sustainability

Article
Groundwater Level Dynamics in Bengaluru
City, India
M. Sekhar 1 , Sat Kumar Tomer 2 ID
, S. Thiyaku 2 , P. Giriraj 1 , Sanjeeva Murthy 1 and
Vishal K. Mehta 3, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering and Indo-French Cell for Water Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012, India; sekhar.muddu@gmail.com (M.S.); girirajpr@gmail.com (P.G.);
sanjeeva248044@gmail.com (S.M.)
2 Aapah Innovations, Gachibowli 500032, Hyderabad, Telangana 50003, India;
sat@aapahinnovations.com (S.K.T.); thiyaku@aapahinnovations.com (S.T.)
3 Stockholm Environment Institute, 400 F St, Davis, CA 95616, USA
* Correspondence: vishal.mehta@sei-us.org; Tel.: +1-530-753-30353

Received: 17 November 2017; Accepted: 19 December 2017; Published: 22 December 2017

Abstract: Groundwater accounts for half of Indian urban water use. However, little is known about
its sustainability, because of inadequate monitoring and evaluation. We deployed a dense monitoring
network in 154 locations in Bengaluru, India between 2015 and 2017. Groundwater levels collected
at these locations were analyzed to understand the behavior of the city’s groundwater system. At a
local scale, groundwater behavior is non-classical, with valleys showing deeper groundwater than
ridge-tops. We hypothesize that this is due to relatively less pumping compared to artificial recharge
from leaking pipes and wastewater in the higher, city core areas, than in the rapidly growing, lower
peripheral areas, where the converse is true. In the drought year of 2016, groundwater depletion was
estimated at 27 mm, or 19 Mm3 over the study area. The data show that rainfall has the potential
to replenish the aquifer. High rainfall during August–September 2017 led to a mean recharge of
67 mm, or 47 Mm3 for the study area. A rainfall recharge factor of 13.5% was estimated from the data
for 2016. Sustainable groundwater management in Bengaluru must account for substantial spatial
socio-hydrological heterogeneity. Continuous monitoring at high spatial density will be needed to
inform evidence-based policy.

Keywords: groundwater dynamics; Bengaluru; monitoring; groundwater balance; India

1. Introduction
Groundwater is an important, decentralized source of drinking water for millions of people in
India. It meets nearly 85% of rural domestic water needs and 50% of urban water needs [1]. Dependence
on groundwater for water-supply in urban towns and cities is increasing due to accelerated growth,
increasing per capita water use and poor reliability of imported surface water from distant sources [2,3].
In a review of urban recharge, Lerner [4] describes how urbanization affects the groundwater cycle by
way of changes to both the total water budget, and to pathways recharge. The total imported water
supply of many temperate European cities is comparable to the annual rainfall endowment, while,
in many dense cities in arid areas, water supply imports are greater than annual rainfall. Leakage
through water supply pipes then becomes a major source of recharge. In cities with inadequate
sewerage systems, leakage through septic tanks and soakpits, and untreated wastewater released into
drainage channels, are also major components of recharge quality. While these anthropogenic flows
increase groundwater recharge, natural recharge rainfall can decrease in dense built-up areas of towns
and cities, where a significant proportion of land surface is altered through soil compaction, roofing
and paving, all of which reduce normal infiltration. The net effect on the groundwater budget also

Sustainability 2018, 10, 26; doi:10.3390/su10010026 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 2 of 22

depends on the level of pumping from the aquifer. Spatio-temporal variation in the anthropogenic
components and spatial variation hydrogeological properties such as specific yield and transmissivity
add to the complexity of urban groundwater systems. Thus, reflecting the diversity of development
pathways, geographies and geohydrology, urbanization induced changes to the groundwater system
may include sharp changes of groundwater levels [5–7]; reduced well yields and deterioration in quality
of groundwater [5,8–10]; poor quality base flow [1]; and migration of polluted urban groundwater into
surrounding areas [11,12].
In rapidly growing Indian cities, both imported surface water and groundwater pumping have
been increasing apace [13]. At the same time, sewer line connections, and wastewater treatment
in Indian cities are severely lacking, with the Government of India acknowledging that some 70%
of wastewater is estimated to be released without treatment into drainage features [14]. Increased
recharge from anthropogenic sources (leaking water supply and wastewater systems), and increased
pumping from the aquifer are likely to be occurring simultaneously. One of the goals of groundwater
management plans in such circumstances is to safeguard groundwater levels in urban aquifers by
influencing the magnitude and use of groundwater pumping. This requires a scientific understanding
of urban groundwater systems based on a comprehensive database of groundwater levels, availability
and use at appropriate spatial scale. Depending upon the groundwater monitoring network, spatial
variations of recharge and of hydrogeological properties such as specific yield can also be estimated
(e.g., [15]). Such monitoring is essential to help inform hydrogeological models that could be used for
support towards sustainable urban groundwater management.
However, the majority of studies utilizing simple to complex groundwater models have been in
large agricultural catchments (e.g., [4,16]). Investigations of urban groundwater systems, especially in
developing countries, are limited [10,17–21]. In India, only two comprehensive urban groundwater
studies have combined monitoring with models. Sekhar and Kumar [22] monitored 472 wells to
study and model the groundwater dynamics of a central, 27 km2 portion of Bengaluru, to assess
the possible groundwater impacts related to the underground section of the city’s metro rail system.
A second study comprehensively evaluated groundwater for the small city of Mulbagal, 95 km from
Bengaluru [21]. Groundwater levels in 272 wells covering 50 km2 were monitored for three years.
A distributed groundwater model was built based on this dataset, and applied to investigate climate
and demographic scenarios for the city. These investigations highlight the fact that models can be built
only if there is an adequate spatial representation of the groundwater monitoring network. In India, the
nationwide long-term groundwater level monitoring by the Central Groundwater Monitoring Board
(CGWB) is on average at a density of one station for approximately every 100 km2 . This density is very
coarse if one wants to model urban systems, which usually cover areas of a few tens to few hundreds
of square kilometers. Heterogeneous characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and
specific yield) of the aquifer in hard rock areas that underlie much of peninsular India add another
good reason for a dense network of wells for small scale urban systems.
In this paper, we focus on understanding the groundwater patterns and dynamics in Bengaluru
(earlier known as Bangalore), India. Bengaluru is one of the fastest growing cities in Asia, where
population has grown from 180,366 in 1891 [23] to 8.5 million in 2011 [24]. The area of city limits, as by
the municipal boundaries, has also grown substantially—ten times from a mere 75 km2 in 1901 [25].
Water supply from the utility, Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has grown,
but not managed to keep up with the rapid growth in demand. The inability of utility water supply
growth to keep up with the city’s growth is well documented (e.g., [24,26]). As a result, similar to
all Indian cities, groundwater is heavily used to make up the deficit. Although based on a sparse
monitoring network, the CGWB has estimated that groundwater is more than 100% developed in
Bengaluru, which means that abstraction (pumping) is more than recharge to the aquifer [25]. In this
paper, we report on the establishment of an innovative, dense monitoring network across the city,
with the objectives of: (i) collecting a time series of groundwater table depths and using the data to
study the spatial patterns in groundwater levels; (ii) estimating net groundwater storage changes
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 3 of 22

Sustainability
and using2018,the10,data
26 to study the spatial patterns in groundwater levels; (ii) estimating 3 ofnet
22
groundwater storage changes during drought year 2016 and during extreme rainfall periods; and
(iii) estimating the rainfall recharge factor net groundwater flux. Our intention in this paper is to
during drought year 2016 and during extreme rainfall periods; and (iii) estimating the rainfall recharge
describe the patterns observed and to estimate the net groundwater storage change and aggregate
factor net groundwater flux. Our intention in this paper is to describe the patterns observed and to
flows, based on the water table method. In the Conclusions Section, we describe a more elaborate
estimate the net groundwater storage change and aggregate flows, based on the water table method.
modeling framework that will be used in a forthcoming paper to estimate separate components of
In the Conclusions Section, we describe a more elaborate modeling framework that will be used in a
the groundwater budget.
forthcoming paper to estimate separate components of the groundwater budget.

