See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6560347

Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Recent Hydrogeological Advances and System

Performance

Article  in  Water Environment Research · January 2007

DOI: 10.2175/106143006X123102 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

36 1,187

3 authors:

Robert G. Maliva Weixing Guo

Schlumberger Limited Groundwater Tek Inc
238 PUBLICATIONS   2,350 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   922 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thomas M. Missimer
Florida Gulf Coast University
453 PUBLICATIONS   2,527 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Linking the hydraulic properties of beach and dune sands in coastal Uruguay View project

Organic carbon movement through two SWRO facilities from source water to pretreatment to product with relevance to membrane biofouling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas M. Missimer on 01 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Recent
Hydrogeological Advances and
System Performance
Robert G. Maliva, Weixing Guo, Thomas M. Missimer
ABSTRACT: Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is part of the solution
to the global problem of managing water resources to meet existing and
future freshwater demands. However, the metaphoric ‘‘ASR bubble’’ has
been burst with the realization that ASR systems are more physically and
chemically complex than the general conceptualization. Aquifer heteroge-
neity and fluid–rock interactions can greatly affect ASR system perfor-
mance. The results of modeling studies and field experiences indicate that
more sophisticated data collection and solute-transport modeling are re-
quired to predict how stored water will migrate in heterogeneous aquifers
and how fluid–rock interactions will affect the quality of stored water. It has
been well-demonstrated, by historic experience, that ASR systems can
provide very large volumes of storage at a lesser cost than other options. The
challenges moving forward are to improve the success rate of ASR systems,
optimize system performance, and set expectations appropriately. Water
Environ. Res., 78 (2006).
KEYWORDS: aquifer storage and recovery, water resources management.
doi:10.2175/106143006X123102
Introduction
The fundamental water resource management problem, in many
parts of the world, is the seasonal, or longer term, imbalance be-
tween freshwater supply and demand. Average annual precipitation
may be adequate to meet existing and projected demands, but the
natural hydrologic system and managed water supply systems have
inadequate storage capacity to meet daily freshwater demands
during some months of the year.
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is increasingly being used as
a tool to provide additional freshwater storage to balance seasonal
supply and demand. Aquifer storage and recovery is the un-
derground storage of water in aquifers during times of excess of
supply for later recovery when demand exceeds supply. The ASR
systems are being used to store treated potable water, reclaimed
water, partially treated surface water, and water produced from
shallower freshwater aquifers. The ASR systems do not completely
eliminate the need for some aboveground storage. In 2005, ASR
systems were operational at more than 72 sites in 18 states in the
United States and in at least seven other countries (Pyne, 2005).
Water in ASR systems, as defined herein, is injected and locally
recovered using wells. Injection and recovery need not be
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
performed using the same well, although some definitions of ASR
have that restrictive requirement (i.e., Pyne, 1995). Artificial aquifer
recharge, on the contrary, is the introduction of water to an aquifer
by wells or other means, with the goal of increasing overall aquifer
water levels or heads, or improving water quality.
The major attraction of ASR is that it can potentially provide very
large volumes of storage, at a much lower cost than other options,
with a relatively small surface footprint. As an example of the
potential capacity of ASR systems, the proposed ASR system for
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in South Florida
will consist of 333 wells with a total capacity of 6.4 3 106 m3/d
(National Research Council, 2001, 2002). The ASR systems also do
not have the evapotranspiration losses and level of vulnerability
to contamination (both accidental and intentional) of surface water
reservoirs. However, ASR does not work everywhere. The per-
formance of ASR systems is highly dependent on site-specific
hydrogeology. Unlike purely extractive wellfields, successful ASR
systems must inject and recover freshwater with minimal changes in
water quality. The ASR system performance thus depends on the
hydraulics of the storage zone aquifer and confining strata and the
interaction of stored water with native groundwater and aquifer
rock or sediment.
Historic ASR experience has shown that, to increase the
probability of system success, more sophisticated approaches are
required for the feasibility assessment, design, and operation of
ASR systems than has heretofore been applied. This paper docu-
ments the results of ongoing investigations of the hydrogeologic
controls over ASR system performance. The main focus of these
investigations is to develop greater predictive ability of system
performance, which would allow for optimization of design and
higher confidence feasibility assessments before the large capital
investment for system construction.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery and Useful Storage
A prerequisite that is sometimes overlooked for a prospective
ASR project is determining the degree to which the proposed
system achieves useful storage of water. Water is usefully stored if
it provides some net additional recoverable water at some time in
the future. The injection of water to any aquifer does not necessarily

