Groundwater and Recharge Flow

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25615 SHARE

   
Groundwater Recharge and Flow: Approaches and Challenges for

Monitoring and Modeling Using Remotely Sensed Data:
Proceedings of a Workshop (2019)
DETAILS
72 pages | 7 x 10 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-49964-4 | DOI 10.17226/25615
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Lauren Everett, Rapporteur; Water Science and Technology Board; Division on
Earth and Life Studies; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Groundwater

Recharge and Flow: Approaches and Challenges for Monitoring and Modeling Using
Remotely Sensed Data: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25615.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Groundwater Recharge and Flow: Approaches and Challenges for Monitoring and Modeling Using Remotely Sensed Data: Proceedings...
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE AND FLOW
Approaches and Challenges for Monitoring and
Modeling Using Remotely Sensed Data
Lauren Everett, Rapporteur
Water Science and Technology Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Groundwater Recharge and Flow Approaches and Challenges for Monitoring and Modeling Using Remotely Sensed Data...
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency/Office of

the Director of National Intelligence Award No. 2014-14041100003-022. Any opin-
ions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not
necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the
project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49964-4

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-49964-X
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25615
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202)
334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover credit: Photo by Voran via Shutterstock.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.

Groundwater Recharge and Flow: Approaches and Challenges for Monitoring and Modeling
Using Remotely Sensed Data: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25615.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed
by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on is-
sues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding
contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation.
Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr.
John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in
1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on med-
ical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and
conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding
contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, en-
gineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task
by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions,
and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the com-
mittee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent
peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the
statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event
convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceed-
ings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning
committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit
www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PLANNING COMMITTEE ON GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW: A WORKSHOP

VENKATARAMAN LAKSHMI, Chair, University of Virginia
JAMES S. FAMIGLIETTI, University of Saskatchewan
CATHLEEN E. JONES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
ANTARPREET JUTLA, West Virginia University
DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, NAE, University of California, Los Angeles
KAMINI SINGHA, Colorado School of Mines
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

LAUREN EVERETT, Program Officer
COURTNEY DEVANE, Administrative Coordinator (beginning July 2019)
ERIC EDKIN, Program Coordinator
CARLY BRODY, Senior Program Assistant (through July 2019)

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

CATHERINE L. KLING, Chair, NAS, Cornell University
NEWSHA AJAMI, Stanford University
JONATHAN D. ARTHUR, Florida Geological Survey
DAVID A. DZOMBAK, NAE, Carnegie Mellon University
WENDY D. GRAHAM, University of Florida
MARK W. LECHEVALLIER, Dr. Water Consulting, LLC
MARGARET A. PALMER, University of Maryland, College Park
DAVID L. SEDLAK, NAE, University of California, Berkeley
DAVID WEGNER, Woolpert Engineering
P. KAY WHITLOCK, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

ELIZABETH EIDE, Senior Board Director
LAURA EHLERS, Senior Program Officer
STEPHANIE JOHNSON, Senior Program Officer
JEANNE AQUILINO, Financial and Administrative Associate
COURTNEY DEVANE, Administrative Coordinator
ERIC EDKIN, Program Coordinator
BRENDAN MCGOVERN, Research Associate
CARLY BRODY, Senior Program Assistant (through July 2019)
RAYMOND CHAPPETTA, Senior Program Assistant/Research Assistant
vi

Acknowledgments
This Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is
to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine in making each published proceedings as sound as possible and to
ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsive-
ness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect
the integrity of the process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings:
Gerald Bawden, NASA

Laura Condon, University of Arizona
Venkat Lakshmi, University of Virginia
Ryan Smith, Missouri University of Science and Technology
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and sug-
gestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the proceedings nor did they see the
final draft before its release. The review of this proceedings was overseen by Otis Brown, North
Carolina State University. He responsible for making certain that an independent examination
of this proceedings was carried out in accordance with standards of the National Academies and
that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests
entirely with the rapporteur and the National Academies.
vii


Contents
1 OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................... 1
Background and Context, 1
Opening Remarks and Keynote Presentations, 2
2 REGIONAL FRESHWATER BUDGETS UNDER MAJOR USE SCENARIOS............................. 11

Key Topics, 11
Discussion, 15
3 RESEARCH FRONTIERS IN CHARACTERIZING GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS....................... 19

Key Topics, 19
Discussion, 24
4 MITIGATING GROUNDWATER MODEL UNCERTAINTIES..................................................... 29

Key Topics, 29
Discussion, 32
5 CHANGES IN WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OVER TIME........................................ 37

Key Topics, 37
Discussion, 40
6 FINAL THOUGHTS.............................................................................................................. 43
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 45

APPENDIXES
A Statement of Task............................................................................................................... 49
B Planning Committee Biosketches........................................................................................ 51
C Workshop Agenda............................................................................................................... 55
D Workshop Participants........................................................................................................ 59
E Speaker Abstracts.............................................................................................................. 61
ix


Overview
1
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Water security is essential for the sustainability of healthy human populations, economic
growth, and the stability of communities and nations (e.g., Kreamer, 2012; World Bank, 2016).
With water insecurity identified as a key factor contributing to geopolitical instability in dif-
ferent parts of the world, knowledge and understanding of water availability is thus an integral
component of U.S. national security interests (e.g., Hartley et al., 2017).
Water of appropriate quantity and quality is essential for drinking, sanitation, and food,
energy, and industrial production for any society and is derived for most needs from surface- or
groundwater sources. The proportion of surface- to groundwater withdrawn and used in any re-
gion depends on a set of interactive factors including the dominant uses and needs for the water
(human consumption, agriculture, etc.); the topographic and hydrogeological setting; seasonal
temperatures and rainfall; economic and infrastructure capabilities (e.g., for storage, pumping,
industrial and agricultural development); population size and change; and water management,
policy, and other local or national water agreements.
Approximately 30 percent of all freshwater on Earth exists as groundwater.1 Although
surface water withdrawals make up the majority of the water used for public supply and irriga-
tion in the United States, groundwater provides drinking water to approximately 50 percent of
the global population and more than 40 percent of the water used globally for irrigation (FAO,
2017; Maupin et al., 2014). Furthermore, agriculture represents approximately 70 percent of
global freshwater withdrawals (WWAP, 2014). Studies also suggest that groundwater use in
irrigation globally is increasing in total volume as well as a percentage of all water used for
irrigation, with the demand for groundwater resources increasing as available primary surface
water supplies are depleted (Siebert et al., 2010). Particularly in arid regions, groundwater may
be the most accessible water supply for any purpose, leaving groundwater withdrawals concen-
trated in areas that are already experiencing water stress.
Perhaps the major factors in determining the importance of the use of groundwater in
any region are the rate and quantity of withdrawals relative to water recharge, which in turn,
relate to the tight coupling between surface- and groundwater quantities, flows, and change
through time (NASEM, 2018). Groundwater is replenished by precipitation that seeps through
1 See https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclegwstorage.html.
1

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW
the upper level of soil (unsaturated zone) but assessing the rate at which this recharge occurs
is dependent upon numerous variables, including measurements of precipitation and evapo-
transpiration (ET) and the hydraulic conductivity of near-surface soils and sediments, which
themselves are often associated with large uncertainties (NASEM, 2018).
Even in the presence of direct ground observations and measurements of the water ta-
ble, quantitative evaluation of groundwater storage, flow, or recharge at different scales also
requires remotely sensed data and observations applied to groundwater models. Direct remote
sensing of changes in groundwater storage is currently possible at a coarse scale using GRACE
(NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites) data, but resolving the interac-
tion of groundwater storage, flow, and recharge at a scale at which basins are managed requires
additional remotely sensed data (such as precipitation), and proxy data (such as land-use/land
cover change over time, surface subsidence and rebound, or other information).
In June 2019, the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop2 to explore these topics and to iden-
tify scientific and technological research frontiers in monitoring and modeling groundwater
recharge and flow in various regions of the world. The goals of the workshop were to assess re-
gional freshwater budgets under major use scenarios (e.g., agriculture, industry, and municipal);
examine state of the art research frontiers in characterizing groundwater aquifers, including
residence time, quantity, flow, depletion, and recharge, using remotely sensed observations and
proxy data; discuss groundwater model uncertainties and methods for mitigating them using
sparse ground observations or data and other approaches; and consider our ability to detect
which water management strategies (e.g., water reuse, irrigation efficiencies, and desalination)
that affect groundwater flow and recharge are being used and any changes in their use over time.
In addition to a series of guided panel discussions, attendees participated in small group
conversations to examine how remotely sensed data can be utilized in regions where in situ
measurements, observations, and instrumentation are particularly difficult. Participants con-
sidered potentially promising partnership and collaboration opportunities to help advance our
understanding. This document summarizes workshop presentations and plenary discussions.3
OPENING REMARKS AND KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS
Planning Committee Chair, Dr. Venkat Lakshmi (University of Virginia), opened the
workshop and emphasized the importance of water availability and water stability, especially
as it relates to U.S. national security. Many countries may already be experiencing water stress
that could be exacerbated by groundwater withdrawals. In fact, many hydrological modelers
now recognize the importance of including groundwater in their models as well as the connec-
2 This Proceedings of a Workshop was prepared by a workshop rapporteur as a factual summary of what oc-
curred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop.
See the appendixes for the Statement of Task, planning committee biosketches, workshop agenda, participant
list, and speaker abstracts.
3 Recordings of the workshop presentations and discussions can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/
playlist?list=PLi6VVotVxseDqVsWoRLJn7xHRPCMQl2WY.

OVERVIEW
tions between groundwater and other parts of the hydrologic system. Dr. Lakshmi noted that
remotely sensed and in situ observations can provide crucial information to ensure that these
connections are made. Remotely sensed data, in particular, can be utilized in regions where it
may be especially difficult to obtain in situ measurements.
Given the implications for U.S. national security, the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) is interested in learning more about groundwater and how changes in ground-
water may affect key regions of the world. Dr. Tony Nguy-Robertson (NGA) shared insights
from the perspective of the workshop sponsor, and noted that adequate support of the defense
and intelligence communities requires geospatial intelligence to provide crucial information
about the environment and to aid in decision making. NGA has a keen interest in international
water security and water quality, especially to provide support and information to policy makers.
Dr. Nguy-Robertson also noted that increased understanding of potential overuse of water in
some individual nation-states will be important for future water resource stability and potential
risks to aquifers. NGA is interested in ensuring that water is available for uses such as personal
consumption, agricultural needs, and industrial uses. In addition, there is a great deal of interest
in increased understanding of groundwater resources to support U.S. Department of Defense
operations and to ensure adequate water supplies for military operations and diplomatic mis-
sions, including humanitarian and disaster relief support teams. Dr. Nguy-Robertson noted
that NGA support for warfighters, humanitarian assistance workers, and policy makers relies
on improvements in estimating groundwater recharge and flow to anticipate future crises and
to provide operational support.
As noted in the opening remarks, people throughout the world rely on groundwater as
their primary source of freshwater, however groundwater is being depleted at a significant rate.
In fact, trends show that global water demand is increasing at the same time that groundwater
is being depleted (see Figure 1.1; Wada et al., 2010). Irrigated agriculture is one of the major
causes of this depletion (Dalin et al., 2017), and drier areas of the world tend to rely more on
groundwater and thus have larger fractions of depletion. To address how remote sensing can
play a role in increasing our understanding of these issues, keynote speaker Dr. Matthew Rodell
(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) provided a historical perspective on data availability. He
noted that in the 20th century, almost all data originated from in situ observations such as well
monitoring, well logs, ground penetrating radar, and other geophysical methods and geological
mapping techniques. In addition, older groundwater models were fairly crude and limited to local
scales. However, useful information can still be obtained from these in situ observations (see, for
example, the discussion in Li et al., 2015, on groundwater variability). In the United States there
are a number of wells that are useful for climate monitoring, as indicated by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Groundwater Climate Response Network, however long-term and reliable in situ
data records are sparse. Although most countries have at least some groundwater data, often they
are either not digitized, not centralized, or not made publicly available. In fact, there are only 17
countries that contribute to the Global Groundwater Monitoring Network. Therefore, scientists
face coverage gaps both spatially and temporally as well as delays in data availability and issues
with measurement consistency. In many cases, political restrictions exacerbate this problem; wells
may be monitored, but the data are not made available.

Figure 1.1 Trends (1960-2000) in global water demand (top line; right axis; indexed for the year 2000), glob-
al groundwater abstraction (middle line; left axis; km3/yr), and global groundwater depletion (bottom line;
left axis; km3/yr), as simulated by PCRaster Global Water Balance. Source: Wada et al., 2010.
Dr. Rodell commented on the expanded use of remote sensing in the 21st century and
the exciting new insights enabled by these technologies, particularly satellite gravimetry and
airborne and satellite interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR). He also noted the im-
portance of the development of regional to global land surface models with groundwater budget
and 3D flows. Scientists have been able to explore atmospheric coupling and data assimilation,
where models are constrained using available observations. Several NASA Earth observing
satellites are highly relevant to understanding the water cycle and to conduct groundwater
studies. GRACE and GRACE Follow On (GRACE FO) missions are particularly valuable for
groundwater research. While most remote sensing missions rely on radiation-based approaches
(i.e., measuring light that is either emitted or reflected from the surface to estimate quantities
like snow cover, vegetation type, ice, rainfall, or soil moisture) and are only able to penetrate
the first few centimeters below the surface, GRACE and GRACE FO are unique in their
ability to monitor water at all levels, down to the deepest aquifer. GRACE (2002-2017) and
GRACE FO (2018-present) are twin satellite missions that rely on an understanding of how
heterogeneities in Earth’s gravity field perturb the orbits of the satellites; precise measurements
of the distance between the twin satellites (one following the other about 200 km apart) allows
researchers to infer temporal changes in the gravity field, which can be directly related to mass
redistribution. On monthly to multi-annual time scales, the largest sources of mass redistribu-
tion are ocean circulation and tides, atmospheric circulation, and changes in terrestrial water