2.2. Materials
Materialsand
andMethods
Methods

2.1. Study
2.1. Study Area
Area
Bengaluru city
Bengaluru city isissituated
situated within
within 12 ◦ 450 N–13◦ 100 Nand
12°45′N–13°10′N 77◦ 250 E–77◦ 450and
and77°25′E–77°45′E, covers
E, and an area
covers of 720
an area of
km km
720 2 2
(Figure 1). The
(Figure 1). city
Thecorecity is
coreat 900
is atto900
930tom930
amslm(above mean sea
amsl (above mean level),
sea on a divide
level), on a with
dividea roughly
with a
North–South
roughly axis, withaxis,
North–South the with
Arkavathi River drainage
the Arkavathi WestwardWestward
River drainage to the River Cauvery,
to the and the South
River Cauvery, and
Pennar
the South drainage
Pennar to the Eastto(Figure
drainage the East2) (Figure
[24]. The2)climate is semiarid
[24]. The climate iswith normal
semiarid rainfall
with of 820
normal mm,
rainfall
September
of being the peak
820 mm, September beingrainfall
the peakmonth. Close
rainfall to 60%
month. of the
Close rainfall
to 60% of theon rainfall
averageon occurs during
average the
occurs
southwest
during the monsoon
southwestfrom June tofrom
monsoon September
June to[27]. The retreating,
September northeast
[27]. The monsoon
retreating, also brings
northeast monsoonrain
frombrings
also October
raintofrom
December.
OctoberThe dry periodThe
to December. extends from extends
dry period January from
to May, although
January convectional
to May, although
thunderstorms
convectional occur from March
thunderstorms occur fromthrough
MarchMay. Typically,
through May.January
Typically,and February
January andreceive
Februaryalmost no
receive
rain. no rain.
almost

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Spatial distribution (ward-wise) of
distribution (ward-wise) of the
the population
population in
inBengaluru
Bengalurucity.
city. The
Thestreams,
streams, 55 km
km ××5
kmgrid
5km gridand
andTelemetric
TelemetricRainfall
RainfallGauge
Gauge(TRG)
(TRG) ofof
KSNDMC
KSNDMC are also
are shown.
also shown.Numbers
Numbersrepresent the
represent
grid-IDs.
the grid-IDs.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 4 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 4 of 22

Figure 2. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Bengaluru city. Numbers represent the grid IDs.
Figure 2. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Bengaluru city. Numbers represent the grid IDs.
Except for a few central areas in the old city core, the population growth between 2001 and
Except
2011 has forbeen
a few central
positive withareas
somein theareas
outer old city core,a the
reaching growthpopulation growth
of more than 300%between
[26]. The 2001
water and
needs
2011 has beenof positive
the city with
are mainly
some outermet areas
by surface
reachingwater supply of
a growth from
more Cauvery
than 300% River,[26].
andThefrom
water
needs groundwater.
of the city areSurface
mainlywatermet byimported
surfacefrom
water thesupply
Cauvery River,
from currently
Cauvery at close
River, and fromto 1400 million
groundwater.
Surfaceliters
waterperimported
day (MLD),fromis the
approximately
Cauvery River, 75%currently
of the average
at closerainfall
to 1400over the city,
million literssignaling the
per day (MLD),
substantial anthropogenic influence on the urban water budget [26]. Non-revenue water, made up
is approximately 75% of the average rainfall over the city, signaling the substantial anthropogenic
largely of leakage losses, was almost 50% in 2011 [24]. Although surface water supply has increased
influence on the urban water budget [26]. Non-revenue water, made up largely of leakage losses,
over time, it has been unable to catch up with the rapid growth and expansion of the city [26]. As a
was almost 50% in 2011 [24]. Although surface water supply has increased over time, it has been
result, groundwater provides a large proportion of the current water consumption, and is likely to
unablecontinue
to catchtoupdo with
so in the rapid
several growth
wards and
of the expansion which
municipality, of theiscity [26].
called As aBruhath
called result, Bengaluru
groundwater
provides a large proportion
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) of the current
(see Figurewater consumption,
3). There and isregulation
is no effective likely to continue
of the use to of
do so
in several wards ofinthe
groundwater municipality,
these which is
wards for domestic, called called
commercial, Bruhath
industrial Bengaluru agency
or government Mahanagara
purposes.Palike
(BBMP) Free andFigure
(see unrestricted
3). There use is
is no
made of this regulation
effective resource byofhouseholds,
the use of businesses,
groundwater institutions
in theseand wards
government agencies, including the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage
for domestic, commercial, industrial or government agency purposes. Free and unrestricted use is board (BWSSB).
made Consequently,
of this resource there is practicallybusinesses,
by households, no reliable institutions
data on the and rate government
and distribution of groundwater
agencies, including the
withdrawals. Monitoring of the aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn is conducted by
Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage board (BWSSB). Consequently, there is practically no reliable
the Department of Mines and Geology (DMG) and the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB). Both
data on the rate and distribution of groundwater withdrawals. Monitoring of the aquifers from which
these organizations conduct regional exploration and investigation programs. Although many wells
groundwater
are used is forwithdrawn is conducted
pumping groundwater in by
the the
city,Department
the density of ofthe
Mines andmonitoring
existing Geology (DMG) networks andis the
CentralveryGround Water
low [27]. Board (CGWB).
Furthermore, Both frequency
the temporal these organizations
of monitoring conduct
by CGWB regional
is onceexploration
every few and
investigation
months. programs.
Hence, evenAlthough
though this many wells
dataset are reveal
might used for
some pumping groundwater
larger, regional in the city, the
scale groundwater
density of the existing
behavior over many monitoring
years, it isnetworks
not useful isforvery low [27].
assessing Furthermore,
the state of the urban thegroundwater
temporal frequency
system; of
monitoring by CGWB is once every few months. Hence, even though this dataset might reveal some
larger, regional scale groundwater behavior over many years, it is not useful for assessing the state of
the urban groundwater system; its resilience to important stressors such as anthropogenic forcings
and drought conditions; and its response to extreme rain events.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 5 of 22

its resilience
Sustainability 2018,to10,important
stressors such as anthropogenic forcings and drought conditions; and
26 its
5 of 22
response to extreme rain events.

(a) Percentage of people using groundwater

(b) Water pipeline network

Figure 3. Percentage of people using groundwater in 2011 (a); and water pipeline network in
Figure 3. Percentage of people using groundwater in 2011 (a); and water pipeline network in Bengaluru
Bengaluru from 2015 (b).
from 2015 (b).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 6 of 22

2.2. Groundwater Monitoring

2.2. Groundwater Monitoring
The first step was to create a comprehensive database for the city. Groundwater table mapping
was The firstout
carried stepbetween
was to create a comprehensive
December database for
2015 and September theGroundwater
2017. city. Groundwater levelstable
(GWL)mappingwere
was
measured using a monitoring network of 158 wells in an area of 700 km . Out of these 158 wells,were
carried out between December 2015 and September 2017. Groundwater
2 levels (GWL) 154
measured
wells had anusing a monitoring
unbroken networkthe
record through of 158
studywells in an
period andarea
were 700 km2 .for
of selected Out
theofanalysis
these 158 wells,
reported
154
here.wells
Thehad an unbroken
monitoring record
network through
was the study
established usingperiod and approach
a novel were selected for thethe
in which analysis reported
existing wells
(predominantly municipal bore wells) were used as piezometers where groundwater levels wells
here. The monitoring network was established using a novel approach in which the existing were
(predominantly
measured. To achieve municipal bore wells)
a uniform spatialwere used as the
distribution, piezometers
study areawhere groundwater
was divided levels
into grids of 5were
km
measured. To achieve a uniform spatial distribution, the study area was
× 5 km, resulting in 28 grids for the city. Monitoring wells should be free from pumping to be useddivided into grids of 5 km
×
as piezometers. Those municipal wells that were not in use were carefully selected in each grid. be
5 km, resulting in 28 grids for the city. Monitoring wells should be free from pumping to In
used as piezometers. Those municipal wells that were not in use were
each grid, 5–6 monitoring wells were established. Groundwater levels were measured each month carefully selected in each
grid. In
using each grid,
a manual 5–6 level
water monitoring
sensor wells
(Heron were established.
Instruments Groundwater
Inc.). Figure 4 shows levelsthewere measured
location of theeach154
month using amonitoring
groundwater manual water level sensor
locations, along(Heron InstrumentsThe
with land-cover. Inc.). Figure
inner part4 of shows the location
the city of the
has relatively
154 groundwater
higher built-up area.monitoring
Several locations,
secondaryalong withassembled
datasets, land-cover.atThe theinner part ofare
grid scale, thepresented
city has relatively
in Table
higher
1. built-up area. Several secondary datasets, assembled at the grid scale, are presented in Table 1.
Maps were
Maps wereinterpolated
interpolatedfrom fromthethe
depth to GWL
depth measurements
to GWL measurements using ordinary kriging. kriging.
using ordinary Kriging
Kriging has been found to perform better than inverse distance weighting [28,29], and has other
has been found to perform better than inverse distance weighting [28,29], and has been used in been
studies
used in in hard-rock
other studiesaquifers in southern
in hard-rock aquifersIndia [15,21,22,30].
in southern IndiaKriging was performed
[15,21,22,30]. Kriging was using the geoR
performed
using of RgeoR
librarythe (https://cran.r-project.org/package=geoR). Variograms for each
library of R (https://cran.r-project.org/package=geoR). month were
Variograms fittedmonth
for each using
numerical optimization. Exponential variograms were found to fit the data
were fitted using numerical optimization. Exponential variograms were found to fit the data well, well, and used to create
interpolated
and maps interpolated
used to create of depth to groundwater
maps of depth (DGW) at a spatial (DGW)
to groundwater grid of 100
at am. spatial grid of 100 m.