Figure 1—Schematic diagram of an ASR storage zone.
Aquifer heterogeneity results in differential penetration of
injected freshwater to strata. High-transmissivity flow
zones are confined by lower transmissivity strata within
the storage zone (internal confinement) rather than
external confining units.
result in a local increase in the future water supply. For example,
injection of freshwater to a regionally extensive freshwater aquifer
may not result in local useful storage. Once injection is terminated,
water levels return to background levels in the same manner as
water levels recover once the pumpage of a well is terminated.
Local long-term residual pressure buildups do not occur, and an
ASR well behaves identically to a purely extractive well during
recovery.
For useful storage to occur, the ASR system must have lateral and
horizontal boundaries, analogous to the walls of a tank. Physically
bounded ASR systems store water by increasing the water level
(head) within an aquifer of limited areal extent. The ‘‘sides of the
tank’’ are the lateral boundaries of the aquifer. Often, freshwater is
stored in a freshwater aquifer in physically bounded ASR systems.
Chemically bounded ASR systems, on the contrary, store fresh-
water by locally displacing water of a poorer quality within an
aquifer. The ‘‘sides of the tank’’ are the boundaries between the
stored freshwater and the native formation waters. The ASR sys-
tems that store freshwater in brackish-water aquifers are a common
type of chemically bounded ASR system. The ASR using fresh-
water storage zones may also result in useful storage, if the native
water is of poorer quality than the stored water.
Regulatory storage is an additional type of storage for ASR
systems, in some jurisdictions. The injection of a given amount of
water may confer the system operator the right to withdraw the
same amount of water at a later date. The basis for regulatory
storage is the concept that the ASR system will result in no net
withdrawals from an overdrawn aquifer. However, adverse effects
could still locally occur during the withdrawal phase of system
operation.
From a hydrogeologic perspective, physically bounded ASR
systems are relatively simple. As long as there is no significant
leakage out of the storage zone, the primary physical concern is
being able to efficiently inject and withdraw water. It matters little
where and how the water is injected to the storage zone aquifer.
However, geochemical issues (fluid–rock interaction) are still
a concern, and upconing of poorer quality water may occur. Chem-
ically bounded ASR systems, the focus of this investigation, are
hydrogeologically more challenging, because a specific volume of
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
Maliva et al.
water must be recovered. The mixing of stored and native formation
waters and the migration of injected fluids are concerns.
Hydrogeology and Aquifer Storage and
Recovery System Performance
Freshwater stored in brackish-water ASR systems is often re-
ferred to as a ‘‘bubble,’’ but this term results in misleading sim-
plified conceptualizations of the behavior of freshwater stored in
ASR systems (Vacher et al., 2006). All aquifers have some degree
of heterogeneity of hydraulic properties, such as hydraulic con-
ductivity. Injected water will preferentially enter the most trans-
missive layers (Figure 1). The freshwater bodies are thus more
accurately described as having the shape of an inverted tree
(Missimer et al., 2002) or bottle brush (Hutchings et al., 2004;
Vacher et al., 2006).
The ASR system performance is typically quantified in terms of
recovery efficiency, which is defined as the volume of recovered
water divided by the volume of injected water. Recovery efficiency
is properly measured on an individual operation cycle basis, with
the recognition that a large volume of water (typically 0.4 to 1.9
million m3) must first be invested in a system to flush out native
waters (i.e., target storage volume; Pyne, 1995). Recovery efficiencies
of 70% or greater are achievable in ASR systems after the target
storage volume has been emplaced, provided that the storage zone has
favorable hydraulic and water quality characteristics.
Solute transport modeling studies performed by the U.S.
Geological Survey (Reston, Virginia) (i.e., Merritt, 1985, 1996;
Quinones-Aponte and Medina, 1995; Quinones-Aponte and
Wexler, 1995; Yobbi, 1996, 1997) and as part of this investigation
(Maliva et al., 2005; Missimer et al., 2002) have examined the ef-
fects of the different hydraulic variables on the recovery efficiency
of ASR systems. The dispersivity and salinity of native storage zone
water were found to be particularly important variables in
controlling ASR system performance. Dispersivity values estimated
in calibrated models of ASR systems are largely the product of
macroscopic scale heterogeneity, which results in variability in flow
velocity. Storage zone aquifers that are highly heterogeneous thus
require large dispersivity values for model calibration, unless the
heterogeneity in hydraulic conductivity is directly incorporated to
the model.
Storage zone salinity affects the recovery efficiency of ASR
systems in two key ways. As salinity increases, less mixing of
injected and native water can occur until the injected water exceeds
some threshold water quality criterion (Figure 2). For potable water
ASR systems, the water quality threshold is typically the drinking
water standard for sodium, chloride, or total dissolved solids (TDS).
However, recovery can continue to higher salinities if the recovered
water is subsequently blended with freshwater by the utility
operator.
For example, the mixing of up to 25% of native water with
a chloride concentration of 750 mg/L with stored water with
a chloride concentration of 50 mg/L could occur before the drinking
water standard of 250 mg/L is reached. If the native water has
a chloride concentration of 2500 mg/L, only approximately 7%
mixing could occur until the drinking water standard is reached.