OVERVIEW
storage. By modeling and removing the first two, changes in terrestrial water storage (i.e., the
sum of groundwater, soil moisture, surface waters, snow, and ice) can be estimated. Using this
type of data, Dr. Rodell illustrated how anomalies of terrestrial water storage (the departure
from the long-term mean at a given time and location) and their changes over time can be
calculated globally (see Figure 1.2). Using auxiliary data and/or models, groundwater storage
changes can then be isolated from the terrestrial water storage data. He noted that GRACE
cannot, however, provide information about the total amount of water in an aquifer, it can only
give information about how it is changing over time. Although long-term trends in terrestrial
water storage can be quantified using these methods, it can be challenging to determine if they
are caused by natural interannual variability, water management (e.g., groundwater pumping),
reservoir filling, climate change, or some combination of those.
Some of the challenges associated with satellite gravimetry highlighted by Dr. Rodell
include low spatial resolution (roughly 150,000 km2 at mid-latitudes), monthly temporal res-
olution, data latency of up to a few months, and lack of vertical information (because this
method reveals the sum of all water components, not measurements of individual components
such as groundwater, soil moisture, snow, or surface water). One way to address the issues of
low spatial and temporal resolution could be to have multiple pairs of GRACE-like satellites,
however, advanced technologies would still be needed to obtain orders of magnitude higher
spatial resolution, he stated. Some new technologies and tools that are being studied include
laser interferometry paired with lower altitude and drag-free spacecraft, cold atom gradiometry,
and data assimilation methods to push these boundaries and help obtain higher resolution data.
InSAR technology relies on satellite measurements of changes in the elevation of the
Earth’s surface. When the groundwater level changes in an aquifer, the response of the land
Figure 1.2 Terrestrial water storage anomalies (departures from the long-term mean at each location), as
equivalent heights of water (cm) during April 2002. Source: Rodell presentation, Slide 15.

surface can be tracked over time. Dr. Rodell noted that this method can be used to estimate
dynamics of aquifer systems, including how much of the groundwater is removed, though this
can be a challenging process. The advantage of using this technology is high spatial resolution,
but the non-elastic aquifer response (i.e., an aquifer may not completely recover from the com-
paction and subsidence caused by de-watering) can create challenges.
Dr. Rodell pointed out that the recent Decadal Survey for Earth Observation from Space
(NASEM, 2018) highlighted several NASA missions including the Surface Water Ocean To-
pography (SWOT) mission, which will measure surface water elevations and estimate rates of
river discharge. Among the many references to hydrology in the 2018 Decadal Survey (as well
as the 2007 Decadal Survey; NRC, 2007), the report also recommended a mission to increase
our understanding of aerosols, clouds, convection, and precipitation (crucial for hydrology re-
search); a mission to understand surface deformation and change; and a mass change mission (a
follow on to GRACE FO). He emphasized that there are many other observing methods such
as sensors on commercial aircraft, sensors on the space station, and ground-based citizen science
technologies, for example, that can be used to monitor the water cycle.
Land surface models use a system of physical equations to understand the interaction of
energy, momentum, and mass between the surface and the atmosphere. Dr. Rodell illustrated
the high spatial and temporal resolution provided by model parameters and other inputs such
as precipitation and solar radiation. GRACE data can then be used to constrain the model
via data assimilation, resulting in a product with higher resolutions than GRACE and better
accuracy than the model alone. More advanced groundwater flow models such as ParFlow and
PCR-GLOBWB can simulate 3D groundwater flow. Groundwater modeling requires obser-
vations such as precipitation, soil moisture, surface water levels, streamflow, terrestrial water
storage, snow cover, evapotranspiration, land surface temperature, and vegetation cover, but
additional observations could help make further improvements in modeling: flow velocities,
root-zone soil moisture, terrestrial water storage at 100 km2 resolution, snow water equivalent,
and hydrogeological parameters (e.g., aquifer extent and depth, permeability, and specific yield).
Integrating this data into land surface models can help with downscaling, disaggregating, and
interpreting groundwater-relevant observations from disparate sources.
Although remote sensing is clearly a powerful tool in improving groundwater research, in
situ data can also be used to understand changes in groundwater management. Keynote speaker
Dr. Holly Michael (University of Delaware) noted that recent advances in spatial data sets such
as bulk aquifer properties, recharge, discharge, and projected changes are enabling new insights
in process understanding, vulnerability identification, and targets for mitigation on regional
and global scales. In terms of practical management on a basin scale, in situ data are needed to
supplement and ground-truth coarser data sets and estimates. Three examples of in situ research
were used by Dr. Michael to highlight some of the associated challenges and transboundary
problems: (1) conjunctive use management4 in the Upper Ganges Basin, (2) arsenic contamina-
tion in the Bengal Basin, and (3) mega-city pumping in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
The first example highlighted by Dr. Michael illustrates the conjunctive use of ground-
water and surface water in the Ganges Basin of India and Bangladesh. This is an example of
4 Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater consists of harmoniously combining the use of both sources of
water in order to minimize the undesirable physical, environmental and economical effects of each solution
and to optimize the water demand/supply balance.

OVERVIEW
a transboundary water quantity problem that also suffered from a lack of data availability. The
enormous size and complexity of the Ganges Basin means that there are many surface water
diversions that have international policy implications. An international treaty plays an import-
ant role in governance of water resources in this region, especially given the seasonality of the
hydrologic changes (i.e., flooding in the monsoon season and water diversion in the dry season,
see Figure 1.3) as well as problems with both waterlogging and groundwater depletion. This has
serious implications for water availability for both people and ecosystems. This study included
numerical modeling to assess hydrologic effects and economic analysis, which required data
for model boundary conditions and forcing (recharge rate, river width, distance between rivers,
and irrigation return flow); data for model parameterization (hydraulic conductivity, specific
yield, and connectivity between river beds and canal beds); data for model calibration (in situ
hydraulic head, river discharge, and river levels); and data to understand the economics (energy
source and cost for pumping, pump efficiency, infrastructure cost, and dry season river dis-
charge). Some of this was available directly (e.g., river discharge), but most of the information
was aggregated from indirect sources (such as literature and government reporting) or informed
guesses and estimates. In some cases, no data were available at all (e.g., in situ hydraulic head
and river levels).
As noted by Dr. Michael, four scenarios were considered in this study: (1) the current
state of surface irrigation, (2) the Ganges Water Machine as described above, (3) pumping
Monthly average Ganges discharge at Farakka and

40,000 monthly average rainfall 350
35,000 300
30,000
River discharge 250
Rainfall [mm]
25,000
Discharge [m3s-1]
Rainfall
200
20,000
150
15,000
100
10,000
5,000 50
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Figure 1.3 The Ganges Basin is suffering from extreme seasonality in the available water resources. More
than 80 percent of the river flow occurs during the 4 monsoon months and the rest of the year there is low
flow condition in the rivers. Source: Michael presentation, Slide 14.

along canals, and (4) distributed pumping and recharge. Simple models and large-scale sensi-
tivity analyses were used to incorporate variability across the basin and uncertainties in many
of the parameters. The study looked at the potential for reduction in monsoon season river flow,
water that would be made available for irrigation, and pumping costs for the different scenarios.
It became clear that the Ganges Water Machine was not the most viable scenario, even when
the uncertainties due to lack of data were taken into consideration (Khan et al., 2014). There-
fore, this example illustrated that informative results can sometimes be obtained even in the
absence of data.
The second example of a transboundary and water quality problem discussed by Dr. Mi-
chael concerns arsenic contamination in the Bengal Basin. Some data were available in this case,
but they were sparse and low-quality. There is naturally occurring arsenic in shallow groundwa-
ter in this region and more than 150 million people rely on the groundwater for drinking and
irrigation; many are at risk for serious health effects due to the arsenic. However, the level of
arsenic concentration decreases dramatically at about 150 m well depth. Therefore, deep wells
have an important role to play when considering mitigation options.
Dr. Michael’s research examined the sustainability of this deep groundwater resource, if
it is pumped, to determine whether the arsenic would migrate to deeper levels. A model was
developed to test scenarios, and the associated data needs were: information for model bound-
ary conditions and forcing (topography, domestic pumping, and irrigation pumping); model
parameterization (hydraulic conductivity); and parameter estimation (in situ hydraulic head,
groundwater age, driller logs, and river discharge). There were difficulties collecting these data
through both governmental and non-governmental sources in Bangladesh and India. Data were
poor quality, missing key pieces, and difficult to get. Navigating these difficulties and acquiring
needed data required collaboration and plenty of time to meet with relevant agencies.
Again, in this case, Dr. Michael noted that direct data were supplemented by information
aggregated from indirect sources and informed guesses and estimates. No data were available
for river discharge, and problems with the data included information only from Bangladesh,
not India; elevations very different from the topography; only shallow wells available; only four
data points available for deep groundwater ages; and quality control issues related to different
drilling methods and interpretations. Two management alternatives were considered: (1) deep
irrigation and deep domestic pumping and (2) shallow irrigation and deep domestic pumping.
With the split pumping scheme, 90 percent of the area was sustainable compared to 14 percent
sustainability with all of the pumping occurring deep in the system (Michael and Voss, 2008).
Therefore, the researchers in this study suggest regulating the indiscriminate abstraction of
deep groundwater and using it for domestic pumping rather than irrigation. This illustrates how
sparse, low-quality data can still be used to provide high-level management guidance.
The third example illustrates large scale pumping of groundwater in Dhaka, Bangladesh,
and Dr. Michael noted that this is a combined quantity and quality problem, with high-quality
data available for the research. Huge populations in mega-cities like Dhaka require increasing
amounts of water and this results in massive groundwater extractions. These types of “mega-de-
pletion” cases are occurring around the world, not just in Dhaka (see Figure 1.4; Werner et al.,

OVERVIEW
2013). Key considerations include the effects of extreme pumping on water supply and water
quality as well as investigating if this water use is worsening the arsenic problem. For example,
are there implications associated with large amounts of pumping and impacts on contaminant
transport in the aquifer outside of the city, potentially contaminating deep wells? This problem
is difficult because of the complexity of the transport and geochemistry associated with arsenic
movement.
In this final case study, Dr. Michael outlined an approach using a detailed model within
the basin-scale framework to understand vulnerability of the deep groundwater surrounding
Dhaka to arsenic migration. Many of the data needs are similar to the cases noted above, but in
this case much more direct and better quality data were available to the researchers from their
own wells and loggers, partly due to the smaller area of study. Though this is a serious issue for
the region over the next decade, historically data collection by local governments is sporadic.
This is a concern for modeling and managing these issues in the near term.
The resulting modeling and observations revealed a very complex hydrological system
with a corresponding heterogeneous sub-surface system, as explained by Dr. Michael. When
looking at the probability of contamination in 200 years, the models revealed some areas that
would likely be contaminated, but the uncertainty is large throughout the study area (Khan et
al., 2016). Based on the results of this study, Dr. Michael’s team found that it is important to
incorporate geologic data, and that monitoring is critical to protect the health of the population
that relies on this water for drinking. The existence of better quality data in this case allowed for
increased understanding, even with the large uncertainties. However, increased availability of in
Figure 1.4 An initial inventory and indexation of groundwater mega-depletion cases. Source: Werner et al., 2013.

situ sub-surface data is needed to constrain the model simulations, and could lead to improved
large-scale analysis including multiple processes.
In an ideal situation, Dr. Michael noted that a global database of fully quality-controlled
and densely spaced in situ hydrologic, geologic, and geochemical data would be made publicly
available in real time; but challenges associated with cost, international data sharing, technology
transfer, infrastructure, quality control, and several other factors should first be addressed.
10

Regional Freshwater Budgets

Under Major Use Scenarios 2
KEY TOPICS
To begin the first panel discussion, Dr. Upmanu Lall (Columbia University) noted that
the large amount of uncertainty in groundwater analyses and the potential for significant biases
in modeling and estimates of water use present key challenges. As an example, he noted that
water use is dominated by irrigation, however actual irrigation practices (dictated by agricultural
extension services) are not being incorporated in the biophysical equations that provide esti-
mates of water used for this purpose. Thus, researchers may be over- or under-estimating actual
irrigation rates and frequency, introducing bias in the calculations.
Groundwater cannot be isolated from surface water sources, and even within ground-
water sources, the access dynamics for shallow and deep water are very different. Dr. Lall illus-
trated that most modeling focuses on rates of change in groundwater level from shallow wells,
but deep wells are experiencing much greater trends in changing groundwater levels (see Figure
2.1). In terms of sensitivity to climate variability, deep water is typically pumped during times
of long, persistent drought. Therefore, deep groundwater also has a much higher sensitivity to
climate than shallow groundwater, due to human behavior (i.e., deep water pumping), not the
natural system response. Dr. Lall explained that, although the scientific community tends to
focus solely on hydrological information, increased ability to integrate interactions between the
human (non-hydrologic) and natural parts of the system can help achieve greater understand-
ing of the dynamics and can also help to diagnose risk. In fact, Dr. Lall suggested that the key
issue with groundwater is not necessarily about how much is available, but if it is accessible and
who is able to access it. This is a social equity and injustice issue because disadvantaged popu-
lations typically lack access to water and may be forced to consider options such as migration.
Using the Upper Colorado Basin and the Himalayan Basins as examples, Dr. Harihar
Rajaram ( Johns Hopkins University) discussed aspects of climate change resilience provided
by groundwater in mountain watersheds. In the Upper Colorado Basin, more than half of the
streamflow is delivered by a baseflow derived source, even though most of that is lost to evapo-
transpiration and diversions before it gets to the lower basin (Miller et al., 2016). Baseflow yield
is higher at higher elevations, but the fraction of annual total flow represented by baseflow is
higher at lower elevations. Thus, there is some measure of resilience because groundwater can
be thought of as a store that has some delay in delivering hydrologic input to streams and can
11

Figure 2.1 (a) Average groundwater level rate of change from shallow wells (depth <30 m) in the United
States. (b) Average groundwater level rate of change from deep wells (depth >30 m). Negative trends (or-
ange/red) indicate an average decline in groundwater level, and positive trends (blue) indicate a rise in
groundwater level. Source: Russo and Lall, 2017.
sustain late season flows. On a smaller scale, a study of the Colorado River headwater basin il-
lustrates the role of deep groundwater in hydrologic budgets (Carroll et al., 2019). This is a fairly
water-stressed system that has not been adequately explored because climate change projections
do not typically consider these deeper groundwater systems. There is some evidence to suggest
that reduced recharge will have significant influence on groundwater availability, and may even
degrade water quality in mineralized sub-basins (Meixner et al., 2016).
Very little is known about some of the more remote areas of the Himalayan Basins, and
Dr. Rajaram mentioned that these are also sensitive areas from a geopolitical perspective. Snow
melt and precipitation are major contributors to the water budget (as opposed to glacier melt),
and in the Ganges Basin, monsoon rain is a major contributor as well (see Figure 2.2). A com-
bination of the monsoon and rainfall forcing is delivered to the streams via groundwater flow
pathways. In most of the year, streamflow exceeds precipitation input which signifies a delay be-
cause of the groundwater pathways. Two thirds of the annual discharge in Upper Ganges Basin
is delivered via groundwater pathways that implies a delay of about 2 months, indicating some
12

REGIONAL FRESHWATER BUDGETS UNDER MAJOR USE SCENARIOS
WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM, BASIN BY BASIN — ANNUAL AVERAGES