Spatial distribution of the land cover and monitoring network. Numbers

Figure 4. Spatial Numbers represent the 5 km
grid IDs. Landcover data are from 2011 [31].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 7 of 22

Table 1. Different variables for each 5 km grid (Relative density of water supply pipeline is computed.
using heatmap plugin of QGIS; 1 means highest density and 0 means lowest density).

Percentage Percentage of Relative Density

Elevation
Grid ID Grid Name Population of Built-Up People Using of Water Supply
(m)
Area Groundwater Pipeline
1 Ganganahalli 76,442 15 901 15 0.000
2 Vidyaranyapura 143,937 28 907 28 0.063
3 Yelahanka New Town 222,281 35 905 35 0.088
4 Agrahara 117,935 28 919 28 0.016
5 Peenya 382,500 53 875 53 0.130
6 Jalahalli 363,359 67 914 67 0.892
7 Hebbal 506,535 71 892 71 0.565
8 Hennur 406,705 52 884 52 0.323
9 Channasandra 131,351 26 877 26 0.015
10 Herohalli 553,028 63 900 63 0.065
11 Rajajinagar 984,649 94 934 94 1.000
12 Bangalore Palace 525,245 89 937 89 0.643
13 Cooke Town 572,268 81 920 81 0.318
14 Krishnarajapuram 377,085 70 902 70 0.087
15 Kodigehalli 192,238 43 875 43 0.043
16 Bangalore University 332,918 38 851 38 0.008
17 Chamarajpet 1,048,839 92 849 92 0.608
18 Shantinagar 529,064 92 895 92 0.675
19 Domlur 395,813 69 905 69 0.488
20 HAL Airport 284,738 50 893 50 0.178
21 Whitefield 158,578 35 879 35 0.075
22 Kengeri 152,050 28 824 28 0.033
23 Chikkasandra 514,428 66 864 66 0.205
24 JP Nagar 691,729 87 906 87 0.146
25 HSR Layout 579,786 74 887 74 0.126
26 Doddakannelli 161,190 40 886 40 0.002
27 Kothnur 301,144 35 912 35 0.047
28 Begur 229,851 38 911 38 0.003

2.3. Rainfall Data

Annual rainfall for more than 100 years (1901–2012) is shown in Figure 5. During this period,
the maximum, minimum and average annual rainfall were 1527, 393 and 880 mm, respectively. Daily
rainfall data covering the study period were collected from about 150 stations maintained by the
Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell (KSNDMC) for the period January 2015–October
2017. The spatial distribution of these KSNDMC rainfall gauges is shown in Figure 1. A plot of monthly
rainfall averaged over these stations is shown in Figure 6. Total rainfall (January–December) for the
years 2015, 2016 and 2017 (up to October 2017) was 1153, 716 and 1435 mm. The intra-year rainfall
distribution during these three years has strong variability, and each year was quite different. In all
three years, the southwest monsoon rainfall was much lower than normal. However, during 2015
and 2017, there were extreme rainfall events, while 2016 was a drought year. In 2015, the months of
September–November produced about 50% of the annual rainfall. In 2016, the months of May–July
produced about 70% of the annual rainfall. In 2017, the months of August–October produced about 75%
of the annual rainfall. The 2017 rainfall was close to the highest received rainfall in more than 100 years.
These patterns of drought conditions and extreme rain events over the study period provided a natural
opportunity to study the response and resilience of Bengaluru’s groundwater system.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 8 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 8 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 8 of 22

Figure 5.
5. Annual
Annual rainfall
rainfall in Bengaluru
Bengaluru during
during 1901–2012.
1901–2012.
Figure
Figure 5. Annual rainfall ininBengaluru during 1901–2012.

Figure 6. Monthly rainfall patterns in Bengaluru city during January 2015–October 2017.
Figure
Figure6.6.Monthly
Monthlyrainfall
rainfallpatterns
patternsin
inBengaluru
Bengalurucity
cityduring
during January
January 2015–October
2015–October 2017.
2017.
2.4. Cluster Analysis
2.4.
2.4.Cluster
ClusterAnalysis
Analysis
In order to aid the interpretation of observed groundwater patterns, a clustering analysis was
InInorder
order totoaid
aid the
theinterpretation
interpretation of observed groundwater patterns, aaclustering analysis was
performed using the secondary data inofTable
observed groundwater
1. Hierarchical patterns,
cluster analysis clustering
was appliedanalysis was
to explore
performed
performed using the secondary data in Table 1. Hierarchical cluster analysis was applied to explore
the numberusing the secondary
of distinct data in Table
clusters emerging from1.the
Hierarchical
secondarycluster analysis
data. Ward’s was applied
linkage to explore
algorithm is used
the
the number
number ofofdistinct
distinct clusters
clustersemerging
emerging from
from the
the secondary
secondary data.
data.Ward’s
Ward’s linkage
linkagealgorithm
algorithm isisused
used
for hierarchical clustering by minimizing the increase in total within-cluster sum of squared error
for
for hierarchical
hierarchical clustering
clustering by minimizing
by minimizing the increase in total within-cluster sum of squared error
[32]. The optimal number of clustersthe increase
were in total by
identified within-cluster sum of squared
visual inspection of the error [32].
resulting
[32].
The The optimal
optimal number number
of of were
clusters clusters were identified
identified by visual by visualof inspection
inspection the resultingofdendrogram.
the resulting
dendrogram.
dendrogram.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 9 of 22

2.5. Groundwater Analysis

The Water Table Fluctuation (WTF) method was used to estimate the storage change, natural
recharge and net outflow for distinct periods of observation. The advantage of the WTF method,
described comprehensively in Healy and Cook [33], is that it is a simple method that relies on dense
groundwater level measurements, has only one parameter (the specific yield), and no assumptions are
made on the mechanisms by which water recharges the aquifer. The WTF method is used in India
for operational annual groundwater recharge assessment by government agencies [34]. Nationally,
it is performed by delineating the land area into watersheds or catchments with an area of about
600–1000 km2 . This scale is tied to the density of long term observation network which is approximately
one observation well per 100 km2 . Recharge assessment for a year is performed for each of these
catchments, treating them as one unit or cell. Several researchers have used variations of the WTF
method in southern Indian hard-rock aquifers [15,21,22,35]. We use WTF in two ways in this paper,
described below.

2.5.1. Natural Recharge and Net Outflow

First, we use the “double water table fluctuation method” [15], which involves splitting the
groundwater budget into two distinct periods—dry and wet. These authors used the double WTF
method in combination with water balance models and detailed information on several water balance
components in a 50 km2 , unconfined hard rock aquifer research site in southern India, to estimate both
recharge and the effective specific yield [15].
In this paper, we apply the double WTF method to estimate rainfall recharge and total net outflow
in the same manner as Sekhar et al. [21] did for the town of Mulbagal (mentioned in the Introduction).
Because many components of the budget are not known quantitatively for Bengaluru (pumping, and
water and wastewater leakage), we use the double WTF to estimate only the rainfall recharge factor
(from the wet period), and the net outflow (from the dry period). For the same reason, we cannot
independently estimate specific yield as Maréchal et al. [15] did. Instead, we specify specific yield
based on the literature and recent experience, and also show the sensitivity of some of our results to
this parameter.
The double WTF method is expressed as follows:
∆h
Sy = R − Qnet (1)
∆t
where Sy is the specific yield (-), h is the groundwater level (L), t is time (T), R is recharge due to rainfall
(LT −1 ), and Qnet is the net outflow,
Qnet = Qout − Qin (2)

where Qout is the total outflow including baseflow, lateral flow and draft. Qin is the recharge to
groundwater from anthropogenic flows, i.e., leaking water suppy and wastewater systems (LT −1 ).
Given the value of Sy and measurements of ∆h, Equation (1) has two unknowns. The equation
was written for dry (no or insignificant rainfall) and wet (significant rainfall) periods separately, with
the assumption that there was no rainfall recharge during the dry period. After solving both equations,
net outflow and rainfall recharge can be computed as,
−hy ∆hdry
Qnet = (3)
∆tdry
and
Sv ∆hwet + Qnet ∆twet
R= (4)
∆twet
Equation (3) is solved first to estimate the Qnet by applying it over the dry period where ∆tdry is
the length of dry period (T). Then, Equation (4) is solved over the wet period where ∆twet is the length
of wet period, to estimate R.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 10 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 10 of 22