Mildly brackish aquifers are thus hydrologically forgiving, as far as
serving as ASR storage zones. Moderately brackish and saline
aquifers require a narrow envelope of hydrogeologic conditions to
achieve high recovery efficiencies.
Density contrasts caused by salinity differences between native
and stored waters can drive vertical fluid migration in ASR systems.
Maliva et al.
Figure 2—Mixing curves for injected freshwater with
a chloride concentration of 50 mg/L and native waters
with chloride concentrations of 750, 1000, 2500, 5000, and
10 000 mg/L.
Less dense freshwater is more buoyant than brackish and more
saline waters, and thus tends to flow upwards. The greater the
salinity difference between the native and stored waters, the more
rapid the buoyancy-driven flow.
Accurate simulation of the performance of ASR systems in
brackish-water aquifers requires the use of simulation software that
includes density-driven flow. The software SEAWAT (Guo and
Langevin, 2002), which combines two commonly used softwares,
MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988) and MT3DMS
(Zheng and Wang, 1998), for simulation of flow with variable
density, was used in this investigation.
Simulations were performed using a simplified model of an ASR
system to investigate how freshwater moves and mixes within
brackish-water aquifers, which is similar to that used in a previous
study (Maliva et al., 2005). The model is symmetrical, with
a simulated storage (injection) zone, consisting of 10 layers, each
3 m (10 ft) thick. The storage zone is bounded by underlying and
overlying confining strata and aquifers (Table 1). Taking advantage
of the symmetry of the problem, only one planar quadrant of the
hypothetical is modeled, and all injection and recovery rates were
reduced to 25% of the simulated values. The simulations did not
have initial hydraulic gradients, and densities were calculated from
modeled salinity values using a uniform temperature of 208C.
Each simulation consisted of an initial freshwater injection period
of 365 days at 7560 m3/d (2 mgd), a 365-day storage period, and
a 185-day recovery period at 7560 m3/d (2 mgd). The injected water
had a TDS concentration of 200 mg/L, and the native formation
water in the storage zone aquifer had a natural TDS concentration of
3000 mg/L. The storage period allowed time for processes to occur,
such as diffusion and, much more importantly, density-driven flow.
During injection, the pressure (head) increase in the storage zone
induced horizontal flow of freshwater in the storage zone and
Figure 3—Cross-sectional views of the results of SEAWAT simulations of water movement and mixing patterns in
a hypothetical ASR system: (a) Simulation of an isotropic storage zone, which illustrates the buoyancy-driven
movement of saline waters into the lower part of the storage zone during recovery; (b) simulation of mildly anisotropic
storage zone. The lower vertical hydraulic conductivity of the storage zone focuses the flow of freshwater in the
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
Table 1—SEAWAT mode summary (baseline simulation).
Horizontal Vertical
Cumulative hydraulic hydraulic
Layer Layer thickness conductivity conductivity
numbers function (m) (cm/s) (cm/s)
1 to 2 Overlying aquifer 150 3.5 3 1022 3.5 3 1022
3 to 4 Confining strata 20 3.5 3 1024 3.5 3 1025
5 to 14 Storage (injection) 100 3.5 3 1022 3.5 3 1022
zone
15 to 16 Confining strata 20 3.5 3 1024 3.5 3 1025
17 to 18 Underlying aquifer 150 3.5 3 1022 3.5 3 1022
subsidiary vertical migration into overlying and underlying strata.
Superimposed on the pressure-induced migration is buoyancy-
driven flow, which results in a component of upward and hori-
zontally outward freshwater migration. The buoyancy-driven flow is
most pronounced in simulations in which the storage zone is
isotropic and homogenous (Figure 3a). The simulation results illus-
trate an important point concerning the effects of buoyancy-driven
fluid migration on ASR system performance, observed in field and
modeling studies. The deterioration in recovery efficiency caused by
buoyancy-driven flow is primarily a result of the movement of
saline water into the lower part of the ASR storage zone, beneath
the rising freshwater, rather than to freshwater migrating upwards
out of the storage zone. The mixing of brackish or saline water
produced from the bottom of the storage zone can result in
a relatively rapid increase in the salinity of the recovered water
beyond acceptable water quality standards.
The rate of buoyancy-driven flow is reduced in aquifers with high
degrees of anisotropy (ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic
conductivity). High anisotropy ratios are favorable for ASR system
performance, because the lower vertical hydraulic conductivities
tend to focus flow in the horizontal direction (Figure 3b).
The paradigm of ASR being injected and recovered from the
same well may make superficial economic sense, as one well is
cheaper than two. However, from an operation perspective, higher
recovery efficiencies may be achieved in some systems by injecting
to the entire thickness of the storage zone, but recovering from
a dedicated recovery well open to only the upper part of the storage
zone (Figure 4). The recovery wells would, in essence, skim the
freshwater off the top of the storage zone and avoid the saline water
that migrated into the bottom of the storage zone. Such a dedicated
recovery well should be proximal to, but also downgradient from,
the injection well.
Alternatively, ASR wells could be designed to inject through
the entire storage zone, but recover from only the upper part of the
storage zone, for example, by the use of a flapper valve. Alter-
natively, an inflatable packer might be installed in the ASR well,
which could be deflated during injection and inflated during
recovery to isolate the lower part of the ASR storage zone. Opti-
mization of the design of ASR systems should not be constrained by
!
 Maliva et al.