Figures rounded to nearest %
Glacier ice melt Snow melt Rain GLACIERS

contribute little to
river flow, and less in
the east (Ganges and
Brahmaputra) than in
the west (Syr Darya,
Amu Darya, Indus).
SNOW MELT
contributions drive
river flow in all basins
but the Ganges.
MONSOON RAIN
dominates inputs in
Syr Darya Amu Darya Indus Ganges Brahmaputra the Ganges.
KEY POINTS: WESTERN BASINS KEY POINTS: EASTERN BASINS

Water stress is expected to increase due to limited resources, The overall volume of water available in the
high economic reliance on irrigated agriculture, choice of monsoon-dominated Himalaya is an order
water-loving crops like cotton and rice, and an absence of of magnitude larger than in arid Central
regulated upstream-downstream water agreements between Asia. Monsoon rain and snow are annually
neighboring countries. renewable.
Figure 2.2 Annual averages of water sources in the Himalayan Basins. Source: Courtesy of the National
Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado Boulder/CHARIS Project.
level of resilience. Climate change projections in the Himalayan Basins indicate an increase in
precipitation, which could lead to an increase in streamflow. This could have implications for
water availability within deep water systems for military personnel in that area, for example. Dr.
Rajaram noted that airborne and remote sensing technologies likely have a role to play in large-
scale sub-surface characterization to better constrain properties of mountain aquifer systems.
Dr. Ryan Smith (Missouri University of Science and Technology) discussed land subsid-
ence due to groundwater extraction around the globe, which occurs mostly in confined aquifers
under major use scenarios. There can be some subsidence in unconfined1 aquifers as well, but
because the amount of subsidence is proportional to the change in water level or head, there is
much more subsidence in confined aquifers. He illustrated a high use scenario in the Central
Valley of California, which includes approaches and challenges that are common to many other
areas around the world. The loss of groundwater storage is, for the most part, a permanent loss
and in the areas of greatest subsidence, it is happening at a rate of approximately 25 cm/year.
This area contains one percent of the nation’s farm land, and almost all of the water demand
comes from agricultural use. Eight percent of the nation’s food is produced here, including
high value crops. Thus, these crops need to be irrigated, even in a drought year because of the
economic implications. Regional geology and groundwater pumping play significant roles in
1 A confined aquifer is an aquifer below the land surface that is saturated with water. Layers of impermeable
material are both above and below the aquifer, causing it to be under pressure so that when the aquifer is pen-
etrated by a well, the water will rise above the top of the aquifer. A water-table—or unconfined—aquifer is an
aquifer whose upper water surface (water table) is at atmospheric pressure, and thus is able to rise and fall.
13

understanding and quantifying why some areas subside more than others, though most areas
have similar water demands and similar decline in head. Dr. Smith outlined an approach to
couple InSAR derived estimates of subsidence with airborne electromagnetic (AEM) estimates
of groundwater and aquifer properties to build more accurate groundwater models. Using these
methods, one can see how thick the clay deposits are, which tend to cause the most compaction.
Coupled modeling to estimate aquifer and textural properties enables forecasting of future hy-
drologic scenarios, and this approach may also be used in other areas with limited groundwater
data. AEM data can provide a good sense of the geology and InSAR can serve as a proxy for
hydrologic changes.
Two studies (in California and Vietnam) show that deep pumping for clean water is
releasing arsenic from clays, where it had been trapped, and releasing it into the groundwater
supply (Erban et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2018). Dr. Smith reiterated that release of arsenic is
a complex process, but it is something that needs to be considered in major use scenarios, as
pumping from confined aquifers could be damaging water quality in addition to depleting
storage.
To illustrate emerging technologies that can be transformative in understanding water
resources, Dr. Mark Person (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology) discussed stud-
ies using magnetotelluric (MT) methods and mathematical modeling to reveal new ground-
water resources that have yet to be utilized. In the first example, he explored fresh offshore
groundwater in the continental shelves. Offshore freshwater is a global phenomenon due to
changes in sea level, and there have been efforts to quantify the volume of this resource (Post et
al., 2013). Marine MT and models are now being used together with limited well data to dis-
cover and map offshore freshwater. Using MT and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM)
systems, formation resistivity can be imaged to indicate areas of freshwater (see Figure 2.3). The
huge volumes of offshore freshwater sequestered in continental shelf sands can be a potential
resource for coastal megacities in times of drought.
MT can also be used to look at deep crystalline basement groundwater flow systems in
the arid Southwest United States. Companies and agribusinesses can use this warm, freshwater
for aquaculture and to heat greenhouses. In this second example, Dr. Person discussed perme-
able crystalline rocks and high heat flow in New Mexico. One study assesses deep groundwater
flow in the crystalline basement below Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The geothermal
water comes from deep recharge in the mountainous terrain approximately 68 km away. It is
estimated that the geothermal discharge is two million gallons/day, and that is approximately
10 percent of the mountain front recharge that discharges through a hydrologic window where
the crystalline basement is exposed at the land surface (Person et al., 2013). Recharge rate in
this area is 5-10 cm/year. Through numerical modeling, it is clear that this is a deep flow system,
probably with crystalline basement permeabilities that are uncommon. An MT study of the
region from the recharge to the discharge area revealed that there are more resistive crystalline
basement rocks in the recharge areas at higher elevations. These are quite a bit more perme-
able and conductive than typical crystalline basement rock. In the discharge area near the hot
springs, the geothermal fluids pick up heat and salinity along the flow path and they become
more conductive. A deep flow system is needed to produce these thermal anomalies and salinity.
14

Figure 2.3 Resistivity models obtained from jointly inverting surface-towed CSEM and seafloor MT data for
the shore-to-shelf profiles off of Martha’s Vineyard and New Jersey with seismic and well log data. Shaded
colors show high resistivity as yellow hues and low resistivity as blue hues. White triangles show seafloor
MT receiver locations and dashed white lines show the extent of the surface-towed CSEM data used in the
inversions. Source: Gustafson et al., 2019.
These deep crystalline basement flow systems are economically important to local communi-
ties because the water is used for greenhouses and aquaculture. Thus, crystalline basement and
volcanic formations could represent viable, sustainable resources for arid communities. Using
MT surveys in an EarthScope style campaign to look at deep flow systems and unconventional
aquifers could lead to important advances in understanding water resources of the U.S. conti-
nent and continental shelf.
DISCUSSION
Thinking beyond remote sensing and satellite technologies, Dr. Kamini Singha asked
the panelists if “soft” data are available to provide information on water budgets. Dr. Lall noted
that an interesting proxy is sales, by district, of different types and capacities of pumps in India.
Farmers report their pump purchases and installations annually, and researchers are able to
obtain specifications from the pump manufacturers. He also noted that monitoring the me-
dia for any mentions of groundwater quantity or quality and geocoding that information can
provide useful data. Establishing and utilizing diverse sources of information is a crucial first
step. Dr. Rajaram added that geologic cross sections and maps would be helpful as well, and
Dr. Jim Butler noted that one of the most important soft data sources is the distribution of
pumping wells in heavily pumped areas.
15

Dr. Si Gou mentioned ongoing projects to explore overuse of groundwater for irrigation
and ways to manage irrigation in agriculture to reduce this overuse. As noted earlier, regional
water balance is important for water resource management, but researchers do not have data
for how much groundwater is overused. Dr. Smith reiterated that there are tools to estimate
groundwater use, but there are also large uncertainties. In researching water demand some in-
formation can be estimated by satellite remote sensing or ground-based data, but the challenge
is knowing if people are over- or under-irrigating their crops. Knowing soil moisture over the
course of the growing season can help provide some information. Dr. Lall mentioned an effort
to get pump manufacturers to add a water meter to each pump. If this was mandated by the
government, there is a potential to obtain direct data on usage of each pump. Dr. Butler noted
that Kansas has all high capacity pumping wells metered and reported, and that this data set
could be used to get sense for how people operate in the field.
Dr. James Dobrowolski asked about how fresh the offshore groundwater is, if there is a
temporal shift to these volumes, and if the speakers could provide a major use scenario for this
continental shelf resources. Dr. Person noted that MT systems image formation resistivity, so
it is not known how fresh or brackish the water is. Data from offshore wells indicate that some
water treatment may be required to use the water. This is a non-renewable resource, and the
water would only be available for a finite period of time. In terms of the possibility of temporal
variability, the groundwater is likely tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands years old. In
theory, coastal mega cities could use the resources in times of extreme drought, but it will be
costly. Given the depth of this resource, Dr. Lall pointed out that it is likely to be prohibitively
expensive to pump and potentially desalinate this water compared to the cost of simply desali-
nating ocean water. Dr. Person pointed out that the cost of desalinating brackish water is much
lower than the cost of desalinating ocean water, and it is not typically known what the head
conditions are in many of these offshore systems. Utilizing this groundwater may be economi-
cally feasible in some areas, but not others.
Following a period of focused breakout group discussions, designated group leaders pro-
vided summaries of each team’s work. The participants were asked to identify challenges and
opportunities for future research in understanding freshwater budgets. The primary challenge
noted by participants was access to in situ data (including, for example, groundwater level,
pumping rates, and streamflow) and limitations associated with the data that are available in-
cluding efforts to quantify uncertainties and bias. Participants specifically highlighted a lack of
in situ data in hard to reach locations such as deep aquifer systems and rural areas. Increased
spatial and temporal coverage and frequency of data collection could provide crucial informa-
tion needed to fill in some of these gaps. Remote sensing can also provide the means to address
these gaps, but the group leaders emphasized that there are human and societal aspects of the
system that remain poorly understood and are difficult to obtain using current technologies. The
role of human behavior and decision-making in the water cycle could be better characterized
and integrated into the modeling. It will likely be important to clarify the goals and audience
of the intended measurements to ensure consistency and transparency in the information un-
derlying the data sets.
Some of the opportunities raised by the participants include exciting new techniques
and technologies that can be employed to achieve greater understanding of aquifer systems.
16

Examples given include advanced sensors to detect water quality and quantity, utilizing the
“Internet of Things” to harvest data from unique sources, artificial intelligence, knowledge dis-
covery mechanisms, machine learning, and remote sensing developments such as CubeSats,
airborne measurement systems, weather balloons, and unmanned aerial systems (UASs). Many
participants also noted the importance of leveraging existing data through increased integration
between modeling and science centers that may help capture adaptive feedback from multiple
scales and processes. Integration and data fusion represent an opportunity to effectively utilize
the data we do have; this includes integration of remote sensing and in situ data as well as
integration of human behaviors into the models. Leveraging existing remote sensing data can
also provide useful comparisons with models and can help guide requests for water sampling in
specific locations where data are needed. Increasingly sophisticated modeling and advances in
computing power could also advance researchers’ ability to take a system dynamics perspective.
Some participants noted that this may be an opportunity to strengthen international partner-
ships and invest in infrastructure that could play a role in translating water cycle understanding
to local and regional policy-makers and resource management teams.
Participants were also asked about data that would be most useful in determining fresh-
water budgets and if there are specific types of useful data that researchers currently struggle
to collect. Among the variables discussed, several participants highlighted precipitation, water
storage, discharge, water quality, soil data, evapotranspiration, rates of recharge, land surface in-
formation, maps of well locations, and environmental isotopes as crucial data needs to improve
understanding and modeling capabilities. Others raised the issue of unknowns associated with
water usage, consumption, transfers, and system losses, all of which are tightly connected to
human decision-making, industrial, agricultural, and economic factors. Importantly, several par-
ticipants noted that the necessary spatial and temporal scales and the required measurements
ultimately depend on the local system complexity, the local processes and dynamics, and the
questions being asked. The biogeochemistry of the system and how it changes over time are very
site specific, and data priorities will therefore depend on the location and the type of scientific
research taking place. Again, participants noted that data management and planning will play
a crucial role in future research, and increased coordination (possibly through international
partnerships) can help with the development of standardized data repositories, standard data
formats, and open source code.
Attendees were asked to consider which aspects of freshwater balance might benefit
from NGA resources in particular. Indeed, several group members were interested in pursuing
partnerships and collaborations with NGA to collect crucial information, to exploit existing
resources, to enable new technology development, and to improve model accuracy. Breakout
participants expressed a particular interest in working with NGA to obtain observations of
variables that are difficult to measure such as river discharge from major rivers, lake and res-
ervoir storage and their changes over time, soil moisture, land use, and aspects of human wa-
ter usage including drinking water supplies near cities, mining effects on communities, and
metered irrigation data. Having additional centralized data storage, common data standards,
and protocols for sharing data and metadata was also recognized, as well as the potential for
community-enabled cyber infrastructure (e.g., EarthCube2), advanced computational resources,
2 See https://www.earthcube.org.
17

and image processing expertise. Stewardship of technologies such as airborne campaigns, UASs,
and drone-based instrumentation was suggested as a possible role for NGA and other agencies.
Increased access to existing data sets, as well as the context in which the data were collected, could
allow researchers to more effectively exploit the information, especially when it is stored in atyp-
ical formats (e.g., natural language processing of historical data). Examples already exist in which
NGA helps to facilitate increased international and interdisciplinary collaborations including the
World-Wide Human Geography Data Working Group3 partnership with the U.S. Department
of State. Other partnerships could help advance these efforts even further (see Box 2.1).
Box 2.1
Breakout group participants shared examples of successful collaboration oppor-

tunities and promising partnerships that could help advance scientific understanding.
Programs that pursue strong interdisciplinary partnerships, including the integration
of physical and human aspects of the system, will likely be crucial moving forward. The
following list of example activities could serve to motivate and guide future efforts:
• National Science Foundation Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Sys-

tems (CNH); Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC); Critical Zones; Innova-
tions at the Nexus of Food; Energy and Water Systems (INFEWS); Partnerships
for International Research and Education (PIRE); Coastlines and People (CoPe);
perhaps groundwater can be tied to the last two
• NASA Applied Remote Sensing Training (ARSET), Applied Sciences Program
(work with other national and international agencies, private industry, and end
users), Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Science (IDS), SERVIR, collaboration
with United Nations (UN) Environmental Groups (UNSDG6)
• Potential partnerships or memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), UN, World Bank, Inter-
national Red Cross, other global organizations
• Risk Prediction Institute; reinsurance industries
• USGS Next Generation Water Observing System (NGWOS), National Water In-
formation System modernization
• Advisory Committee for Water Information (ACWI), subcommittee on ground-
water, an example of interagency coordination
• National Groundwater Monitoring Network
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding proposals including opportu-
nities for the groundwater community (Agricultural Food Research Initiative,
AFRI, foundational)
• USDA and National Science Foundation (NSF) partnership Signals in the Soil to
fund international activities
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) water accounting
• Ground on Earth Observations Global Water Sustainability (GEOGLOWS)
3 See https://www.wwhgd.org.
18

