24.artificial Recharge of Groundwater Systems Design and Management

24.
ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE OF GROUNDWATER:

SYSTEMS, DESIGN, AND MANAGEMENT
Herman Bouwer
USDA-ARS Water Conservation Laboratory
Phoenix, Arizona.
24.1. ABSTRACT
The type of system to be selected for artificial recharge of groundwater and how it should be designed and managed for
optimum performance depend entirely on local conditions of soil, hydrogeology, topography, water availability (quality,
continuous, or interrupted supply), and climate. Unlike water or wastewater treatment plants, guidelines, standards, and
“blueprints” for artificial recharge systems cannot be given. Rather, the responsible planner should have extensive knowledge of
the various types of recharge systems that can be used, how they work, the processes, cause and effect relations, what
experiences have been obtained elsewhere, and how they should be adapted to local conditions. Once the type system has
been selected, a protocol of site investigations should be followed for preliminary design. Key factors in the design and
management of successful artificial recharge systems are site and system selection, maintenance of adequate infiltration
rates, hydraulic continuity between the recharge system and the aquifer (no clay layers in the vadose zone), and groundwater
control for effective water recovery and prevention of undue groundwater rises in the recharge area. Another important factor
in the selection of the type of recharge system is the pretreatment of the water required before recharge to minimize physical,
chemical, or biological clogging of the infiltrating surface (bottom in basins and walls in trenches, shafts, and wells). Since
clogging layers are easier to control and remove in surface infiltration systems, proper pretreatment is especially important for
trenches, shafts, and wells. Since trenches and shafts are relatively inexpensive, they can be replaced when their useful life has
come to an end. On the other hand, recharge wells, while much more expensive than trenches and shafts, are more amenable to
clogging prevention and control by frequent pumping and periodic redevelopment. All these aspects have to be factored in,
however, when selecting the type system that gives recharge at minimum cost per unit volume of water put into the aquifer.
While presedimentation in settling ponds may be adequate pretreatment for surface infiltration systems, recharge with
trenches, shafts, and wells may require coagulation and sand filtration to remove suspended solids to acceptable levels. Where
sewage effluent is used for groundwater recharge, conventional primary and secondary treatment may be sufficient for surface
infiltration systems. However, recharge with effluent through wells may require advanced treatment processes including
nitrogen and phosphorus removal, sand filtration for removal of suspended solids and parasitic organisms like helminths,
Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, disinfection for removal of viruses and bacteria, and reverse osmosis (RO) for removal of organic
compounds and other chemicals.
If the site investigations indicate no fatal flaws, a small pilot or test project should be installed to gain a better understanding of
how the system behaves and how the full-scale system should be designed and managed for best performance. Even then, a
phased construction should be used for the full-scale system, so that operating experience is obtained and refinements can be
made as the rest of the system is designed and constructed. This is especially true for “new” areas where artificial recharge has
not yet been practiced. Where local recharge experience already is available, additional systems then are essentially expansions
of existing systems and the normal protocol of preinvestigations and pilot testing can be reduced. The objective of this chapter
is to provide information on the types of recharge systems, how they work, and how they should be designed and managed, so
that planners, designers, and managers can make best available decisions.
24.2. INTRODUCTION
© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and copyright information.
24.2. INTRODUCTION
Artificial recharge of groundwater is accomplished by applying water to the soil for infiltration and downward movement
through the unsaturated or “vadose” zone to the groundwater. Such “surface systems” (Fig. 24.1A) require soils that are
sufficiently permeable, vadose zones that have no clay or other restricting layers, and aquifers that are unconfined. Where
permeable surface soils are not available but sufficiently permeable material is found at relatively small depth (about 1 m, for
example), artificial recharge can be achieved with excavated basins that are sufficiently deep to reach the permeable material
(Fig. 24.1B). If the permeable material is too deep for removal of overlying material, but is within trenchable depth (less than
about 7 m, for example) seepage trenches can be used (Fig. 24.1C). Such trenches are also suitable where soils are highly
stratified with alternating layers of fine and coarse materials. Where permeable material is too deep for trenches, large-
diameter wells, pits, or shafts in the vadose zone can be used (Fig. 24.1D). Such shafts can be drilled with bucket augers to a
depth of about 50 m with a diameter of about 1 m. Both trenches and shafts are backfilled with coarse sand or fine gravel to
prevent caving. Where permeable surface soils are not available, vadose zones are not sufficiently permeable to transmit water
to the underlying aquifer, or aquifers are confined, artificial recharge can be achieved by applying water to recharge wells
penetrating the aquifer (Fig. 24.1E).
24.3. SYSTEMS
The first step in planning and designing an artificial recharge system is selecting the type of system to be used, based on soil
and hydrogeologic information. Often, the choice is obvious or determined by other factors such as high cost of land in urban
areas which preclude the use of surface systems or excavated basins. Another important factor in the selection of the type of
recharge system is the pretreatment of the water required before recharge to minimize physical, chemical, or biological
clogging of the infiltrating soil surface in basins or of the walls in trenches, shafts, and wells. Since clogging layers are easier to
control and remove in surface systems, proper pretreatment is especially important for trenches, shafts, and wells. Since
trenches and shafts are relatively inexpensive, they can be replaced when their useful life has come to an end. On the other
hand, recharge wells, while much more expensive than trenches and shafts, are more amenable to clogging prevention and
control by frequent pumping and periodic redevelopment. All these aspects have to be factored in, however, when selecting the
type of recharge system. While presedimentation in settling ponds may be adequate pretreatment for surface infiltration
systems, recharge with trenches, shafts, and wells may require coagulation and sand filtration to remove suspended solids to
low enough levels. Where sewage effluent is used for groundwater recharge, conventional primary and secondary treatment
may be sufficient for surface infiltration systems. However, effluent recharge with wells may require advanced treatment
processes (nitrogen and phosphorus removal, sand filtration, removal of suspended solids and parasitic organisms like
helminths, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, disinfection for removal of viruses and bacteria, and RO for removal of organic
compounds and other chemicals).
Figure 24.1 Recharge systems for increasingly deep permeable materials: surface basin (A),
excavated basin (B),trench (C), shaft or vadose zone well (D), and aquifer well (E).
While conjunctive use of surface and groundwater often is the main objective of artificial recharge, recharge is also used for
other purposes such as creating hydraulic barriers against seawater intrusion, stopping land subsidence, stopping spread of
contaminated groundwater (plumes) in the aquifer from point sources of pollution, raising groundwater levels for reduction of
pumping costs, protecting streams, wetlands or other ecosystems, protecting wooden building foundations that would decay
when above groundwater, etc.
Dams for surface storage of water have a number of disadvantages, such as evaporation losses (about 2 m/year in warm, dry
climates), sediment accumulation, potential of structural failure, and increased malaria, schistosomiasis, and other diseases in
the local population (Devine, 1995; Knoppers and van Hulst, 1995; Pearce, 1992). New dams often are more and more difficult
to build because of poor economics and public opposition. They interfere with the river ecology and may flood sensitive areas
(cultural, religious, archeological, environmental, and recreational, scenic, and so on.). People living on the reservoir site have to
relocate and good dam sites are becoming scarcer. Dams are not sustainable because eventually they all silt up, and they are
not effective for long-term storage of water (years or decades), which may become increasingly necessary as increases of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may cause global climatic changes and increase the probability
of extremes in weather such as more prolonged droughts and periods of excessive rain. This increases the need for storing
excess water in wet periods to meet water demands in dry periods. Underground storage via artificial recharge then is preferred
because of essentially zero evaporation, economics, and other factors. The water sources for artificial recharge include water
from perennial or intermittent streams that may or may not be regulated with dams, storm runoff (including from urban areas),
aqueducts or other water conveyance facilities, irrigation districts, drinking water treatment plants, and sewage treatment
plants. Of all the water in the world, 97 percent is salt water in the oceans (Bouwer, 1978). Of the remaining fresh water, two-
thirds is in the form of ice in arctic and mountainous regions. Of the remaining liquid fresh water, less than 2 percent is surface
water in streams and lakes, and much of that is fed by groundwater. More than 98 percent of the world’s liquid fresh water thus
is groundwater. Not only is groundwater the dominant water resource, but the potential for underground storage of water also
vastly exceeds that for surface storage.
24.3.1. Surface Systems

