
developed in the valley.

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

Groundwater is a critically valuable resource for water supply around the world.
But the development of groundwater resources has consequences -- its stock or reserves
(i.e., the volume in storage in the aquifer) can be reduced and groundwater withdrawal can
deplete surface-water flows and resources and have other environmental impacts.
Specifically, new groundwater withdrawals through wells will have to be balanced by
some combination of (1) a reduction in the volume of groundwater in storage in an aquifer,
(2) an increase in recharge to the aquifer, and (3) a reduction in the discharge from the
aquifer. The latter two constitute “capture,” and capture often manifests itself largely as a
reduction in streamflow. The balancing between pumping and the three listed factors is
dynamic, and it changes over time. If the groundwater storage depletion over time becomes
negligible, then groundwater withdrawals are maintainable indefinitely (as long as other
factors do not affect the aquifer’s water balance). However, even if groundwater
withdrawals are maintainable from a hydrologic perspective, one must also consider its
impacts on surface-water resources (and the timing of those impacts) because the changes
in groundwater recharge and discharge (capture) may diminish those surface-water
resources, and thereby potentially have economic, legal, political, and environmental
consequences.
Historically, large-scale groundwater development and its subsequent effects
(including storage depletion, capture, and land subsidence) have occurred in many areas
prior to any recognition of its impacts or any consideration of its acceptability. Today,
hydrogeologists have the knowledge and tools to understand and predict the magnitude
and timing of these effects. This understanding and quantitative assessments can provide
reliable scientific input to water managers and policy makers.

51
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

8 EXERCISES
The following exercises are based on the “Case Study 1: Hypothetical
Stream-Aquifer System” described in this book. Some will require the application of
MODFLOW to simulate the groundwater flow system, and the MODFLOW software is
included in the online Supplemental Materials for this book; links to additional software
are also provided.

Exercise 1) Effects of Well Location (Distance from Well to River)

Consider the hypothetical desert-basin, stream-aquifer system, as illustrated in
Figure 17. Does the position of the pumping well relative to the stream affect the response
of the system? Specifically, how does it affect (1) the magnitude and timing of the effect of
pumping on surface water, and (2) the relative sources of water to the well? What is the
nature of these effects? Consider two alternative well locations -- one further from the river
and one closer to the river. Are any or all of these pumping scenarios sustainable? If you
were a water manager for this stream-aquifer system, which well location would you
consider preferable, and why? And are there any tradeoffs, such as the amount of
drawdown in the pumping well?
Suggested approach: Download the files for the Case Study 1 model as described in
Box 3. To determine the effect and importance of the distance between the well and a
stream, if any, generate and simulate two additional variants of the base case in which the
well position is changed. Move the location of the pumping well a distance halfway closer
to the river (to the east) for one variant, and then also halfway closer to the distal
“mountain” boundary (to the west). For these two new cases, the distances from the well
to the center of the river are 4 km and 20 km, respectively. In the original “base case,” that
distance was 8 km (Figure 17). Plot the depletion and capture fractions over time for 200
years. The analyses can be completed using public domain United States Geological Survey
software.
Click for solution to exercise 1

52
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Exercise 2) Lower Ratio of Streamflow to Pumping

The Base Case analysis of Exercise 1 assumed that the streamflow was much greater
than the well pumpage. What if the pumping rate was higher than in Exercise 1 and the
ratio of streamflow to pumping (withdrawal) rate was much lower? In the Base Case, river
inflow is about ten times greater than the well pumpage. Consider a case in which the well
pumpage is increased by a factor of three (two more wells are drilled close to the original
well to form a well field, and each well has the same pumping capacity, so the total Q in
that cell of the model grid is -6,078 m3/d) and the river inflow is reduced by a factor of three
(Qin = 6,667 m3/d instead of 20,000 m3/d). The ratio of streamflow entering the system to
pumping out of the aquifer would then be about 1.1. How would that affect (1) the
streamflow in space and time, (2) the drawdown in the aquifer, (3) the head distribution in
the aquifer, and (4) the hydrograph for the pumping well? How does that affect (5) the
water budget of the aquifer and (6) the fractional sources of water to the well? Is this
pumping scenario sustainable?
Suggested approach: To determine the effect and importance of the relative
strength of the pumping stress to the magnitude of streamflow, copy the Base Case input
files into a new folder for Exercise 2 and modify the input parameters to match the
assumptions of the above exercise. Specifically, you have to reduce the river’s inflow (this
requires changing the values “2.000000000000E+004” to “0.666700000000E+004” in the
“Base.Case.sfr” input file and increase the pumping rate (by changing the value
“-2.026000000000E+003” to “-6.078000000000E+003” in the last line of the “Base.Case.wel”
input file). Also, consider adding another stream gage to monitor changes in streamflow
(by (1) changing the number on the first line of the “Base.Case.gag” file to 2, (2) adding a
third line to the Base.Case.gag” file “1 46 20206 1”, and (3) adding a line to the
“Base.Case.nam” file that says “DATA 20206 ..\Output.Files\Base.Case.sfrg2 REPLACE”
after the similar line for the first gage).
Click for solution to exercise 2

53
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Exercise 3) Analytical Solution for Streamflow Depletion

Estimate streamflow depletion using Glover’s analytical solution (rather than a
numerical model). How do these results compare with those from the numerical model
used in the Base Case and in Exercise 1? Explain any differences.
Suggested Approach: Solve Equation 5 for each year of the 200-year simulation.
There are a number of ways to do this, but one reasonable approach is to use formulas in
an Excel spreadsheet. This exercise can be completed using information available in this
book and the results for Exercise 1.
Click for solution to exercise 3

54
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

9 REFERENCES
Alley, W.M., and R. Alley, 2017, High and Dry: Meeting the Challenges of the World’s Growing
Dependence on Groundwater. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, United States,
294 pages.
Alley, W.M., and L.F. Konikow, 2015, Bringing GRACE down to Earth. Groundwater, volume 53,
number 6, pages. 826-829, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12379.
Alley, W.M., and S.A. Leake, 2004, The journey from safe yield to sustainability. Groundwater,
volume 42, number 1, pages 12-16.
Alley, W.M., T.E. Reilly, and O.L. Franke, 1999, Sustainability of ground-water resources. United
States Geological Survey Circular 1186, 79 pages,
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1186.
Anderson, M.P., W.W. Woessner, and R.J. Hunt, 2015, Applied Groundwater Modeling—
Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport, second edition. Elsevier, London, United
Kingdom.
Barlow, J.R.B., and B.R. Clark, 2011, Simulation of water-use conservation scenarios for the
Mississippi Delta using an existing regional groundwater flow model. United States Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5019, 14 pages,
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20115019.
Barlow, P.M., and S.A. Leake, 2012, Streamflow depletion by wells—Understanding and
managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow. United States Geological
Survey Circular 1376, 84 pages, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1376/.
Barlow, P.M., S.A. Leake, and M.N. Fienen, 2018, Capture versus capture zones: Clarifying
terminology related to sources of water to wells. Groundwater, volume 56, number 5, pages
694-704, https://doi/10.1111/gwat.12661.
Bredehoeft, J.D., 1963, Hydrogeology of the Lower Humboldt River basin, Nevada. Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin 21, 50 pages,
http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/water%20resources%20bulletins/Bulletin21.pd
f .
Bredehoeft, J.D., 2007, Determining sustainable groundwater development, in The Handbook of
Groundwater Engineering, second edition, J.W. Delleur, editor. Chemical Rubber Company
(CRC) Press, Boca Raton, Chapter 27.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and W.M. Alley, 2014, Mining groundwater for sustained yield. The Bridge,
volume 44, number 1, pages 34-41,
https://www.nae.edu/111067/Mining-Groundwater-for-Sustained-Yield.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and T.J. Durbin, 2009, Ground water development—The time to full capture
problem. Ground Water, volume 47, number 4, pages 506–514,
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00538.x.
Bredehoeft, J.D., C.E. Neuzil, and P.C.D. Milly, 1983, Regional flow in the Dakota aquifer, a study
of the role of confining layers. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2237, 45
pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2237.
Bredehoeft, J.D., S.S. Papadopulos, and H.H. Cooper, Jr., 1982, Groundwater—The water-budget
myth, in Scientific Basis of Water-Resource Management. National Academy Press,
Washington, District of Columbia, United States, pages 51–57,
https://www.nap.edu/read/19530/chapter/7.

55
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Butler, J.J., Jr., G.J. Kluitenberg, D.O. Whittemore, S.P. Loheide II, W. Jin, M.A. Billinger, and X.
Zhan, 2007, A field investigation of phreatophyte-induced fluctuations in the water table.
Water Resources Research, volume 43, doi:10.1029/2005WR004627.
Case, H.L., 1984, Hydrogeology of the Inyan Kara and Dakota-Newcastle aquifer system, South
Dakota, in Jorgensen, D.G. and Signor, D.C., editors, Geohydrology of the Dakota aquifer.
Proceedings of the First C.V. Theis Conference on Geohydrology, Worthington, Ohio, United
States, National Water Well Association, pages 147-165.
Cederstrand, J.R., and M.F. Becker, 1999a, Digital map of geologic faults for the High Plains
Aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Texas, and Wyoming. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–261, accessed at
http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/ofr99-261.xml.
Cederstrand, J.R., and M.F. Becker, 1999b, Digital map of areas of little or no saturated thickness
for the High Plains Aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–
266, accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/ofr99-266.xml.
Church, J.A., N.J. White, L.F. Konikow, C.M. Domingues, J.G. Cogley, E. Rignot, J.M. Gregory,
M.R. van den Broeke, A.J. Monaghan, and I. Velicogna, 2011, Revisiting the Earth's sea-level
and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical Research Letters, volume 38,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794 .
Clark, B.R., and R.M. Hart, 2009, The Mississippi Embayment Regional Aquifer Study (MERAS)—
Documentation of a groundwater-flow model constructed to assess water availability in the
Mississippi embayment. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–
5172, 61 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20095172.
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology), 2019, Aquifer depletion and potential
impacts on long-term irrigated agricultural productivity. Issue Paper 63, CAST, Ames, Iowa,
United States, 20 pages,
http://www.cast-science.org/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_IP63_Aquifer_De
pletion_C4FAE917A6979.pdf.
Darton, N.H., 1896, Preliminary report on artesian waters of a portion of the Dakotas. United States
Geological Survey Annual Report number 17, part 2, pages 609-691,
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ar17_2.
Darton, N.H., 1909, Geology and underground waters of South Dakota. United States Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 227, 156 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp227.
Dieter, C.A., M.A. Maupin, R.R. Caldwell, M.A. Harris, T.I. Ivahnenko, J.K. Lovelace, N.L. Barber,
and K.S. Linsey, 2018, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015. United States
Geological Survey Circular 1441, 65 pages, https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441.
Dӧll, P., H. Müller Schmied, C. Schuh, F.T. Portmann, and A. Eicker, 2014, Global-scale assessment
of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions. Combining hydrological
modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites. Water Resources
Research, volume 50, doi:10.1002/2014WR015595.
Famiglietti, J.S., M. Lo, S.L. Ho, J. Bethune, K.J. Anderson, T.H. Syed, S.C. Swenson, C.R. de Linage,
and M. Rodell, 2011, Satellites measure recent rates of groundwater depletion in California’s
Central Valley. Geophysical Research Letters, volume 38, L03403, doi:10.1029/2010GL046442.
Famiglietti, J.S., A. Cazenave, A. Eicker, J.T. Reager, M. Rodell, and I. Velicogna, 2015, Satellites
provide the big picture. Science, volume 349, number 6249, pages 684-685,
doi:10.1126/science.aac9238.