Research Frontiers in
Characterizing Groundwater Aquifers 3
KEY TOPICS
InSAR provides very high precision measurements of ground deformation over time.
Dr. Estelle Chaussard (University of Oregon) shared information about how InSAR1 func-
tions; the satellite measures the precise distance between its orbit and the Earth with a swath
approximately 100 km wide and the satellite repeats the same measurement to provide precise
information over time about how the ground has moved (see Figure 3.1). This technology can
help with mapping land subsidence associated with groundwater extraction in areas previous-
ly undocumented, without requiring ground access. InSAR provides a high level of precision
(on the order of mm/yr of ground deformation) and spatial resolution (each pixel is 10-30 m)
which covers hundreds of thousands of km2. Combining this information with in situ data, Dr.
Chaussard provided an example to illustrate estimates of the storativity (a measure of the vol-
ume of water that will be discharged from an aquifer per unit area of the aquifer and per unit
reduction in hydraulic head) on a basin-scale in the Silicon Valley. The high temporal repeat
and high spatial coverage allows for the parameterization of the aquifer system at the scale of
the entire aquifer. Statistical methods can then be used to identify signals with variable spatial
and temporal patterns embedded in a long time series of deformation. She also discussed how
deformation measured by InSAR, when calibrated with well data, can predict water level (or
head) changes. Combining deformation and water data, one can estimate the storativity and
can use the information to predict where the well level will be, with approximately 70 percent
accuracy in the Silicon Valley example. In other words, if constant well monitoring is not avail-
able, ground deformation can be used to bridge the gaps in data and help characterize water
level changes.
Future SAR satellite missions with high repeat and global coverage will be key to
improve understanding, especially utilizing free and open access data. For example, the
NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission, to be launched in 2022, will have
a 12 day repeat everywhere on Earth. Dr. Chaussard also noted that combining GPS (surface
water load) with InSAR (groundwater input and output) can help track recharge and discharge.
InSAR can also be used to up-sample GRACE to reach management-scale leads toward fully
remotely sensed groundwater management. One major challenge raised is characterizing how
much water is left and usable in an aquifer system using remote sensing methods.
1 See https://solidearth.jpl.nasa.gov/insar.
19

Figure 3.1 Schematic illustrating InSAR functions and techniques. Source: Chaussard presentation, Slide 1.
As noted earlier, GRACE2 is an important asset in groundwater research, which has

been combined with other data sets to leverage their respective strengths. Dr. Isabella Velicogna
(University of California, Irvine) discussed a number of topics, including GRACE data as an
integrated measure of total water storage (TWS), fine scale variability, characterizing regional
drought evolution and its impacts using multiple remote sensing techniques (and develop-
ing a framework for drought forecasts), and comparisons with hydrological and Earth system
models. Remote sensing observations are used as a proxy for water availability in an aquifer
and although their capabilities have different sensitivities and data are collected at different
spatial scales, they have been used together in a synergistic way. The average TWS information
provided within the GRACE footprint has been shown to be representative of inter-annu-
al variability at the finer spatial scale, and thus information from GRACE helps understand
what is occurring at the subscale (Geruo et al., 2017). Using an example of a 2011 drought in
Texas, she explored these different types of information to characterize the drought evolution
and sensitivity as well as the response of the vegetation. Soil moisture was shown to be closely
tied to precipitation and GRACE data agreed well until the 2011 drought, after which the
signals were decoupled. This information was used to define a characteristic time scale for the
variability and to understand the response of the system. In another example, a drought index
was defined, which makes it convenient to compare different sources of information. In 2011,
a different response to drought occurred, which was affecting surface moisture but GRACE
2 See https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov.
20

RESEARCH FRONTIERS IN CHARACTERIZING GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS
revealed that this did not affect groundwater resources (TWS). Dr. Velicogna also mentioned
the GRACE drought severity index (DSI), which is complementary to the standard drought
index. The GRACE DSI is global and fully observational, includes uncertainty, characterizes
the bulk TWS, enables drought feature comparison across regions and periods, and includes
anthropogenic contributions, which most models do not include.
Dr. Velicogna also discussed using GRACE to evaluate modeling in the Himalayan
region. She discussed a comparison of GRACE TWS and a defined variable of TWS over
the glacial region. Evaluating the model provides additional confidence in using the model for
future projections. Inter-annual variability is captured well and achieves similar high values of
water mass, but the models tend not to achieve the same low values of water mass, because the
models do not include glacier melt. This evaluation has helped determine how well the model
captures water sources, temporal changes, and the physical processes that control these changes.
She also explored the use of GRACE in a diagnostic way to evaluate and improve model out-
put. Using a water balance model, separating the upper and lower Indus basins, and comparing
the TWS from GRACE with the one from the model generated using different precipitation
forcing, the GRACE data helped evaluate the best model in the upper basin. In the lower basin,
differences were caused by incorrect estimates of human-induced groundwater withdrawal.
The SWOT3 mission was recommended by the 2007 Decadal Survey (see Figure 3.2;
NRC, 2007) as a wide-swath altimetry mission to address key science objectives in hydrology
and oceanography. Dr. Edward Beighley (Northeastern University) discussed the SWOT mis-
sion objectives which include providing a global inventory of surface water bodies and char-
acterizing storage changes and river discharges, as well as characterizing ocean mesoscale and
submesoscale circulation. SWOT is set to
launch in fall of 2022 and will measure riv-
ers wider than roughly 50-100 m in width
and water bodies greater than 100-250 m ×
100-250 m in surface area. Measurements
obtained will include surface area, elevation,
slope of the water surface, and backscatter.
Given that SWOT has a 21-day near-global
orbit cycle, lakes and rivers will be measured
two or more times, depending on latitude
with greater overlap near the poles, during
the 3-week orbital cycle. A novel feature of
SWOT is that it simultaneously measures
surface water extent for lakes and rivers, de-
termines the water elevation of lakes, calcu-
lates the slope of water in rivers, and resolves
with high resolution the elevation of the riv-
er water surface along the imaged path.
3 See https://swot.jpl.nasa.gov. Figure 3.2 Schematic illustrating the SWOT mission.

Source: Biancamaria et al., 2016.
21

Dr. Beighley noted that river discharge is calculated from changes in water surface ele-
vation and width, slope, and some fitting. Changes in area can be observed, but the bathymetry
below will not be observed, so some assumptions are expected to be made regarding bathymetry
and roughness before river discharge is estimated. SWOT will not be able to monitor all rivers
globally, but will systematically measure discharge on rivers 100 m and wider, with a goal to
measure discharge on rivers 50 m and wider. More measurements will be obtained at the poles
than at the equator, though most locations will be measured at least twice every 21 days. The
spacing of the measurements are not uniform, and this may pose challenges for researchers
working with the data. It will likely be possible to fit the streamflow distributions and estimate
the quantiles very well; therefore, it will also likely be possible to obtain a good understanding of
the basics of flow distribution characteristics at various gauges. Baseflow estimates are likely to
be the best SWOT derived discharges for large rivers. Lake and reservoir storage changes plus
potential inflow and outflows are likely to improve understanding of basin water balance, which
can then help improve understanding of the groundwater system.
Airborne geophysical data can be used to map the sub-surface and geological structures
related to groundwater aquifers. Dr. Burke Minsley (USGS) illustrated a grid of borehole data
used to map the base of aquifer elevation in the lower Mississippi River Valley. This system of
~10,000 boreholes (100 m deep) costs approximately $300M and takes years to decades to com-
plete. In comparison, a data set collected with airborne geophysics was obtained in 3 months
with a cost under $1M and can provide a high resolution view of the same information. This is a
huge technological transformation in terms of mapping the sub-surface. In this sense, airborne
geophysics fills a critical scale-gap in Earth observation and mapping sub-surface geology at
the watershed to basin scales (see Figure 3.3). Many different types of commercial airborne
systems are available and typically fly at approximately 30-100 m above ground on the order of
100 km/hr. Some instruments are more effective at detecting specific targets, depending on the
problem being explored. For example, helicopter systems are better in rough terrain and provide
higher resolution, however fixed wing systems are better at covering larger areas in more gentle
terrain. All of these systems rely on the physics of electromagnetic induction and map electrical
resistivity in the sub-surface. In fact, some instruments can make these measurements as deep
as 500 m. At a small additional cost to the electromagnetic survey, additional sensors can be de-
ployed on the same aircraft. Radiometric data (in the upper 20-30 cm) can provide information
about soils and recharge, and magnetic data (at approximately 100 m) can also be detected and
provide information about basement structure.
Using a detailed example of these data in the Lower Mississippi Valley, Dr. Minsley
showed the morphology of the channel systems using shallow depth information, including
abandoned channels, present day meanders, and backswamp deposits of fine grain sediments
and clays. The example also shows the imprint of an ancestral abandoned channel, without a
surface expression, that can be an important pathway for groundwater. The data can be interro-
gated in 3D as well. Interpretive surfaces including the base of the confining layer and the base
of aquifer elevation can then be created and shared with hydrologists and groundwater mod-
elers to help define groundwater structure, calibrate the models, and quantify uncertainty. Less
22

Figure 3.3 Schematic of observation methods on various spatial scales. Utilizing all of these methods is im-
portant, but increased use of airborne geophysics can be used to fill a key observation gap. Source: Minsley
presentation, Slide 4.
than 2 percent of the United States has been studied using these methods, but it is a promising
technique for future work.
To wrap up the panel remarks, Dr. Jim Butler (Kansas Geological Survey) shared an ex-
ample of the insights that can be gleaned from a simple aquifer water balance (see Figure 3.4).
The cross section illustrates an unconfined aquifer with the major components of the aquifer
water budget highlighted with arrows. While it would be ideal to precisely quantify each indi-
vidual component of the budget, this is currently not possible. The question of where research
efforts could be focused to quantify these components depends on the questions that are being
asked. For example, in many parts of the world, it would be desirable to understand questions
associated with irrigated agriculture and the aquifer response to pumping changes, whether
they be mandated by management agencies or a product of climatic trends. To illustrate, Dr.
Butler pointed out that in western Kansas, the goal is to extend the lifespan of irrigated agricul-
ture, which is largely supported by pumping of groundwater, thus pumping needs to be reduced
(there are no surface water resources available). It is important to consider that reductions in
pumping means taking on risk on the part of the irrigator, and thus has economic implications;
high confidence in the research is crucial.
Although, as noted, most components of the water balance cannot currently be quan-
tified with much confidence, it is possible to quantify groundwater pumping with confidence
through the metering of wells. Dr. Butler pointed out that, by grouping together all other
aquifer inflows and outflows into a single term (net inflow), the aquifer water balance equation
can be rewritten as water volume change equals net inflow minus pumping. In the High Plains
aquifer in Kansas, more than 95 percent of the high capacity pumping wells are metered. These
measurements are reported annually and subject to regulatory verification, and Dr. Butler em-
phasized the importance of the verification step. The rewritten water balance equation can then
23

Pumping Well
Transpiration
Recharge
Return Flows
Streambed
Interactions
Inflow Outflow
Bedrock
Interactions
Figure 3.4 Schematic illustrating the various components of an aquifer water balance (water volume
change = aquifer inflows – aquifer outflows). Source: Butler presentation, Slide 1.
be used in the Kansas example to directly calculate net inflow from field data with an approach
developed by Dr. Butler and colleagues. In western Kansas, this net inflow term appears to be
essentially constant in time, at least over the past 20 years (though in central Kansas it varies
a small amount). Thus, the net inflow of the recent past can be used to estimate the impact of
pumping reductions for the near future (i.e., the next few decades). A simplified approach like
this can be a very useful tool for the irrigation community to assess the near-term prospects of
the groundwater resources on which they depend. The problem is that metering with regulatory
oversight is very rare in the world’s heavily stressed aquifers, making it difficult to realize the
power of this approach. However, as discussed in earlier presentations, estimates of water vol-
ume change in the aquifer and pumping can be obtained via various remote sensing approaches.
Armed with this information, net inflow can be calculated, and short term predictions can be
made on aquifer response to management changes and climatic stresses. Thus, there is potential
for the remote sensing community to provide information that can be a valuable asset for man-
agement of groundwater resources.
DISCUSSION
Knowing that researchers have mapped coastal bathymetry using optical remote sensing,
Dr. Shaffiq Somani (World Bank) asked if those same techniques have been used to map rivers
and bathymetry or depth of the water. Dr. Beighley replied that he is unaware of any widespread
use of remote sensing to obtain river channel bathymetry. IceSAT-2 can provide some data
on water at several meters depth, but it depends on the clarity of the water and the sediment
load. Dr. Somani also pointed out that InSAR data have been used to determine water surface
24

elevation, and asked if it can be applied to determine water surface elevation of streams as well.
Dr. Chaussard replied that InSAR has been used to determine water surface elevation in the
Everglades, for example, and that changes in the water can be tracked over time. Panel moder-
ator, Dr. Cathleen Jones ( Jet Propulsion Laboratory) added that emergent vegetation is needed
to map water surface change with InSAR because double bounce scattering is required; it does
not work in open waters, but it works well in swamps.
Dr. Person mentioned a study where saline water discharge can be determined by deduc-
ing flow phenomenon using SkyTEM and asked if mapping saline discharges near the surface
may be useful moving forward. Dr. Minsley noted that SkyTEM is one type of airborne system,
and that there are two primary controls on the electrical properties that are measured: geology
and salinity (a dominant signal that overwhelms the geology signal). This mechanism has been
used in several locations, but the water must be saline. Otherwise, the structures that hold the
water can be seen, but not the water itself.
Dr. Lakshmi asked about the SWOT elevation accuracy of +/− 10 cm, specifically noting
that it may be too coarse. For example, in the peak of summer evaporation, there may be up to
10 mm/day of evaporation. Dr. Beighley noted that this is more about mission requirements
and that researchers are hoping to achieve better accuracies, after spatial analysis of the mea-
surements. Dr. Rodell also asked about the SWOT 10 cm requirement for elevation and noted
that it will give the slope of the river which is a large part of what will be used to estimate the
discharge. He wondered if the calibration of SWOT from one river where discharge measure-
ments are available can be applied to another where discharge observations are not available. Dr.
Beighley noted that there are several discharge algorithms that are using measurements of river
width, elevation, and slope. All are estimating missing bathymetry and roughness, which may
be static or change with discharge or water surface elevation and discharge rate. The product
for discharge does not have a mission requirement in terms of accuracy, but it will be difficult
to estimate. Because there are so many different discharge algorithms, some methods are better
than others in certain types of rivers in terms of how to estimate these missing quantities. There
will not be a discharge product that produces one number, rather the result will be all of the
algorithms and the values they obtain for the missing bathymetry and the roughness to obtain
discharge. Thus, each river will give multiple estimates of discharges depending on the differ-
ent methods. Studies are ongoing to quantify which approaches work better for which types
of hydrodynamic situations, to map all of the various scenarios, and to test the algorithms in
different situations.
Dr. Singha asked about ground-truthing and validation and how to determine that re-
mote sending imaging has validity on the smaller scales. Dr. Beighley noted that there is work
on the calibration and validation program now for SWOT. There are a series of three different
levels of calibration and validation sites globally, and the best sites will be instrumented with
pressure transducers along sections of the river, where measurements will be made in situ during
overpasses and a fast sampling phase at the beginning of the project. A great deal of field work
will happen along sections of unregulated river and that will serve as the gold standard in terms
of calibration and validation. There will also be work at sites that have USGS streamflow gages,
25