Surface infiltration systems for artificial recharge of underlying unconfined aquifers can be constructed in streambeds (in-
channel systems) or outside streambeds (off-channel systems). In-channel systems (Fig. 24.2) typically consist of weirs or
dams across the streambed to back the water up and spread it over the entire width of the streambed to increase the water
depth and the wetted area and, hence, the infiltration of water. The weirs or dams are small and closely spaced where channel
slopes are steep, and larger and more widely spaced where slopes are flat. The groundwater table for these systems must be
well below the streambeds so that the streams are “losing.” The weirs or dams are made of sheet metal (low weirs), earth,
concrete, or inflatable rubber (fabridam). The dams should have adequate spillway capacity or structural washout sections to
handle large flows. Such flows can clean the channel from fine sediment that may have accumulated above the dam.
Otherwise, the channel periodically must be mechanically cleaned to remove accumulated sediment. Such sediment can be a
“layercake” of coarse and fine material deposited during high and low flows, respectively. This sediment greatly restricts
infiltration of water and storage of water behind the dams when flood waters recede and, hence, must be removed. In coastal
plains or other areas of mild channel slopes, dikes or berms about 1 m high are pushed up by bulldozers to make T- or L-dikes
in the streambed that force the water into circuitous paths that cover the entire streambed (Fig. 24.2) and, hence, increase the
infiltration and groundwater recharge. Periodic high flows can destroy the dikes but also clean the bottom from fine sediment
and other clogging material. For a system in southern California, this happens at least once a year. When the high flows have
receded, bulldozers restore the dikes in a few days.
Figure 24.2 Schematic of in-channel infiltration systems consisting of low weirs in narrow steep
channel (upper left), bigger dams in wider, milder sloping channel (upper right), and T-levees in
wide, flat channels (bottom).
In-channel systems are most effective if the stream is dammed higher up in the watershed; for example, in the mountains. This
removes sediment from the water and also regulates the flow by storing water during high-flow events and releasing it slowly
for recharge. Storage dams themselves are, of course, ineffective for groundwater recharge because of the sediment that
accumulates on the bottom of the reservoirs.
Off-channel systems consist of basins constructed by building berms from soil that is normally excavated from the basin areas.
They can be square or rectangular, or of irregular form to adapt to existing topographies or for environmental enhancement.
The latter may include nature and wildlife benefits, scenic enhancement (landscaping, and the like), trails for walking and
bicycle riding, recreational facilities (picnic tables, playgrounds), and so on. Each basin should have its own water supply.
Deeper basins may also need a drainage facility so that water can be drained out for drying and maintenance where drying by
natural infiltration would take too long. Each basin is then hydraulically independent and can be operated according to its best
schedule of flooding, drying, and cleaning. The inflow facility should be carefully designed to dissipate the energy of the
inflowing water to avoid soil erosion in the basin. In finer textured soils such erosion will cause the water to become “muddy”
which will lead to clogging as the fine particles settle out in the rest of the basin. Basin banks also need to be protected against
erosion by rainfall and wave action.
Occasionally, agricultural irrigation-type systems are also used for recharge, such as borders, furrows, and terraces. On very
permeable soil in irregular topographies like kames, eskers, and other glacial deposits, low-pressure perforated pipe (hole
diameter about 5 mm) can be used to apply the water so as to avoid construction of basins and destruction of trees or other
natural vegetation.
24.3.2. Trenches, Shafts, and Wells.

Trenches (Fig. 24.3) are constructed with backhoes or other trenching equipment. Vadose zone shafts (Fig. 24.3) are drilled
with bucket augers. Trenches and shafts are backfilled with fine gravel or coarse sand. For trenches, water is supplied with a
perforated pipe on top of the backfill and the trench can be covered to avoid exposure to sunlight and public access. For shafts,
water is supplied with a vertical perforated pipe or well screen in the center of the backfill. Recharge wells in aquifers are drilled
with conventional well drilling techniques and are constructed much like pumped wells, including sand or gravel envelopes in
unconsolidated materials. Careful grouting is necessary where large injection pressures are used as, for example, in fractured
rock aquifers. Injection water flows into the well with one or more pipes inside the well. These pipes should terminate some
distance below the water level in the well to avoid free falling water that can cause air entrainment and subsequent air blocking
of pores in the aquifer. For the same reason, the pipe or pipes themselves also should have full flow. This can be achieved by
using several pipes with different diameters so that the small flows can go through the smaller pipe to maintain full-pipe flow.
Alternatively, one pipe can be used if it has an exit valve at the bottom that can be adjusted to always create full-pipe flow.
Special valves are available for this purpose. Recharge wells should be equipped with permanent, dedicated pumps to allow
periodic pumping of the well for clogging control.
Figure 24.3 Vadose zone recharge well with sand or gravel fill and perforated supply pipe (left) and
recharge trench with sand or gravel fill, supply pipe, and cover (right).
24.4. INFILTRATION
24.4.1. Infiltration Rates
Infiltration rates are expressed as volume of water moving into the soil or aquifer per unit infiltration area and per unit time. The
dimension of infiltration rate thus is length/time, for example, cm/h or in/h, or m/day or ft/day. For infiltration basins, this rate
can be visualized as the rate of fall of the water surface in the basin if there is no inflow to or outflow from the basin. Infiltration
rates for surface infiltration recharge systems typically range from 0.3 to 3 m/day (1–10 ft/day), with most systems in the 0.5–
1.5 m/day (2–5 ft/day) range. For systems that are operated year-round, long-term infiltration rates that include the time that
basins are periodically dried and cleaned are called hydraulic loading rates. These rates may vary from 30 m/year to 500
m/year, depending on soil type, water quality and climate. Since evaporation rates from free water surfaces and wet soils vary
from 0.5 m/year or less in cool, humid climates to 2 m/year or more in hot dry climates, water losses by evaporation normally
are negligible.
Hydraulic loading rates must be known to determine how much water can be put underground per year for a given recharge
area. If, on the other hand, the recharge system must be designed to accept a certain flow rate throughout the year, as, for
example, where the entire flow from sewage treatment plants must go underground for recharge and soilaquifer treatment
(SAT) and there is no other disposal or temporary surface storage, the land area must be based on minimum infiltration rates.
These usually occur during the winter when the water temperature is low and, hence, the viscosity of the water is high which
gives proportionally lower infiltration rates (Bouwer, 1978). Also, drying is slower when the weather is cold so that basins need
to stay dry longer to achieve infiltration recovery. Drying also can be delayed by more rainfall during the drying period which
also can produce crusting effects on the soil.
Predicting and managing infiltration rates are the most important aspects in planning, designing, and managing of recharge
systems, because they determine how much land area is needed to put a certain flow of water underground or how much
groundwater recharge can be achieved with a certain amount of available land and how much water will be lost by evaporation.
For surface infiltration systems in uniform soils without surface clogging, infiltration rates will be about equal to the vertical
hydraulic conductivity of the soil (Bouwer, 1978), which has the following approximate orders of magnitude:
Clay soils <0.1 m/day
Loams 0.2 m/day
Sandy loams 0.3 m/day
Loamy sands 0.5 m/day
Fine sands 1 m /day
Medium sands 5 m /day
Coarse sands >10 m/day
These values can be used for preliminary site evaluation and system selection.
24.4.2. Cylinder Infiltrometers