2.5.2. Changes in Groundwater Storage
For the net change in groundwater storage in 2016, and from the extreme rainfall months in
2.5.2. Changes in Groundwater Storage
2017, the simple form of the WTF is used.
For the net change in groundwater storage in 2016, and from the extreme rainfall months in 2017,
∆ = ∆ℎ (5)
the simple form of the WTF is used.
where ∆V is the net storage change (L) and ∆V ∆h
= Sisy ∆h
the change in groundwater level (L) over(5)a
specified
where ∆V period (∆t)storage
is the net (T). change (L) and ∆h is the change in groundwater level (L) over a specified
period (∆t) (T).
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Clustering Results
3.1. Clustering Results
Five variables, as presented in Table 1, were used for the cluster analysis. To account for the
location,
Five the distance
variables, as of each gridinfrom
presented Tablethe
1, central
were used gridfor(#12)
thewas alsoanalysis.
cluster used in the To cluster
accountanalysis.
for the
Details of
location, thethe clusters
distance formed
of each gridare
frompresented
the central in grid
Figure
(#12)7 was
and alsoTable
used 2. in
Figure 7a shows
the cluster the
analysis.
dendrogram
Details obtainedformed
of the clusters from theare six variables,
presented which 7could
in Figure organize
and Table the city
2. Figure into four
7a shows the clusters
dendrogramquite
sensibly. from
obtained The the
spatial distribution
six variables, of these
which couldfour clusters
organize the iscity
shown in Figure
into four clusters 7b.quite
Cluster 1 is
sensibly.
characterized
The by the outer
spatial distribution periphery,
of these which
four clusters has significant
is shown in Figureopen space, 1less
7b. Cluster water supplybyfrom
is characterized the
BWSSB
outer and significant
periphery, which hasgroundwater
significantusage.
open Detailed
space, lesswater
water supply
supply analysis in [26,36]
from BWSSB andillustrate that
significant
the fast-growing
groundwater outer
usage. areas water
Detailed receivesupply
much analysis
less water supply illustrate
in [26,36] than the thatcoretheareas. Cluster 2 outer
fast-growing is the
innerreceive
areas periphery
muchcharacterized
less water supplyby moderate groundwater
than the core areas. Clusterusage, moderate
2 is the supply of
inner periphery water from
characterized
BWSSB
by and groundwater
moderate moderate open space.
usage, Cluster supply
moderate 3 contains gridsfrom
of water lyingBWSSB
in the andcentral, older open
moderate parts space.
of the
city, which
Cluster has better
3 contains gridswater
lying supply from the
in the central, olderBWSSB
parts and
of the is city,
densely
which built-up.
has betterCluster
water4supply
is similar
fromto
Cluster
the BWSSB 3, except that it has
and is densely high population
built-up. Cluster 4 isdensity
similar and hence 3,
to Cluster water
except demand is high
that it has highand not met
population
by the water
density supply
and hence fromdemand
water BWSSB.is high and not met by the water supply from BWSSB.

(a) Dendrogram

Figure 7. Cont.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 11 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 11 of 22

(b) Spatial distribution of clusters

Figure 7. Dendrogram and spatial distribution of the clusters obtained from Ward’s Linkage
Figure 7. Dendrogram and spatial distribution of the clusters obtained from Ward’s Linkage algorithm.
algorithm.
Table 2. Details of the clusters formed.
Table 2. Details of the clusters formed.
Cluster
ClusterID
ID Grids
Grids Description
Description
Outer
Outerperiphery,
periphery,lower population
lower density,
population significant
density, open
significant
11 1,1,2,2,3,
3, 4,
4, 9, 15, 16,
16, 21,
21,22,
22,26,
26,27
27and
and2828 space, less water supply from BWSSB
open space, less water supply from BWSSB
Inner periphery, moderate population density, moderate
2 5, 8, 10, 14, 20, 23, 24 and 25 Inner periphery, moderate population density, moderate
2 5, 8, 10, 14, 20, 23, 24 and 25 open space, moderate water supply from BWSSB
open space, moderate water supply from BWSSB
Older city core, moderate population density, lower open
3 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 Olderbetter
city core,
3 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 space, watermoderate
supply frompopulation
BWSSB density, lower
open space,
Highest betterdensity,
population water supply fromspace,
lower open BWSSB better water
4 11 and 17
supply from
Highest BWSSB density, lower open space, better
population
4 11 and 17
water supply from BWSSB
3.2. Groundwater Levels and Dynamics
3.2. Groundwater Levels and Dynamics
All groundwater level data collected in various monitoring wells during the period of the
All
study aregroundwater level data (see
publicly available collected in various monitoring
Supplementary Materials).wells
For the during
154 the period
wells overof22themonths
study
are publicly available
(December (see Supplementary
2015–September 2017), DGW Materials).
varied from For1 the
to 154
72 m, wells over
with a 22 months
mean (December
of 25.74 m and
2015–September 2017), DGW varied from 1 to 72 m, with a mean of 25.74 m and
standard deviation of 13.98 m. Figure 8 shows the box and whisker plot of all 154 wells over time. standard deviation of
13.98 m. Figure
The start in the8 shows
rise inthe box and whisker
groundwater plot of allwith
level matches 154 wells
the onsetover oftime. The start
monsoon in theand
season rise the
in
groundwater level matcheslevels
shallowest groundwater with the
wereonset of monsoon
observed season
in the peakand the shallowest
rainfall month. In groundwater levels
2016, shallowest
were observedisinobserved
groundwater the peak in rainfall month.
August, while, Inin
2016, shallowest
2017, groundwater
it is observed is observed
in September. in August,
The groundwater
while, in deepest
table is 2017, it isinobserved in September.
peak summer, The groundwater
in the month of April 2016. table
It isis also
deepest
deepininpeak summer,
April in the
2017, but the
month
latenessof of
April
the 2016.
2017 It is also deep
monsoon in April
extended the2017,
dry but the lateness
period, resultingofin the 2017
the monsoon extended
groundwater the
table in July
dry
2017period,
beingresulting
slightly in the groundwater
deeper than that intable
Aprilin July
2017.2017 being slightly
Extremely deeper than
high rainfall that inimmediately
occurred April 2017.
Extremely highspell,
after the dry rainfall
in occurred immediately
August (221 mm) and after the dry spell,
September (520 inmm) August
2017.(221
Themm) and September
boxplot shows the
groundwater table recovering quite dramatically in response to this extreme rainfall. This extreme
rainfall response is investigated further in Section 3.4.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 12 of 22

(520 mm) 2017. The boxplot shows the groundwater table recovering quite dramatically in response to
this extreme rainfall. This extreme rainfall response is investigated further in Section
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26
3.4.
12 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 12 of 22

Figure 8. Box and whisker plot of the DGW of all 154 wells during December 2015–September 2017.
Figure 8. Box and whisker plot of the DGW of all 154 wells during December 2015–September 2017.
The horizontal line within the box indicates the median and boundaries of the box indicate the 25th
The horizontal line within
and 75th percentile. Thethe boxwhisker
upper indicates the median
extends from the and
hingeboundaries
to the largestof the and
value boxthe
indicate
lower the 25th and
Figure 8. Box and whisker plot of the DGW of all 154 wells during December 2015–September 2017.
75th percentile. The upper
whisker extends from thewhisker extends
hinge to the smallestfrom
value.the hinge to the largest value and the lower whisker
The horizontal line within the box indicates the median and boundaries of the box indicate the 25th
extends from the hinge to the smallest value.
and 75th percentile. The upper whisker extends from the hinge to the largest value and the lower
Figure 9 shows the box and whisker plot for 154 wells grouped into the four clusters.
whisker
Groundwater extends
levels from the
showed hinge to spatial
substantial the smallest value.
and temporal variability in all clusters. A relatively
Figure
lower9variability
shows the wasbox and whisker
observed plot
in Cluster 4 for
due 154 wells
to less grouped
number into
of grid andthe four
data clusters.
points in thisGroundwater
cluster. Figure
Mean 9 shows
depths to the box and
groundwater whisker
table of 29.27 plot
m, for m,
26.22 154 wells
17.30 m grouped
and 23.14 m into
were the four clusters.
observed
levels showed substantial spatial and temporal variability in all clusters. A relatively lower variability
Groundwater levels showed substantial spatial and temporal variability
in Clusters 1–4, respectively. All clusters showed similar temporal variation, as described above.in all clusters. A relatively
was observed
lower3in Cluster was
variability 4 due to less in
observed number
Cluster of grid and data points in this cluster. Mean depths to
Cluster shows the shallowest groundwater level,4which
due toliesless number
in the of grid
inner part of theand
city.data
This points
could in this
groundwater table
be cluster. of 29.27
Mean depths
due to relatively m,
higher 26.22
to leakage m,
groundwater 17.30
from the m
table and 23.14
of 29.27and
sewerage m were
m, 26.22
water m, observed
17.30lines.
supply m and in Clusters 1–4,
23.14 4mshowed
Cluster respectively.
were observed
in
All clusters Clusters
showed
relatively 1–4, respectively.
deepersimilar
groundwatertemporal All clusters
variation,
level compared showed similar
as described
to Cluster temporal
3, due toabove. variation,
Cluster
higher water as described
3 shows
demand theabove.
(higher shallowest
Cluster
population). 3 shows
Cluster the
1 shallowest
showed the groundwater
deepest level,
groundwater which
level lies
due toin
groundwater level, which lies in the inner part of the city. This could be due to relatively the
less inner
water part
supply of the
from city.
BWSSB This couldhigher
andbehigh
duegroundwater
to relativelydraft.
higher leakage from the sewerage and water supply lines. Cluster 4 showed
leakage from the sewerage and water supply lines. Cluster 4 showed relatively deeper groundwater
relatively deeper groundwater level compared to Cluster 3, due to higher water demand (higher
level compared to Cluster 3, due to higher water demand (higher population). Cluster 1 showed the
population). Cluster 1 showed the deepest groundwater level due to less water supply from BWSSB
deepest groundwater level due
and high groundwater to less water supply from BWSSB and high groundwater draft.
draft.