56
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Famiglietti, J.S., and M. Rodell, 2013, Water in the balance. Science, volume 340, pages 1300-1301.
doi:10.1126/science.1236460.
Faunt, C.C., R.T. Hanson, K. Belitz, W. Schmid, S.P. Predmore, D.L. Rewis, and K. McPherson,
2009, Chapter C—Numerical model of the hydrologic landscape and groundwater flow in
California’s Central Valley, in Faunt, C.C., editor, Groundwater availability of the Central
Valley Aquifer, California. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766, pages
121–212, https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1766/.
Faunt, C.C., M. Sneed, J. Traum, and J.T. Brandt, 2016, Water availability and land subsidence in
the Central Valley, California, United States. Hydrogeology Journal, volume 24, pages 675–684,
doi 10.1007/s10040-015-1339-x.
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
United States, 604 pages,
http://hydrogeologistswithoutborders.org/wordpress/textbook-project/.
Galloway, D.L., D.R. Jones, and S.E. Ingebritsen, editors, 1999, Land subsidence in the United
States. United States Geological Survey Circular 1182, 177 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/.
Gleeson, T., W.M. Alley, D.M. Allen, M.A. Sophocleous, T. Taniguchi, J. VanderSteen, and Y. Zhou,
2012, Towards sustainable groundwater use: Setting long-term goals, backcasting, and
managing adaptively. Ground Water, volume 50, number 1, pages 19-26.
Glover, R. E., and C. G. Balmer, 1954, River depletion resulting from pumping a well near a river.
American Geophysical Union Transactions, volume 35, part 3, pages 468-470.
Gutentag, E.D., F.J. Heimes, N.C. Krothe, R.R. Luckey, and J.B. Weeks, 1984, Geohydrology of the
High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400–B, 63
pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1400B.
Guyton, W.F., 1950, Estimated use of ground water in the United States, 1945. United States
Geological Survey Open-File Report 50-74, 13 pages,
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr5074.
Halford, K.J., and T.R. Jackson, 2020, Groundwater characterization and effects of pumping in the
Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Nevada and California, with special
reference to Devils Hole. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1863, 178 pages,
https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1863.
Hantush, M.S., 1960, Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers. Journal of Geophysical Research,
volume 65, number 11, pages 3713-3725.
Hardin, G., 1968, The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, volume 162, number 3859, pages 1243–
1248. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Harrill, J.R., and D.O. Moore, 1970, Effects of ground-water development on the water regimen of
Paradise Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada, 1948-68, and hydrologic reconnaissance of the
tributary areas. Nevada Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 39, 123 pages,
http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/water%20resources%20bulletins/Bulletin39.pd
f .
Healy, R.W., T.C. Winter, J.W. LaBaugh, and O.L. Franke, 2007, Water budgets: Foundations for
effective water-resources and environmental management. United States Geological Survey
Circular 1308, 90 pages, https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1308/.
Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2220, 84 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2220.

57
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Helgesen, J.O., D.G. Jorgensen, R.B. Leonard, and D.C. Signor, 1984, Regional study of the Dakota
aquifer, Darton’s Dakota revisited, in Jorgensen, D.G. and D.C. Signor, editors, Geohydrology
of the Dakota aquifer. Proceedings of the First C.V. Theis Conference on Geohydrology,
Worthington, Ohio, National Water Well Association, pages 69-73.
Hiscock, K.M., Rivett, M.O., and R.M. Davison, editors, 2002, Sustainable Groundwater
Development. Geological Society of London, Special Publication 193, 344 pages.
Jacob, C.E., 1946, Radial flow in a leaky artesian aquifer. Transactions of the American Geophysical
Union, volume 27, number 2, pages 198-205.
Jenkins, C.T., 1968, Techniques for computing rate and volume of stream depletion by wells.
Ground Water, volume 6, number 2, pages 37–46.
Kasmarek, M.C., and J.L. Robinson, 2004, Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow and
land-surface subsidence in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, Texas. United
States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5102, 103 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5102/.
Kansas Department of Agriculture, 2010, https://agriculture.ks.gov/divisions-programs/dwr/dwr-
library/maps#perennial.
Kendy, E., 2003, The false promise of sustainable pumping rates. Ground Water, volume 41,
number 1, pages 2-4.
Kenny, J.F., N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K. Lovelace, and M.A. Maupin, 2009, Estimated
use of water in the United States in 2005. United States Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52
pages, https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf.
Kjelstrom, L.C., 1995, Streamflow gains and losses in the Snake River and ground-water budgets
for the Snake River Plain, Idaho and eastern Oregon. United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1408–C, 47 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1408C.
Konikow, L.F., 2011, Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise.
Geophysical Research Letters, volume 38, L17401, 5 pages. doi:10.1029/2011GL048604.
Konikow, L.F., 2013, Groundwater depletion in the United States (1900−2008). United States
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013−5079, 63 pages,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079.
Konikow, L.F., 2015, Long-term groundwater depletion in the United States. Groundwater, volume
53, number 1, pages 2-9, doi:10.1111/gwat.12306.
Konikow, L.F., and J.D. Bredehoeft, 2020, Groundwater Resource Development: Effects and
Sustainability, original figures and tables. The Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
https://gw-project.org/books/groundwater-resource-development/.
Konikow, L.F., and E. Kendy, 2005, Groundwater depletion: A global problem. Hydrogeology
Journal, volume 13, number 1, pages 317-320.
Konikow, L.F., and S.A. Leake, 2014, Depletion and Capture: Revisiting “The Source of Water
Derived from Wells”. Groundwater, volume 52, number S1, pages 100-111,
doi:10.1111/gwat.12204.
Konikow, L.F., and C.E. Neuzil, 2007, A method to estimate groundwater depletion from confining
layers. Water Resources Research, volume 43, W07417, doi:10.1029/2006WR005597.
Leake, S.A., 2011, Capture—Rates and directions of groundwater flow don’t matter! Ground
Water, volume 49, number 4, pages 456-458. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00797.x.
Leake, S.A., and P.M. Barlow, 2013, Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater
pumping on streamflow. United States Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013-3001,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3001/.