After promising soils have been identified by studying soil maps and doing on-site soil inspections,“wet” infiltration tests should
be performed. These are typically done with metal, cylinder infiltrometers about one foot in diameter. However, use of such
small infiltrometers can seriously overestimate the large-area infiltration rates because of lateral flow (divergence) around the
cylinder due to capillary suction in the soil (Bouwer, 1986 and 1995; Bouwer et al. 1999). Double-ring or “buffered” infiltrometers
are not the solution because the divergence also causes overestimation of infiltration in the center portion of the cylinder. The
obvious approach then is to use larger infiltration test areas like, for example, 10 × 10 ft bermed areas, where divergence effects
are less significant. These tests are laborious and they can also require large volumes of water because it may take more than
a day to reach or approach “final” infiltration rates. Another approach would be to use conventional single cylinders with
significant water depth to speed up the infiltration process so that tests can be completed in a relatively short time (5 h, for
example). The resulting data are then corrected for water depth, limited depth of wetting, and divergence effects to get an
estimate of the long-term infiltration rate for a large inundated area. This rate should be about equal to the hydraulic
conductivity K of the wetted zone.
The infiltrometers used for this procedure are single steel cylinders 24 in in diameter and 12 in high with beveled edge (Figure
24.4). A piece of (2 in × 4 in) lumber is placed on top of the cylinder and the cylinder is driven straight down with a
sledgehammer to a depth of about 1 in to 2 in into the ground. The soil is packed against the inside and outside of the cylinder
with a piece of 1 in×2 in furring strip that is held at an angle on the soil against the cylinder and tapped with a light hammer to
get good soil-cylinder contact. If the soil contains clay, the water used for the test should be of the same chemical composition
as the water used in the recharge project to avoid complications resulting from effects of water on status of clay (coagulated or
dispersed; Bouwer, 1978). A plate or pie tin is placed on the soil for erosion prevention. The cylinder is filled to the top, and
clock time is recorded. Water is allowed to drop about 2 in to 5 in, the drop is measured with a yardstick, clock time is recorded,
and the cylinder is filled back to the top. This is repeated for about 6 hours or when the accumulated infiltration has reached
about 20 in, whichever comes first. The last drop yn is measured and clock time is recorded to obtain the time increment Δtn
for yn. A shovel is used to dig outside the cylinder to determine the distancex of lateral wetting or divergence (Fig. 24.4). The
infiltration rate in inside the cylinder during the last water level drop is calculated asyn/tn. The corresponding downward flow
rate or flux iw in the wetted area below a cylinder or radiusr is then calculated as
(24.1)
Figure 24.4 Geometry and symbols for single-ring infiltrometer.
The depth L of the wet front at the end of the test is calculated from the accumulated dropyt of the water level in the cylinder as
(24.2)
where n is the fillable porosity of the soil. The value of n is estimated from soil texture and initial water content. For example, n
may be about 0.3 for dry uniform soils, 0.2 for moderately moist soils, and 0.1 for relatively wet soils. Well-graded soils would
have lower values of n than uniform soils. The value of L can also be determined by digging down with a shovel right after the
test and seeing how deep the soil has been wetted. This works best if the soil initially is fairly dry, there is good contrast
between wet and dry soil, and there are no rocks. Applying Darcy’s law (see section 4.2.1) to the downward flow in the wetted
zone then yields
(24.3)
where z is the average depth of water in the cylinder during the last water level drop. The termhwe is the water-entry value of the
soil and it is used to estimate the suction at the wet front as it moves downward. The water-entry value is about half the air-
entry value (due to hysteresis) and may be estimated as follows (in inches of water):
Coarse sands –2
Medium sands –4
Fine sands –6
Loamy sands–sandy loams –10
Loams –14
Structured clays (aggregated) –14
Dispersed clays –40
Since K is now the only unknown in Eq. (24.3), it can be solved for K as
(24.4)
The calculated value of K can be used as an estimate of long-term infiltration rates in large and shallow inundated areas,
without clogging of the surface and without restricting layers deeper down. Because of entrapped air, K of the wetted zone is
less than K at saturation, for example, about 0.5 of K at saturation for sandy soils, and about 0.25 of K at saturation for finer
soils. If the K-values calculated with Eq. (24.4) look promising for an infiltration system, the next step is to put in some test
basins of about 1 acre for long-term flooding to evaluate clogging effects and potential for infiltration reduction by restricting
layers deeper down. Good agreement has been obtained between predicted infiltration rates (K in Eq. 24.4) and those of larger
basins. Six infiltrometers were installed in a field west of Phoenix, Arizona. They gave an average K of 40 cm/day. Two test
basins of 0.75 acre each in the same field yielded final infiltration rates of 30 and 35 cm/day (Bouwer et al, 1997), which is a
good agreement. If the infiltrometer tests give infiltration rates that are too low for surface infiltration systems, alternate
systems such as excavated basins, recharge trenches, recharge shafts or vadose zone wells, or aquifer wells can be
considered.
The above procedure is by no means exact. However, in view of spatial variability (vertical as well as horizontal) of soil
properties, exact procedures and measuring water level drops with vernier equipped hook gages are not necessary. The main
idea is to account somehow for divergence and limited depth of wetting, rather than applying a flat reduction percentage to go
from cylinder infiltration rates to long-term large area infiltration rates. Because of spatial variability, cylinder infiltration tests
should be carried out at various locations within a given site. Finally, the resulting infiltration rates should never be expressed in
more than two significant figures!
Hypothetical Example: A cylinder 24 in in diameter and 12 in high was driven 1in into a relatively dry sandy loam soil. The
following time and drop-of-water level data were recorded:
0800 Filled with water to top
0830 Water dropped 4 in, cylinder refilled to top
0900 Water dropped 3 in, cylinder refilled to top
1000 water dropped 5 in, cylinder refilled to top
1100 water dropped 4 in, end of test
Digging with a shovel showed a lateral wetting of 12 in outside the cylinder, n was taken as 0.2 and hwe as – 10 in. The value of
in is 4/1 = 4 in/h which when substituted into Eq. (24.1) yields iw = 4 π 122 /π (12 + 12)2 = 1 in/h. The value of yt is 16 in, which
when substituted into Eq. (24.2) yields L = 16π122 /0.2π (12 + 12)2 = 20 in. Since the average water depth in the cylinder during
the last measured water level drop was 11–4/2 = 9 in, K is calculated with Eq. (24.4) as 1 × 20/(9 + 20 + 10) = 0.5 in/h. Thus,
the last measured cylinder infiltration rate of 4 in/h is reduced to 0.5 in/h to eliminate effects of divergence, limited depth of
wetting, and water depth in the cylinder to produce a value that can be used to predict potential infiltration rates for extended
inundation of large areas.
24.4.3. Clogging
The main enemy of infiltration systems for artificial recharge is clogging of the infiltrating surface (bottoms of basins or other
surface infiltration systems, and walls of trenches, shafts, and wells). Clogging is caused by inorganic (clay, silt) and organic
(algae, sludge) suspended solids in the water that accumulate on the infiltrating surface, and by microorganisms that grow on
the soil particles (biofilms) and produce polysaccharides and other insoluble metabolites to form a soil-clogging biomass.
Bacteria also can produce gases (nitrogen, methane, carbon dioxide) that can block soil pores. Gas also can be formed in
aquifers when water from recharge wells contains entrained air or is cooler than the groundwater itself. As the recharge water
then warms up in the aquifer, dissolved air may go out of solution to form pore blocking air pockets in the aquifer (called air
binding). Also, well recharge can lead to precipitation of iron and manganese oxides or hydroxides as dissolved oxygen levels
change, and to solution or precipitation of calcium carbonates due to changes in pH and carbon dioxide levels.
Since clogging layers are much less permeable than the natural soil material, they reduce infiltration rates and become the
controlling factor or “bottleneck” in the infiltration process (Fig. 24.5). When the infiltration rate in surface systems has become
less than the hydraulic conductivity of the soil below the clogging layer, this soil becomes unsaturated to a water content
whereby the corresponding unsaturated hydraulic conductivity becomes numerically equal to the infiltration rate (Bouwer,
1982). The resulting unsaturated downward flow then is entirely due to gravity with a hydraulic gradient of 1. The thickness of
clogging layers may range from 1 mm or less (biofilms, thin clay, and silt layers or “blankets”) to several cm or more for thick
sediment deposits.
Clogging is best controlled by prevention; that is, by removing the parameters that cause clogging. For surface water, this
typically means presedimentation to settle clay, silt, and other suspended solids. This can be accomplished by dams in the river
or aqueduct system (which would also regulate the flow) or by passing the water through dedicated presedimentation basins
prior to recharge. Coagulants like alum and organic polymers can be used to accelerate settling. For well recharge, filtration
may also be necessary. Algae growth and other biological clogging in basins can be reduced by removing nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus) from the water. This is also important where trenches, shafts, or wells are used for recharge with sewage
effluent or effluent contaminated water. Organic carbon levels then must also be reduced, using activated carbon filtration
and/or possibly reverse osmosis or other membrane filtration. Disinfection with chlorine or other disinfectants with residual
effects reduces biological activity on and near the walls of the trenches, shafts, or wells and, hence, clogging. Clogging rates
increase with increasing infiltration rates, because of the increased loading rates of suspended solids, nutrients, and organic
carbon on the surface. Because of this, increasing the injection pressures in recharge wells that show signs of clogging can
actually hasten the clogging process. Regular pumping of recharge wells and periodic redevelopment of the wells can control
and delay clogging, but probably not “forever.” Increasing the water depth in recharge basins or the injection pressure in
recharge wells can compress the clogging layer which reduces its permeability and, hence, the infiltration rates (see Sec.
24.4.4).
Figure 24.5 Schematic of infiltration basin with clogging layer, unsaturated flow to aquifer, and
capillary fringe above water table.
For surface infiltration systems, clogging is controlled by periodically drying the basins or other infiltration facility, and letting
the clogging layer dry, decompose, shrink, crack, and curl up. This may be sufficient to restore infiltration rates to satisfactory
values. If clogging materials continue to accumulate, they must be periodically removed at the end of a drying period. This can
be done mechanically with scrapers, front-end loaders, graders, or manually with rakes. After removal of the clogging material,
the soil should be disked or harrowed to break up any crusting that may have developed at or near the surface. Disking or
plowing clogging layers as such into the soil gives short-term relief, but eventually fines and other clogging materials will
accumulate in the topsoil and the entire disk or plow layer must be removed. For good quality surface water with very low
suspended solids contents, drying and cleaning may be necessary once a year or maybe every few years. Where soils are
relatively fine textured or have many stones, clogging control becomes a major challenge (see Sec. 24.6). Where the water is
extremely muddy or where inadequately treated sewage effluent is used, drying and cleaning may be needed after each
flooding period which may then be as short as 1 or 2 days.
24.4.4. Effect of Water Depth on Infiltration