horizontal distance and reduces vertical migration and mixing; (c) simulation of a heterogeneous aquifer, in which
90% of the flow is concentrated in 10% of the storage zone thickness (one model layer). Much of the flow zone is con-
fined by storage zone strata containing brackish water rather than the external confining zone. Note also the higher
degrees of mixing, indicated by the smaller darkest area (left; dark blue where shown in color) (200 mg/L TDS) on
the cross-sections.

Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation

Maliva et al.
Figure 4—ASR system construction options to optimize
system performance: (a) Injection and recovery could be
performed with separate wells. The recovery well would
be completed to shallower depth to reduce or delay
recovery of saline water that migrated into the lower part
of the storage zone; (b) the ASR well could be equipped
with a flapper valve that allows injection through the
entire length of the storage zone, but recovery from only
the upper part of the storage zone.
artificial definitions of what constitutes an ASR system (injection
and recovery using the same well).
Aquifer Heterogeneity
The effect of aquifer heterogeneity on ASR systems is only now
being fully appreciated. All aquifers have some degree of hetero-
geneity. The difference in horizontal hydraulic conductivity be-
tween the most and least conductive beds may be several orders of
magnitude (Maliva et al., 2005). Injected freshwater will enter beds
(and recovered water be produced from beds) approximately in
proportion to their hydraulic conductivity. Freshwater will thus
preferentially enter and move through the most conductive beds
(flow zones). Freshwater bodies in flow zones may have relatively
large horizontal extents, because a large fraction of the total injected
volumes enters a small fraction of the storage zone thickness. The
horizontal extent will also depend on the geometry of the flow zone.
The less conductive beds will receive less water and may com-
partmentalize the storage zone.
Heterogeneous aquifers thus have both internal and external
confinement (Figure 1). The external confinement is provided by
low permeability confining strata located above and below the ASR
storage zone. Internal confinement is provided by the storage zone
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
strata that adjoin flow zones. Horizontally extensive flow zones will
have large contact areas with confining strata containing native
water. A critical point for understanding the behavior of ASR
systems is that a storage zone may have excellent external con-
finement, but individual flow zones may have poor internal con-
finement, with a resulting high degree of mixing of stored and
native waters and low recovery efficiencies. Simulations of a hy-
pothetical heterogeneous aquifer show the large amount of mixing
between flow zones and adjoining less conductive strata within the
storage zone aquifer (Figure 3c).
Flow zones within ASR storage zones undergo the same
buoyancy-driven flow as the storage zone aquifer as a whole. Solute
transport simulations in which density effects were not included
indicate that aquifer heterogeneity has only a minor effect on the
recovery efficiency of ASR systems (Hutchings et al., 2004; Vacher
et al., 2006). However, simulations performed in this investigation
using the SEAWAT code, which considers fluid density difference,
show that aquifer heterogeneity can result in a pronounced reduction
in aquifer performance (Maliva et al., 2005).
Aquifer heterogeneity can also adversely affect ASR system
performance in other ways. The great horizontal extent of flow
zones increases the probability that vertical flow conduits will be
intercepted. Modeling studies have shown that vertical conduits can
isolate, and thus make unrecoverable, bodies of stored freshwater
(Missimer et al., 2002). Fractures or other conduits can also be
pathways for the migration of saline water into the storage zone
aquifer.
A reclaimed water ASR system in northwestern Hillsborough
County, Florida, was abandoned because high salinity water was
migrating into the storage zone during recovery, apparently through
fractures or solution conduits. Reclaimed water with a TDS
concentration of approximately 600 mg/L was being injected to
an aquifer containing native water with a TDS concentration of
approximately 800 mg/L. The salinity of the recovered water
steadily increased during the recovery phase of each cycle test,
reaching 1500 mg/L after the recovery of only 19 000 to 38 000 m3
(5 to 10 mil. gal) of water. The amount of water injected during each
cycle did not significantly affect the TDS versus recovered volume
trend. Mixing calculations using chloride and fluoride concen-
trations as markers indicated that the stored reclaimed water was
being contaminated by a small percentage of saline water that
presumably migrated upwards from underlying strata.
In accordance with Darcy’s law, the rate of flow of water in an
aquifer is directly proportional to the hydraulic gradient and
hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer strata. Horizontal migration
rates for stored water in ASR systems have typically been calculated
using transmissivity values calculated from pumping test data.
Inherent in such an approach is the assumption of a homogenous
aquifer. In the actual situation of a heterogeneous aquifer, the
flowrates in beds in the storage zone aquifer will vary, depending on
their hydraulic conductivity. Freshwater injected to flow zones
within the storage zone will typically have flow rates an order of
magnitude or greater than rates estimated under the assumption of
a homogenous aquifer (Maliva et al., 2005).
Dual-Porosity Storage Zones
Many aquifers are dual-porosity systems, in which the aquifer
contains two distinct, but overlapping, pore systems—the primary
porosity of the rock matrix and a secondary porosity caused by the
presence of a conduit (fracture or solution) system (Figure 5). The
rock matrix system typically contains most of the porosity of the