58
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Leake, S.A., J.P. Hoffmann, and J.E. Dickinson, 2005, Numerical ground-water change model of the
C aquifer and effects of ground-water withdrawals on stream depletion in selected reaches of
Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River, northeastern Arizona. United
States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5277, 29 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5277/sir_2005-5277.pdf.
Leake, S.A., D.R. Pool, and J.M. Leenhouts, 2008, Simulated effects of ground-water withdrawals
and artificial recharge on discharge to streams, springs, and riparian vegetation in the Sierra
Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, southeastern Arizona. United States
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5207, 14 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5207/.
LeRoux, E.F., and L.J. Hamilton, 1985, South Dakota ground-water resources, in United States
Geological Survey, National Water Summary 1984, hydrologic events, selected water-quality
trends, and ground-water resources. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2275, 385-390, https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2275/report.pdf.
Loeltz, O.J., C.A. Phoenix, and T.W. Robinson, 1949, Ground water in Paradise Valley, Humboldt
County, Nevada. Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 10, 61 pages.
http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/water%20resources%20bulletins/Bulletin10.pd
f .
Lohman, S.W., et al., 1972, Definitions of selected ground-water terms—Revisions and conceptual
refinements. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988, 21 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp_1988/.
MacEwan, D., M. Cayar, A. Taghavi, D. Mitchell, S. Hatchett, and R. Howitt, 2017, Hydroeconomic
modeling of sustainable groundwater management. Water Resources Research, volume 53,
pages 2384–2403, doi:10.1002/2016WR019639.
Margat, J., and J. Van der Gun, 2013, Groundwater Around the World. Chemical Rubber Company
Press, Boca Raton, 348 pages.
Margat J., S. Foster, and A. Droubi, 2006, Concept and importance of non-renewable resources, in
S. Foster and D.P. Loucks, editors, Non-renewable Groundwater Resources: A guidebook on
socially-sustainable management for water-policy makers. UNESCO IHP-VI Series on
Groundwater (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, International
Hydrological Programme Series), number 10, chapter 1, pages 13-24,
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146997 .
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh, 1988, A modular three-dimensional finite-difference
ground-water flow model. United States Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 6, chapter A1, 586 pages, https://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri6a1/.
McGuire, V.L., 2017, Water-level and recoverable water in storage changes, High Plains aquifer,
predevelopment to 2015 and 2013–15. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2017–5040, 14 pages, https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175040.
McGuire, V.L., K.D. Lund, and B.K. Densmore, 2012, Saturated thickness and water in storage in
the High Plains aquifer, 2009, and water-level changes and changes in water in storage in the
High Plains aquifer, 1980 to 1995, 1995 to 2000, 2000 to 2005, and 2005 to 2009. United States
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5177, 28 pages.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5177/.
Meinzer, O.E., 1923, Outline of ground-water hydrology, with definitions. United States Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 494, 71 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp494.
National Research Council, 2013, Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and
Governance Linkages. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 142 pages,
doi:10.17226/13471.
59
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Niswonger, R.G., S. Panday, and M. Ibaraki, 2011, MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton formulation for
MODFLOW-2005. United States Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–A37, 44 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm6a37/.
Niswonger, R.G., and D.E. Prudic, 2005, Documentation of the Streamflow-Routing (SFR2)
Package to include unsaturated flow beneath streams, a modification to SFR1. United States
Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 6, Chapter A13, 62 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2006/tm6A13/pdf/tm6a13.pdf .
Poland, J.F., 1984, Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), Paris, 305 pages.
https://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/rgws/Unesco/.
Pool, D.R., and M.A. Anderson, 2008, Ground-water storage change and land subsidence in
Tucson Basin and Avra Valley, southeastern Arizona, 1998-2002. United States Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5275, 34 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5275/sir2007-5275.pdf.
Price, M., 2002, Who needs sustainability?, in Hiscock, K.M., M.O. Rivett, and R.M. Davison,
editors, Sustainable Groundwater Development. Geological Society, London, Special
Publication 193, pages 75-81.
Prudic, D.E., and M.E. Herman, 1996, Ground-water flow and simulated effects of development in
Paradise Valley, a basin tributary to the Humboldt River in Humboldt County,
Nevada. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-F, 92 pages,
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1409F.
Qi, S.L., 2010, Digital map of aquifer boundary for the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. United States
Geological Survey Data Series 543. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/543/.
Robinson, T.W., 1958, Phreatophytes. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1423,
84 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp1423.
Rodell, M., I. Velicogna, and J.S. Famiglietti, 2009, Satellite-based estimates of groundwater
depletion in India. Nature, volume 460, pages 999-1002. doi:10.1038/nature08238.
Sahagian, D.L., F.W. Schwartz, and D.K. Jacobs, 1994, Direct anthropogenic contributions to sea
level rise in the twentieth century. Nature, volume 367, pages 54-57, doi:10.1038/367054a0.
San Juan, C.A., W.R. Belcher, R.J. Laczniak, and H.M. Putnam, 2010, Hydrologic components for
model development, in Belcher, W.R., and D.S. Sweetkind, editors, Death Valley regional
groundwater flow system, Nevada and California—Hydrogeologic framework and transient
groundwater flow model. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1711, chapter C,
pages 95–132, https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1711/.
Scanlon, B.R., Z. Zhang, R.C. Reedy, D.R. Pool, H. Save, D. Long, J. Chen, D.M. Wolock, B.D.
Conway, and D. Winester, 2015, Hydrologic implications of GRACE (Gravity Recovery and
Climate Experiment) satellite data in the Colorado River Basin. Water Resources Research,
volume 51, pages 9891–9903, doi:10.1002/2015WR018090.
Scanlon, B.R., Z. Zhang, H. Save, D.N. Wiese, F.W. Landerer, D. Long, L. Longuevergne, and J.
Chen, 2016, Global evaluation of new GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment)
mascon products for hydrologic applications. Water Resources Research, volume 52,
doi:10.1002/2016WR019494.
Schoon, R.A., 1971, Geology and hydrology of the Dakota Formation in South Dakota. South
Dakota Geological Survey Report of Investigation 104, 55 pages,
http://www.sdgs.usd.edu/pubs/pdf/RI-104%20-%2061%20pages.pdf.

60
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Schwartz, F.W., and M. Ibaraki, 2011, Groundwater—A resource in decline. Elements, volume 7,
pages 175–179, doi:10.2113/gselements.7.3.175.
Siebert, S., J. Burke, J.M. Faures, K. Frenken, J. Hoogeveen, P. Dӧll, and F. T. Portmann,
Groundwater use for irrigation – a global inventory. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
volume 14, pages 1863–1880, doi:10.5194/hess-14-1863-2010.
Tapley, B.D., S. Bettadpur, J.C. Ries, P.F. Thompson, and M.M. Watkins, 2004, GRACE (Gravity
Recovery and Climate Experiment) measurements of mass variability in the Earth system.
Science, volume 305, number 5683, pages 503–505, doi:10.1126/science.1099192.
Theis, C.V., 1940, The source of water derived from wells. Civil Engineering, volume 10, pages
277-280.
Theis, C.V., and C.S. Conover, 1963, Chart for determination of the percentage of pumped water
being diverted from a stream or drain, in Bentall, Ray, compiler, Shortcuts and special
problems in aquifer tests. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1545-C, pages
C106-C109, https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1545c/report.pdf.
Thomas, H.E., 1955, Water rights in areas of ground-water mining. United States Geological
Survey Circular 347, 16 pages, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir347.
Tiwari, V.M., J. Wahr, and S. Swenson, 2009, Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India,
from satellite gravity observations. Geophysical Research Letters, volume 36,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039401.
Todd, D.K., 1959, Ground Water Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA, 336 pages.
Van der Gun, J., and A. Lipponen, 2010, Reconciling groundwater storage depletion due to
pumping with sustainability. Sustainability, volume 2, pages 3418-3435,
doi:10.3390/su2113418.
Voss, C.I., and S.M. Soliman, 2014, The transboundary non-renewable Nubian Aquifer System of
Chad, Egypt, Libya and Sudan: Classical groundwater questions and parsimonious
hydrogeologic analysis and modeling. Hydrogeology Journal, volume 22, number 2, pages
441-468. doi:10.1007/s10040-013-1039-3.
Wada, Y., L.P.H. van Beek, C.M. van Kempen, J.W.T.M. Reckman, S. Vasak, and M.F.P. Bierkens,
2010, Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophysical Research Letters, volume 37,
L20402, doi:10.1029/2010GL044571.
Welch, H.L., C.T. Green, R.A. Rebich, J.R.B. Barlow, and M.B. Hicks, 2010, Unintended
consequences of biofuels production—The effects of large-scale crop conversion on water
quality and quantity. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1229, 6 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1229/.
Winter, T.C., J.W. Harvey, O.L. Franke, and W.M. Alley, 1998, Ground water and surface water—A
single resource. United States Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 pages,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1139/.
WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme), 2015, The United Nations World
Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World. UNESCO, Paris, 122 pages,
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231823 .

61
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

10 Boxes
Box 1 - Regional Unconfined Aquifer System: The High Plains Aquifer
The High Plains aquifer in the central United States provides a good example of
applying the approach of estimating depletion volume by integrating head changes and
storage coefficient estimates. Water-level changes in this regionally extensive unconfined
aquifer have been estimated from many water-level measurements in a large number of
observation wells over many years, producing maps of water-level changes since
predevelopment times (Figure Box 1-1).

Figure Box 1-1 - Changes in groundwater levels in the High Plains

aquifer, from predevelopment conditions (about 1950) to 2015 (from
McGuire, 2017).

The area-weighted average specific yield varies by State from 0.081 in Wyoming to
0.185 in Oklahoma and is 0.151 overall for the aquifer (McGuire, 2017; Gutentag et al., 1984;

62
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

McGuire et al., 2012). McGuire (2017) accounts for this spatial variation and estimates that
the total cumulative groundwater storage depletion in the High Plains aquifer since about
1950 is approximately 273.2 million acre-feet (337 km3).
Return to where text links to Box 1

63
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Box 2 - Storage Depletion in a Thick Confining Layer: Dakota Aquifer

System
Konikow and Neuzil (2007) calculate storage depletion in the low-permeability
beds that confine the regionally extensive Dakota Aquifer in South Dakota, USA
(Figure Box 2-1), and that example is summarized here. The Dakota Sandstone and related
sandstones in western-central North America form what is often considered a classic
example of an artesian aquifer system. The Dakota Aquifer system is extensively developed
and has played a particularly important role in the settlement and economic development
of South Dakota. Study of the aquifer system began with Darton (1896; 1909) and helped
shape current ideas about artesian aquifers (Bredehoeft et al., 1983).

Figure Box 2-1 - Schematic east-west cross section of major aquifers and confining layers in South Dakota
(not to scale) (modified from Bredehoeft et al., 1983). Vertical scale is greatly exaggerated.

The Dakota Aquifer underlies more than 171,000 km2 of South Dakota as described
by LeRoux and Hamilton (1985), though it also extends in several adjacent states.
Significant recharge to the Dakota and the deeper Madison Aquifers occurs where they
crop out on the flanks of the Black Hills (Figure Box 2-1). The Dakota aquifer discharges
naturally at low elevations in the eastern part of the state. Discharge from pumped and
flowing wells also has become an important source of discharge from the aquifer system
(Case, 1984).
Substantial development of the aquifer system began by the early 1880s (Bredehoeft
et al., 1983). By 1905, over 1,000 wells were producing water in the portion of South Dakota
east of the Missouri River, supplying an estimated 1.2×106 m3/d of water for irrigation and
livestock (Bredehoeft et al., 1983). High rates of head decline in the Dakota Aquifer occurred
before 1915. For example, eastern South Dakota experienced head declines averaging about
7 m/yr between 1909 and 1915. The rate of decline decreased to less than 0.5 m/yr by 1953
(Schoon, 1971). Estimated withdrawals stabilized at about 150,000 m3/d by 1960 (Helgesen