and traditional gage sites will be used as well. Dr. Minsley noted that on the geophysics side, it
is difficult to access the sub-surface at the depths investigated, but boreholes are a good starting
point. A number of companies have standards to measure the same locations and ensure that
the systems are measuring the same response over a known location, and this is a requirement at
USGS at the beginning of a survey. Dr. Chaussard noted that for InSAR data, it is a straightfor-
ward comparison with GPS data and leveling surveys that are entirely ground-based. GRACE
is difficult in terms of calibration and validation, because it observes places where there is no
signal. There is work to compare these data with places where independent observations exist,
and to compare with groundwater well observations, but this kind of work has to take place
where the same variables are being measured. Dr. Butler noted that some researchers are trying
to obtain remotely sensed estimates of pumping and compare it to the ground-truth of the
metered data that are available.
An online participant asked about the scale effects of net inflow. GRACE, for example,
operates on such a large scale, it is unclear how net inflow can be interpreted from the data. Dr.
Butler noted possibilities to work on finer scales with GRACE and other data. Dr. Velicogna
noted different approaches to construct the signal in an aquifer; the goal is to get the total
change, close the water budget for a specific drainage basin, and then isolate the components.
Following the second set of breakout group discussions, representatives from each group
presented their thoughts on research frontiers and advances in technology that enhance the
ability to understand groundwater recharge and flow, especially in areas where in situ data are
sparse or inaccessible. The desired frontiers depend on the scale of the problem. Multiple tech-
nology advancements are maybe needed as well as a framework or methodology to integrate all
of the different measurements. As noted earlier, GRACE is a helpful tool to close the water bal-
ance. Observing water storage change at large scales, with multiple rivers at SWOT scale within
the region of study, can help distribute that change and provide a way to downscale GRACE
observations. Two pairs of these satellites could help reduce uncertainty. Other remote sensing
frontiers include evapotranspiration and runoff from SWOT, which also helps close the water
budget; InSAR for calibration and validation; and GPS that can measure surface water changes
and how surface water interfaces with the aquifer. If possible to obtain, drone-based measure-
ments of temperature, evapotranspiration, and NDVI to observe vegetation could be crucial for
future research. Airborne geophysics on a global scale, especially combined with remote sensing
data, could help to link surface- and sub-surface water movement. Access to nuclear magnetic
resonance to measure moisture content can provide a way to estimate recharge. As previously
mentioned, isotopes can be used to characterize systems, and new methods to determine water
quality using remote sensing will also be important.
Several participants mentioned smart adaptation of computational advances, including
geostatistics, 3D kriging4, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other data analysis tech-
niques. Leveraging technology to enhance citizen science as well as the availability of newer and
less costly sensors may be an innovative approach to obtain needed in situ measurements. Com-
4 3D kriging is a geostatistical interpolation method that uses Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) methodolo-
gy to interpolate points in 3D.
26

bining hydrological modeling and remote sensing can lead to advancements in downscaling
large scale data to more useful resolutions, and incorporating climate projections to begin stra-
tegic planning for future management of groundwater recharge methods will likely be crucial.
Participants were also asked about identifying when and where aquifers are being re-
charged and the source of the water, as well as the spatial and temporal scales desired to mean-
ingfully quantify recharge processes. Boreholes provide continuous data, but are limited to spe-
cific small-scale locations; GRACE is useful on the large scale. The scales of recharge depend
on the type of climate and land surface, and the types of recharge (inflow, net, or lateral flow).
Continuous monitoring is desired from in situ measurements for managing seasonal changes
in recharge. If the aquifer is elastic, it may be possible to use InSAR, which could have value
for injections. Inference may be based on topographic, geologic, and ecologic (if water table is
shallow) information. Sources of water may also be inferred from recharge data depending on
the location, or from isotopes, biogeochemical markers, and genetics of microbial communities
in the water. Models will be key to integrate and validate data and to put constraints on the
different components. Precipitation and ET data, better understanding of groundwater and
surface water interactions, and runoff are key data for modeling improvements. Finally, several
participants noted that it will be crucial to understand human processes such as land cover and
land-use change and the implications for recharge. It may be useful to consider soft data types
and interviews with communities where data are sparse or lacks instrumentation.
In thinking about NGA resources that could help make meaningful progress (see Box
3.1), participants noted that it is important to understand what resources might be made avail-
able to the research community. Box 3.1 provides some examples of information that would
help advance scientific research if it were made available by NGA or other organizations.
Finally, the groups were again asked to provide examples of successful collaboration op-
portunities and partnerships. Suggestions included: learning what works and what does not
work for the four transboundary aquifer treaties that currently exist; lessons from interstate
compacts on water sharing and usage in the United States; GEOGLOWS, a multi-government
consortium that shares water sustainability data; the USGS Powell Center; possible ground-
water components of Science for Nature and People Projects (SNAPP); and utilizing specific
locations such as Upper San Pedro, Arizona, which illustrate international collaboration oppor-
tunities to understand groundwater movement between Mexico and the United States.
27

Box 3.1
Examples of resources that could help make meaningful progress in under-

standing of groundwater aquifers.
• Data fusion from multiple data types and sensors

• Research initiatives on transboundary aquifers (both water systems with a lot
of lateral flow as well as surface water and groundwater interaction, and fossil
groundwater systems)
• Supercomputing and cloud computing capabilities
• Opportunities for partnerships and funding toward common goals
• Stewardship of international partnerships that can help the science communi-
ty conduct needed research
• Data storage and accessibility platforms
• NGA University Research Initiatives (NURI) grants
• Techniques for soil complexity or technology to simplify soil complexity
• Access to satellites or geostationary information that is not currently accessi-
ble (for example, would it be possible to image where water is with high reso-
lution images?)
• Methods to derive groundwater characteristics from high resolution data,
even if the data are not publicly available
28

Mitigating Groundwater
Model Uncertainties 4
KEY TOPICS
Frontiers in groundwater modeling were illustrated by Dr. Laura Condon (University

of Arizona). Models can be useful for bridging scaling gaps, especially for large scale deci-
sion-making and covering large scale systems in a way that is relevant for planning. Physically
based models can also be used to diagnose process differences (Meixner et al., 2016). It is
important to get the water balance right, but it is also important to understand the recharge
mechanisms. There are three main approaches to groundwater modeling: lumped parameter
global water balance models; global land surface models; and regional integrated modeling,
which solves 3D variably saturated flow in the sub-surface and is much more computationally
intensive (see Figure 4.1). She highlighted two examples of integrated modeling over large
scales, including ParFlow CONUS and TerrSysMP–Cordex in Europe (Keune et al., 2016).
In particular, TerrSysMP can be used for short term forecasting, coupled with weather models,
to understand how adding groundwater storage into the system changes moisture convergence
and predictions across Europe. Physically based groundwater simulations can be used to better
understand spatial patterns in groundwater and surface water interactions and potential biases
of simplified approaches (Condon and Maxwell, 2015). Simulating groundwater can be used to
interrogate more conceptual models that can then be used to understand water balances. Also,
integrated models can be used as a tool to characterize the role of groundwater in hydrologic
systems. Integrated models can help with residence time distributions, which are important
for understanding flow paths (Maxwell et al., 2016); comparing to land surface behavior to see
contributions to transpiration (Maxwell and Condon, 2016); and the role of storage changes in
surface water partitioning (Condon and Maxwell, 2017).
There are limitations associated with modeling including challenges with large amounts
of data. Dr. Condon noted that there is an increase in available sub-surface data, but this is not
necessarily a large advancement in terms of the number of in situ observations; even with better
gridded data sets to build the models, it is still important to consider the types of data used.
Knowledge regarding long-term storage trends and global models tend to underestimate the
trends is still not clear, and even with GRACE for comparisons, uncertainty exists about what
the storage trends will be in the future and the associated low frequency variability. As men-
tioned previously, human systems are still lacking in most physically based modeling platforms
29

Lumped Parameter Land Surface Model Integrated Model

Model
Physical Complexity
Computational Demand
Figure 4.1 Schematic of the three major approaches to groundwater modeling. Source: Condon presentation,
Slide 4.
even though they are crucial (Abbott et al., 2019). It is important to note that variability in the
sub-surface can be largely driven by human behavior.
Dr. Stacey Archfield (USGS) shared information about a large congressionally man-
dated project at USGS to model the Mississippi alluvial plain, a human-dominated aquifer. It
is important to consider how to properly constrain groundwater modeling with surface water
in data-sparse regions and complex hydrogeology. She also discussed the relationship between
groundwater depletion and trends in low flows and low flow extremes. The confounding effects
of different aspects that affect the groundwater depletion makes it difficult to find strong cor-
relations between low stream flows for the principle aquifers and groundwater depletion. Other
factors like precipitation are coming into play across the United States, and this confounds the
effects of how streamflow depletion relates to low flow extremes. She also mentioned recent
work to transfer information from gaged to ungaged locations and how that might relate to
groundwater, especially where wells are monitored at high temporal resolution. This is particu-
larly true for groundwater and surface water coupled stream gauges.
Dr. JT Reager ( Jet Propulsion Laboratory) noted that recent advancements in remote
sensing and new satellite missions have provided observations of almost every aspect of the
terrestrial water cycle (see Figure 4.2). The next challenge is how to add integrated value to all
of these measurements in unison. The recent decadal survey (NASEM, 2018) highlighted some
major questions in the field of hydrology and suggestions for future observing priorities. In that
context, it is important to map information gaps between the missions that exist and proposed
future missions. In the field of groundwater, for instance, information from in situ measure-
30

MITIGATING GROUNDWATER MODEL UNCERTAINTIES
FRESHWATER STORAGE CLOUDS

IN ICE AND SNOW CloudSat, MODIS
Airborne Snow Observatory
(ASO)
WATER VAPOR
PRECIPITATION AIRS, MLS, GPS-RO
GPM Tempest (2017)
RainCube (2017)
EVAPORATION
RIVERS & LAKES SMAP/Aquarius
SWOT (2020) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
ECOSTRESS (2017)
WATER STORAGE
IN OCEANS
Jason Series, SWOT (2020)
GROUND-WATER SOIL MOISTURE
GRACE, GRACE-FO (2017) SMAP
Figure 4.2 Examples of NASA missions that provide information on several parts of the water cycle. Note
that this figure is not a comprehensive representation of all NASA capabilities for measuring various com-
ponents of the water cycle, but illustrates some key missions. Source: Reager presentation, Slide 1.
ments, airborne EM techniques, InSAR missions, and GRACE missions all provide insights at
different spatiotemporal resolutions and coverage. Numerical modeling and data assimilation,
with appropriate uncertainty quantification, is a contextual framework in which researchers can
incorporate a observations, to provide quantified meaning and value to new observations.
Dr. Reager considered how to understand the uncertainty of a system as opposed to the
uncertainty of a measurement. Typically, researchers consider uncertainty of a measurement
(i.e., instrument error) and the forward propagation of uncertainty for a single variable. How-
ever, it may be as important to consider how uncertainty propagates across processes and how
a new measurement decreases the general domain uncertainty. If uncertainty of the modeling
system can be estimated well and new measurements are added with some uncertainty, the total
“domain uncertainty” can be quantified and the effects on other variables can be seen. Thus, a
goal for modeling activities, through the combination of modeling and observations, is contex-
tualizing and combining unique pieces of information but doing so with proper uncertainty
quantification. This enables the ability to understand how much uncertainty remains in a system
and, therefore, where the gaps in information are and where to target future observations. In
practice, the assimilation algorithm generates a “posterior uncertainty” from a “model prior”
then updates with both the observation and the uncertainty of the observation. The result is a
best estimate of the state, as well as a best estimate of the uncertainty on the state.
31

DISCUSSION
Dr. Elizabeth Eide (National Academies) raised a question regarding integrated model-
ing and asked about the ideal time scales of applicability of the modeling. Current understand-
ing of surface water and the timescale for water flowing through shallow groundwater systems
is different than deep groundwater systems. Given that seasonal to sub-seasonal modeling is
particularly challenging, if longer term climate models are combined with groundwater model-
ing, it is important to know the applicability of the time scale for the results of the model and
where there may be challenges for bringing modeling results into time scales that have appli-
cability for decision-making. Dr. Condon replied that there are several important timescales
to consider. For weather timescale forecasting, it is important to have the antecedent moisture
condition correct and there are benefits to having the deeper sub-surface included. This may
be easiest to achieve in many ways because data assimilation can be done. Incorporating better
storage terms into the global models for decadal scale forecasts will be important and that is
where there has been recent work using GRACE to show longer term storage trends that may
be missed in the global models. There is much to gain from incorporating the larger storage
term, but whether this is done with integrated modeling as opposed to some other more sim-
plified approach that is incorporated into the land surface models is not necessarily clear. It may
be somewhere in between the two. Integrated models can do a better job of understanding how
the more simplified storage terms will behave.
Dr. Rodell raised concerns about recent work to test models that were not meant to
simulate trends. If the goal is to better simulate trends, it would be useful to focus on that
specifically without expecting the models to be able to do this well, now. GRACE information
can be used as a target for trends. Dr. Condon agreed and noted that researchers would like to
start applying models in this way and the recent research suggests that more work needs to be
done. She also agreed that GRACE data can provide trends during the time periods for which
observations exist, but the period of record does not necessarily represents the variability of the
system. Using that period of record alone to test whether low frequency variability in storage
dynamics is correct requires a great deal of confidence in the models. Dr. Rodell noted that
development of better models with this specific purpose in mind will be needed if the goal is to
understand the longer term variability. Inputs (such as precipitation) will also play a large role
in developing accurate models.
In a more traditional groundwater modeling framework, Dr. Rajaram noted that the
use of models for groundwater management has historically been an approach to parameter
estimation and involved some sense of what the in situ data really meant. For data assimilation,
it is desirable to have both model prediction and prediction uncertainty as well as measure-
ments with less uncertainty overall in order to increase understanding. With remote sensing
based observations that required processing down to an inferred quantity, there is a state of
the art in terms of using large scale remote sensed observations in data assimilation or classi-
cal groundwater modeling approaches. Dr. Reager noted that there is a project to work with
California on critical groundwater management regions, where compliance with sustainable
levels of groundwater withdrawals need to be demonstrated by 2022. This includes mitigation
32