If there is no clogging layer on the bottom, the groundwater is relatively deep, and the vadose zone is uniform, the downward
flow in the vadose zone is governed by gravity and water depth in recharge basins only has a minor effect on infiltration
(Bouwer and Rice, 1989). For example, if the general groundwater table away from the infiltration system is at a depth of 10 m,
increasing the water depth in the basin from 0.1 to 1.1 m (about 10-fold) would increase the infiltration rate only by about 10
percent. If, on the other hand, infiltration is controlled by a clogging layer on the bottom and the underlying material is
unsaturated, the infiltration rate theoretically increases almost linearly with water depth, so that doubling the water depth would
double the infiltration rate (Bouwer, 1982). In reality, however, this seldom occurs because clogging layers often are loose
deposits that are quite compressible. Since increasing water depths produce increasing intergranular pressures in the clogging
layer, this layer becomes compressed as the water depth in the basin increases and, hence, becomes denser and less
permeable (Bouwer and Rice, 1989). Thus, in practice, increasing the water depth in an infiltration basin with a clogging layer
will cause a less than linear increase and maybe even a decrease (if the clogging layer is very compressible) in infiltration rate.
If the infiltration rate does not increase linearly with water depth, increasing the water depth will then reduce the rate of turnover
or the replacement rate of the water in the basin. This increases the time that water is exposed to sunlight which, for eutrophic
water with relatively high concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon, means additional algae growth and
especially the single-cell type algae like Carteria klebsii that give the water a green appearance. On infiltration, these algae form
an algae filter cake on the bottom which increases the clogging process. Also, photosynthezing algae absorb dissolved carbon
dioxide from the water, which at high algae concentrations increases the pH of the water to 9, 10, or maybe even 11. This in turn
causes precipitation of dissolved CaCO3 , which further aggravates the clogging process and, hence, decreases infiltration rates.
This explains why increasing water depths in infiltration basins has actually produced decreases in infiltration rates, to the
surprise and dismay of operators who wanted to increase infiltration rates!
For this reason, and also to allow quick draining of basins by natural infiltration when a drying period is needed, shallow basins
(water depth of about 20 cm) are preferred. If plant growth becomes a problem, water depths may periodically have to be
increased to kill the plants before they emerge above the water level. Deep basins (10 m or more), like old gravel pits, are not
very good for recharge because clogging layers become compressed and infiltration rates are so low that the pits need to be
pumped out to start a drying period so that clogging layers can be removed. This is expensive and slow, so that drying often is
delayed and infiltration rates remain disappointingly low. An advantage of deep basins is, however, that they can store more
water in times of high runoff events. For subsequent recharge, however, this water should then be conveyed to shallow basins
where clogging is less and easier controlled by drying and cleaning.
Where groundwater levels are so high that they are close to the bottom of the basin or even above the bottom, the flow in the
aquifer is mainly in the horizontal direction so that infiltration rates are controlled by the slope of the water table away from the
basins. Under these conditions, increasing the water depth in the basins will increase infiltration rates in direct proportion to the
vertical distance between the water surface in the basin and the groundwater level some distance away from the basin
(Bouwer, 1990; Bouwer and Rice, 1989).
If the groundwater table is above the bottom of a recharge basin, the basin can never be dried for infiltration recovery and
removal of the clogging layer. Thus, sediment continues to accumulate in those basins and infiltration occurs mainly through
the sides of the basins which are then made and kept as steeply as possible to minimize sediment accumulation on the basin
banks. Under those conditions, increasing the water depth in the basin will also increase the infiltration or recharge rate.
24.4.5. Effect of Groundwater Depth on Infiltration Rate

Usually, bottoms and banks of infiltration basins are covered with a clogging layer that controls and reduces infiltration rates so
that the underlying soil material is unsaturated (Fig. 24.5). The water content in the unsaturated zone then is at a value
whereby the corresponding unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is numerically equal to the infiltration rate, since the downward
flow is due to gravity alone with a hydraulic gradient of 1 (Bouwer, 1982). The unsaturated zone breaks the hydraulic continuity
between the basin and the aquifer, so that infiltration rates are independent of the depth to groundwater, as long as the water
table is deep enough so that the top of the capillary fringe above the water table is below the bottom of the basin. This capillary
fringe may be about 1 ft (30 cm) thick for medium sands, more for finer sands or soils, and less for coarse sands. Thus, a
conservative conclusion is that as long as the groundwater table is more than 3 ft (about 1 m) below the bottom of a basin
where infiltration is controlled by a clogging layer on the bottom, infiltration rates are unaffected by changes in groundwater
levels. If the groundwater table rises, infiltration rates will start to decrease when the capillary fringe reaches the bottom of the
basin, and continue to decrease linearly with depth of groundwater below the water level in the basin, until they become zero
when the groundwater table has risen to the water surface in the basin.
Where the water for recharge is exceptionally clear and free from nutrients and organic carbon, temperatures are low, and soils
are relatively coarse, infiltration can go on for considerable time without development of a clogging layer on the bottom. In that
case, there is direct hydraulic continuity between the basin and the aquifer with the groundwater table joining the water surface
in the basin (Fig. 24.6; Bouwer, 1969, 1978). Groundwater levels are then characterized by the depth Dw of the groundwater
table below the water surface in the basin at sufficient distance from the basin to be relatively unaffected by the recharge flow
system (Fig. 24.6). If Dw is relatively large, the flow below the recharge basin is mainly downward and gravity controlled (Bouwer
1969, 1978) with a hydraulic gradient of about 1 (Fig. 24.6). In that case, infiltration rates are essentially unaffected by depth to
groundwater. However, if groundwater levels rise and Dw decreases, the flow from the recharge basin becomes more and more
lateral until it is controlled by the slope of the water table away from the basin (Fig. 24.6; Bouwer 1969, 1978). Modeling these
flow systems on an electrical resistance network analog has shown that the change from gravity controlled flow to slope-of-the-
water-table-controlled flow occurs when Dw is about twice the width W (or diameter) of the recharge system (Bouwer, 1990).
This relation is shown in Fig. 24.7 where I is the infiltration rate per unit area of water surface in the basin andK is the hydraulic
conductivity in the wetted zone or aquifer. Thus, as long as Dw < 2K, infiltration rates decrease linearly with decreasing Dw and
reach zero when Dw = 0 (Fig. 24.7). These relations apply to uniform, isotropic underground formations. Anisotropic or stratified
situations need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Infiltration rates in clean basins (no clogging layers) thus are more sensitive to depth to groundwater than in clogged basins.
Clogged basins are the rule rather than the exception and groundwater mounds can rise much higher there than below clean
basins before reductions in infiltration rates occur. Sometimes maximum mound heights are dictated by circumstances other
than their effect on infiltration rates, such as presence of sanitary landfills, underground sewers or other pipelines, basements
(especially deep basements of commercial buildings), cemeteries, and deep = rooted vegetation like old trees that may die
when groundwater levels rise too high.
24.4.6. Induced Recharge

One method for increasing recharge of groundwater from losing streams is to lower groundwater levels near the stream by
groundwater pumping. As described in the previous section, this will only increase recharge or seepage losses from the stream
if the stream bottom is not covered by a clogging layer and the groundwater table is relatively high so that the depth to
groundwater below the water level in the stream is less than two stream widths (Fig. 24.7). If the groundwater level is already
more than two stream widths below the water surface in the stream, recharge is already near maximum and further lowering of
the groundwater will have little or no effect on recharge (Fig. 24.7). If the stream wetted perimeter is covered by a clogging
layer, lowering of groundwater levels will only increase recharge if the groundwater table is above the stream bottom or only a
small distance below the stream bottom so that the capillary fringe still touches the bottom. If the groundwater level already is
deep enough for the top of the capillary fringe to be below the stream bottom, the soil material below the stream bottom is
unsaturated. There is then no direct hydraulic connection between the stream and the aquifer, so that further lowering of the
groundwater level by pumping from wells will not increase the recharge or seepage losses from the stream.
Figure 24.6 Recharge basin with high groundwater table and lateral flow in aquifer controlled by
slope of water table (top) and with deep groundwater table with downward flow below basin
controlled by gravity (bottom).
Figure 24.7 Dimensionless plot of seepage (expressed as I/K) versus depth to groundwater
(expressed as Dw/W) for clean stream channel or basin (no clogging layer on bottom).
Groundwater pumping can decrease streamflow in two ways. If the groundwater table is above the water surface in the stream,
the stream is gaining and groundwater moves into the stream and supports the base flow in the stream. Any pumping of
groundwater will then diminish the flow of groundwater into the stream. If the groundwater table is below the water surface in
the stream, lowering the groundwater table will increase recharge or seepage losses from the stream when the groundwater
table is high, but not when it is relatively low, as explained above. These relationships can then be used in resolving situations
where there are real or perceived conflicts between owners of surface water rights and holders of groundwater pumping rights
(Bouwer and Maddock, 1997).
Where groundwater levels are high enough to support growth of phreatophytes (plants and trees that live off groundwater), a
lowering of groundwater levels can reduce the water uptake by phreatophytes (Bouwer, 1975) and, hence, increase the capture
of groundwater by the aquifer (Bouwer and Maddock, 1997). This means that groundwater pumping can then lessen the
reduction in flow of tributary groundwater to gaining streams, and reduce water losses from losing streams.
24.5. GROUNDWATER MOUNDING