64
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

et al., 1984). Pumpage data presented by Bredehoeft et al. (1983), Helgesen et al. (1984), and
Case (1984) indicate that the cumulative well discharge from the Dakota Aquifer system in
South Dakota from the time before development until 1981 totaled about 19.7 km3 of water.
The history of development is incompletely documented, but Bredehoeft et al. (1983)
estimate well discharge in 1912 as approximately 1.4 million m3/d and then it declined
dramatically to about 300,000 m3/d in 1922; subsequently, it remained at rates less than half
of the peak rate into the 1980s.
Groundwater storage depletion from the Dakota Aquifer system in South Dakota
was evaluated using potentiometric maps showing predevelopment (Darton, 1909) and
1980 conditions (Case, 1984). The Inyan Kara, Newcastle, and Dakota Sandstones were
treated as a single continuous unit forming the Dakota Aquifer. The spatial distribution of
differences in head between the predevelopment and 1980 potentiometric surfaces
indicated that the maximum decline in head was about 190 m and the average decline was
47 m. Storage coefficient values for the Dakota Aquifer ranged from 1.0×10-5 to 1.0×10-4
(Bredehoeft et al., 1983, table 3); a central value, 5.0×10-5, was used to estimate depletion in
this confined aquifer system. These data indicate that a total of about 0.4 km3 of
groundwater was derived from storage in the aquifer for the period from predevelopment
through 1980, which represents about 2 percent of the estimated cumulative discharge of
19.7 km3. The remaining 98 percent consists mostly of storage depletion in adjacent
confining beds as water leaked from the confining beds into the aquifer.
Bredehoeft et al. (1983) used numerical models to analyze flow in the Dakota
Aquifer system. They concluded that prior to development, most of the recharge and
discharge occurred as steady-state leakage through the thick confining layers. Furthermore,
their analyses indicate that since development, most of the water released from storage
originated from the confining layers. Using Bredehoeft et al. (1983) model-calibrated
estimate of specific storage for confining layers of 1.6×10-4 m-1, Konikow and Neuzil (2007)
estimated that the volume of water removed from storage in the confining units in South
Dakota by 1980 was 14.9 +/-2.2 km3, which represents approximately 76 percent of the
estimated cumulative well discharge. This further implies that about 22 percent of the
withdrawals are balanced by capture because only 2 percent was derived from storage in
the aquifer. The capture includes both increased inflow (recharge) in or near upgradient
outcrop areas and reduced outflow in downgradient discharge areas.
Return to where text links to Box 2

65
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Box 3 – Running and Post-Processing the Model for Case Study 1

Supplemental material for running the Case Study 1 model is provided in
CaseStudy1--Models.zip can be downloaded at the Groundwater Project. The material includes
computer files for running the model described in the Case Study 1: Hypothetical
Stream-Aquifer System. The files are designed to allow the reader to reproduce all the
simulations and results related to the case study as presented in the Groundwater Project
book “Groundwater Resource Development: Effects and Sustainability.”
The zip file contains a folder named “Case Study 1 - Models” with subfolders that
include all the input and output files for the three scenarios presented in this book. The
subfolder “MODFLOW-NWT.Model” contains a copy of the executable software for
MODFLOW-NWT (version 1.1.4), which was used in the analyses of this problem, as
described in this book. It also includes a copy of the model documentation report. The
computer source code for MODFLOW_NWT and additional documentation can be obtained by
clicking here.
The Case Study includes three different scenarios, and the files for each are
contained in separate subfolders, labeled (1) Base Case (No Recharge and No ET), (2) Low
ET Case, and (3) ET and Recharge Case. Instructions for running a simulation for each
case are provided below. The Base Case represents a scenario in which there is no areal
recharge from precipitation and no evapotranspiration (ET) losses. The Low ET Case
includes mountain front recharge but no areally diffuse recharge. The third scenario
(ET.and.Recharge Case) includes both ET discharge (at a higher rate than in the previous
case) and areal recharge from precipitation.
The folder for each of the three scenarios includes two subfolders. One subfolder
contains all the input files needed to run that simulation and the other subfolder contains
all the output files. The input file folder also includes the ModelMuse project file used to
generate the input files (you do not need to use ModelMuse to run the simulation, although
it is possible to do that). ModelMuse is a USGS public domain model pre- and post-processor.
The input folder also contains a batch file that can be used to run the simulation using those
input files.
Running the Model:
There are a number of alternative ways that the input files for each scenario can be
run with MODFLOW-NWT. We offer one straightforward way that is consistent for the
three scenarios. Specifically, we have placed a batch file (“name.bat”) in each input folder
(where “name” is the name of the scenario). Double-clicking on this batch file will cause it
to execute a script contained within it. The scripts are written to link to the executable
version of MODFLOW.NWT contained in the “Model” folder, start executing it, and
provide it the name and location of the input files for each scenario. It will route all output
files to the “Output” folder. Note that if you run (or re-run) the model with this folder and
file configuration, the original output files will be overwritten and lost. If you want to save

66
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

them for future comparisons, then you will first need to either rename the previous output
files or move them to a separate new folder before running the simulation.
Creating head (water level) and drawdown contour maps using ModelMuse:
To start, if you have not already installed ModelMuse, download and install it by
visiting the United States Geological Survey, ModelMuse web site:
https://www.usgs.gov/software/modelmuse-a-graphical-user-interface-groundwater-
models.
Once it is installed, go to the Case Study 1--Models folder, then down to the Base
Case folder, then into the Input.Files folder and double click on the file “Base.Case.gpt” to
open it in ModelMuse. You may want to stretch the ModelMuse window so you can see
the entire model grid as shown in Figure Box 3-1. Model rows extend from left to right
starting with row 1 at the top; model columns extend from top to bottom starting with
column 1 on the left. The main window is a plan view of the grid, the lower window is the
front view and the window on the right is the side view. The blue lines on the plan view
indicate the model column shown on the right and the green lines indicate the model row
shown at the bottom.

Figure Box 3-1 - Case Study 1 model grid

displayed in ModelMuse (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

If you have not run the model directly from ModelMuse, then you need to import
the data set you wish to contour. Under “File,” select “Import >Model Results” and
navigate to the Case Study 1--Models folder, the Base Case folder and the Output.Files
folder and select the file Base.Case.fhd and choose Open. A list of all the model simulation
times for which the file contains head data will be shown and by default the last time (73051
days) will be selected. You can set “Display choice” to “Contour grid” and select OK and
click on “Update the existing data sets with new values” to view a contour map of those
heads, or you could scroll down to uncheck that and choose any other time. Figure Box 3-2

67
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

shows the head distribution for “Head: Period 1; Step: 1; Total Time: 1” which is a contour
map of head for the undeveloped conditions. To change the default contours, open the Data
Visualization dialog box and select Contour Data from the list on the left, then in the upper
right enter a different contour interval and click apply and close. The drawdown
distribution at a time that is 73,051 days after pumping began can be viewed by importing
data from that time from the Base.Case.fdn file (Figure Box 3-3). Drawdown is the
difference between the heads at two different times, typically predevelopment and a given
time after pumping began.

Figure Box 3-2 - Head contours for

undeveloped conditions (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

Figure Box 3-3 - Drawdown contours after 200

years of pumping (Konikow and Bredehoeft,
2020).

68
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

To view smaller magnitudes of drawdown further from the well, we suggest adding
two new contours by opening the Data Visualization dialog box and selecting Contour Data
from the list on the left, then click Specify Contours in the upper right. Increase the number
of rows from 6 to 8. Then scroll down and set the contour values for the two new rows to
0.01 and 0.05. Next click “OK.” and “Apply” and then “Close” in the Data Visualization
dialog box. There are many options available for coloring and labeling the contours; feel
free to experiment. Zooming in on the area around the pumping well shows that the
drawdown at the well is on the order of 0.6 m and along the river is close to (but less than)
0.01 m.

Figure Box 3-4 - Drawdown contours after 200

years of pumping including two contour lines for
smaller drawdown (Konikow and Bredehoeft,
2020).

To remove grid lines, under View, select “Show or hide 2-D Grid>Show Exterior.”
To improve clarity of drawdown values and contours you can also select “Hide all objects”
under the “Objects” pull-down menu. To export and save the image of the contour map,
go to File>Export>Image (or click the camera icon). In the resulting dialog box, you have
several options, but just click “Save image” to generate a file (select format or type) with
the contour map. Click “Close.” If you prefer that the contours be a single color, you can
change the color scheme to “Blue only” or “Black only” in the Data Visualization dialog
box. The resulting image is shown with black contours in Figure Box 3-5.

69
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure Box 3-5 - Drawdown contours with the

grid and object removed from view (Konikow
and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Extracting and plotting MODFLOW budget data using GW_Chart software:

GW_Chart can be used to conveniently extract the budget data from the main
MODFLOW or MODFLOW-NWT output file. If you have not yet installed GW_Chart,
download and install it by visiting the United States Geological Survey, GW_Chart web
site:
https://www.usgs.gov/software/gwchart-program-creating-specialized-graphs-used-
groundwater-studies.
Once it is installed, open “GW_Chart.” Under pull-down menu for “Chart
Type/Convert,” select “Water Budgets.” Then in the lower right area, select “MODFLOW”
under “Read Data From.” Next, under “File,” select “Open,” and then navigate to the
output folder for the Base Case and select “Base.Case.lst” to open that file and allow
GW_Chart to read all the water budget data. This will generate plots for all selected
variables for either cumulative or rate budgets. However, these plots are not at a high
resolution and do not provide the numbers.
Therefore, we want to Save/export data using the lower-right middle button ( );
name the output text file (e.g., “Base.Case.Budget.txt”) and select a destination folder. This
will generate a text file that contains all the saved budget data for the model (as specified
in the “output control” [“.oc”] input file).
Open the “Base.Case.Budget.txt” file with Notepad or other word/text processing
software. The file lists “cumulative” data first, followed by a listing of “rate” data. For this
exercise, we will work with annual rates. Select all lines in the “RATES” category (bottom
half of the listing (lines 206 to 408), and then select “COPY.” Then open a blank Excel
workbook, select the upper left cell (A1) and paste using the “Text Import Wizard.” Click
“next” and then select delimiters that clearly and properly separate the data columns

70
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

(specifically, select “tab” and deselect “space”; the latter step will assure that the headers
in row 2 align correctly with the proper data columns below). Then click “next” and
“finish” to complete the import process. You can give the worksheet a name (e.g., by
changing default name of “Sheet1” to “Base.Case” in the lower left tab). Save the
spreadsheet file to the Output.Files folder, giving it an appropriate name (e.g.,
“Rate.Budgets”).
Examine the headers in Row 2. If these column labels did not line up accurately with
the data columns, adjust them manually for improved clarity in the spreadsheet. For
improved clarity, select (highlight) all of Row 2 and then click on “Wrap Text” to see
complete labels. You can also adjust column widths and number formats for data as
desired. After completing these several steps, the first 11 rows (out of 203 Rows) and 17
columns (of 19) should look something like Figure Box 3-6.