Figure 5—Schematic diagram of a dual-porosity system.
Conduits containing freshwater are in contact with matrix
containing brackish water, which will result in a deterio-
ration of water quality.
rock, but has a relatively low hydraulic conductivity. The conduit
system, on the contrary, typically has a low overall porosity, but
a relatively high hydraulic conductivity. Injected freshwater pref-
erentially enters and is transported in the conduits, whereas native
formation water is largely immobile within the matrix. Dispersive
mixing occurs between the conduits and rock matrix, but at a much
slower rate than the advective transport with conduits. In some ASR
systems, dual-porosity computer models were found to more accu-
rately simulate ASR system behavior than single-porosity models
(Roeder, 2004).
Dual-porosity systems can affect ASR system performance in
several ways. The concentration of flow into conduits with high
hydraulic conductivities and low porosities will result in rapid
migration of injected water and high degrees of dispersive mixing.
During storage periods, conduits containing injected freshwater will
be interspersed amidst matrix-containing native formation waters.
Brackish formation waters will bleed into freshwater-occupied
portions of the conduits system, increasing its salinity. The effects
of dual-porosity behavior on ASR systems depend, in part, on the
compositional differences between native and stored water. As
discussed above, where the ASR systems use storage zone aquifers
that contain only mildly brackish water, considerable amounts of
mixing, from dual-porosity behavior or other causes, can occur
before the stored water exceeds target water quality criteria. Dual-
porosity behavior is of greater concern in more saline storage zones,
where ASR systems are more sensitive to mixing of native and
injected waters. It is thus important to determine early in a project
(exploratory well phase) the degree to which the ASR storage zone
will behave as a single- or dual-porosity system.
Dual-porosity aquifers may have higher transmissivities, and thus
well yields, than single porosity aquifers. Large-capacity ASR wells
completed in dual-porosity aquifers may appear to be more eco-
nomical than moderate capacity wells, but the higher well yields
may be at the expense of system performance (recovery efficiency).
An operational example of the deleterious effect that aquifer hetero-
geneity and dual porosity can have on ASR system performance is
the San Carlos Estates ASR system in Lee County, Florida, which
was abandoned because of poor recovery efficiencies (
3%) caused
by flow being dominated by a 1.2-m-thick flow zone (Reese, 2002).
Similarly, a demonstration ASR system near the northern shore of
Lake Okeechobee in Florida had very poor recovery efficiencies
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
Maliva et al.
(,10%) of freshwater, because the storage zone consisted of
fractured dolostones. Injected water was detected in a storage-zone
monitoring well located approximately 170 m (560 ft) from the
ASR well after only 4 to 6 days of injection (CH2M Hill, 1989),
which indicates that much of the injected water entered thin flow
zones. Dual-porosity systems can be identified by a transmissivity
(from pumping tests) greatly in excess of the value expected based
on rock type or core permeability data. Flow conduits can also be
detected from flowmeter logs, borehole videos, and more advanced
geophysical logs (i.e., borehole televiewer).
Fluid–Rock Interaction
Freshwater injected to a storage zone aquifer will typically not be
in chemical equilibrium with storage zone rock or sediment and
native formation waters. The basic types of geochemical reactions
that may occur in artificial recharge (including ASR) systems were
discussed by Pyne (1995). The chemical disequilibrium caused by
freshwater injection may result in mineral dissolution and pre-
cipitation reactions and various sorption reactions. Basic fluid–rock
interactions can be predicted using geochemical models, such as
PHREEQC or MINTEQ, if data are available on the chemistry of
the injected and native water and the mineralogy of the storage zone
aquifer (Pyne, 1995).
A significant geochemical problem identified in ASR systems in
recent years is the leaching of trace elements into stored water.
Arsenic is of particular concern, because measured concentrations
have exceeded applicable water quality standards. Increased arsenic
concentrations have been detected, for example, in recovered water
from ASR sites in Florida and the Netherlands, which may be
a result of the oxidation and dissolution of finely disseminated
arsenic-bearing pyrite or organic matter or the partial dissolution