of subsidence, which is associated with unsustainable groundwater withdrawals. The project will
use the Central Valley hydrological model with a routine in the model to simulate subsidence.
Using observations at coarse scale, incorporating well observations where available, and InSAR
observations of subsidence, the model is calibrated for use in different regions. Dr. Condon not-
ed that there may be a disconnect in the data sets and the methods that are used for large scale
models and for regional and smaller scale models. There are useful groundwater models that are
built on watershed scales in collaboration with the stakeholders in the specific areas that will be
using the information. There is an opportunity to facilitate better communication between all
of the models that have already been built on small scales and those on large scales in heavily
studied regions. Dr. Archfield added that the surface water modeling community is struggling
with this as well. Different modeling communities are all approaching scales that are needed for
management activities, and it may be beneficial to seek common areas that could be solved by
these different communities working together to take advantage of efficiencies.
Dr. Nguy-Robertson asked if the roadblock for data assimilation involves a lack of data
itself or a lack of meta-data to help understand what is available and the adequacy of the data
for use in the models. Dr. Condon mentioned that there may not be roadblocks regarding data
availability or methods for data assimilation; rather, the limiting factor with respect to ground-
water recharge and flow may be the lack of data sets to assimilate.
Dr. Lakshmi asked about depth to water table, the availability of the information, and
how it can be obtained globally. Dr. Archfield noted that USGS collects these data in 15 minute
intervals in groundwater wells throughout the United States; however, she noted, they have not
been extrapolated between the wells on a continental scale. There are also areas where ground-
water data, surface water data, and stream gage data are being collected in the same locations,
but the data are not analyzed together with great frequency. It is important to ensure that the
data being collected are being analyzed and used, she concluded. Dr. Condon also noted the
work being done on a global groundwater map which is the gold standard in terms of collecting
all global water table depth observations and combining them together in a simple model. All
of the other large-scale models being developed are compared to this map, even though the lo-
cations of the data are biased toward areas that have many wells in use. Dr. Archfield added that
data gaps and their implications for new data collection activities are important considerations,
particularly in areas of challenging hydrogeology where the existing information may be sparse.
Dr. Lall asked if, for the United States, it would be possible and worthwhile to assemble
all of the well data and hydrostratigraphy information—the “vertical” information sets—to-
gether with models at the continental scale. Dr. Condon replied that it would be beneficial to
pull together this information, particularly the hydrostratigraphy, which is a limiting factor in
terms of mapping where alluvial aquifers exist and understanding the depth to confining units.
This kind of compilation could be important to constrain the configuration of groundwater
aquifers over large scales. Dr. Minsley replied that one of the challenges is missing the nonlinear
features in the sub-surface. A small window in the confining layer that promotes flow through
it might be missed with even a thousand wells, and this illustrates the value of providing high
resolution geophysics to identify the geometry of the aquifer system to reduce uncertainties in
33

making predictions. He provided the caveat that it depends on the question being asked and
the scale of interest as well; in some cases the hydrostratigraphy may not matter, for example. It
is nearly impossible to produce models that can do everything, because of the complexity of the
systems. Thus, uncertainties can be defined around specific management questions.
Dr. Lall pointed out that the discussions did not delve into the types of aquifers, and he
wondered about many critical areas around the world and whether there is adequate represen-
tation of the issues associated with different types of aquifers. Dr. Condon replied that the in-
tegrated modeling work is primarily focused on shallow groundwater and understanding what
that means for land-surface connections and connecting from the atmosphere down. A separate
set of questions exists for deep aquifers, where the land surface likely does not need to be cou-
pled for the time scales of interest. The tools and the modeling for these systems are all likely
to be somewhat different, and groundwater hydrologists have to work in these systems as well.
During the third set of breakout group discussions, participants reflected on the model-
ing frontiers discussed in the panel and identified the most important modeling uncertainties.
Input, data and physical and conceptual models and their outputs have many types of uncer-
tainties which translate to eventual use of the outputs by end users. For example, pumping data
are not available on the timescales at which the models are run, and this is applicable for man-
agement questions and human interactions. Some participants suggested that subsidence from
remote sensing could be integrated into the models as a proxy for pumping. Others mentioned
uncertainty in storage capacity of the aquifer and quality of the water (e.g., saline versus fresh,
geogenic and anthropogenic contaminants), hydrostratigraphy for deep aquifers, sub-surface
properties and the order of magnitude of their variability. There are also uncertainties associ-
ated with time scales (seasons, events, etc.), and spatial and temporal scales are often driven by
management questions. In this sense, early stakeholder involvement in developing the questions
that groundwater modelers are trying to answer can help ensure that the right model is devel-
oped for the desired temporal and spatial scale.
Joint groundwater and surface water modeling could also be a significant step forward
for water managers, as well as an increased understanding of the resiliency of unconventional
aquifers. As previously noted, human elements and behaviors, including policy and governance
issues, groundwater regulation, and legal frameworks are important to understand. Integrating
the human scale and socioeconomic issues into the models can assist decision-makers. Under-
standing how to parameterize the human behavior and decision-making may provide opportu-
nities to work with social scientists and to facilitate interdisciplinary communication.
The groups also explored the types of data that could be most useful in minimizing
model uncertainties. Importantly, obtaining more of the data that already exist and maximizing
these existing data sets will be crucial, particularly for data assimilation. As previously noted by
panelists, large-scale AEM surveys and geophysical data can provide improved spatial repre-
sentation of aquifers, and GRACE can be used as input data for models as well as evaluation of
the modeling in a diagnostic way, thereby identifying uncertainties and improving parameter-
ization. Subsurface hydrologic properties and water properties such as quality, salinity, and age
are all important, but the raw data are not sufficient; confidence intervals, synthesis, analysis are
desired to be sure that the data can be adequately integrated.
34

Breakout participants reiterated that new data science techniques and computational
tools such as artificial intelligence can be used to refine modeling capabilities. In terms of model
outputs, distribution for reuse, metadata and format are crucial components, and policies and
agencies have a role to play in this type of coordination to maximize reuse of the data. Model
parameters from academia are more readily available, but this is not necessarily the case for
models developed by consultants, agencies, and governments. It would be useful to have data
that help to understand how developed versus less developed countries manage aquifers. Hu-
man data may be difficult to obtain (e.g., unemployment data in cities and crop forecasting), but
there are opportunities to use remote sensing. In fact, insights from data in the United States
can help develop methodology to deal with sparsity of data sets in other parts of the world.
Resources that would be particularly useful to improve groundwater modeling include:
high spatial resolution satellite imagery to identify water infrastructure and groundwater use
for irrigation (in particular, geostationary satellite imagery to obtain high temporal resolution);
soft data to inform the human relationship with groundwater (e.g., failing crops, electricity
usage, and deep wells); a host for model output repository capacities for large data sets and de-
cision-aid tools to inform policy makers and assist local water planners; tools for developing and
processing data; water quality information; and information on extreme events and flooding as
well as potential effects on wells, contaminants, livestock, coastal processes, and storm surges.
Dr. Nguy-Robertson noted mechanisms through which researchers can utilize unclassified data
through NGA, including participation in cooperative research and development agreements
(CRADAs) between the National Geospaitial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and academic sci-
entists as well as commercial companies. The NURI program mentioned previously is another
pathway to obtain research funding and potentially gain access to relevant data. Understanding
the resources and opportunities that are available will help researchers write focused proposals
to advance understanding.
In terms of collaboration opportunities, many participants suggested a potential USGS,
NGA, NASA, and university partnership to process information, conduct model simulation,
and utilize machine learning to maximize analysis and understanding. Although this would
likely be U.S.-centric at first, this kind of interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration could
serve as an analog for missing data in other regions of the world. Interdisciplinary efforts such
as the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the National
Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), and EarthScope can provide guiding ex-
amples. A key message is that stakeholder participation would be most beneficial at the begin-
ning of the discussion, and this can help enhance interactions between social science and geo-
scientists. A two-way conversation could help ensure that the tools and modeling are accessible
to a wide variety of stakeholders.
35


Changes in Water Management

Strategies Over Time 5
KEY TOPICS
Assessments of groundwater microbial quality can strengthen future development of

sensors. Dr. Helen Nguyen (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) shared information
about drinking water disease outbreaks during 2013-2014 that led to significant health effects.
Approximately one-third of the outbreaks are related to groundwater, and one-third are related
to surface water, and the final third is related to drinking water distribution systems. Most of
the top causes of outbreaks in wells are microbial. A recent review of microbial pathogens in
groundwater (Bradford and Harvey, 2017) includes information largely from the United States
because it is the easiest data to obtain. Data from less developed countries would likely in-
crease understanding significantly. Microbes, especially viruses, are not readily removed through
sub-surface flow and microbes are highly mobile in the sub-surface environment. The specific
characteristics of microbes prevent their attachment to the sand surface, allowing them to travel
far within the sub-surface (Gutierrez and Nguyen, 2013; Liu et al., 2010). To understand water
quality in rural environments, Dr. Nguyen discussed an example of the distribution of septic
systems in the United States, which are usually used together with private wells (Lusk et al.,
2017). Importantly, regions with high septic use are also prone to flooding (see Figure 5.1), and
may also include infrastructure damage in areas where sampling occurs. The National Ground
Water Association estimated that, in 2018, about 750,000 private wells were affected by hurri-
canes and flooding.1
Traditionally, the scope of remote sensing has been to determine changes in groundwater
quantity, as pointed out by Dr. Nguyen. However, groundwater quality and the presence of mi-
crobial and chemical contaminants will be a serious challenge moving forward, especially given
the uncertainty associated with extreme events and anthropogenic changes. It may be useful for
future groundwater management efforts to monitor both quantity and quality, and a combina-
tion of in situ measurements, knowledge of contaminant fate and transport, together with mod-
eling of groundwater integrated with surface water could be needed. She also shared thoughts
on developing lidar or sensor network systems to aid management of groundwater over time,
and a potential national or global database on pathogens, antibiotic resistance gene, genome
sequencing, and links to hydrology. Understanding the connections between land use, civil and
1 See https://wellowner.org/hurricane-resources.
37

Figure 5.1 Map of flood and high flow conditions in the United States on June 19, 2019. Sources: USGS and
NOAA, WaterWatch.
agricultural infrastructure, and microbial quality of groundwater under extreme conditions will
be crucial. A new institutional model for groundwater governance could help protect the quality
as well as the quantity, she said.
Reflecting on the previous discussions, Dr. Michael Cosh (USDA) called participants
attention back to the National Ground-Water Monitoring Network, specifically to consider
how much more data may be needed, and how to ensure that newly collected data are “good”
data in the context of decision-making. He pointed out that the United States is the most
heavily monitored country in the International Soil Moisture Network, with an ongoing effort
to create a database of the in situ soil moisture data in the United States. Some states have
much more complete coverage than other states, which is the result of independently run state
networks that must fund themselves, often by charging for data. With such a data collection
model, contracts have to be negotiated to share data that can help inform decisions regarding
drought estimation. Some of these issues can likely be solved through lessons learned from the
groundwater community.
Dr. Cosh highlighted the cooperative observer program at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the approximately 4,000 associated temperature
equipment sites, made possible by citizens collecting and sharing data. This helps to create a
climate record over time, and he asked participants to consider the possibility of scaling these
38

CHANGES IN WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OVER TIME
efforts up to approximately 10,000 sites with cooperators sending water use or individual well
data. Such an approach could be an avenue to collect additional groundwater data in a man-
ageable and cost-effective way. Although this kind of effort would not include the most highly
calibrated equipment, the data collected still have the potential to help inform decisions.
As noted previously, irrigation is the main source of groundwater withdrawal in the
United States, followed by public water supply. Dr. Cosh challenged attendees to consider ef-
ficiencies that can be pursued and conservation efforts that could be targeted. The locations of
irrigated land change over time, typically out of places that are water-challenged and into places
with more readily available water. Beyond the well-known crops that require irrigation, a large
amount of turf grass is irrigated in the United States, and this use of water is not being tracked
with agriculture use. Innovative ways of monitoring (e.g., tracking well data, cooperative pro-
grams, monitoring social media and changing food usage at restaurants, etc.) may be needed to
help manage these water resources. Unexpected new sources of information may be available to
use for research and decision-making purposes.
Following on the previous discussion on trends in water use, Dr. Sankar Arumugam
(North Carolina State University) highlighted irrigation water use across the United States and
reiterated the importance of understanding the human aspects of water use. He also discussed
a USGS report that highlights data from water science centers in several states and illustrates
key sources of uncertainty (acreage irrigated, application efficiency, and heterogeneity in irriga-
tion methods) (Dickens et al., 2011). The report also provides guidance and recommendations
to reduce the uncertainty in the data. Recent work compares surface water and groundwater
irrigation withdrawals which indicate that surface water withdrawals in the West have been
decreasing while groundwater withdrawals have generally increased (Das et al., 2018). This
kind of information can provide useful information for water use management. No public data
are available on area irrigated by surface water and groundwater separately. Irrigation efficiency
has changed over time as well, partly due to increases in area irrigated under drip and sprinkler
irrigation systems. Dr. Arumugam highlighted another example of rich data on water use in
China, where water use data are collected each year. In the North China Plain, the withdrawal
is significant due to pumping and groundwater extraction.
Dr. Arumugam noted that, in trying to incorporate human and socioeconomic aspects
into the analysis, some level of surrogates and approximation will be needed to capture the key
variables. Gaps in national water data include lack of continuous groundwater records; poor wa-
ter quality information; infrequent water use and demand (only available every 5 years); lack of
inflows, releases, and water supply plans for national dams; and lack of information on inter-ba-
sin transfer. Collection of data on all of the above aspects are necessary to understand groundwa-
ter as both surface water and groundwater are heavily interconnected. Data issues and associated
uncertainties exist in all aspects, including, for example, water use and demand, remote sensing,
in situ data, and precipitation in hilly regions. Similar uncertainty issues also exist in models as
well, namely process representation and coupling. Uncertainties in data and modeling will exist
in all forms of data, Dr. Arumugam said, but understanding how these uncertainties translate
to uncertainties in decision making is also required. Data fusion (i.e., combining in situ, remote
39

sensing, and groundwater management data) may help reduce the uncertainty in decision-mak-
ing, taking care to address the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
DISCUSSION
Dr. Ali Akanda (University of Rhode Island) noted that researchers appear to monitor
primarily in areas of extensive groundwater withdrawal. Dr. Cosh pointed out that the data are
typically collected by aquifer, and so high densities of observations may exist for specific aquifers
where funding was obtained to invest in wells or where a state-level interest exists for the data.
Research methods occasionally have to be adapted to accommodate the data that are available.
Dr. Rajaram asked about in situ microbial sensors that are being developed. Dr. Nguyen
noted that the methods used depend on the variable of interest. Genome sequencing, for exam-
ple, can be a very powerful tool for tracking foodborne outbreaks and other public health issues,
but could also provide useful information for groundwater. On the other hand, if the goal is to
determine what type of bacteria or pathogen may be present, innovative new sensors are being
developed to enable this work in the field.
Dr. Somani asked about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water quality as well as
aquifer storage and recovery. Dr. Cosh explained that hydraulic fracturing can be thought of as
a “highway in the soil.” It is a fracture that shortens residency times, and many times the ground
is used as a filter. This process bypasses the natural ground filter. Dr. Rajaram added that most
fracking is occurring at great depths that will likely not affect groundwater aquifers directly,
but the disposal of water that is brought up after these operations needs to be handled near the
surface in holding ponds which may pose some risk of contamination. Dr. Person replied that
any contamination in Pennsylvania has been related to poorly installed wells, rather than the
hydraulic fracturing itself.
Dr. Akanda wondered if the information on movement of rotavirus through ground-
water is based on United States groundwater data, and if any studies exist in the developing
world on this issue. Dr. Nguyen noted that rotavirus is located everywhere, but it strikes other
countries much harder than the United States. The study that she mentioned earlier also re-
vealed that rotavirus is able to mutate, and some animal rotavirus is much more persistent in the
environment compared to human rotavirus. This can produce hybrid characteristics between the
two, which is important to understand the zoonotic route of the infections.
Dr. Gou raised the issue of water use efficiency and water consumption, and noted that
even with the same amount of water withdrawal, the consumption from various irrigation
methods will be different and thus will change the impacts on the whole water cycle, including
infiltration and ET. Traditional water resources management is focused mainly on water with-
drawal rather than water consumption, but perhaps emerging studies will need to shift that
focus to the impacts of the changes in irrigation method on water supply. Dr. Arumugam agreed
that the community is starting to shift focus in this way, but will require access to robust water
use data on long time scales.
In the final breakout session, participants discussed steps that may need to be taken to
manage groundwater in areas of severe depletion. The impacts of groundwater depletion are
40