Figure Box 3-6 - Excel spreadsheet with rates from budget for the Base Case of Case Study 1 (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

To assess the sources of water to the well, and how these change with time, we need
to complete a few more calculations, which are aided by the use of formulas in Excel. We
will examine these changes over the 200-year simulation period, so it will be convenient to
create a column for time in years (because the model units of time are days) so that variables
can be plotted in terms of years. Therefore, in Column T, add a label in Row 2 (something
like “Time, in years”). Then in Row 3 of Column T, add a formula to convert time in days
(Column C) to time in years (assume one year equals 365.25 days). Copy and paste that
formula (“=(C3/365.25)-0.00273785”) into the remaining cells of Column T. (Recall that the
length of the initial steady-state stress period is arbitrary, and was set at 1 day, thus the
subtraction of approximately 0.00273785 years) to account for the steady state portion of
the simulation.
One source of water to the well is from a change in storage in the aquifer. In the
MODFLOW budget terminology, “In: STORAGE” refers to the water that enters (flows
into) the groundwater system by coming out of storage in the aquifer. We will use Column
U to compute the net change in aquifer storage. So, in Row 2 of Column U, add a label “Net
Change in Storage” or something similar. In Row 3 of Column U, insert a formula to
compute net change in storage as the difference between the value in Column D and that
in Column K (“=D3-K3”). Then copy that formula and paste it into every remaining cell in

71
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Column U. With this order of subtraction, the results with a positive sign will represent a
reduction (or depletion) of storage.
Next, we want to calculate capture, which in this case can only include the capture
of streamflow (1) by increasing the seepage losses from the stream (“In: STREAM
LEAKAGE”), which equals recharge to the aquifer, and/or (2) by decreasing the discharge
from the aquifer to the stream (“Out: STREAM LEAKAGE”). So, we need to calculate how
these change with time. First, we compute the increase in recharge from the stream in
Column V. Add a label in Row 2 of Column V (something like “Increased Seepage Loss
from River”). The increase in seepage loss in any time step during the transient stress period
equals the difference between the “In: STREAM LEAKAGE” during that time step and the
respective value during the initial steady-state stress period when there was no pumpage
from the well. Set up a formula for that column to compute these values (the formula
should look something like: “=I4-I$3” in Row 4 of Column V). Follow a similar procedure
for “Decreased Groundwater Discharge to River” by entering “=P4-P$3” in Row 4 of
Column W). Then in Column X, calculate the Capture by adding the absolute values of
Columns V and W, that is “=ABS(V4)+ABS(W4)” in Row 4 Column X. Finally, we want to
compute the nondimensional fractions of the sources of water to the well. That is, we want
to compute the storage depletion and capture fractions. Use Columns Y and Z to calculate
the storage depletion fractions and capture fractions, respectively, by dividing Columns U
and X by the well pumpage (Column M). Note that the sum of these two columns should
always equal 1. Plot the change in the storage depletion and capture fractions over the
200-year simulation period (using Excel or your favorite graphic/plotting software
package). The graph should look like Figure Box 3-7.

Figure Box 3-7 - Fractional sources of water entering the pumping well for
the Base Case of Case Study 1 (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

72
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Computing streamflow changes in Excel

To determine how streamflow varies in a downstream direction, first use a text
editor to open the main listing (output) file “Base.Case.lst” from the Base Case simulation
(folder: “Case Study 1--Models\Base Case\Output.Files”, file “Base.Case.lst”). Find the
stream listing data at 200 years (time step 200 in stress period 2) by searching for
“STREAM LISTING PERIOD 2 STEP 200”, which will be just above the last
budget print out at the bottom of the file. Then copy the label lines and data (a total of 83
lines) and then paste it into cell A1 of an Excel spreadsheet. Next click on
Data>Text to Columns, and choose “fixed width”, then “next”, then “finished.” Delete all
data except the stream reach number and the flow out of the reach (these are Columns E
and H of the pasted data). Now, the reach number should be in column A in sequentially
increasing order. Insert two new columns after column A to compute the distance
downstream in meters and kilometers, respectively. Use formulas based on the knowledge
that each reach covers a distance of 804.67 m. Column D should then include the streamflow
out of each reach (in m3/d) after 200 years of pumping. Next use Excel or other plotting or
graphic software to plot the results, which should look like Figure Box 3-8.

Figure Box 3-8 - Streamflow with distance downstream for the

Base Case of Case Study 1 (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

To examine the stream losses and gains, add Column E with the label
“Stream Loss(-) Gain(+)”. In cell E4 enter the formula “=D4-20000” because there is a stream
inflow of 20,000 m3/d at the upstream end of the stream. In cell E5 calculate the difference
between outflow in the reach and outflow in the upstream reach “=D5-D4” and copy the
formula down the column. Because we are subtracting the flow at the upstream end of the
reach from the downstream end, a negative value indicates stream loss in the reach and a
positive value indicates gain. The result is shown in Figure Box 3-9.

73
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure Box 3-9 - Streamflow Gain(+) and Loss(-) with distance

downstream for the Base Case of Case Study 1 (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

To determine the impact that 200 years of pumping had on the streamflow as well
as the gains and losses, we want to add the predevelopment data to the previous plots.
Follow the above steps for the predevelopment conditions by searching in the same
“Base.Case.lst” file for “STREAM LISTING PERIOD 1 STEP 1”, which will be
close to the top of the file (for us it is line 1675 of the Base.Case.lst file.) As done before for
200 years, copy the data into the spreadsheet. Make similar calculations as done for the
200-year time and add the data to the graphs. They should look like Figure Box 3-10.

Figure Box 3-10 - Streamflow and stream Gain(+) and Loss(-) with distance downstream for the Base Case
of Case Study 1 (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Plotting well hydrographs from MODFLOW output using GW_Chart:

GW_Chart can be used to extract and plot water-level changes over time at
individual nodes (cells) of the MODFLOW grid. This produces a well hydrograph showing
either water levels (heads) or drawdown (changes in water level from an initial value), as
selected by the user.
To do this, first if you have not yet installed GW_Chart, download and install it by
visiting the United States Geological Survey, GW_Chart web site:

74
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

https://www.usgs.gov/software/gwchart-program-creating-specialized-graphs-used-
groundwater-studies.
Once it is installed, open “GW_Chart.” Then, under the pull-down menu for “Chart
Type/Convert,” select “Hydrographs.” In the Data box, make sure that “MODFLOW head
or drawdown file” is selected. Next, set Column-Row-Layer to the cell location for the
pumping well (30,40,1 for the Base Case). Then under “File,” select “Read Heads or
Drawdown,” and then navigate to the output folder for the Base Case and select either the
formatted head file or the formatted drawdown file. We chose to view drawdown.
To get a better-quality graph with a time scale in years, we need to place the data
into a spreadsheet or plotting package. You can select (highlight) all the data in the two
columns of data listed in the upper middle box of GW_Chart, and then copy it (Ctrl-c).
Next, paste it into cell A1 of a blank Excel worksheet. Alternatively, under the File
pull-down menu, you can select “Save Heads or Drawdowns” to save the two columns of
data to a separate new file. The first time shown is “1”, which represents the arbitrary length
of the initial steady-state stress period. There is no drawdown for this stress period, but
MODFLOW uses the first period as the reference time and the final converged head is not
known at the start of the calculations, so it calculates the change in head from the initial
conditions to the converged steady state conditions. Therefore, change the drawdown
value for the first time “1” to a value of 0 in Column B. Add a header (or label) to column
C of the spreadsheet “Time, in years” and then define the values in that new column by a
formula to convert time in days (Column A) to time in years (for example, the formula for
C3 would be “=(A3-1)/365.25”). Copy and paste that formula into rows 2 through 202 of
Column C. Then plot Column C on the horizontal axis and Column B on the vertical axis
to produce the hydrograph as shown in Figure Box 3-11.

Figure Box 3-11 - Drawdown at the pumping well location for the
Base Case of Case Study 1 (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Streamflow changes with time are recorded in the Gage output file “Base.Case.sfrg1”. In
this case, we defined a stream gage as being located at the most downstream cell of the river (reach

75
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

80), representing surface water outflow from the system being simulated. Streamflow at the gage for
the Base Case is illustrated in Figure 3 Box 3-12.