24.5.1. Perched Groundwater Mounds
When infiltrometer data indicate surface infiltration rates that are acceptable for artificial recharge, the next step is to
investigate the vadose zone to make sure that the infiltrated water can move unimpeded to the underlying groundwater.
Trenches or pits dug by backhoes allow inspection of the soil profile to a depth of about 7 m. If fine-textured or cemented
(caliche) materials are found at a certain depth, their hydraulic conductivity can be determined with infiltrometer tests or other
methods (Bouwer, 1978) on the bottom of a trench or pit excavated to that depth. Doing these measurements in a sloping
trench bottom will give a profile of hydraulic conductivity. Soil borings are necessary to evaluate deeper layers. Large-diameter
(about 1 m) holes drilled with a bucket auger enable assessment of infiltration rates and hydraulic conductivities at great
depth. After removing loose material from the bottom, a few cm of water on the bottom are maintained, and the infiltration rate
is measured. This can be managed from the top. Bucket augers can drill holes to about 50 m.
If a restricting layer is detected, the height of the perching mound can be calculated by applying Darcy’s equation to the vertically
downward flow in the perching mound and the flow through the restricting layer (Fig. 24.8). If the material below the restricting
layer is relatively coarse, the pressure head of the water at the bottom of the restricting layer can be taken as zero. For finer
materials below the restricting layer, the water-entry values listed in Sec. 24.4.2 be taken as a first estimate. The resulting
equation for the perched mound, assuming zero pressure head for the water at the bottom of the restricting layer, is then
(Bouwer et al., 1997).
(24.5)
where Lp = height of perching mound above restricting layer, Lr = thickness of restricting layer, i = infiltration rate, Kr = hydraulic
conductivity of restricting layer, and Ks = hydraulic conductivity of soil above restricting layer.
Often, i will be much smaller than Ks because surface soils are finer textured than deeper soils, or there is a clogging layer on
the surface soil that reduces infiltration. Also, i often will be much larger than Kr. For these conditions, Eq. 24.5 can be simplified
to
(24.6)
Lp should be small enough so that the top of the perched mound is deep enough to avoid reductions in infiltration rates, as
discussed in the Sec. 24.4.5. Perched mounds above noncontinuous perching layers (lenses or strips) are not as high as above
continuous perching layers with the same Lr and Kr because there is then also lateral flow in the perched mound. Thus, Eqs.
24.5 or 24.6 will then overestimate the height of the perched mound. Where perched mounds would be too high, recharge may
be achieved with long narrow basins that allow lateral flow in the mound and reduce its height as the perched mound spreads
laterally on the restricting layer until all the recharge water will pass through the restricting layer (Bouwer, 1978). Another
possibility is to use infiltration basins that are excavated through the restricting layer (Fig. 24.1B). If the restricting layer is too
deep, recharge trenches (Fig. 24.1C) or recharge shafts (large diameter holes in the vadose zone, also called dry wells or
vadose zone wells) can be used (Fig. 24.1D).
Figure 24.8 Geometry and symbols for perched mound above restricting layer in vadose zones.
24.5.2. Groundwater Mounds

Numerous papers have been published on the rise of groundwater mounds on the aquifer in response to infiltration from a
recharge system, and some also on the fall of the mound after infiltration has stopped (Glover, 1964: Hantush, 1967; Marino,
1975a, b; Warner et al., 1989). The usual assumption is a uniform aquifer of infinite extent with no other recharges or
discharges. One of the difficulties in getting meaningful results from the equations is getting a representative value of aquifer
transmissivity. The most reliable transmissivity data come from calibrated models. Next come Theis-type pumping tests, step-
drawdown and other pumped well tests, and slug tests, in decreasing order of sampling size. Slug tests, while simple to carry
out, always have the problem of how to get representative areal values from essentially point measurements. Averages from
various tests often seriously underestimate more regional values (Bouwer, 1996, and references therein). Piezometers at two
different depths in the center of a mound enable the determination of both vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of an
aquifer already being recharged with an infiltration system (Bouwer et al. 1974). In deep or thick unconfined aquifers,
streamlines of recharge flow systems are concentrated in the upper or “active” portion of the aquifer, with much less flow and
almost stagnant water in the deeper or “passive” portion of the aquifer. Use of transmissivities of the entire aquifer between the
water table and the impermeable lower boundary for mound calculations can then seriously underestimate the rise of the
mound. Older work (Bouwer, 1962) with resistance network analog modeling showed that for rectangular recharge areas, the
thickness of the active, upper portion of the aquifer is about equal to the width of the recharge area. This thickness should then
be multiplied by K of the upper aquifer to get an “effective” transmissivity for mounding predictions. Also, if Hantush’s or
another equation is used to calculate long-term mound formation, as for water banking in areas with deep groundwater levels,
larger transmissivity values should be used to reflect the increase in transmissivity as the groundwater level rises. Otherwise,
the Hantush equation will seriously overestimate the mound rise.
The best way to get representative transmissivity values for artificial recharge systems is to have a large enough infiltration
area that produces a groundwater mound, and to calculate the transmissivity from the rise of the groundwater mound using, for
example, Hantush’s equation (Eq. 24.7). The fillable porosity to be used in the equations for mound rise usually are larger than
the specific yield of the aquifer, because vadose zones often are relatively dry, especially in dry climates and if they consist of
coarse materials like sands and gravels. The fillable porosity should be taken as the difference between existing and saturated
water contents of the material outside the wetted zone below the infiltration system. The Hantush’s equation is
(24.7)
where hx,y,t = height of water table above impermeable layer at x, y, and time (Fig. 24.9), H = original height of water table above
impermeable layer, va = arrival rate at water table of water from infiltration basin, t = time since start of recharge, f = fillable
porosity (1 > f > 0), L = length of recharge basin (in y direction), W = width of recharge basin (in x direction), n = (4t T/f) -1/2, and
[which was tabulated by Hantush (Table 24.1)]
where α = (W/2 + x) n or (W/2 – x)n and β = (L/2 + y)n or (L/2 – y)n.
Of most interest to operators and managers often, is the long-term effect of recharge on groundwater; that is, where the
groundwater mound will be 10, 20, or 50 years from now, how much water can be stored or “banked” underground, will the
whole area become waterlogged, and how must the water be recovered from the aquifer to prevent waterlog-ging? Computer
models can be used to simulate regional recharge inputs and pumped well outputs for the aquifer. However, a quick idea about
ultimate or quasi-equilibrium mound heights can be obtained from a steady-state analysis where the mound is consid-ered to be
in equilibrium with a constant water table at some depth and at some distance from the infiltration system. The constant
“faraway” water table is obtained by ground-water pumping, discharge into surface water like rivers or lakes, or some other
“control.”
Usually, recharge systems consist of a number of basins or other infiltration facilities. Steady-state equations were developed
for two general geometries of the entire recharge area: (1) the basins form a long strip with a length of at least 5 times the width
so that after long times it still performs about the same as an infinitely long strip (Glover, 1964), and (2) the basins are in a
round or square or irregular area that can be handled as an equiva-lent circular area (Bouwer et al., 1999). For the long strip (Fig.
24.10) the groundwater flow away from the strip was taken as linear horizontal flow (Dupuit-Forchheimer flow). Below the
infiltration area, the lateral flow was assumed to increase linearly with distance from the center. The lateral flow was then
assumed to be constant between the edge of the recharge system at distance W/2 from the center and the constant control
water table at distance Ln from the edge (Fig. 24.10). This yielded the equation
(24.8)
Figure 24.9 Geometry and symbols for recharge system and ground-water mound.
for the ultimate rise of the groundwater mound below the center of the recharge strip when there is equilibrium between
recharge and pumping from the aquifer (Bouwer et al., 1997). The symbols in this equation are (Fig. 24.10):
Hc = height of groundwater mound in center of recharge area,
Hn = height of groundwater table at control area,
i = average infiltration rate in recharge area (total recharge divided by total area),
W = width of recharge area,
Ln = distance between edge of recharge area and control area, and
T = transmissivity of aquifer.
For a round or square recharge area (Fig. 24.11), the groundwater flow will be radially away from the area. The equilibrium
height of the mound below the center of the recharge system above the constant groundwater table at distance Rn from the
center of the recharge system then can be calculated with radial flow theory (Bouwer et al., 1999) as
(24.9)
where R is the radius or equivalent radius of the recharge area, Rn is the distance from the center of the recharge area to the
water-table control area (Fig. 24.11) and the other symbols are as defined above.
Equations (24.8) and (24.9) thus can be used to predict the final mound height below a recharge area for a given elevation of
the control water table at distance Rn or Ln from the recharge area. As indicated by the Hantush’s equation, the value ofT in Eq.
(24.8) and (24.9) must reflect the average transmissivity of the aquifer at the ultimate equilibrium mound height. If the ultimate
mound height is too high, Rn or Ln must be reduced by groundwater pumping from wells closer to the recharge area orHn must
be reduced by pumping more groundwater . Equations (24.8) and (24.9) can then indicate where groundwater should be
recovered and to what depth groundwater levels should be pumped to prevent groundwater tables below the recharge areas
from rising too high. Ultimate mound heights can also be reduced by making the recharge area longer and narrower, or by
reducing recharge rates as can be achieved by using less water for recharge or by spreading the infiltration facilities out over a
larger area.
24.6. CHALLENGING SOILS