CHANGES IN WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OVER TIME
location-dependent, and may include migration in some cases. In general, better monitoring is
needed, together with a focus on reducing water usage, reusing water, recycling wastewater, and
other management techniques. Understanding human behavior and the context in which deci-
sions are made can potentially help in avoiding inadvertent incentives to increase water usage
(i.e., Jevons paradox2). Examples of case studies with high productivity and low water usage can
shed some light on the benefits of focusing on technology and engineering solutions as well as
seeking intelligent ways to recharge aquifers and look for high permeability geologic structures
that connect to aquifers. In addition, rebuilding infrastructure in a sustainable way using in-
tegrated storm water management, decreasing impervious surfaces, and increasing infiltration
can provide paths forward. One area of interest noted by participants was the feasibility of a
database or way of mapping potential groundwater-related conflicts around the world. This may
help increase understanding of the importance of this issue with the public and user community,
especially if geopolitical water risk can be linked to everyday lives.
Remote sensing technologies and modeling capabilities may be useful to identify and
track water management approaches. Participants highlighted the ability of InSAR to detect
subsidence, but acknowledged that subsidence does not always have a consistent relationship
with groundwater depletion (i.e., land subsidence can be caused by a number of other sources
such as compaction, organic oxidation, or latent compaction). Optical and radar remote sensing
methods can be used to understand recharge, and innovations like citizen science as well as cell
phone applications can be used to track (and raise awareness of ) water use and conservation.
Patterns of change in soil moisture can also be used to infer information about water manage-
ment approaches. For example, soil moisture will decline over the growing season, if irrigation
occurs normally (avoiding too much irrigation). Other technologies may include high resolu-
tion thermal data, grid networks of sensors, high accuracy sensors, and bundling of sensors with
pump manufacturers.
Participants discussed NGA resources in the context of water management strategies
and noted that NGA generates data and serves as a repository for data. Data are occasionally
purchased from commercial satellites, and some data sets are gathered from private sources but
may have limitations for their use. NGA could be particularly helpful in translating science
to non-specialists and policy-makers, and placing these issues in the broader context of the
food-water-energy nexus. Some participants suggested that NGA may wish to consider pro-
ducing educational resources, and together with other agencies, states, and local governments,
think about water policies, water reuse activities, and investments that have already been made.
International agreements and collaborative work with international scientists to produce
high quality data products could be an important future consideration. Similarly, cross-agency
and transboundary efforts are desired as well. As an example of these collaborative scientific
efforts, some participants suggested using a land use model based on SWOT to predict how
land cover will affect groundwater recharge.
2 The Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with
which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that
resource rises due to increasing demand.
41


Final Thoughts
6
In his closing remarks, Dr. Nguy-Robertson noted that identifying the data opportuni-
ties that NGA offers could be helpful to ensure that scientists and other potential partners are
aware of available resources. He also noted the significant workshop discussions on incorpo-
rating social sciences information into groundwater research. NGA has a partnership with the
State Department as part of the World-Wide Human Geography Data Working Group that
holds workshops to bring in anthropogeographers and social scientists together with different
communities of practice. This may be an opportunity to engage on human aspects of ground-
water research.
Planning Committee Chair, Dr. Lakshmi, highlighted a few key themes from the work-
shop. One point raised several times is the lack of global irrigation data. To obtain accurate
water balances, irrigation information is crucial. Human factors such as industrial use (and the
reporting of water use), drinking water, and decision-making also have significant roles to play,
though it can be difficult to obtain data on human behavior and incorporate that information
into the modeling. Understanding model parameters is key and integration of different ob-
servations (remote sensing, in situ data, modeling, and analysis) will be crucial as well. Many
participants noted the importance of hydrostratigraphy for modeling, and advanced tools like
sub-surface geophysics can be used to improve these processes.
Several participants noted that there may be a mismatch of scales, and groundwater re-
charge is often estimated with limited direct observations. Models incorporate the observations,
and satellite remote sensing can greatly improve those observations. There is a lot of uncertainty,
but statistical and observational tools can help reduce that uncertainty.
The quality of data and access to data continue to be an issue. If NGA can facilitate
this access, it would greatly benefit scientific investigations. Water quality data are important
together with data on water quantity. A common global data base (moving beyond the eight
countries that contribute now) could be facilitated by multiple agencies. Access to technologies
such as high performance computing could help in the era of seeking high spatial resolution.
As noted in the beginning of the workshop by Dr. Michael, solving the major water chal-
lenges of the future will likely require large in situ and remotely sensed data sets, transparency
in data collection and quality, and timely access to the data. Partnerships with other institutions
and agencies, particularly NGA, could facilitate access to new resources and technologies. Le-
veraging international collaborations can also help solve scientific and societal problems.
43


References
Abbott, B. W., Bishop, K., Zarnetske, J. P., Minaudo, C., Chapin, F. S., Krause, S., Pinay,
G. (2019). Human domination of the global water cycle absent from depictions and
perceptions. Nature Geoscience, 12(7), 533-540. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0374-y.
Biancamaria, S., Lettenmaier, D. P., & Pavelsky, T. M. (2016). The SWOT mission and its
capabilities for land hydrology. Surveys in Geophysics, 37(2), 307-337. doi:10.1007/s10712-
015-9346-y.
Bradford, S. A., & Harvey, R. W. (2017). Future research needs involving pathogens in
groundwater. Hydrogeology Journal, 25(4), 931-938. doi:10.1007/s10040-016-1501-0.
Carroll, R. W. H., Deems, J. S., Niswonger, R., Schumer, R., & Williams, K. H. (2019). The
importance of interflow to groundwater recharge in a snowmelt-dominated headwater
basin. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(11), 5899-5908. doi:10.1029/2019gl082447.
Condon, L. E., & Maxwell, R. M. (2015). Evaluating the relationship between topography
and groundwater using outputs from a continental-scale integrated hydrology model.
Water Resources Research, 51(8), 6602-6621. doi:10.1002/2014WR016774.
Condon, L. E., & Maxwell, R. M. (2017). Systematic shifts in Budyko relationships caused
by groundwater storage changes. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(2), 1117-1135.
doi:10.5194/hess-21-1117-2017.
Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T., & Puma, M. J. (2017). Groundwater depletion embedded in
international food trade. Nature, 543, 700. doi:10.1038/nature21403.
Das, P., Patskoski, J., & Sankarasubramanian, A. (2018). Modeling the irrigation withdrawals
over the coterminous US using a hierarchical modeling approach. Water Resources
Research, 54. doi:10.1029/2017WR021723.
Erban, L. E., Gorelick, S. M., Zebker, H. A., & Fendorf, S. (2013). Release of arsenic to deep
groundwater in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, linked to pumping-induced land subsidence.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(34), 13751-13756. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1300503110.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2017). Water for
Sustainable Food and Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7959e.pdf.
45

Geruo, A., Velicogna, I., Kimball, J. S., Du, J., Kim, Y., Colliander, A., & Njoku, E. (2017).
Satellite-observed changes in vegetation sensitivities to surface soil moisture and total
water storage variations since the 2011 Texas drought. Environmental Research Letters,
12(5), 054006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6965.
Gustafson, C., Key, K., & Evans, R. L. (2019). Aquifer systems extending far offshore on the
U.S. Atlantic margin. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 8709. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44611-7.
Gutierrez, L., & Nguyen, T. H. (2013). Interactions between rotavirus and natural organic
matter isolates with different physicochemical characteristics. Langmuir, 29(47),
14460-14468. doi:10.1021/la402893b.
Hartley, K., Tortajada, C., & Biswas, A. (2017). Confronting Global Security in an Era
of Water Instabilities. Foreign Policy Journal. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.
com/2017/02/03/confronting-global-security-in-an-era-of-water-instabilities.
Keune, J., Gasper, F., Goergen, K., Hense, A., Shrestha, P., Sulis, M., & Kollet, S. (2016).
Studying the influence of groundwater representations on land surface-atmosphere
feedbacks during the European heat wave in 2003. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 121(22), 13,301-313,325. doi:10.1002/2016JD025426.
Khan, M. R., Voss, C. I., Yu, W., & Michael, H. A. (2014). Water resources management in
the Ganges Basin: A comparison of three strategies for conjunctive use of groundwater
and surface water, Water Resources Management, 28, 1235-1250. doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-
0537-y.
Khan, M. R., Koneshloo, M., Knappett, P. S. K., Ahmed, K. M., Bostick, B.C., Mailloux, B. J.,
Zahid, A., Harvey, C. F., van Geen, A., & Michael, H. A. (2016). Mega-city pumping
and preferential flow threaten groundwater quality. Nature Communications, 7:12833. doi:
10.1038/ncomms12833.
Kreamer, D. K. (2012). The past, present, and future of water conflict and international
security. Journal of Contemporary Water Research Education, 149(1), 87-95.
Li, B., Rodell, M., & Famiglietti, J. S. (2015). Groundwater variability across temporal and
spatial scales in the central and northeastern. U.S. Journal of Hydrology, 525, 769-780.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.033.
Liu, Y., Kuhlenschmidt, M. S., Kuhlenschmidt, T. B., & Nguyen, T. H. (2010). Composition
and conformation of cryptosporidium parvum oocyst wall surface macromolecules and
their effect on adhesion kinetics of oocysts on quartz surface. Biomacromolecules, 11(8),
2109-2115. doi:10.1021/bm100477j.
Lusk, M. G., Toor, G. S., Yang, Y.-Y., Mechtensimer, S., De, M., & Obreza, T. A. (2017). A
review of the fate and transport of nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and trace organic
chemicals in septic systems. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology,
47(7), 455-541. doi:10.1080/10643389.2017.1327787.
Maupin, M. A., Kenny, J. F., Hutson, S. S., Lovelace, J. K., Barber, N. L., & Linsey, K. S.
(2014). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1405, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1405.
Maxwell, R. M., & Condon, L. E. (2016). Connections between groundwater flow and
transpiration partitioning. Science, 353(6297), 377-380. doi:10.1126/science.aaf7891.
46

REFERENCES
Maxwell, R. M., Condon, L. E., Kollet, S. J., Maher, K., Haggerty, R., & Forrester, M. M.
(2016). The imprint of climate and geology on the residence times of groundwater.
Geophysical Research Letters, 43(2), 701-708. doi:10.1002/2015GL066916.
Meixner, T., Manning, A. H., Stonestrom, D. A., Allen, D. M., Ajami, H., Blasch, K. W.,
& Walvoord, M. A. (2016). Implications of projected climate change for groundwater
recharge in the western United States. Journal of Hydrology, 534, 124-138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.027.
Michael, H. A., & Voss, C. I. (2008). Evaluation of the sustainability of deep groundwater
as an arsenic-safe resource in the Bengal Basin. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 105(25), 8531-8536. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710477105.
Miller, M. P., Buto, S. G., Susong, D. D., & Rumsey, C. A. (2016). The importance of baseflow
in sustaining surface water flow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Water Resources
Research, 52(5), 3547-3562. doi:10.1002/2015wr017963.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). (2018). Thriving on
Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24938.
NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National
Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11820.
Person, M., Phillips, F., Kelley, S., Timmons, S., Pepin, J., Blom, L., Haar, K., & Murray, M.
(2013). Assessment of the Sustainability of Geothermal Development within the Truth or
Consequences Hot-Springs District, New Mexico.
Post, V. E. A., Groen, J., Kooi, H., Person, M., Ge, S., & Edmunds, W. M. (2013). Offshore
fresh groundwater reserves as a global phenomenon. Nature, 504, 71. doi:10.1038/
nature12858.
Russo, T., & Lall, U. (2017). Depletion and response of deep groundwater to climate-induced
pumping variability. Nature Geoscience, 10. doi:10.1038/ngeo2883.
Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J. M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P., & Portmann, F. T.
(2010). Groundwater use for irrigation—a global inventory. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 14(10), 1863-1880. doi:10.5194/hess-14-1863-2010.
Smith, R., Knight, R., & Fendorf, S. (2018). Overpumping leads to California groundwater
arsenic threat. Nature Communications, 9(1), 2089. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04475-3.
Wada, Y., van Beek, L. P. H., van Kempen, C. M., Reckman, J. W. T. M., Vasak, S., &
Bierkens, M. F. P. (2010). Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophysical Research
Letters, 37(20). doi:10.1029/2010gl044571.
Werner, A. D., Zhang, Xue, L., Smerdon, B. D., Xianghu, L., Zhu, X., Yu, L., & Li, L. (2013).
An initial inventory and indexation of groundwater mega-depletion cases. Water Resources
Management, 27(2), 507-533. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0199-6.
World Bank. (2016). A Water-Secure World for All. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Retrieved from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/980511475504050046/Water-GP-
Brochure-Final-Oct01-2016-web.pdf.
WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme). 2014. The United Nations World Water
Development Report 2014: Water and Energy. Paris, France: UNESCO.
47