of the host limestone (Arthur et al., 2000, 2001, 2005; Stuyfzand,
1998). Leaching of uranium has also been documented (Williams
et al., 2002). Although trace-element leaching is a relatively newly
identified issue in ASR systems, analogous processes are well-
documented in natural systems. In uranium roll-front deposits, for
example, the oxygenated water flowing into a formation containing
reducing groundwater preferentially mobilizes trace elements, in-
cluding arsenic and uranium, which are then precipitated on the
other side of the oxidation–reduction front (Drever, 1983).
The operational difficulties of trace-element leaching have been
exacerbated in the United States by the lowering of the arsenic
maximum contaminant level (MCL) from 50 to 10 lg/L, which
resulted in more ASR systems having arsenic concentrations of
regulatory concern. Exceedances of the arsenic MCL result in the
recovered water not being usable without either treatment to remove
the arsenic or blending with water with lower arsenic concen-
trations. From a regulatory perspective, arsenic leaching may also
result in the endangering of potential underground sources of
drinking water and could result in enforcement actions.
Arsenic leaching that results in an exceedance of applicable water
quality standards has been documented in only a small percentage
of ASR systems. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Washington, D.C.) study of water quality changes in ASR systems
in South Florida found that arsenic concentrations exceeding the
new 10 lg/L MCL were detected in recovered water from only two
of the seven systems for which arsenic data using low detection
limits methodology (graphite furnace atomic absorption) were avail-
able (Mirecki, 2004). The systems with arsenic exceedances were
a potable water system (Olga Water Treatment Plant, Lee County,
Florida) and treated surface water system (Marco Lakes, Naples,
Maliva et al.
Collier County, Florida). Arsenic concentrations tend to decrease
during successive cycle tests, provided that injection volumes
are similar, and exposure of new aquifer matrix to the injected
freshwater is minimal (Arthur et al., 2002). The mobilization
reactions appear to be rapid, occurring on the order of days or hours
(Arthur et al., 2002). The amount of arsenic that is present in
a labile, leachable form is limited in storage zones rock, and
significant arsenic leaching is probably an ephemeral problem.
However, there is little data available yet on the volume of water
(number of cycles) needed to flush enough labile arsenic out of
the storage zone so that the MCL is not exceeded. The volume is
likely system-specific.
Trace-element leaching is a difficult problem from a design
perspective, because its occurrence and extent can be unpredictable.
Whether or not arsenic concentrations in the water recovered from
an ASR system will exceed the MCL has not been known until
after the system is constructed and operational (cycle) testing has
begun. This uncertainty introduces an additional risk element into
ASR programs.
A more proactive approach is being taken in a regional ASR
feasibility study for the St. Johns River Water Management District,
Florida. A total of approximately 380 m (1250 ft) of wire line core
were collected from two exploratory wells drilled in Seminole
County, East-Central Florida, to identify and characterize potential
storage zones and assess site-specific ASR feasibility (CDM 2005a,
2005b). As part of the feasibility investigation, the Florida Geo-
logical Survey (FGS) (Tallahassee, Florida) performed bench-top
leaching experiments of core samples under high dissolved oxygen
conditions to simulate the effects of the introduction of oxygenated
potable water to the aquifer. The experimental results matched the
documented general pattern of a rapid initial increase in arsenic
concentration and a progressive decrease in arsenic leaching in
subsequent simulated recharge cycles (Arthur and Dabous, 2005a,
2005b). The degree to which bench-top leachability experiments
can predict the geochemical behavior of ASR systems will be
evaluated by comparing the arsenic concentrations measured in the
FGS bench-top experiments with concentrations measured during
operational (cycle) testing of ASR systems.
The goal of the bench-top experimental program is to develop
a predictive tool for the geochemical behavior of ASR systems in
advance of system construction and operational testing. Once
bench-top experimental procedures are developed that can accu-
rately simulate the geochemical behavior of ASR systems, the
opportunity will exist for cost-effective testing of options to pretreat
the water before injection. Improved understanding of trace-element