Figure Box 3-12 - Streamflow at model outlet for the Base Case
of Case Study 1 (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Return to where text links to Box 3

 

76
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

11 Exercise Solutions
Exercise 1 Solution: Effects of Well Location (Distance from Well to River)
The problem:
Exercise 1 requests that you consider the hypothetical desert-basin, stream-aquifer
system, as illustrated in Figure 17 and answer the following questions. Does the position of
the pumping well relative to the stream affect the response of the system? Specifically, how
does it affect (1) the magnitude and timing of the effect of pumping on surface water, and
(2) the relative sources of water to the well? What is the nature of these effects? Consider
two alternative well locations—one further from the river and one closer to the river. Are
any of these pumping scenarios sustainable? If you were a water manager for this
stream-aquifer system, which well location would you consider preferable, and why? And
are there any tradeoffs, such as the amount of drawdown in the pumping well?
How to run and analyze the model results:
If you have not already done so, it is useful to read Box 3, then run and post-process
the results of the Base Case model of Case Study 1 before undertaking Exercise 1. To do
this, first put the input files, MODFLOW-NWT executable code, and ModelMuse files for
the Base Case of Case Study 1 on a Microsoft-OS computer by downloading the zip file
“CaseStudy1--Models.zip“ from the online Supplementary Information for this book.
Extract the “Case Study 1” folders and subfolders onto your personal computer. Then go
through the steps described in Box 3.
Acquiring a file folder for Exercise 1:
Next download the zip file “Exercise1.zip“ from the online Supplementary
Information for this book. To get you started, we have already copied the Base.Case input
files into two new folders under the folder “Exercise 1” (Well.Closer.to.River.Case and
Well.Further.from.River.Case); you can use these to simulate the cases with the well at two
alternative locations -- one closer to the river and the other further from the river. However,
the files have not been modified yet, so if you execute either of these simulations without
changes, you will get the base case result. We suggest you work from these two folders to
analyze and develop solutions to Exercise 1. For convenience, we have also installed a copy
of the executable code for MODFLOW-NWT in a location that will work with the batch
files in these two folders.
Modifying Input Files to move the well:
Next, modify the input files in the Input.Files subfolders of the two folders
“Well.Closer.to.River.Case” and “Well.Further.from.River.Case” to move the position of
the well closer to and further from the river, respectively. For each variant, it might be
easiest to modify the input file for the WEL Package manually using a text editor, such as
Notepad. In this approach, you only have to modify the column coordinate in the pumping
well data, which is the very last line of the file “Base.Case.wel”, which shows the well in
row = 40 and column = 30. The stream is in column 40 so the new well will be half way
77
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

between the base case well and the stream if it is placed in column 35. The mountains are
to the left of column 1 so the new well will be half way between the base case well and the
mountains if it is placed in column 15.
If you change the name of this file [or of any other input file], then you also have to
make a corresponding change to the name of that file within file “Base.Case.nam”. If you
change the name of the “name” file, then you have to make a corresponding change to its
name in the file “Base.Case.bat”. You can run the modified problem by double-clicking on
the batch file (named “Base.Case.bat”), assuming the folder “MODFLOW-NWT.Model” is
at the same level as we setup in the zip file “Exercise1.zip”, that is, at the same level as the
folders “Well.Closer.to.River.Case” and “Well.Further.from.River.Case”.
Alternatively, if you have the ModelMuse software on your Microsoft-OS
computer, or download it as described in Box 3, you can modify the position of the well by
opening the ModelMuse project file “Base.Case.gpt” and adjusting the well position
therein, exporting the input files, and running the program from within ModelMuse. You
will also be able to use ModelMuse to visualize the groundwater heads and drawdowns
using the instructions from Box 3 to contour data from the name.fhd and name.fdn files.
Post-processing the new model results:
Box 3 provides step-by-step instructions for analyzing and plotting the water
budgets and hydrographs, preparing contour maps of hydraulic head and drawdown, and
computing streamflow gains and losses for the Base Case. For Exercise 1 repeat that process
for the models with the well closer to and further from the stream. Once you complete the
analysis for the other model, it is useful to include the results for all three cases in the same
graph to facilitate comparison. Data from the model output of this exercise are included in
spreadsheets located in the “DataSpreadsheets” subfolder of the “Exercise 1” folder.
Analysis of impact of well position on streamflow:
In assessing the effects of pumping on streamflow, it is important to remember that
the river is interacting with the aquifer even under natural predevelopment conditions.
Specifically, the river is losing water to the aquifer in the upstream reaches of the river and
is gaining water from the aquifer in the lower downstream reaches of the river. This is
clearly indicated by the predevelopment head distribution (Figure 20a). However,
pumping the well disturbs these “natural” interactions.
After post-processing the streamflow result for the base case and the two cases with
the well closer to and further from the stream, the results are compared at the end of the
simulation (t = 200 years). The methods and steps used to calculate streamflow gains and
losses are detailed in Box 3.
The results shown in Figure ExSol 1-1 indicate that the location of the well relative
to the river has only a small effect (relative to the magnitude of the streamflow) on the
streamflow profile along the river -- certainly a smaller effect than that of the pumping
itself. At the most downstream point, where the river leaves the area of the model, the flow

78
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

is essentially the same for all three well locations. The same is true at the halfway point
down the river, which is the north-south position of the well in all cases. However,
upstream from the halfway point, streamflow is lowest for the case of the closer well and
highest for the case of the further well. The area upstream of the halfway point is where the
river is losing water because of natural seepage losses as well as induced infiltration
because of the drawdown caused by pumping. Downstream of the halfway point, the
opposite is true—with higher streamflow when the well is located further from the river.
In the downstream reach of the river, the streamflow is increasing because of groundwater
discharge into the river. At a distance of about 40 km downstream (just past the midpoint),
the difference in streamflow between the case with the well closer to the river and the case
with the well further from the river after 200 years of pumping is the largest, at about 535
m3/d, which is large relative to the magnitude of the well pumpage (Q = 2,026 m3/d).

Figure ExSol 1-1 - Effect of well location on streamflow after 200 years.
For comparison, streamflow is shown under steady-state predevelopment
conditions (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

The stream gage at the outlet of the model represents surface water outflow from
the system being simulated. Comparison of these data for the three well locations
(Figure ExSol 1-2) show that most of the capture (and stream depletion) occurs during the
early times. As might be expected, the fastest effect occurs when the well is located closest
to the river. In this case, half the total depletion occurs in the first 15 years of pumping. But
in the long run, the total depletion of streamflow is the same regardless of well location—
it is a function of the overall water budget.

79
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure ExSol 1-2 - Effect of pumping on streamflow as recorded at the

stream gage at the outlet of the model during 200 years of pumping for
three different well locations (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

It is also worth looking at the gains and losses in streamflow along the river, and
how they change due to pumping from wells at different locations. The changes in
streamflow gains and losses are determined by the differences between streamflow gains
and losses during the steady-state predevelopment period and those during the transient
pumping period. We evaluate those after 200 years of pumping; detailed steps are
described in Box 3.
The streamflow loss is greatest in the first cell of the river (i.e., the most upstream
reach) (Figure ExSol 1-3). For the predevelopment case, streamflow is diminished in the
first reach of the river by 836 m3/d out of an inflow of 20,000 m3/d; the losses then decrease
consistently in a downstream direction until they reach a minimum near the middle reach
of the river. Then the streamflow starts to increase in reach 37 (about 30 km downstream),
increasing exponentially to a maximum gain of 883 m3/d in the most downstream reach of
the river. Differences between predevelopment streamflow gains and losses and those after
200 years of pumping appear to be relatively small and only evident in the middle third of
the river—closest to the pumping well. This indicates that most of the streamflow gains
and losses are related to the natural predevelopment boundary conditions of the problem
and that the changes caused by sustained pumping are small relative to that. Even though
these changes are small, they still need to be considered as a real effect by water managers.

80
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure ExSol 1-3 - Changes in streamflow along the length of the river for
predevelopment conditions and after 200 years of pumping at three
different well locations (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

The difference between the predevelopment values and those after 200 years for the
three well locations represent the effects of pumping on streamflow (Figure ExSol 1-4).
These results show that when the well is closest to the river, it will have the greatest
magnitude of reducing streamflow per unit length of river (in this case, at a river location
32 km downstream from where it enters the valley). When the well is furthest from the
river, its effects are smoothed out (or dampened) over a longer reach of the river.

Figure ExSol 1-4 - Changes in streamflow gains and losses attributable to

pumping for 200 years at three different well locations (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

Even for the well location that is closest to the river, the reduction in streamflow in
the central reaches of the river never reach 1 percent of the streamflow. Thus, one can

81
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

conclude that the effects of pumping on streamflow are small and tolerable given the
benefits of the groundwater supply. However, one must also be cognizant that streamflow
is variable in time and that droughts may cause low-flow periods in which streamflow is
substantially less than the long-term steady rate assumed in this exercise. At those times,
the impact of the well on streamflow would be proportionately greater.
Sources of Water to the Well:
As should be expected, the closer the well is to the river, the sooner the system
becomes capture dominated and the greater are the near-term impacts on streamflow (and
streamflow depletion). The aquifer’s transition from storage-depletion dominated to
capture-dominated, reflected in Figure ExSol 1-5 by the time location of the crossover of the
two curves for each distance, increased from about 5 years for a distance of 4 km, to 18
years for a distance of 8 km, to 74 years for a distance of 20 km. Thus, where the well is
positioned makes a substantial difference in the response of the system (and on the timing
of its effect on surface water).

Figure ExSol 1-5 - Annual storage depletion and capture fractions for
simulations of variants of the base case (Figure 17) in which the distance
from the well to the stream is varied by placing it at a distance (x) of 4 km,
8 km (the base case), and 20 km from the river. Storage depletion fractions
are shown in red and capture fractions are shown in blue (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

Sustainability:
The simulation model for all three well locations indicates that the pumping is
sustainable for at least 200 years (at least from a strictly hydraulic perspective; in general,
there may be other environmental considerations that render this too damaging to the
environment to be considered “sustainable”). That is, as pumping continues over time,
stream capture continues to increase. This means reduced streamflow, which may have
unacceptable consequences from the perspective of downstream water users or ecological
considerations. However, in this particular idealized case, that would not appear to be a

82
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

major concern. However, these results also demonstrate that even “sustainable”
groundwater development can cause streamflow depletion. Declining water tables also
may impact the extent and duration of wetlands. During droughts or low-flow periods, the
central reach of the river may dry up. Thus, “sustainability” must be evaluated from a
broader perspective than just the physical ability to withdraw groundwater from the
aquifer. These factors were not considered or evaluated in this simplified example.
If the pumping rate can be maintained until the system reaches a new equilibrium,
then no further system changes will occur and the pumping can be sustained indefinitely
based on hydraulic factors and processes. We can infer from the plots in Figure ExSol 1-5
that the system has not yet reached equilibrium in any of the three cases. That is,
groundwater storage is still being depleted after 200 years of pumping, which means that
water levels are still declining, which in turn means that the system has not reached a
steady-state condition. To assess whether the system can eventually reach equilibrium
(steady-state) conditions, additional simulations were run for longer periods of time. The
results of these extended simulations yield water budget data indicating that a new
hydraulic equilibrium can be reached in all three cases, although the time to equilibrium
varies with the distance of the well to the stream (Figure ExSol 1-6). Equilibrium is reached
soonest (in about 884 years) for the case where the pumping well is closest to the river (4
km), and the longest (in about 1,140 years) when the well is furthest from the river (20 km).