Figure 9. Cont.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 13 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 13 of 22

Figure 9. Box and whisker plots of the depth to groundwater (DGW) of all 154 wells during
Figure 9. Box and whisker plots of the depth to groundwater (DGW) of all 154 wells during December
December 2015–September 2017. The horizontal line within the box indicates the median and
2015–September 2017. The horizontal line within the box indicates the median and boundaries of the
boundaries of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentile. The upper whisker extends from the
box indicate the
hinge to 25th and value
the largest 75th percentile.
no further thanThe
1.5upper whisker extends
× IQR (Inter-Quartile Range)from
from the hingeThe
the hinge. to the largest
lower
value no further
whiskerthan
extends × IQR
1.5from the (Inter-Quartile Range)
hinge to the smallest valuefrom the1.5
at most hinge.
× IQRThe lower
of the hinge.whisker extends
Data beyond the from
the hinge end of the
to the whiskers
smallest are called
value at most 1.5 × IQR
“outlying” points and hinge.
of the are plotted
Dataindividually
beyond theby end
filledof
circle.
the whiskers are
called “outlying” points and are plotted individually by filled circle.
Kriged maps of the groundwater table were produced for each month from December 2015 to
September 2017. For the monthly variograms used in creating the interpolated maps, the nugget
Kriged maps
varied from of31.7
themgroundwater
to 127.9 m, partial tablesillwere
variedproduced
from 63.2for m2 each
to 132.0 month
m2 and from
rangeDecember
varied from 2015 to
September 1.65 km For
2017. to 5.44
thekm. As an example,
monthly variograms Figureused10 in
shows the variograms
creating for two maps,
the interpolated monthsthe of 2016.
nuggetThevaried
from 31.7nugget quantifies
m to 127.9 the small
m, partial sillscale
varied variability
from 63.2presentm2intothe datam
132.0 at2 lag
andbelow
range thevaried
averagefrom
minimum
1.65 km to
distance among observations. The presence of nugget indicates that a higher small scale spatial
5.44 km. As an example, Figure 10 shows the variograms for two months of 2016. The nugget quantifies
variability is present in groundwater level compared to the monitoring network. Studies performed
the smallinscale variability
similar present
lithology, climate in the
context anddatascaleatshowed
lag below the average
the presence of nugget minimum
in an urban distance
catchment among
observations. The presence of nugget indicates that a higher small scale spatial
(in Mulbagal) [21] and an absence of nugget in agricultural catchments [37]. As suggested by Sekhar variability is present
in groundwater level
et al. [21], thecompared to theformonitoring
possible reason the higher network.
small scale Studies
variabilityperformed
could be the in similar
influencelithology,
of
anthropogenic
climate context and scale effects in urban
showed thecatchments.
presence of These variograms
nugget suggestcatchment
in an urban that a denser (inmonitoring
Mulbagal) could
[21] and
an absencebe of
tested in the
nugget future, to investigate
in agricultural catchmentsif, at least
[37]. in
Assome areas ofby
suggested the city where
Sekhar et al.the nugget
[21], is
the possible
particularly high, an even denser monitoring network is needed. The sill in the variogram indicates the
reason for the higher small scale variability could be the influence of anthropogenic effects in urban
variance in the data. These variograms shows a higher sill when deeper groundwater levels are
catchments. These
observed (see variograms
Figure 10a) andsuggest
lower sillthat
whenashallowest
denser monitoring
groundwater levels couldarebe tested(see
observed in Figure
the future,
to investigate
10b). if, at least in some areas of the city where the nugget is particularly high, an even
denser monitoring
Maps ofnetwork is needed.
the groundwater The
table for sill
a fewinmonths
the variogram
are presented indicates
in Figurethe11. variance in the data.
The color legend
shown for shows
These variograms groundwater
a higherlevelsilliswhen
same across
deeper thegroundwater
maps to facilitate comparison.
levels Significant
are observed (see spatial
Figure 10a)
variability in the water levels drawdown and rises are observed in different dry and wet
and lower sill when shallowest groundwater levels are observed (see Figure 10b).
months. Typically, groundwater levels are deeper in April (see DGW for April 2016 in Figure 11)
Maps of the groundwater table for a few months are presented in Figure 11. The color legend
following recession from the previous October (i.e., post-monsoon period). However, in 2017, the
shown for groundwater
deepest groundwater level is same
levels in anyacross
part of the maps
the city were torecorded
facilitate as comparison.
late as July 2017,Significant
because 2016 spatial
variability
wasinathe water
drought levels
year and thedrawdown
monsoon, which and rises arebegins
typically observed
in June, inwas
different
delayeddry and wet months.
in 2017.
Typically, groundwater levels are deeper in April (see DGW for April 2016 in Figure 11) following
recession from the previous October (i.e., post-monsoon period). However, in 2017, the deepest
groundwater levels in any part of the city were recorded as late as July 2017, because 2016 was a
drought year and the monsoon, which typically begins in June, was delayed in 2017.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 14 of 22
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 14 of 22

(a) April 2016

(b) August 2016

Figure 10. Experimental and fitted exponential variogram for April and August in year 2016.
Figure 10. Experimental and fitted exponential variogram for April and August in year 2016.
Most of the grids of Cluster 1 showed relatively deeper groundwater levels, while most of the
grids of
Most of Cluster 3 showed
the grids a relatively
of Cluster shallow
1 showed groundwater
relatively deeperlevel. The shallow
groundwater levelswhile
levels, in these gridsof the
most
gridsare unaffected
of Cluster even bya relatively
3 showed drought year of 2016
shallow (see April 2016
groundwater level.and
TheJuly 2016 maps
shallow levelsininFigure 11). are
these grids
Shallow groundwater levels in these older, core areas of the city were also observed
unaffected even by drought year of 2016 (see April 2016 and July 2016 maps in Figure 11). Shallow in a 2009
sampling of 472 wells in central Bengaluru [22]. The secondary data-informed clustering supports
groundwater levels in these older, core areas of the city were also observed in a 2009 sampling of
the narrative that the shallow groundwater levels in the inner part of the city (Cluster 3) are due to
472 wells in central Bengaluru [22]. The secondary data-informed clustering supports the narrative that
the shallow groundwater levels in the inner part of the city (Cluster 3) are due to lower groundwater
use combined with greater recharge leakage from water and waste water systems in the city. On the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 15 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 15 of 22

contrary, the reason for deeper groundwater levels in the outer areas of the city is due to higher
lower groundwater use combined with greater recharge leakage from water and waste water
groundwater extraction in the absence of water supply from the water utility agency, the BWSSB.
systems in the city. On the contrary, the reason for deeper groundwater levels in the outer areas of
The topography
the city isof thetocity
due is such
higher that the city
groundwater centerinsits
extraction theatabsence
higherofelevation, while
water supply thethe
from newly
watergrowing
peripheries are
utility at lower
agency, the elevation.
BWSSB. TheFigure 11 therefore
topography suggests
of the city is such that
that the lower-lying
the city center sitsperipheries
at higher have
elevation, whiletable
deeper groundwater the newly
thangrowing peripheries older
the higher-lying, are at lower elevation.
city core. This Figure
suggests11 therefore
that at asuggests
local scale the
that the lower-lying peripheries have deeper groundwater table than the higher-lying,
groundwater behavior is non-classical, i.e., the groundwater is relatively deeper in the valleys older citythan the
core. This suggests that at a local scale the groundwater behavior is non-classical, i.e., the
higher topographic relief. This non-classical behavior of groundwater levels in the valleys points to a
groundwater is relatively deeper in the valleys than the higher topographic relief. This non-classical
deepening of theofhydraulic
behavior groundwatergradient, which
levels in could points
the valleys result to
in greater lateral
a deepening of flows from the
the hydraulic city center to
gradient,
periphery areas.
which could result in greater lateral flows from the city center to periphery areas.

Figure 11. Interpolated depth to ground water table for selected months during December
Figure 11. Interpolated depth to ground water table for selected months during December
2015–September 2017.
2015–September 2017.