leaching reactions will also allow the reactions to be incorporated
to solute-transport models, which could then be used to manage
trace-element leaching.
Conclusions
The main lesson from the historical ASR experience is that ASR
systems are subject to more problems associated with hydro-
geological complexity than originally envisioned. Aquifers are het-
erogeneous, and stored waters are subject to fluid–rock interactions
that can result in unacceptable deterioration in water quality.
Nevertheless, ASR is still a valuable, viable tool for water resources
management, because it can economically and safely provide very
large volumes of freshwater storage. The challenge is to develop
more hydrogeologically realistic models of ASR systems that can be
used to optimize the design and performance of ASR systems.
Much of the technology already exists that is needed to characterize
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
and simulate complex hydrogeological systems. Exploratory wells
with detailed geological, geophysical, and geochemical testing
programs are critical, so that evaluations of likely system feasibility
and performance can be made before the capital investment is made
to construct a full-scale ASR system. The bursting of the ASR
‘‘bubble’’ will lead to a more sophisticated and, in turn, successful
process of planning, evaluation, design, and implementation of ASR
technology to meet global freshwater demands.
Acknowledgments
Credits. This manuscript benefited from the thoughtful reviews
of Robert Schreiber (CDM, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Jon Arthur
(Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida), and two
anonymous reviewers.
Authors. Robert G. Maliva is Vice President, Weixing Guo is
Director of Modeling, and Thomas M. Missimer is President of
Missimer Groundwater Science, Inc., Fort Myers, Florida. Corre-
spondence should be addressed to Robert G. Maliva, Missimer
Groundwater Science, Inc., 3214 McGregor Boulevard, Fort Myers,
FL 33901, e-mail: rmaliva@earthlink.net.
Submitted for publication March 13, 2006; revised manuscript
submitted May 25, 2006; accepted for publication May 30, 2006.
References
Arthur, J. D.; Cowart, J. B.; Dabous, A. A. (2000) Arsenic and Uranium
Mobilization During Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Floridan
Aquifer System. Proceedings of the 2000 Ground Water Protection
Council Annual Forum, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, Sept. 24–27;
Ground Water Protection Council: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 17.
Arthur, J. D.; Cowart, J. B.; Dabous, A. A. (2001) Florida Aquifer Storage
and Recovery Geochemical Study: Year Three Progress Report, Florida
Geological Survey Open File Report 83; Florida Geological Survey:
Tallahassee, Florida.
Arthur, J. D., Dabous, A. A.; Cowart, J. B. (2005) Water-Rock Geochemical
Considerations for Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Florida Case
Studies. In Underground Injection Science and Technology, Develop-
ments in Water Sciences 52, Tsang, C.-F., Apps, J. A. (Eds.); Elsevier:
Amsterdam, 327–339.
Arthur, J. D.; Dabous, A. A. (2005a) Bench-Scale Geochemical Assessment
of Water–Rock Interaction: Seminole County ASR Core Samples.
Florida Geological Survey: Tallahassee, Florida.
Arthur, J. D.; Dabous, A. A. (2005b) Bench-Scale Geochemical Assessment
of Water–Rock Interaction: Sanford Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Facility. Florida Geological Survey: Tallahassee, Florida.
Arthur, J. D.; Dabous, A. A.; Cowart, J. B. (2002) Mobilization of Arsenic
and Other Trace Elements During Aquifer Storage and Recovery,
Southwest Florida. In U.S. Geological Survey Artificial Recharge
Workshop Proceedings, Sacramento, California, April 2–4; U.S.
Geological Survey Open- File Report 02-89, Aiken, G. R., Kuniansky,
E. L. (Eds.); U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia, 47–50.
CDM (2005a) Exploratory Well Project Report for Seminole County,
Florida. Report prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management
District, Jacksonville, Florida.
CDM (2005b) Exploratory Well Project Report for the City of Sanford,
Florida. Report prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management
District, Jacksonville, Florida.
CH2M Hill (1989) Construction and Testing of the Aquifer Storage
Recovery (ASR) Demonstration Project for Lake Okeechobee, Florida.
CH2M Hill: Deerfield Beach, Florida.
Drever, J. I. (1983) Geochemistry of Natural Waters, Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Guo, W.; Langevin, C. D. (2002) User’s Guide to SEAWAT: A Computer
Program for Simulation of Three-Dimensional Variable-Density