Figure ExSol 1-6 - Relation between time for model to reach a new
steady-state condition and the distance from the pumping well to the
river (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Drawdown:
The drawdown in the pumping wells would be expected to vary for the three
different well locations because each has a different distance to nearby barrier boundaries
and recharge boundaries. These differences are seen in Figure ExSol 1-7, which compares
calculated drawdowns in the pumping wells at the three different locations. Even though
a new equilibrium condition has not strictly been achieved in 200 years for any of the three

83
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

locations, the rates of change in head are very small at that time for all cases. The annual
additional drawdown is less than 0.001 m/yr after just 16 years in the closer well, after 30
years in the base case, and after 94 years for the well location furthest from the river. These
rates are very small compared to the average saturated thickness of the aquifer (150 m), so
additional long-term drawdown would not be a major concern to water managers. The
maximum difference in drawdown among the three cases is less than 0.3 m. Although
pumping costs might be somewhat greater for the furthest well, which has the largest
drawdown, the magnitude of this difference is quite small and would not likely be a major
concern to water managers.

Figure ExSol 1-7 - Calculated drawdown in the pumping well for three
different well locations (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

The drawdown in the aquifer can be mapped at various times to show how water
levels change in time and space, or as a function of well location. The drawdown map for
the base case after 200 years of pumping (Figure ExSol 1-8) indicates that the drawdown
near the stream is only about 0.01 m or less, with the greatest drawdown in the middle
reach of the river (which is also the closest point on the river to the well) and smaller
drawdowns in either direction along the river away from the well location. However, even
these small drawdowns are enough to affect the exchange of water between the river and
the aquifer (as seen in Figure ExSol 1-3).

84
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure ExSol 1-8. Contour map of drawdown (in m) in the aquifer after 200
years of pumping for the Base Case (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Water Management Perspective:

The results indicate that the further the well is from the river, the greater the
drawdown in the well. A lower water level increases the lift and energy costs to deliver the
water. On the other hand, the further the well is from the river, the more the effect on
streamflow is delayed and dampened. In this particular simplified hypothetical case, the
streamflow is large relative to the well pumpage, and the pumpage is small relative to the
transmissivity of the aquifer. Thus, the tradeoffs between well efficiency and streamflow
capture are not dramatic and a water manager’s decision is not clear or obvious. That is, in
this particular case, it would not make a big difference whichever well location was
selected. However, if all else were the same, and if seasonal streamflow variability were
high, then preserving downstream water rights and protecting ecosystem water needs
would indicate a preference for selecting the further well location. On the other hand, if
hydraulic properties of the aquifer were less favorable and resulted in much greater
drawdown for the same pumping rate, then the closer well location would seem preferable.
Return to exercise 1

85
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Exercise 2 Solution: Lower Ratio of Streamflow to Pumping

The problem:
The Base Case analysis of Exercise 1 assumed that the streamflow was much greater
than the well pumpage. What if the pumping rate was higher than in Exercise 1 and the
ratio of streamflow to pumping (withdrawal) rate was much lower? In the Base Case, river
inflow is about ten times greater than the well pumpage. Consider a case in which the well
pumpage is increased by a factor of three (two more wells are drilled close to the original
well to form a well field, and each well has the same pumping capacity, so the total Q in
that cell of the model grid is -6,078 m3/d) and the river inflow is reduced by a factor of three
(Qin = 6,667 m3/d instead of 20,000 m3/d). The ratio of streamflow entering the system to
pumping out of the aquifer would then be about 1.1. How would that affect (1) the
streamflow in space and time, (2) the drawdown in the aquifer, (3) the head distribution in
the aquifer, and (4) the hydrograph for the pumping well? How does that affect (5) the
water budget of the aquifer and (6) the fractional sources of water to the well? Is this
pumping scenario sustainable?
How to run and analyze the model results:
If you have not already done so, it is useful to read Box 3, then run and post-process
the results of the Base Case model of Case Study 1 before undertaking Exercise 2. To do
this, first put the input files, MODFLOW-NWT executable code, and ModelMuse files for
the Base Case of Case Study 1 on a Microsoft-OS computer by downloading the zip file
“CaseStudy1--Models.zip“ from the online Supplementary Information for this book.
Extract the “Case Study 1” folders and subfolders onto your personal computer. Then go
through the steps described in Box 3.
Acquiring a file folder for Exercise 2:
Next download the zip file “Exercise2.zip“ from the online Supplementary
Information for this book. To get you started, we have already copied the Base.Case input
files into a new folder under the folder “Exercise 2” (Revised Base Case--Change.Qs); you
can use these to simulate the case with more pumping and less streamflow. However, the
files have not been modified yet, so if you execute these files without changes, you will get
the base case result. We suggest you work from this folder to analyze and develop solutions
to Exercise 2. For convenience, we have also installed a copy of the executable code for
MODFLOW-NWT in a location that will work with the batch files in these two folders.
Modifying Input Files
To determine the effect and importance of the relative strength of the pumping
stress to the magnitude of streamflow, copy the Base Case input files into a new folder for
Exercise 2 and modify the input parameters to match the assumptions of the above exercise.
Also, to more clearly assess the impact on streamflow, it is suggested that you add an
additional stream gage to a location in the river close to the well. The results of Exercise 1
indicated a minimum streamflow in reach 46, so place the gage there. These modifications
can be accomplished by:
86
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

1. Increase the pumping rate for the well on the last line of the WEL Package input file
“Base.Case.wel” by changing the value “-2.026000000000E+003” to
“-6.078000000000E+003”.
2. Reduce the streamflow entering the river for both stress periods in the file
“Base.Case.sfr” by changing both occurrences of the value “2.000000000000E+004” to
“0.666700000000E+004”.
3. Add a stream gage by (1) changing the number on the first line of the
“Base.Case.gag” file to “2”, (2) adding a third line to the “Base.Case.gag” file
“1 46 20206 1”, and (3) adding a line to the “Base.Case.nam” file after the similar line
for the first gage that says “DATA 20206 ..\Output.Files\Base.Case.sfrg2 REPLACE”).
Next, run the model by double clicking on the batch file “Base.Case.bat” in the Input.Files
folder.
Assessing Streamflow:
In assessing the effects of pumping on streamflow for the case with increased
pumping and less incoming streamflow, we see that after 200 years, the streamflow along
the river (from the upstream to downstream ends) is much lower than for the previous Base
Case (Figure ExSol 2-1). This difference appears to be explainable primarily by the
difference in the specified inflow at the upstream end of the river. To more fully understand
the changes in streamflow, we can look at the records of the two stream gaging stations in
the GAG output files (Figure ExSol 2-2). These results show that flow at the gage located
near the middle reach of the river (Gage no. 2) declines rapidly for 5 years until the river
goes dry at that location; it stays dry (no flow) for the remainder of the simulation period.
The gage at the downstream end of the river (Gage no. 1) similarly declines rapidly at first,
but then the rate of decline decreases after 5 years -- at the same time that the upstream
reach has ceased flowing. At that time -- starting in year 6 -- the streamflow depletion is
influenced only by the decreased groundwater discharge and is no longer affected by
decreased infiltration in the upper reaches.
The nature of the cessation of streamflow in selected parts of the river can be
analyzed by plotting the streamflow profiles along the river at various times
(Figure ExSol 2-3). These results illustrate that the river first goes dry in a short 7-km central
reach of the river at 6 years. The length of the dry section subsequently expands in both an
upstream and downstream direction. After 200 years of pumping, 40 kilometers of the river
are dry, and the expansion trend seems to be continuing. Therefore, with the smaller ratio
of streamflow to pumping, the effects on the flow in the river are much more severe,
noticeable, and environmentally damaging.

87
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure ExSol 2-1 - Streamflow variations with distance after 200

years (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Figure ExSol 2-2 - Streamflow changes for 200 years at two

gaging stations. Gage No. 1 is located at the outflow from the
modeled area (reach 80) and Gage No. 2 is located at reach 46
(37km) downstream from where the river enters the modeled
area) (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Figure ExSol 2-3 - Changes in the streamflow profile during the

200-year simulation period showing growth in the length of the dry
central reaches after year 5 (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Assessing Drawdown:
88
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

The drawdown in the pumping well would be expected to be greater than in the
Base Case. As seen in Figure ExSol 2-4, that is indeed the case, although the differences are
relatively small. Whereas the Base Case drawdown indicates that it is close to equilibrium
before 200 years, with the higher pumping rate in Exercise 2 that is not the case and
drawdown is still increasing measurably. But in both cases the maximum drawdown is
small compared to the average saturated thickness of the aquifer (150 m), so even with the
higher pumping rate, additional long-term drawdown would not be a major concern to
water managers.

Figure ExSol 2-4 - Calculated drawdown in the pumping well for Base
Case and Exercise 2 (with higher pumping rate) (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

Assessing Heads:
The head distribution calculated after 200 years of pumping (Figure ExSol 2-5)
indicates that even though the pumping rate is higher and drawdown is greater than in the
base case, all of the groundwater entering the well is ultimately derived from the upstream
reaches of the river; the pumping well does not capture any of the water derived from
mountain front recharge along the system’s western boundary. Comparison to the base
case heads (Figure 20b) indicates that the most visible differences include more drawdown,
lower heads in most areas, stronger convergence of flow close to the pumping well, and
head contours perpendicular to the river where it has gone dry (indicating a lack of
exchange between the aquifer and the river along those dry reaches of the river).

89
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure ExSol 2-5 - Calculated heads (in m) in the aquifer after

200 years for conditions of Exercise 2 (with higher pumping rate).
The contour interval is 0.5 m, with a supplementary contour at
28.75 m (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Assessing the Water Budget:

The water budgets (Tables ExSol 2-1 and ExSol 2-2) have changed substantially
from those of the Base Case (Tables 1 and 2 in the book), mostly because of the different
assumptions about incoming streamflow and well pumpage. A comparison of water
budgets for the two cases indicates that the biggest changes are (1) the much higher storage
depletion rate and (2) the reduced outflow to the river at 200 years -- both of which result
directly from the higher imposed pumping rate than in the Base Case.