Because artificial recharge of groundwater offers many advantages, municipalities and water districts, or other entities may
still wish to do artificial recharge even though permeable soils are not available and they may have to work with finer soils
(sandy loams to loams) with marginal hydraulic conductivity. Such systems may only have infiltration rates of 0.05–0.1 m/day
and hydraulic loading rates of 10 to 20 m/yr. At these rates, evaporation losses (0.5–2.5 m/year for year-round systems,
depending on climate) can become significant. To maximize infiltration rates, operators of such systems are tempted to disk or
rip the soil at the end of each drying period. This repeated traffic can compact underlying soils and reduce their permeability to
the point where infiltration rates become critically low. Deep ripping may then be necessary, after which the basin bottom
should be cleaned less frequently. Rather than disking which mixes clogging materials with surface soil, clogging materials
should be removed by “shaving” the basins with a front-end loader at the end of a dry period, or raking them. This may have to
be done about once a year. After shaving or raking the basin, it may have to be disked or harrowed to a depth of about 10 cm to
break up deeper clogging layers.
Figure 24.10 Geometry and symbols for groundwater mound below long infiltration area (strip).
Figure 24.11 Geometry and symbols for groundwater mounds below round infiltration area.
Table 24.1 Values of the Function F (α, β) in Eq. (24.7) for Different values of α and β
Finer soils in recharge basins are more vulnerable to clogging than coarser soils because pore sizes are smaller and easier to
block by suspended solids. Biofilm growth on the soil particles could significantly reduce effective pore diameters and, hence,
infiltration rates. Also, clay and other small soil particles could migrate downward due to the “seepage force” of the infiltrated
water and accumulate a small distance (often only a few mm or less) below the surface where it can form a “micro” clogging or
restricting layer. This process, called fine particle movement or wash-out wash-in, is an important factor in soil crusting due to
rainfall and has been well documented in the soils literature (Sumner and Stewart, 1992). Because of this fine particle
movement, the normal drying of basins for infiltration recovery and periodic removal of the cracked and curled up clogging
layer may have to be followed by shallow disking or harrowing to break up any wash-in layers that may have formed some
small distance below the surface. This leaves a rough surface and loose soils so that when the basins are filled again the
surface soil may cave and slough, causing soil to be stirred up and become suspended. This soil could then move with the
water and settle out to start a new clogging layer on the soil surface of the entire basin. Also, as water rapidly infiltrates when it
first enters loose soil, fine-particle migration may be enhanced and the fine particles could migrate further down and
accumulate on the underlying undisturbed soil, where they could form a minirestricting layer. This layer may then be at a depth
of 5–15 cm below soil surface, depending on how deep the soil was disked or harrowed. This would require deeper disking,
harrowing, or even ripping the next time the basin is dried and cleaned, etc.! To prevent this situation from developing, the basin
after disking or harrowing may have to be smoothed and somewhat compacted, as achieved by rolling, so that the surface soil
is not stirred up when the basin is filled and fine particles cannot as readily move downward through the soil. Perhaps fine
particle migration can be minimized by making sure that there is sufficient dissolved calcium in the soil and water to keep the
clay particles coagulated or aggregated. This could be achieved by adding gypsum to the soil or the more soluble calcium
chloride to the soil or water, or by adding acid to the soil or water to dissolve calcium carbonate precipitates in the soil.
Research and testing are necessary to see how these amendments work. Other infiltration problems that can develop on finer
textured soils are hardsetting and structural or depositional crusts (Oster, 1997).
If infiltration basins are constructed in sand or gravel, erosion of the banks (wave action, sloughing) or bottom (splashing at
water inlet and overland flow when filling) is not all that critical for infiltration because the suspended material quickly settles
out and forms a sand layer on top of the original sand. This layer probably still is permeable and may have a minor if any effect
on infiltration. However, if the same erosion happens to a basin in fine soil, the suspended material settles out more slowly and
there will be segregation of particles. The fine sand particles will settle out first, followed by silt particles which then will be
topped with a blanket of clay particles that can significantly reduce infiltration rates. Because of this, infiltration basins in fine
soils must be designed and managed to completely avoid all soil erosion. Berms or dikes must be compacted to maximum
density and must have mild slopes that are vegetated, covered by plastic sheets that are kept down by a layer of rock or gravel,
or otherwise protected against erosion by rain or wave action. Also, when the basins are filled, water should be admitted very
slowly to avoid erosion by splashing and overland flow. In the system of Fig. 24.12, this can be achieved by filling the basin from
the survival channel, which is on the contour on the uphill side of the berms and thus can fill the basin over its entire length with
minimal inflow per unit length of basin. Survival channels are kept full of water during drying of the basins so that aquatic life
can survive. Shallow basins with water depths less than about 10in generally are preferable to deep basins because the
clogging layer then tends to be looser and, hence, more permeable than under larger water depths where it may be compressed
by increased intergranular pressures (Bouwer and Rice, 1989). Shallow basins also dry sooner by infiltration after turning off the
inflow when decreasing infiltration rates indicate the need for infiltration restoration by drying and possibly cleaning of the
bottom. Deep basins, or basins with sloping bottoms, may take long times to dry completely after the inflow into the basins is
stopped. This reduces long-term hydraulic loading rates.
The role of vegetation in basins still is not clear. While it may aggravate insect problems, it also provides shade which could
reduce algae growth in the water and on the bottom and, hence, clogging. Root activity may help keep fine soils “open” and,
hence, more permeable. Dead vegetation that accumulates on the soil (thatch, detritus) may protect underlying soil against
blockage of soil pores by suspended solids. However, vegetation also retards drying and recovery of infiltration rates. This may
cause problems in the winter which already is a critical period for infiltration because lower temperatures increase the viscosity
of the water which gives lower infiltration rates.
Some recharge systems must be able to accept a certain inflow, for example, sewage effluent that cannot be discharged
somewhere else. Where the total basin area is barely sufficient to handle the inflow, operators of the system then tend to
frequently disk or harrow the basins to break up clogging layers and to keep infiltration rates as high as possible. However, on
sensitive (fine-textured) soils this can result in soil compaction problems deeper down, which leads to reduced infiltration rates.
To maintain system capacity, basins then must be flooded longer and dried shorter, which reduces infiltration recovery until
eventually all basins must be filled to accept the inflow with no opportunity for drying. Infiltration rates then continue to decline
due to increased clogging and eventually the whole system fails and drastic measures must be taken.
If the soil contains a lot of large stones, disking or harrowing is not possible and the soil must be ripped to restore infiltration
rates. Ripping, however, causes stones to move upward through the soil profile so that frequent ripping eventually produces a
surface that is almost completely covered by stones, like an armored streambed. Infiltration rates then will be low, because
infiltration cannot take place where the soil is covered by stones. Infiltration then can occur only between the stones.
Suspended solids and other clogging materials accumulate on the soil between the stones and cannot be removed by drying
and scraping. The only solution is to remove the stones and expose as much of the soil surface as possible.
Some soils change their structure on wetting. These include loose, windblown soils like loess which settle when flooded
(hydrocompaction; Bouwer, 1978). This reduces the porosity and, hence, the hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate of the
soil. Other soils are rather porous but the soil particles are cemented together by calcite at their contact points. On flooding, the
calcite dissolves in the water and the soils “collapse.” For such collapsible soils, infiltration rates decline rapidly after the soil is
first flooded and the usual procedures of drying, cleaning, and disking are ineffective in restoring infiltration rates to original
values.
Because low-infiltration recharge systems require more land for infiltration basins, they offer excellent opportunities for
environmental and public benefits. The infiltration systems could then be designed as attractive aquatic parks with nature,
scenic, and recreational amenities. If the infiltration area is relatively flat and only mildly sloping, the supply channel could be
constructed as a meandering stream (possibly with some wetland sections) down the slope (Fig. 24.12). Shallow infiltration
basins would then be obtained with low berms on the contours (Fig. 24.12). The berms would be constructed from soil on the
uphill side, leaving a deeper channel that is kept filled with water during drying for survival of aquatic life, including mosquito
fish. Rock piles in the supply channel would back the water up so that it can flow into the basins. Systems as in Fig. 24.12
require minimum earth moving and give minimum intrusion into the land area. They could be attractively landscaped and
equipped with walking and biking trails, picnic areas, and other facilities for public enjoyment.
Figure 24.12 Schematic of meandering supply stream (top) with rock dams (dots) and outlets
(small bars) to basins that are formed by berms on the contours, and of cross–ection AA (bottom)
with contour berms, infiltration basin upslope from berm, and survival channels.
24.7. PILOT BASINS AND SYSTEM DESIGN
24.7.1. Test Basins
If the proposed project survives all the preliminary investigations, it is still a big step to go from small infiltrometers to
multihectare recharge systems. Thus, it is advisable to install a test basin of at least about 50 × 50 m to see what actual basin
infiltration rates will be, how the water will move down to the groundwater (piezometers above restricting layers will indicate
perched water), what the response of the groundwater level to recharge will be, and how the observed mounding agrees with
predicted mounding using, for example, Glover’s or Hantush’s equation. This is a test of hydraulic continuity between the basin
or other surface system and the aquifer. The basins should be operated for a long time (several months to a year or more if
possible) to see if clogging occurs, how it affects infiltration rates, and how it can be remediated by drying and cleaning. Long-
term operation of the pilot basin(s) will also show seasonal differences between the infiltration rates. Knowing infiltration rates
and required drying times during cold or rainy periods is extremely important where the recharge system must be able to take a
certain flow such as, for example, the entire discharge from a sewage treatment plant. The recharge area then must be
sufficiently large to accommodate that flow during periods of minimum infiltration. The annual hydraulic loading rate is useful
in determining how much water can be put underground per year or other time period if the supply of recharge water is not
limiting.
In general, the more “challenging” the conditions are for artificial recharge, the more effort should be made to adequately study
the site conditions to make sure that there are no fatal flaws and that artificial recharge indeed is feasible. This will cost money,
but the justificiation of additional expenses for adequate site investigations is that they will be a lot less than the costs of
installing a recharge system that turns out to be a failure. The main tools for site investigations are infiltration measurement
(infiltrometers and test basins), testing the vadose zone for restricting layers (backhoe pits or trenches for sampling and visual
inspection of soil profile), and borings to obtain samples of vadose zone and aquifer material and well logs such as geologic,
self-potential, resistivity, neutron, and gamma logs, and testing the aquifer for adequate transmissivity (borings to obtain
samples, pumping tests to measure transmissivity, and slug tests to measure hydraulic conductivity; Bouwer, 1978). Hydraulic
conductivity values for the vadose zone can be measured with the double-tube or infiltration gradient methods (Bouwer, 1978).
If pits or trenches are dug, in situ hydraulic conductivities of the bottom material can be determined with cylinder infiltrometers
(using Eq. 24.4) or with the air-entry permeameter (Bouwer, 1978). Very stony soil materials defy insitu measurement of
hydraulic conductivity with cylinder techniques. Perhaps the reverse auger hole technique can be used (Bouwer, 1978), or the
hydraulic conductivity can be estimated from the volume fraction of the rock matrix itself and the hydraulic conductivity of the
soil material between the rocks as determined in the laboratory on disturbed samples (Bouwer and Rice, 1984b).
24.7.2. Design and Management