Ground-Water Flow, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-434;
U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Hutchings, W. C.; Vacher, H. L.; Budd, D. A. (2004) The Effects of
Heterogeneity of the Upper Floridan Aquifer on ASR System
Performance. In Aquifer Storage Recovery IV, Science, Technology,
Management and Policy, Florida Geological Survey Special Publica-
tion 54; Florida Geological Survey: Tallahassee, Florida.
McDonald, M. G.; Harbaugh, A. W. (1988) A Modular Three-Dimensional
Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model. In U.S. Geological
Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 6, Chapter
A1; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Maliva, R. G.; Guo, W.; Missimer, T. M. (2005) Hydrogeology and Aquifer
Storage and Recovery System Performance. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc.
Geol. Soc., 55, 473.
Merritt, M. L. (1985) Subsurface Storage of Freshwater in South Florida:
A Digital Model Analysis of Recoverability, U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 2261; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Merritt, M. L. (1996) Tests of Subsurface Storage of Freshwater at Hialeah,
Dade County, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2431; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Mirecki, J. E. (2004) Water–Quality Changes During Cycle Tests at Aquifer
Storage Recovery (ASR) Systems of South Florida, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center Report
ERDC/EL TR-04-8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, D.C.
Missimer, T. M.; Guo, W.; Walker, C. W.; Maliva, R. G. (2002) Hydraulic
and Density Considerations in the Design of Aquifer Storage And
Recovery Systems. Florida Water Res. J., 54 (2), 30.
National Research Council (2001) Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: A Critique of Pilot
Projects and Related Plans for ASR in the Lake Okeechobee and
Western Hillsboro Area. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (2002) Regional Issues in Aquifer Storage and
Recovery for Everglades Restoration: A Review of the ASR Regional
Study Project Management Plan of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Pyne, R. D. C. (1995) Groundwater Recharge and Wells. Lewis Publishers:
Boca Raton, Florida.
Pyne, R. D. C. (2005) Aquifer Storage and Recovery Issues and Concepts,
St. Johns River Water Management District Special Publication
SJ2005-SP12; St. Johns River Water Management District: Jackson-
ville, Florida.
Water Environment Research, Volume 78—Copyright Ó 2006 Water Environment Federation
View publication stats
Maliva et al.
Quinones-Aponte, V.; Wexler, E. J. (1995) Preliminary Assessment of
Injection, Storage and Recovery of Freshwater in the Lower Hawthorn
Aquifer, Cape Coral, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Invest. Rep. 94-4121; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Quinones-Aponte, V.; Medina, M. A., Jr. (1995) Solute Transport Through
a Single Conduit Type Flow Aquifer Using ‘‘Equivalent Hydraulic
Characteristics.’’ Hydrol. Sci. Technol., 11 (1–4), 122.
Reese, R. S. (2002) Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery
in Southern Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Invest.
Rep. 02-4036; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Roeder, E. (2004) ASR Experiment in the Lower Hawthorn Aquifer, Lee
County: Previous Simulations and Illustrations of a Dual Porosity
Approach. In Aquifer Storage Recovery IV, Science, Technology,
Management and Policy, Florida Geological Survey Special Publica-
tion 54; Florida Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Stuyfzand, P. J. (1998) Quality Changes Upon Injection Into Anoxic
Aquifers in The Netherlands: Evaluation of 11 Experiments. In Arti-
ficial Recharge in Groundwater, Peters, J. H., et al. (Eds.); Balkema:
Rotterdam, 283–291.
Vacher, H. L.; Hutchings, W. C.; Budd, D. A. (2006) Metaphors and
Models: The ASR Bubble in the Floridan Aquifer. Ground Water,
44 (2), 144.
Williams, H.; Cowart, J. B.; Arthur, J. D. (2002) Florida Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Geochemical Study, Southwest Florida: Year One and Two
Progress Report, Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations
No. 100; Florida Geological Survey: Tallahassee, Florida.
Yobbi, D. K. (1997) Simulation of Subsurface Storage and Recovery of
Effluent Using Multiple Wells, St. Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Invest. Rep. 97-4024; U.S. Geological
Survey: Reston, Virginia.
Yobbi, D. K. (1996) Simulation of Subsurface Storage and Recovery of
Treated Effluent Injected in a Saline Water Aquifer, St. Petersburg,
Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Invest. Rep. 95-
4271; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston. Virginia.
Zheng, C.; Wang, P. P. (1998) MT3DMS: A Modular Three-Dimensional
Multispecies Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion
and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems.
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Vicksburg, Mississippi.