3.3. Rainfall Recharge and Net Outflow

Groundwater balance was estimated using Equations (3) and (4) over 154 monitoring wells. There
was insignificant rainfall during January–February (see Figure 6) and it was assumed as dry period. The
remaining 10 months (March–December) of 2016 were taken as the wet period. A sensitivity analysis of
specific yield to rainfall recharge was performed by varying specific yield from 0.001 to 0.1. The range
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 16 of 22

3.3. Rainfall Recharge and Net Outflow

Groundwater balance was estimated using Equations (3) and (4) over 154 monitoring wells.
There was 2018,
Sustainability insignificant
10, 26 rainfall during January–February (see Figure 6) and it was assumed as 16 dry
of 22
period. The remaining 10 months (March–December) of 2016 were taken as the wet period. A
sensitivity analysis of specific yield to rainfall recharge was performed by varying specific yield
of specific
from 0.001 yield was
to 0.1. The taken
range based on the experiments
of specific yield was taken in similar
basedhard
on therocks (e.g., [21,30]).
experiments The natural
in similar hard
rainfall recharge factor (annual recharge/annual rainfall) was computed
rocks (e.g., [21,30]). The natural rainfall recharge factor (annual recharge/annual rainfall) using Equations (3) was
and
(4) for eachusing
computed valueEquations
of specific(3) yield
andand(4) isfor
plotted in Figure
each value 12 along
of specific withand
yield the is
spatial variability
plotted in Figureover12
154 monitoring wells. The spatial variability in the rainfall recharge factor
along with the spatial variability over 154 monitoring wells. The spatial variability in the rainfall (RF) increases with the
increase in
recharge Sy, as
factor (RF)expected
increases(refer
withEquations
the increase (4) in
and Sy,(5)). At a Sy of
as expected 0.005,
(refer the RF is(4)
Equations 13.5%, which
and (5)). At is
a
close
Sy to the the
of 0.005, range
RFobserved
is 13.5%, in the literature
which is close tointhehard rock,
range e.g., 15.6%
observed by literature
in the Maréchal in et al.
hard [30], 13–19%
rock, e.g.,
by Maréchal
15.6% et al. [15]
by Maréchal and
et al. 8.6%
[30], by Sekhar
13–19% et al. [21].
by Maréchal etThe RF value
al. [15] usedby
and 8.6% bySekhar
the CGWB et al. for hard
[21]. Therock
RF
aquifers
value used is 12%
by the[15].
CGWB The RFfor values
hard rockused and estimated
aquifers is 12% [15].by these researchers
The RF values used provide a reasonable
and estimated by
constraint to the very wide range illustrated in Figure 12. A value of 0.005 was
these researchers provide a reasonable constraint to the very wide range illustrated in Figure 12. A taken as a reasonable
assumption
value of 0.005 ofwas
effective
takenspecific yield for assumption
as a reasonable further analysis.
of effective specific yield for further analysis.

Figure 12. Sensitivity analysis of rainfall recharge factor (RF) to specific yield. Shaded region shows
Figure 12. Sensitivity analysis of rainfall recharge factor (RF) to specific yield. Shaded region shows
the
the spatial variability
spatial variability over
over 154
154 monitoring
monitoring wells.
wells.

Using Equation (3), Qnet was estimated to be 123.8 mm with a standard deviation of 82.6 mm
Using Equation (3), Q was estimated to be 123.8 mm with a standard deviation of 82.6 mm and,
and, using Equation (4), Rnet was estimated to be 96.9 mm with a standard deviation of 67.4 mm. The
using Equation (4), R was estimated to be 96.9 mm with a standard deviation of 67.4 mm. The standard
standard deviation was computed over 154 monitoring wells. Table 3 shows the mean and standard
deviation was computed over 154 monitoring wells. Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation
deviation of computed Qnet and R over 154 wells for different clusters. Clusters 1 and 2 shows the
of computed Qnet and R over 154 wells for different clusters. Clusters 1 and 2 shows the highest mean
highest mean values of Qnet and R, and a similar mean value of net storage change. These are
values of Qnet and R, and a similar mean value of net storage change. These are periphery areas, with
periphery areas, with relatively higher open space conducive to more infiltration and rainfall
relatively higher open space conducive to more infiltration and rainfall recharge. Cluster 3, covering
recharge. Cluster 3, covering the core central areas, shows the lowest mean values of Qnet and R.
the core central areas, shows
These areas are densely the lowest
built-up, mean
explaining values
the low R. Qnet hypothesis
of One and R. These forareas are denselybehavior
the contrasting built-up,
explaining the low R. One hypothesis for the contrasting behavior of Q net in central
of Qnet in central versus periphery areas, as articulated in [25,36] and also suggested by the versus periphery
areas, as articulated
clustering, in [25,36]
is the differential and also
forcings suggested by recharge
of anthropogenic the clustering, is the differential
from leaking forcings of
water and wastewater
anthropogenic
versus pumping. recharge from leaking
In periphery water
Clusters and
1 and 2, wastewater
Qnet is likely versus pumping.
high because In periphery
of more Clusters
groundwater use1
and 2, Q net is likely high because of more groundwater use compared to
compared to the central Cluster 3, which is better connected to surface water supply. the central Cluster 3, which is
better connected to surface water supply.
The difference between the net outflow and recharge listed in Table 3 gives the net change in
groundwater storage. As can be seen, in 2016, using the 154 well observations, the net change in
groundwater storage is negative in all clusters, i.e., groundwater depletion occurred, as is also apparent
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 17 of 22

The difference between the net outflow and recharge listed in Table 3 gives the net change in
groundwater storage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 As can be seen, in 2016, using the 154 well observations, the net change in22
17 of
groundwater storage is negative in all clusters, i.e., groundwater depletion occurred, as is also
apparent in the boxplots presented in Figures 8 and 9. The net storage change is most negative in
in the boxplots presented in Figures 8 and 9. The net storage change is most negative in Cluster 4,
Cluster 4, indicating more groundwater usage and outflow compared to the recharge, as this
indicating more groundwater usage and outflow compared to the recharge, as this cluster has lowest
cluster has lowest open space and highest water demand (highest population density). Cluster 4
open space and highest water demand (highest population density). Cluster 4 shows the lowest spatial
shows the lowest spatial variability due to fewer grids falling in this cluster.
variability due to fewer grids falling in this cluster.
Annual groundwater storage change was computed using the 154 well data and interpolated
Annual groundwater storage change was computed using the 154 well data and interpolated
GWD maps for January 2016 and January 2017 in Equation (5). The change in the groundwater level
GWD maps for January 2016 and January 2017 in Equation (5). The change in the groundwater level
over this period is shown in Figure 13. Since 2016 was a drought year for Bengaluru city, a
over this period is shown in Figure 13. Since 2016 was a drought year for Bengaluru city, a significant
significant depletion in the groundwater was observed in entire area except some parts of central
depletion in the groundwater was observed in entire area except some parts of central Bengaluru (close
Bengaluru (close to grid 12) where a rise of up to 2 m was observed. This area is also highlighted in
to grid 12) where a rise of up to 2 m was observed. This area is also highlighted in Mehta et al. [26]
Mehta et al. [26] who used data from a relatively long-term CGWB monitoring in this area to show
who used data from a relatively long-term CGWB monitoring in this area to show the steady rise in
the steady rise in GWL over time, and attributed it to the dominance of anthropogenic recharge
GWL over time, and attributed it to the dominance of anthropogenic recharge over pumping. In all
over pumping. In all other areas, the figure indicates that, due to poor rainfall in 2016, the
other areas, the figure indicates that, due to poor rainfall in 2016, the groundwater level declined
groundwater level declined by about approximately 12 m in some of the grids, mostly in the outer
by about approximately 12 m in some of the grids, mostly in the outer parts of the city. Estimated
parts of the city. Estimated mean water storage 2
depleted in the 700 km2 area of the city for 2016 was
mean water storage depleted in the 700 km area of the city for 2016 was about 26.9 mm (18.8 million
about 26.9 mm (18.8 million cubic meters) based on the data of 154 wells and 26.2 mm (18.3 million
cubic meters) based on the data of 154 wells and 26.2 mm (18.3 million cubic meters) based on the
cubic meters) based on the interpolated data. The standard deviation over space was found to be
interpolated data. The standard deviation over space was found to be about 18 mm based on the data
about 18 mm based on the data of 154 wells and 11 mm based on the interpolated data. The lower
of 154 wells and 11 mm based on the interpolated data. The lower estimate of standard deviation from
estimate of standard deviation from kriged data could be due to the presence of nugget in the
kriged data could be due to the presence of nugget in the variogram, which smoothens the data.
variogram, which smoothens the data.