Projects should be installed piecemeal, putting in only one or a few basins at first to get further experience in the operation and
performance of the system, which can then be used to “fine tune” the design and management of the rest of the project. The
golden rule in groundwater recharge projects is: start small and simple, learn as you go, and expand as needed.
Individual infiltration basins typically vary in size from about 0.1 ha to about 30 ha. Each project usually consists of a number of
infiltration basins to allow flexibility in operation and managing each basin (water depth, lengths of flooding and drying periods,
and frequency of cleaning) to maximize infiltration. This requires experienced operators who “know their basins” and recognize
that “each basin has its own personality” and must be treated accordingly while keeping an awareness of the general principles
presented in this chapter.
While mostly aimed at off-channel type infiltration basins, the above comments also apply to in-channel systems. The main
differences are that for these systems there often is no control over flooding and drying periods, and mechanical cleaning of
the “spreading” system may not be possible. For T- or L-dikes, the water is moving throughout the entire system which could
keep suspended solids in suspension and reduce formation of clogging layers, especially in the upstream part of the system.
Example. A recharge system with a basin layout similar to that inFig. 24.12 is proposed in a new area with no wells and no
other groundwater recharges and discharges. Infiltrometer tests indicated potential infiltration rates of 0.7 m/day, whereas
tests with a pilot basin of 30 × 30 m indicated an initial infiltration rate of 0.6 m/day which gradually decreased to 0.2 m/day in
about 2 months due to clogging. The average infiltration rate during the 60 days of flooding was 0.4 m/day. Assuming that 30
days of drying would be necessary to restore infiltration rates and possibly remove the clogging layer after each 60-day flooding
period would then give a hydraulic loading of 365 × 60 × 0.4/(60 × 30) = 97 m/year. The design recharge rate is 50 million m3
year, which at hydraulic loading rate of 97 m/year would require 51.5 ha of infiltration basins. These basins will be spread out
over an approximately square area of 83 ha similar to the system in Fig. 24.12, leaving 31.5 ha of dry areas between the basins.
The average daily infiltration over the entire 83 ha thus will be 51.5 × 97/(83 × 365) = 0.17 m/day. The 83 ha gross area and the
average infiltration rate of 0.17 m/day over that area will be used for calculating the rise of groundwater mounds in response to
recharge.
The question is: How much water can be stored underground before the mound rises too high and where should wells
eventually be installed to establish a constant, control groundwater level that will create an equilibrium condition between
recharge and pumping to prevent further mound rises? The transmissivity is 930 m2 / day, the ground water depth is 91 m, the
maximum permissible rise of the mound is 82 m, and the fillable porosity is 0.2. Using Hantush’s equation (Eq. 24.7) the mound
is calculated to rise to its maximum level (82 m rise) in 30 years, which will then have stored 1500 million m3 of water
underground. To keep the mound at 9 m below ground surface, a controled water table at some distance from the recharge
area must be established at the original groundwater depth of 82 m below the top of the mound. Replacing the square recharge
area by an equivalent circular area gives a radius R of the circular area of 507 m. Substituting these values intoEq. (24.9) then
gives Rn = 10 km. Thus, wells must be installed and pumped in the vicinity of a circle about 10 km from the center of the
recharge system or closer to keep the groundwater at 10 km from the center at a depth of at least 91 m, so that the top of the
groundwater mound in the recharge area remains at least 9 m below ground surface.
24.8. SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS

24.8.1. Vadose Zone Wells
Vadose zone wells, also called dry wells or recharge shafts, are boreholes in the vadose zone, usually about 10–50 m deep and
about 1–2 m in diameter (Fig. 24.3). They are commonly used for infiltration and “disposal” of storm runoff in areas of
relatively low rainfall that have no storm sewers or combined sewers. Dry wells normally are drilled into permeable formations
in the vadose zone that can accept the runoff water at sufficient rates. Where groundwater is deep (e.q. 100–300 m or more)
dry wells are much cheaper than recharge wells, and hence it is tempting to use dry wells for groundwater recharge instead of
aquifer wells. Such vadose zone wells are similar to the recharge pits or recharge shafts which have also been used for
recharge of groundwater. To get adequate recharge, the vadose zone wells should penetrate permeable formations for an
adequate distance.
The main problem with using vadose zone wells for groundwater recharge is, of course, clogging of the wall of the well and the
impossibility of remediating that clogging by pumping or redeveloping the vadose zone well, since it is in the vadose zone and
groundwater cannot flow into it. Thus, clogging must be prevented or minimized. First, this can be achieved by protecting the
water in the vadose zone well against slaking and sloughing of clay layers in the vadose zone that could make the water in the
well muddy, causing clay to accumulate and form a clogging layer on the more permeable soil material where most of the
infiltration takes place. This slaking can be minimized by filling the well with sand and using a perforated pipe or screen in the
center to apply the water for recharge. Placing plastic sheets or geotextiles in the well against the zones with clay layers also
may be effective. Second, the water must be treated before recharge to remove as many clogging agents as possible, including
suspended solids, assimilable organic carbon, nutrients, and microorganisms, and it must be disinfected to maintain a residual
chlorine level (see also Sec. 24.8.3). If clogging still occurs (and long-term clogging is always a possibility), it will then mostly
be due to bacterial cells and organic metabolic products like polymers (biofouling) on the wall of the well. Thus, while such
clogging cannot be remediated by pumping or cleaning or redevelopment, it may be possible that a very long drying period
could produce significant biodegradation of the clogging material to restore the vadose zone well for another episode of
recharge. Superdisinfection of the water before recharge to push biological activity out into the vadose zone, as discussed in
Sec. 21.93, Sec. 21.9.3, may also be effective in preventing clogging of vadose zone wells.
Since recharge with aquifer wells or vadose zone wells is much more expensive than with surface infiltration systems, rigorous
economic analyses are necessary to come up with the best system. Factors to be considered include the cost of vadose zone
wells versus aquifer wells, their recharge capacities and the number of wells needed, their useful lives, maintenance and/or
replacement costs, and the cost of necessary pretreatment of the water. Contaminated vadose zones can preclude the use of
vadose zone wells.
Recharge rates for vadose zone wells in uniform soil materials can be calculated fromZangar’s equation for reverse augerhole
flow (Bouwer, 1978), which for a typical vadosezone well geometry with groundwater levels significantly below the bottom of
the well can be simplified to
(24.10)
where Q is the recharge rate, K is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil material, Lw is the water depth in the well, and rw is the
radius of the well (Fig. 24.3). More research is needed on vadose zone recharge wells to develop an optimum design for well
capacity, clogging control (including pretreatment and superdisinfection), useful life, and minimum long-term cost of recharge
per unit volume of water.
24.8.2. Seepage Trenches

Where permeable surface soils are not available but permeable strata occur within trenchable depth (about 2–5 m, for
example), drilled vadose zone wells may not be necessary and seepage trenches may be more cost effective (Fig. 24.3). The
trenches are backfilled with coarse sand or fine gravel, water is applied to the surface of the backfill, and the trench is covered
to keep out sunlight, animals, and people (Hantke, 1983) or to make the trenches “invisible” by giving them the same surface
condition as the surrounding area. Several variations on this basic design are possible, such as a T-trench with somewhat finer
material in the wider T-layer on top to obtain better removal of suspended solids, use of geotextiles on or in the backfill to filter
the water, plastic sheets against clay zones in the trench to prevent sloughing of the clay and mud from entering the trench, and
gravel walkways or landscaped covers on top of the trench. As with vadose zone and aquifer wells the water for seepage
trenches must have a very low suspended solids content. The recharge rate for seepage trenches can be estimated as about
20 percent of Q calculated with Eq. (24.10) for a vadose-zone well, for a trench width and length section equal to the diameter
of the well (i.e., 2rw) and a trench water depth equal to the water depth in the well. Thus, if a 1 m diameter dry well 10 m deep
and filled with water to the top can do 1000 m 3 /day, a 10–m–deep trench 1 m wide and full of water can do about 200 m3 /day
per m length of trench. As with surface infiltration systems, test vadose zone wells or trenches should be installed in new areas
where there is no previous experience with these systems, to see how they perform and how they should be designed and
managed for optimum performance in the full-scale system.
24.8.3. Aquifer Wells