Statement of Task
A
An ad hoc planning committee appointed by the National Academies of Sciences, En-
gineering, and Medicine will organize a workshop to examine research and practice in mon-
itoring and modeling regional groundwater recharge and flow in various regions of the globe
with an emphasis on the use of remotely sensed data. Recognition of quantitative changes in
(1) demand for groundwater for agricultural, industrial, municipal, and domestic needs; (2)
frequency and duration of dry seasons and irregular precipitation in different areas; and (3)
land use and land cover will provide context for workshop discussions. Specific attention will
be given to scientific results, technological capabilities, and modeling for regions where in situ
measurements, observations, and instrumentation may be difficult.
The workshop will begin with the broad picture of the freshwater budget, then focus
in on the groundwater recharge and flow component. In particular, invited presentations and
breakout discussions will cover topics related to:
1. Assessment of regional freshwater budgets under major use scenarios (e.g., agricul-
ture, industry, municipal);
2. State of the art and research frontiers in characterizing groundwater aquifers, in-
cluding residence time, quantity, flow, depletion, and recharge, using remotely sensed
observations and proxy data;
3. Groundwater model uncertainties and methods for mitigating them using sparse
ground observations or data and other approaches; and
4. Ability to detect which water management strategies (e.g., water reuse, irrigation
efficiencies, desalination) that affect groundwater flow and recharge are being used
and any changes in their use over time.
49


Planning Committee Biosketches

B
Venkataraman Lakshmi, Chair, is a professor in engineering systems and environment at the
University of Virginia. Previously, he was a Carolina Trustee Professor at the University of
South Carolina in the School of Earth Ocean and Environment. He served as the Cox Visiting
Professor of Earth Sciences at Stanford University 2006-2007 and 2015-2016. His research in-
terests are in the area of hydrometeorology and hydro-climatology, land-atmospheric-ecological
interactions through modeling and remote sensing. Prior to his current position, he worked at
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center as a research scientist in the Laboratory for the Atmo-
spheres. Dr. Lakshmi has more than 80 peer-reviewed articles and 300 presentations. He has
served as the thesis advisor for around 25 graduate students. He has served as editor for Eos,
associate editor of Water Resources Research, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, and Journal of
Geophysical Research and currently is serving as the associate editor of Journal of Hydrology and
the communications editor for Vadose Zone Journal. He is the founding editor-in-chief of the
Remote Sensing in Earth System Science (Springer publication). He has served on the board of
directors of the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrological Sciences,
the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Hydrological Executive Council and has been the
co-chair for the Hydrology Section for the Fall Meeting. He has served as a member of the ex-
ecutive council for the AGU heads and chairs of Geosciences. Dr. Lakshmi served as a program
director of Hydrologic Sciences at the National Science Foundation, a rotator position that
ended in 2019. He received his Ph.D. in civil and environmental engineering from Princeton
University.
James S. Famiglietti is a hydrologist, a professor with the School of Environment and Sus-
tainability, and the director of the Global Institute for Water Security at the University of Sas-
katchewan (U of S), where he holds the Canada 150 Research Chair in Hydrology and Remote
Sensing. Before moving to the U of S, Dr. Famiglietti served for 4 years as the senior water sci-
entist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL) at the California Institute of Technology.
Prior to working at JPL, he was a faculty member at the University of California, Irvine, and at
The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include how the water cycle and fresh-
water resources are being impacted by climate change. His research group developed advanced
computer models and use satellite remote sensing to track water availability around the globe.
51

Dr. Famiglietti’s work has been incorporated into several of the world’s leading global climate
models, the complex numerical simulators used to predict and understand global change, and
that provide the basis for assessment of future climate in the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change (IPCC) reports. Most recently, he and his students have pioneered methods using
data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission to identify
groundwater depletion in the world’s major aquifers. Dr. Famiglietti was the founding director
of the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling (UCCHM), a University of
California system-wide center formed to develop state-of-the-art predictive models to address
high-priority water issues in California and the Western United States. A fellow of the Amer-
ican Geophysical Union and of the Geological Society of America, he is a frequent speaker, an
avid writer, and he is committed to science communication. Dr. Famiglietti is a regular advisor
to state and federal government officials on water availability and water security issues, and his
work is often featured in the international news media. He received a B.S. in geology from Tufts
University and his M.S. in hydrology from the University of Arizona. He earned both his M.A.
and Ph.D. in civil engineering at Princeton University.
Cathleen E. Jones is a radar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California In-
stitute of Technology, where her research is focused on using radar remote sensing for studying
natural and man-made hazards. Her research includes development of methods for identifying
hazards affecting flood control and water conveyance infrastructure, and for tracking and char-
acterizing oil slicks to help in response and mitigation. She is one of four science team leads for
the NASA-ISRO SAR (NISAR) mission, responsible for advancing utilization of the mission’s
data for societal benefit. She received a B.S. in physics from Texas A&M and a Ph.D. in physics
from the California Institute of Technology.
Antarpreet Jutla is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at West Vir-
ginia University (WVU). Dr. Jutla has done extensive research on water and human interac-
tions. He leads the Human Health and Hydro-environmental Sustainability Simulation Lab
at WVU, an interdisciplinary research group that investigates how modalities of water (surface,
groundwater), extreme natural events and enhanced climatic variability impact the emergence
of water-borne pathogens that cause infection in humans. Through the use of satellite data, Dr.
Jutla and his research team are able to create models that predict the distribution of pathogens
in water across globe. Dr. Jutla earned his doctorate in civil and environmental engineering from
Tufts University and master’s degrees in civil and geological engineering and soil and water en-
gineering from the University of Saskatchewan and Punjab Agricultural University, respective-
ly. Before joining the faculty at WVU, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. In 2018, he was awarded the prestigious CAREER award from
the National Science Foundation to support his work. His work is funded by NASA’s Applied
Sciences Program/Health and Air Quality Applications program, the National Institutes of
Health, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
52

APPENDIX B
Dennis P. Lettenmaier (NAE) is a distinguished professor with interests in hydrologic model-

ing and prediction, hydrology-climate interactions, and hydrologic change. His research inter-
ests include hydrological (streamflow, snowpack) forecasting problems, particularly at seasonal
and longer lead times, and hydrologic prediction problems, such as flood frequency analysis and
the assessment of climate and land cover change on hydrological processes. In the modeling
arena, he has been actively involved in the development and testing of spatially distributed
hydrological models applicable at the small catchment scale, using land surface attribute (vege-
tation, topography, and soils) information at scales as small as 10-100 meters. Dr. Lettenmaier
has also been involved in the development of macro-scale models applicable to simulation of
the hydrology and land-atmosphere fluxes in large river basins, and in some cases, continentally
and globally. He is an author or co-author of more than 300 journal articles. He was the first
chief editor of the American Meteorological Society Journal of Hydrometeorology, and is a past
president of the Hydrology Section of the American Geophysical Union. He is a Fellow of the
American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Science. He received his B.S. in mechanical engineering and
M.S. and Ph.D. in civil engineering, all from the University of Washington.
Kamini Singha is the Ben Fryrear Endowed Professor for Innovation and Excellence at the
Colorado School of Mines, and serves as the associate department head of the Department
of Geology and Geological Engineering. She worked at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Branch of Geophysics from 1997 to 2000, and served on the faculty of The Pennsylvania State
University as an assistant and then associate professor from 2005 to 2012. Her research interests
are focused in hydrogeology and environmental geophysics. Dr. Singha is the recipient of a Na-
tional Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award, was awarded the Early Career Award from
the Society of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics in 2009, served as the National
Groundwater Association’s Darcy Lecturer in 2017 and became a Geological Society of Ameri-
ca (GSA) Fellow in 2018. She earned her B.S. in geophysics from the University of Connecticut
in 1999 and her Ph.D. in hydrogeology from Stanford University in 2005.
53


Workshop Agenda
C
Overarching Workshop Questions:
• What are the scientific and technological frontiers in monitoring and modeling regional
groundwater recharge and flow in various regions of the globe?
• How can remotely sensed data be utilized in regions where in situ measurements, observa-
tions, and instrumentation may be particularly difficult?
Workshop Goals:
• Assess regional freshwater budgets under major use scenarios (e.g., agriculture, industry,
municipal);
• Examine state of the art and research frontiers in characterizing groundwater aquifers,
including residence time, quantity, flow, depletion, and recharge, using remotely sensed
observations and proxy data;
• Discuss groundwater model uncertainties and methods for mitigating them using sparse
ground observations or data and other approaches; and
• Consider our ability to detect which water management strategies (e.g., water reuse, irriga-
tion efficiencies, desalination) that affect groundwater flow and recharge are being used and
any changes in their use over time.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
8:30 AM Breakfast available
9:00 AM Welcome, Purpose of the Workshop

Elizabeth Eide, Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) Director
Venkataraman (Venkat) Lakshmi, University of Virginia, Planning Committee Chair
9:20 AM Reflections from the Workshop Sponsor

Anthony (Tony) Nguy-Robertson, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
9:30 AM Keynote Overview Talk

Matthew Rodell, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center
55

10:15 AM Keynote Overview Talk

Holly Michael, University of Delaware
11:00 AM Break
11:20 AM Panel 1: Regional Freshwater Budgets Under Major Use Scenarios

Moderated by Venkat Lakshmi, University of Virginia, Planning Committee Chair
Upmanu Lall, Columbia University

Harihar Rajaram, Johns Hopkins University
Mark Person, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
12:05 PM Working Lunch
1:05 PM Instructions for Breakouts

Venkat Lakshmi, University of Virginia, Planning Committee Chair
1:15 PM Breakout Session 1
2:30 PM Break
2:40 PM Breakouts Report Back
3:10 PM Panel 2: Research Frontiers in Characterizing Groundwater Aquifers

Moderated by Cathleen Jones, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Planning Committee Member
InSAR: Estelle Chaussard, University of Oregon

GRACE: Isabella Velicogna, University of California, Irvine
SWOT: Edward Beighley, Northeastern University
Airborne electromagnetics: Burke Minsley, U.S. Geological Survey
Ground-based, in situ: Jim Butler, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas
5:20 PM Break
6:00 PM Adjourn
56

APPENDIX C
Friday, June 28, 2019
8:30 AM Breakfast available
9:00 AM Recap from Day 1

Venkat Lakshmi, University of Virginia, Planning Committee Chair
9:15 AM Panel 3: Mitigating Groundwater Model Uncertainties

Moderated by Kamini Singha, Colorado School of Mines, Planning Committee Member

John ( JT) Reager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Stacey Archfield, U.S. Geological Survey
10:00 AM Breakout Session 3
11:15 AM Break
11:30 AM Breakouts Report Back
12:00 PM Working Lunch
1:00 PM Panel 4: Changes in Water Management Strategies Over Time

Moderated by Antarpreet (Antar) Jutla, University of Florida, Planning Committee Member
Thanh (Helen) Nguyen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Michael (Mike) Cosh, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Sankar Arumugam, North Carolina State University
3:00 PM Break
3:40 PM Closing Remarks and Key Messages

Comments by Planning Committee Members
4:00 PM Adjourn Workshop
57


Workshop Participants
D
Ali Akanda, University of Rhode Island
Stacey Archfield, U.S. Geological Survey
Jennifer Arrigo, U.S. Global Change Research Program
Sankar Arumugam, North Carolina State University
Edward Beighley, Northeastern University
Carly Brody, The National Academies
James Butler, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas
Júlio Caineta, University of Pittsburgh
Estelle Chaussard, University of Oregon
Mike Cosh, U.S. Department of Agriculture
James Dobrowolski, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Eric Edkin, The National Academies
Elizabeth Eide, The National Academies
Lauren Everett, The National Academies
Si Gou, World Bank
Stephanie Granger, National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Jet Propulsion Laboratory-Caltech
Paul Gruber, The Aerospace Corporation
Stacy Howington, Engineer Research and Development Center
Chuck Job, National Ground Water Association
Angela Jones, Congressional Research Service
Cathleen Jones, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Laureline Josset, Columbia Water Center
59

Antar Jutla, University of Florida

Karen Knee, American University
Venkat Lakshmi, University of Virginia
Upmanu Lall, Columbia University
Jessica Lawson, Millennium Challenge Corporation
Lucy Lytton, World Bank
Brendan McGovern, The National Academies
Holly Michael, University of Delaware
Burke Minsley, U.S. Geological Survey
Chin Man Mok, GSI Environmental Inc.
Helen Nguyen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Tony Nguy-Robertson, National Geosptial-Intelligence Agency
Mark Person, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Harihar Rajaram, Johns Hopkins University
JT Reager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Matthew Rodell, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center
Kamini Singha, Colorado School of Mines
Shaffiq Somani, World Bank
Nebiyu Tiruneh, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Sushel Unninayar, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center-Goddard Earth SciencesTechnology and Research
Suzanne van Drunick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
Isabella Velicogna, University of California, Irvine
Jinwoong Yoo, University of Maryland/NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
60

Speaker Abstracts
E
The speaker abstracts are available only online at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25615
under the Resources tab.
Speakers (listed in order shown in agenda)
• Matthew Rodell, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center
• Holly Michael, University of Delaware
• Ryan Smith, Missouri University of Science and Technology
• Mark Person, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
• Estelle Chaussard, University of Oregon
• Edward Beighley, Northeastern University
• Burke Minsley, U.S. Geological Survey
• James Butler, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas
• Laura Condon, University of Arizona
• J.T. Reager, University of California, Los Angeles
• Stacey Archfield, U.S. Geological Survey
• Thanh (Helen) Nguyen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Michael Cosh, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Center
• Sankar Arumugam, North Carolina State University
61

Groundwater and Recharge Flow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Groundwater and Recharge Flow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25615 SHARE

Groundwater Recharge and Flow: Approaches and Challenges for

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Groundwater

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Lauren Everett, Rapporteur

Water Science and Technology Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency/Office of

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49964-4

Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Cover credit: Photo by Voran via Shutterstock.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

PLANNING COMMITTEE ON GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW: A WORKSHOP

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Gerald Bawden, NASA

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 REGIONAL FRESHWATER BUDGETS UNDER MAJOR USE SCENARIOS............................. 11

3 RESEARCH FRONTIERS IN CHARACTERIZING GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS....................... 19

4 MITIGATING GROUNDWATER MODEL UNCERTAINTIES..................................................... 29

5 CHANGES IN WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OVER TIME........................................ 37

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW

OPENING REMARKS AND KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Monthly average Ganges discharge at Farakka and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Regional Freshwater Budgets

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND FLOW

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

REGIONAL FRESHWATER BUDGETS UNDER MAJOR USE SCENARIOS

WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM, BASIN BY BASIN — ANNUAL AVERAGES

Glacier ice melt Snow melt Rain GLACIERS

KEY POINTS: WESTERN BASINS KEY POINTS: EASTERN BASINS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.