Figure 13.13.Difference
Figure Difference ininthe
thegroundwater
groundwaterlevel
levelbetween
betweenJanuary
January2017
2017and
andJanuary
January2016.
2016.Positive
Positive
numbers indicate rise, and negative numbers indicate fall.
numbers indicate rise, and negative numbers indicate fall.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 18 of 22

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of the R, Qnet and net storage change (R − Qnet ) over 154 wells
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 18 of 22
for all the clusters. Numbers in brackets represent the standard deviation.
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of the R, Qnet and net storage change (R − Qnet) over 154 wells
for all theCluster
clusters.ID Qnet (mm)
Numbers in brackets R (mm)
represent the standard deviation. R − Qnet R (mm)
1
Cluster ID 128.89 (84.26)
Qnet (mm) R100.79 −28.10
(mm)(69.22) R − Qnet R (mm)
2 138.33 (89.12) 108.79 (73.05) −29.54
1 128.89 (84.26) 100.79 (69.22) −28.10
3 86.00 (69.08) 72.69 (59.89) −13.31
4 2 138.33 (46.31)
118.85 (89.12) 108.79 (73.05)
84.46 (34.78) −29.54 −34.39
3 86.00 (69.08) 72.69 (59.89) −13.31
4 118.85 (46.31) 84.46 (34.78) −34.39
3.4. Extreme Rainfall Response
3.4.AExtreme
total ofRainfall
740.7 Response
mm rainfall was received during August–September, 2017. The recharge from
these extreme
A total rainfall
of 740.7 events over these
mm rainfall two months
was received was
during estimated using 2017.
August–September, Equation (5). Figure
The recharge from14 shows
thethese extreme rainfall
differenced events over
groundwater levelthese
map two monthsJuly
between was 2017
estimated using Equation
and September (5).Interestingly,
2017. Figure 14 the
shows the differenced groundwater level map between July 2017 and September 2017.
highest rise is observed in outer grids (Cluster 1) and lowest rise is observed in inner grids (Cluster 3).
Interestingly,
These the highest
outer clusters rise is observed
are in low-lying areas, in outer grids
whereas (Cluster
the central 1) and
areas arelowest riseelevation
at higher is observed
and more
in inner grids (Cluster 3). These outer clusters are in low-lying areas, whereas the central areas
densely built-up. A higher fraction of extreme rainfall likely runs off towards the outer areas, where
are at higher elevation and more densely built-up. A higher fraction of extreme rainfall likely runs
relatively more recharge from the extreme rainfall occurs.
off towards the outer areas, where relatively more recharge from the extreme rainfall occurs.

Figure 14. Rise in the groundwater level from July 2017 to September 2017.
Figure 14. Rise in the groundwater level from July 2017 to September 2017.
The boxplots (Figure 8) show that GWLs were falling in 2017 through June and July, when
The boxplots
monsoon (Figure
rains were 8) show
less than thatInterestingly,
normal. GWLs were thefalling in 2017
data also showthrough June and high
that the extremely July, when
rainfall rains
monsoon that immediately followed,
were less than normal.during August–September
Interestingly, the data also2017 (seethat
show Figure
the 6), resultedhigh
extremely in a rainfall
quick
that recharge of
immediately groundwater
followed, levels
during in all the stations spread
August–September 2017 (seeover the city.
Figure Average rise
6), resulted in a in GWLrecharge
quick
in September 2017 from that of July 2017 was 13.3 m across 154 monitoring wells, while the
of groundwater levels in all the stations spread over the city. Average rise in GWL in September 2017 lowest
from that of July 2017 was 13.3 m across 154 monitoring wells, while the lowest recorded was 2.6 m
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 19 of 22

(in grid 19) and highest recorded was 24.2 m (in grid 28). The mean rise of 13.3 m due to the rainfall
during August–September 2017 had a relatively low standard deviation (over space) of about 4.0 m.
During this period, a mean recharge of 66.5 mm for the entire city and a peak recharge of 121 mm
(in Grid 28) in some areas were observed. The mean recharge estimate based on the kriged map data
also showed nearly the same mean estimate (65.4 mm). However, there was significant difference
in the standard deviation over space, 20 mm over 154 wells versus 8.29 mm from interpolated data,
owing to the presence of nugget in the data. These two months resulted in a net recharge (increase in
net groundwater storage) of about 46.6 million m3 (or 46.6 billion liters) in the 700 km2 of the city.
The recharge generated by these extreme events (rainfall of August–September 2017) is similar to
the annual recharge in some agricultural areas in semiarid tropical conditions [15,30]. This suggests
that groundwater recharge from extreme rainfall is quite significant in Bengaluru, despite being
predominantly built-up. In the literature, significant recharge events from extreme precipitation
have been reported [38–40] in agricultural regions. In urban areas, however, the conventional
narrative is that groundwater recharge is impeded by the dominance of built-up, impervious areas
(e.g., [27]). Our observations suggest that, also in urban regions, extreme events can play a major role
in groundwater recharge. We hypothesize that these recharge conditions are significantly different
from those in agricultural areas, where the recharge is often as a non-point source recharge, i.e.,
recharge distributed across large areas, such as fields. In urban areas, such non-point source recharge
is not feasible due to altered land surfaces in the form of paved surfaces and buildings. However,
increased runoff from these altered land use conditions caused localized flooding conditions, during
extreme rainfall events. Compounded by the poor storm water drainage conditions in urban cities,
the flood waters have higher residence times, which result in recharge through pathways such as
construction pits, ponds, storm water drains, and rainwater harvesting structures—the “indirect
recharge pathways” that Lerner [4] alludes to as one of the impacts of urbanization. Hence, the recharge
would be substantial, and quick, as observed here.

4. Conclusions and Future Improvements

In this paper, we have described the monitoring network and groundwater dynamics across a
city, highlighting some of the key findings. First, estimates of groundwater storage changes were
made using a simplified, vertical balance. The monitoring will be continued until December 2017.
This will provide an opportunity to make groundwater level observations for two monsoon and two
non-monsoon seasons during the study period.
One limitation of this study is that only a vertical and simplified estimate of net outflow was
made. This net outflow term aggregates both natural and anthropogenic components. To understand
the urban groundwater budget more completely, a more elaborate modeling framework would need
to include the magnitude of lateral flow and baseflow, for example, as well as the socioeconomic
and infrastructural variables that inform the anthropogenic forcings of recharge from leaking pipes
and return flows, and draft from pumping. We are working on such a framework, which is briefly
described below.
Park and Parker [41] developed a physically based lumped model to simulate groundwater
fluctuations in response to precipitation. This model is applicable to estimate groundwater recharge
from the observed groundwater level fluctuations as well as groundwater discharge or underflow.
One of the limitations of the Park and Parker model is that no external sources or sinks other than
uniformly distributed precipitation was considered. Hence, if groundwater pumping exists, then
the model needs a suitable adaptation. To use this model for regions with groundwater pumping
conditions, Kumar [42] improved the model by taking groundwater pumping into account, which was
tested for various conditions by Subash et al. [16]. This improved model (ambhasGW) is available
in R (https://cran.rproject.org/package=ambhasGW) for ease of use and to estimate parameters of
recharge, discharge, and specific yield from the time series of groundwater level observations. The
model provides balance terms of recharge, underflow (or groundwater discharge) and pumping as
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 20 of 22

output. We are currently working on applying this model, and collecting additional socioeconomic
and infrastructure data to inform it. To account for the considerable uncertainty in the anthropogenic
forcings, we will be applying a formal uncertainty framework, the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty
Framework (GLUE), with the model [43].
More work will be needed to establish the evidence base for these future model outputs.
For example, the source of the recharge to groundwater in urban areas could be identified through
water chemistry and solute mass balance methods [44,45]
Sustainable groundwater management in Bengaluru must account for substantial spatial
socio-hydrological heterogeneity. Continuous monitoring at high spatial density will be needed
to inform evidence-based policy. Variables in addition to groundwater levels will need to be monitored
for identifying sources and flow paths, and linked to their possible anthropogenic drivers.

Supplementary Materials: The data used in the analysis is available at http://bangalore.urbanmetabolism.asia/