Table ExSol 2-1 - Groundwater budgets for Exercise 2 for predevelopment conditions and after 200
years of pumping one well. All flux values are in m3/d.

90
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Predevelopment t = 200 Years

IN Mountain Front Recharge 1,688 1,688
Change in Storage 0 2,299
Stream infiltration 5,842 6,667
Total 7,530 10,654
OUT Wells 0 6,078
Outflow to stream 7,534 4,577
Total 7,534 10,655

Table ExSol 2-2 - Streamflow budgets for Exercise 2 for predevelopment conditions and
after 200 years of pumping one well. All flux values are in m3/d.
Predevelopment t = 200 Years
River Inflow 6,667 6,667
River Outflow 8,232 4,577

As in the Base Case (Figure 21), the components of the water budget change
substantially during the 200-year transient simulation period (Figure ExSol 2-6). Compared
to the Base Case, in this new simulation the increase in induced infiltration from the river
to the aquifer (a type of recharge) has reached its maximum possible value at about 6 years,
and then ceases to change after that. The maximum increase in induced infiltration from
the river is the difference between the inflow to the river (6,667 m3/d) and the stream
infiltration (or seepage loss from the river) under predevelopment conditions (5,842
m3/d) -- a difference of 825 m3/d. Once that reaches its maximum, the growth in capture is
derived solely from continued decreases in groundwater discharge to the river in its
downstream reaches. An inflection in the capture and groundwater storage depletion
curves occurs at 6 years also when the increase in recharge stabilizes. The system becomes
capture dominated at about 100 years (compared to almost 20 years in the Base Case).
The fractional sources of water to the well under the conditions of Exercise 2 are
shown in Figure ExSol 2-7. After 200 years, 38 percent of well pumping is balanced by
groundwater storage depletion while 62 percent of pumping is balanced by
capture -- substantially less than in the Base Case. This indicates that it will take a much
longer time for the system to reach a new equilibrium.

91
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Figure ExSol 2-6 - Calculated changes in the water budget of the

hypothetical desert-basin aquifer during the 200-year simulation period for
the Exercise 2 case. Capture is the sum of its components represented by
the dashed lines (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 2020).

Figure ExSol 2-7 - Nondimensional sources of water being pumped based

on annual rates for the conditions of Exercise 2 (Konikow and Bredehoeft,
2020).

Assessing Sustainability:
The well is still deriving water from increasing amounts of capture after 200 years
of pumping. The water budget analysis and system responses indicate that from a
hydraulic perspective solely of the aquifer, the pumping is sustainable. However, the
capture rates are high relative to the flow in the river, and part of the river goes dry after
just 5 years of pumping. The extent of the dry reach grows continually over time. This
would likely constitute unacceptable surface water impacts and environmental/ecological
damage to most hydrologists and water managers.
Return to exercise 2

92
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Exercise 3 Solution: Analytical Solution for Streamflow Depletion

The problem:
Estimate streamflow depletion using Glover’s analytical solution (rather than a
numerical model). How do these results compare with those from the numerical model
used in the Base Case and in Exercise 1? Explain any differences.
Approach:
Solve Equation 5 for each year of the 200-year simulation. There are a number of
ways to do this, but one reasonable approach is to use formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This exercise can be completed using information available in this book and in results for
Exercise 1.
Analytical solution:
We solved Glover’s analytical solution (Equation 5 of this book) using formulas in
an Excel spreadsheet. We copied the spreadsheet from Exercise 1 (“RateBudgets.xlsx”) and
pasted a copy into the Exercise 3 subfolder “DataSpreadsheets”. Then we deleted the
worksheets for the closer well and further well, and added a new worksheet “Glover Soln.”.
We entered the known values for parameters in column B, and then solved for values of z
and Qs(t) for every year from 0 to 200 years in columns G and H using the ERFC function
in Excel for complementary error function. We then plotted these results and the capture
values from the Base Case analysis (Figure ExSol 3-1). The zip file “Exercise3.zip”,
including the spreadsheet, is available in the online Supplementary Information for this
book.

Figure ExSol 3-1 - Streamflow depletion estimates for analytical and numerical
solutions for the Base Case scenario. The Qs(t) (blue curve) is the streamflow
depletion calculated using the analytical solution developed by Glover and Balmer
(1954). The red curve represents capture calculated from the water budget data of
the numerical solution using MODFLOW-NWT for the Base Case (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 2020).

93
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Comparison of analytical and numerical solutions:

The two solutions are in close agreement for the first 50 years or so. After that they
begin to diverge, with the analytical solution providing smaller values of streamflow
depletion at later times. The largest difference, at 200 years, is about 200 m3/d, with the
analytical solution value being about 10 percent less than the numerically calculated value.
The analytical solution requires the application of several simplifying assumptions.
The Base Case is designed to include many simplifying assumptions also, so the match
should be good. The analytical solution assumes a semi-infinite aquifer (i.e., an assumption
that the aquifer extends without end in a particular direction). However, the hypothetical
aquifer is not semi-infinite in extent as it has impermeable boundaries on the north, west,
and south sides (i.e., at finite distances from the well and river); that is, the numerical model
assumes the aquifer has a limited areal extent, as defined by the outer impermeable or
no-flow boundaries). Figure ExSol 1-7 shows that measurable drawdown occurs at the
north, west, and south boundaries. The effect of such boundaries would be to eventually
cause increased drawdown in the modeled aquifer compared to having no such boundaries
as in a semi-infinite idealization. Increased drawdown would cause increased capture. This
is consistent with the results shown in Figure ExSol 3-1, so it is likely that this one difference
between the assumptions for the analytical solution and the boundary conditions of the
numerical model can explain most or all of the underestimate by the analytical solution.
However, the overall excellent agreement, especially for the first 50 years in this case,
combined with the efficiency and ease of use of the analytical solution, indicates that this
would be a valuable method to apply early in any study of groundwater development in a
stream-aquifer system. It will also give you an expectation and basis of comparison for the
results of a numerical model that encompasses more complex boundary conditions and
heterogeneous properties.
Return to exercise 3

94
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

About the Authors

Dr. Leonard Konikow is a Scientist Emeritus with the United
States Geological Survey, where he was a research hydrologist
for more than 40 years. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of
Groundwater journal. His research interests include the
development and application of simulation models for
groundwater flow and contamination problems, groundwater-
surface water interactions, coastal submarine groundwater
discharge processes, and groundwater depletion. He is a
member of the National Academy of Engineering, Fellow of the
American Geophysical Union, and has received the M. King Hubbert Science Award and
Life Member Award from the National Ground Water Association and the O.E. Meinzer
Award from the Geological Society of America. He also received the President’s Award
from the International Association of Hydrogeologists. He was the Birdsall Distinguished
Lecturer for the Hydrogeology Division of GSA in 1986-87. He served on several
committees of the National Research Council and in leadership positions in several
professional societies. He is author or coauthor of numerous scientific articles and reports.

Dr. John Bredehoeft had a 32-year career with the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) as a research geologist and as a senior
manager in their Water Resources Division. After retiring from the
USGS, he went on to found a major geotechnical consulting firm.
He had also served as Editor-in-Chief of Groundwater journal. He
is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and recipient
of several major awards and honors, including the Penrose Medal
of the Geological Society of America, the Horton Award from
AGU, the Meinzer Award from GSA, and the Life Member Award
from the National Ground Water Association. He taught at the University of Illinois,
Stanford, University of California - Santa Cruz, and San Francisco State University. He
served on numerous national advisory committees for the National Research Council, the
National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy. Bredehoeft is the author of
more than 100 scientific papers in the refereed scientific literature. Together with George
Pinder, they (1) developed and published the first widely used numerical groundwater
flow model, and (2) the first widely used contaminant transport model.

95
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

96
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

Modifications to Original Release

Changes included in Modifying from Original Version to Version 2

Page numbers refer to page numbers in the original pdf.

pages i, ii, Removed small caps font from title to be consistent with current GWP book
format.

page 84, last paragraph, "Figure ExSol 1-7" changed to "Figure ExSol 1-8"

page 85, figure caption, "Figure Ex1-7" changed to "Figure ExSol 1-8"

Changes from Version 2 to Version 3

page ii, updated version number

page 58, updated hyperlink to Kansas Department of Agriculture

page 70, updated hyperlink to software for GW_Chart

page 71, Figure Box 3-6, replaced with a higher resolution version

page 72, Figure Box 3-7, revised the style and axis labels to be consistent with other figures
in the book

page 73, Figure Box 3-8, revised the style and axis labels to be consistent with other figures
in the book

page 74, Figure Box 3-9 and Figure Box 3-10, revised the style and axis labels to be consistent
with other figures in the book

page 75, updated hyperlink to software for GW_Chart

page 75, first full paragraph, second line, corrected the cell coordinates of the pumping well
from (35,40,1) to (30,40,1)

A
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.
Groundwater Resource Development Leonard F. Konikow and John D. Bredehoeft

page 76, Figure Box 3-12, revised the style and axis labels to be consistent with other figures
in the book

page 75, Figure Box 3-11, replaced with graph showing drawdown at the corrected the cell
coordinates of the pumping well (30,40,1)

Supplemental Material revision:

The zip file "Groundwater Resource Development: Case Study 1--Models.zip" was
revised: the spreadsheet "Base.Case.Budget.Streamflow.Hydrograph.xlsx" within
the subfolder "SpreadsheetForBaseCaseAnalysis" within the folder "Case Study 1--
Models" was replace with updated. The revision contains drawdown at the correct
location of the pumping well, cell(30,40,1)

Changes from Version 3 to Version 4

Version 3: July 6, 2023, Version 4: January 19, 2024

Page numbers refer to the Version 3 PDF.

page ii, added page requesting support of the Groundwater Project

page ii, now page iii, updated version number and date

page iii, now page iv, added “Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.”

B
The GROUNDWATER PROJECT, ©The Authors. Free download from gw-project.org.
Anyone may use and share gw-project.org links. Direct distribution of the book is strictly prohibited.