geoportal/.
Acknowledgments: Research funding from the Cities Aliance Catalytic Fund is gratefully acknowledged. Funds
for open access publishing were provided by the corresponding author’s organizational resources. We also thank
Manish Gautam, Deepak Malghan and Krishnachandran Balakrishnan for access to some of the secondary data.
Author Contributions: M. Sekhar and Vishal K. Mehta conceived and designed the experiments; M. Sekhar led
the groundwater measurements campaign; M. Sekhar, Sat Kumar Tomer and Vishal K. Mehta analyzed the data
and wrote the paper; S. Thiyaku and Sanjeeva Murthy performed the GIS processing and mapping; P. Giriraj and
Sanjeeva Murthy measured the groundwater levels; and Vishal K. Mehta was the principal investigator of the
research project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kumar, M.D.; Shah, T. Groundwater Pollution and Contamination in India: The Emerging Challenge; IWMI-TATA
Water Policy Program: Gujarat, India, 2006.
2. Foster, S.; Hirata, R.; Misra, S.; Garduno, H. Urban groundwater use policy: Balancing the benefits and risks
in developing nations. In GW-MATE Strategic Overview Series; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2010;
Volume 3.
3. Eckstein, G.E.; Eckstein, Y. A hydrogeological approach to transboundary ground water resources and
international law. Am. Univ. Int. Law Rev. 2003, 19, 201–258.
4. Lerner, D.N. Identifying and quantifying urban recharge: A review. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 143–152. [CrossRef]
5. Onodera, S.I.; Saito, M.; Sawano, M.; Hosono, T.; Taniguchi, M.; Shimada, J.; Umezawa, Y.; Lubis, R.F.;
Buapeng, S.; Delinom, R. Effects of intensive urbanization on the intrusion of shallow groundwater into
deep groundwater: Examples from Bangkok and Jakarta. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 404, 401–410. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6. Hayashi, T.; Tokunaga, T.; Aichi, M.; Shimada, J.; Taniguchi, M. Effects of human activities and urbanization
on groundwater environments: An example from the aquifer system of Tokyo and the surrounding area.
Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 3165–3172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Gattinoni, P.; Scesi, L. The groundwater rise in the urban area of Milan (Italy) and its interactions with
underground structures and infrastructures. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 62, 103–114. [CrossRef]
8. Gburek, W.; Folmar, G.; Urban, J. Field data and ground water modeling in a layered fractured aquifer.
Groundwater 1999, 37, 175–184. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, Y.Y.; Lee, K.K.; Sung, I. Urbanization and the groundwater budget, metropolitan Seoul area, Korea.
Hydrogeol. J. 2001, 9, 401–412. [CrossRef]
10. Rao, S.M.; Sekhar, M.; Rao, P.R. Impact of pit-toilet leachate on groundwater chemistry and role of vadose
zone in removal of nitrate and E. coli pollutants in Kolar District, Karnataka, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013,
68, 927–938. [CrossRef]
11. Bauer, S.; Bayer-Raich, M.; Holder, T.; Kolesar, C.; Müller, D.; Ptak, T. Quantification of groundwater
contamination in an urban area using integral pumping tests. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2004, 75, 183–213. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 21 of 22

12. Tellam, J.H.; Rivett, M.O.; Israfilov, R.G. Towards management and sustainable development of urban
groundwater systems. In Urban Groundwater Management and Sustainability; Springer: Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 1–9.
13. Narain, S.; Pandey, P. Excreta Matters: How Urban India Is Soaking up Water, Polluting Rivers and Drowning in
Its Own Waste; Centre for Science and Environment: New Delhi, India, 2012.
14. Planning Commission, Government of India. 12th Five Year Plan (2012–2017); Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; Volume I.
15. Maréchal, J.C.; Dewandel, B.; Ahmed, S.; Galeazzi, L.; Zaidi, F.K. Combined estimation of specific yield and
natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin with irrigated agriculture. J. Hydrol. 2006, 329, 281–293.
[CrossRef]
16. Subash, Y.; Sekhar, M.; Tomer, S.K.; Sharma, A.K. A framework for assessment of climate change impacts on
the groundwater system. In Sustainable Water Resources Management; LaMoreaux, J.W., Voss, C.I., Green, N.,
McCarley, A., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2017; Chapter 14.
17. Drangert, J.O.; Cronin, A. Use and abuse of the urban groundwater resource: Implications for a new
management strategy. Hydrogeol. J. 2004, 12, 94–102. [CrossRef]
18. Öngen, A.; Tinmaz, E. Evaluation of groundwaterover-abstraction by industrial activities in the Trakya
region, Turkey. In Urban Groundwater Management and Sustainability; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2006; pp. 117–127.
19. Wolf, L.; Klinger, J.; Held, I.; Hötzl, H. Integrating groundwater into urban water management. Water Sci.
Technol. 2006, 54, 395–403. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Srinivasan, V.; Gorelick, S.M.; Goulder, L. A hydrologic-economic modeling approach for analysis of urban
water supply dynamics in Chennai, India. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46. [CrossRef]
21. Sekhar, M.; Shindekar, M.; Tomer, S.K.; Goswami, P. Modeling the vulnerability of an urban groundwater
system due to the combined impacts of climate change and management scenarios. Earth Interact. 2013, 17,
1–25. [CrossRef]
22. Sekhar, M.; Kumar, M.M. Geo-Hydrological Studies Along the Metro Rail Alignment in Bangalore; Technical
Report; Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science: Bangalore, India, 2009.
23. Unnikrishnan, H.; Sen, S.; Nagendra, H. Traditional water bodies and urban resilience: A historical
perspective from Bengaluru, India. In Water History; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1–25.
[CrossRef]
24. Mehta, V.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Goswami, R.; Muddu, S.; Malghan, D. Social ecology of domestic water use in
Bangalore. Econ. Political Wkly. 2013, 48. Available online: http://www.epw.in/journal/2013/15/special-
articles/social-ecology-domestic-water-use-bangalore.html (accessed on 21 December 2017).
25. Farooqi, M. Ground Water Scenario in Major Cities of India; Central Ground Water Board of India: Faridabad,
India, 2011.
26. Mehta, V.K.; Goswami, R.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Muddu, S.; Malghan, D. Metabolic urbanism and
environmental justice: The water conundrum in Bangalore, India. Environ. Justice 2014, 7, 130–137. [CrossRef]
27. Hegde, G.V.; Chandra, K.S. Resource availability for water supply to Bangalore city, Karnataka. Curr. Sci.
2012, 102, 1102–1104.
28. Zimmerman, D.; Pavlik, C.; Ruggles, A.; Armstrong, M.P. An experimental comparison of ordinary and
universal kriging and inverse distance weighting. Math. Geol. 1999, 31, 375–390. [CrossRef]
29. Sun, Y.; Kang, S.; Li, F.; Zhang, L. Comparison of interpolation methods for depth to groundwater and its
temporal and spatial variations in the Minqin oasis of northwest China. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2009, 24,
1163–1170. [CrossRef]
30. Maréchal, J.; Galeazzi, L.; Dewandel, B. Groundwater Balance at the Watershed Scale in a Hard Rock Aquifer
Using GIS. In Groundwater Dynamics in Hard Rock Aquifers; Ahmed, S., Jayakumar, R., Salih, A., Eds.; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 134–141.
31. Balakrishnan, K. Heterogeneity within Indian Cities: Methods for Empirical Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2016.
32. Everitt, B.S.; Landau, S.; Leese, M.; Stahl, D. Hierarchical Clustering. In Cluster Analysis, 5th ed.; WILEY:
London, UK, 2011; pp. 71–110.
33. Healy, R.W.; Cook, P.G. Using groundwater levels to estimate recharge. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 91–109.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 26 22 of 22

34. Groundwater Evaluation Committee. Ground Water Resources Estimation Methodology; Ministry of Water
Resources, Government of India: New Delhi, India, 1997.
35. Ahmed, S.; Jayakumar, R.; Salih, A. Groundwater Dynamics in Hard Rock Aquifers: Sustainable Management and
Optimal Monitoring Network Design; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008.
36. Mehta, V.K.; Sekhar, M.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Sekhar, M.; Mehta, V.K.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Malghan, D.;
Gebbert, S.; Mehta, V.K.; Wang, D.; et al. Groundwater Impacts of water consumption patterns in Bengaluru,
India. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual International groundwater Conference, Aurangabad, India,
20 December 2012.
37. Kumar, D.; Ahmed, S. Seasonal behaviour of spatial variability of groundwater level in a granitic aquifer in
monsoon climate. Curr. Sci. 2003, 2, 188–196.
38. Zhang, J.; Felzer, B.S.; Troy, T.J. Extreme precipitation drives groundwater recharge: The Northern High
Plains Aquifer, central United States, 1950–2010. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 2533–2545. [CrossRef]
39. Taylor, R.G.; Todd, M.C.; Kongola, L.; Maurice, L.; Nahozya, E.; Sanga, H.; MacDonald, A.M. Evidence of the
dependence of groundwater resources on extreme rainfall in East Africa. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 374–378.
[CrossRef]
40. Thomas, B.F.; Behrangi, A.; Famiglietti, J.S. Precipitation intensity effects on groundwater recharge in the
southwestern United States. Water 2016, 8, 90. [CrossRef]
41. Park, E.; Parker, J. A simple model for water table fluctuations in response to precipitation. J. Hydrol. 2008,
356, 344–349. [CrossRef]
42. Kumar, S. Soil Moisture Modelling, Retrieval from Microwave Remote Sensing and Assimilation in a Tropical
Watershed. Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, 2012.
43. Beven, K.; Binley, A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction.
Hydrol. Process. 1992, 6, 279–298. [CrossRef]
44. Vázquez-Suñé, E.; Carrera, J.; Tubau, I.; Sánchez-Vila, X.; Soler, A. An approach to identify urban groundwater
recharge. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 2085–2097. [CrossRef]
45. Hammami Abidi, J.; Farhat, B.; Ben Mammou, A.; Oueslati, N. Characterization of Recharge Mechanisms
and Sources of Groundwater Salinization in Ras Jbel Coastal Aquifer (Northeast Tunisia) Using
Hydrogeochemical Tools, Environmental Isotopes, GIS, and Statistics. J. Chem. 2017, 2017, 8610894.
[CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).