Well recharge is done where permeable surface soils are not available, vadose zones have restricting layers or contaminated
areas, and/or aquifers are confined. As with trenches and vadose zone wells, the main problem with aquifer wells is clogging
around the well, especially if the aquifer consists of relatively fine, unconsolidated material. To predict the clogging potential of
the recharge water, three main clogging parameters have been identified (Peters and Castell-Exner, 1993): the membrane
filtration index (MFI), the assimilable organic carbon content (AOC), and the parallel filter index (PFI). These parameters can also
be used for vadose zone wells and trenches (Secs. 24.8.1 and 24.8.2).
The MFI describes the suspended solids content of the water determined as the slope of the straight portion of the curve in a
plot of time/volume versus volume in a membrane filter test, using, for example, a 0.45 μ millipore filter. Thus, the dimension of
the MFI is time/volume2 ; for example, s/L2 .
Assimilable organic carbon is determined microbiologically by plating out and incubating a water sample for growth of bacteria
of the type Pseudomonas fluorescence, counting the bacterial colonies, and expressing the results in terms of the carbon
concentration of an acetate solution producing the same bacterial growth. AOC may be less than 1 percent of dissolved organic
carbon (DOC). AOC levels in the recharge water should be below 10 μg/L to avoid serious clogging of the well if no chlorine is
added to the water. If a residual chlorine level is maintained prior to recharge, higher AOC levels probably can be tolerated.
Rather than using AOC, biodegradable organic carbon (BDOC) may be preferable as a biological clogging parameter, especially
for higher organic carbon concentrations. BDOC is easier to determine than AOC because it is based on degradation of organic
carbon in soil columns or in batch tests with soil slurries.
The PFI is determined by passing the recharge water through columns filled with the appropriate aquifer material. The flow
rates through the columns are maintained much higher than the infiltration rates per unit area of aquifer around the well. Thus,
clogging occurs faster in the columns than in the well and the PFI serves as an early warning of things to come for the recharge
well so that preventive or remedial action can be taken early.
Experience has shown that MFI, AOC, and PFI are useful parameters for comparing relative clogging potentials of the water, but
that they cannot be used to predict clogging and declines in injection rates for actual recharge wells. Thus full-scale studies on
recharge test wells are still necessary to determine feasibility and design and management criteria for operational recharge
wells. Practical aspects such as a varying flow in the water supply pipes to the recharge project and associated possibility of
fluctuating suspended solids contents in the water can also play a major role in well clogging. The suspended solids
fluctuations are then caused by formation of biofilms in the pipelines during periods of low flow and erosion of the biofilms
during high flow. Treatment of the water at the recharge site to remove suspended solids prior to well injection may then be
necessary.
Clogging of recharge wells can be controlled by adequate pretreatment of the water, maintaining a residual chlorine level in the
water, periodic pumping of the well (ranging from a few minutes every day to pumping once a month or once a year until the
brown, smelly water is gone and clean water comes out), and well redevelopment or rehabilitation techniques (surging, jetting,
an so on). Periodic pumping is the easiest (and also often the cheapest!). To enable regular pumping, recharge wells should be
installed with a permanent pump, as with aquifer storage and recovery wells (see Sec. 24.8.4). Increasing injection pressures to
overcome clogging effects generally is not successful and can actually hasten the clogging process by compressing the
clogging layer in the same way as discussed in Sec. 24.4.4. Even if the clogging layer is not compressed by the higher injection
pressures and injection rates are indeed increased, the higher infiltration rates in the well can then increase pore clogging
biomass production by higher loading rates of nutrients and organic carbon. They can also increase physical clogging by higher
loading rates of suspended solids. Increased injection rates by increasing injection pressures then are relatively short lived as
injection rates soon decrease to lower values.
24.8.4. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Wells

A new and rapidly spreading practice in artificial recharge is the use of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells (Pyne, 1995).
These wells are combination recharge and pumping wells. They are used for recharge when surplus water is available, and
pumped when the water is needed. ASR wells typically are used for seasonal storage of finished drinking water with a residual
chlorine level in areas where water demands are much greater in summer than in winter, or vice versa, and where surface
storage of water is not possible or too expensive. The winter surplus is then stored underground with ASR wells, which are
pumped in summer (or vice versa) to augment the production from the water treatment plant. The only treatment of the water
pumped from the wells then is chlorination. The combination of treatment plant capacities based on mean annual demand and
ASR wells to store surplus water and meet peak demands is cheaper than the use of treatment plants and surface reservoirs
with capacities based on peak demands without ASR wells. ASR wells can also be used to store good quality raw water supplies
when they are in surplus and to pump them up when there is a need for that water. This is of special importance in parts of
Europe and other countries where people demand groundwater but where groundwater levels are depleted in the summer and
must be replenished in the winter when there is more streamflow.
24.9. ROLE OF RECHARGE IN WATER REUSE

24.9.1. Quality Criteria
Planned water reuse will become increasingly important, not only in water short areas where sewage effluent is an important
water resource, but also where streams or other surface water (including seawater at popular beaches) need to be protected
(Bouwer, 1993). Sewage treatment for planned water reuse may then be cheaper than treatment for discharge into surface
water without causing unacceptable pollution. Planned water reuse requires treatment of the effluent so that it meets the
quality requirements for the intended reuse. Due to treatment costs, economic feasibility, and aesthetics, the treated sewage
effluent most commonly will be used for nonpotable purposes such as agricultural and urban irrigation, golf courses, sports
fields, recreational and decorative lakes, power plant cooling, industrial processing, construction, dust control, fire protection,
toilet flushing (mostly in commercial buildings but also more and more in private homes), and environmental purposes
(wetlands, riparian habitats, perennial streams, wildlife refuges). While unplanned or incidental use of sewage effluent for
drinking or public water supplies goes on all over the world, planned reuse for potable purposes is still rare but can be expected
to increase in the future (McEwen and Richardson, 1996; National Research Council, 1994).
In areas with dry climates where rainfall is insufficient to meet the water requirements of plants and crops, irrigation is a good
use for sewage effluent. The necessary treatment then is least for crops not consumed by humans (tree, fiber, or seed crops)
or crops cooked before human consumption (grain crops) and not brought raw into the kitchen (Bouwer and Idelovitch, 1987;
Shelef, 1990). This is called restricted irrigation. On the other hand, unrestricted irrigation, which includes sprinkler irrigation of
fruit and vegetable crops consumed raw by people or brought raw into the kitchen, and urban irrigation of parks, playgrounds,
private yards, and so on, requires more intensive treatment. There are now two main sets of public health water quality criteria
for unrestricted irrigation with municipal wastewater. One set is for developed-type countries which are technically and
financially capable of high technology treatment and where tourism and export of vegetables and other farm products demand
essentially zero-risk water reuse. The other is more for developing countries that cannot afford expensive treatment, where
there is little or no tourism, agricultural products irrigated with sewage effluent are for local consumption, and stringent health
standards would lead to no treatment at all and the use of raw wastewater for unrestricted irrigation, which, of course, is
completely unacceptable.
The standard for developed countries is patterned after California’s Title 22 Effluent Reuse Standards and calls for treatment of
the wastewater to remove essentially all pathogenic organisms (no fecal coliforms, no viruses, no eggs of parasitic worms) and
turbidity (to less than 2 nephelometric turbidity units). This can be achieved with conventional primary and secondary treatment
followed by coagulation (sometimes followed by sedimentation), granular media filtration, and chlorination or other
disinfection. Where hydrogeological conditions are favorable for groundwater recharge with infiltration basins, the movement
of partially treated wastewater through soils and aquifers also can clean the wastewater sufficiently so that it can be collected
from the aquifer for unrestricted irrigation, as discussed in the next section. The guidelines for unrestricted irrigation in mostly
developing countries, as established by the World Health Organization (WHO) (1989) call for a maximum fecal coliform
concentration of 1000/100 ml and a maximum concentration of helminthic eggs of 1 per liter. This can be achieved by
lagooning with sufficient detention times (e.g., 1 month in warm regions). The lagoon effluent will then also have greatly
reduced concentrations of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, hopefully below minimum infectious doses.
The WHO guidelines are based on public health effects as manifested by documented disease outbreaks (epidemiology) due to
sewage irrigation, and on feasilibility of treatment systems. Case histories of disease outbreaks due to irrigation with poorly
treated wastewater showed that they were mainly caused by intestinal nematodes or parasitic worms (helminthic eggs such as
Ascaris and Trichuris species and hookworm, where endemic). It was also concluded that presence of pathogenic organisms in
the wastewater does not necessarily mean disease outbreaks, especially if the organisms are present in sufficiently low
concentrations and/or there is local immunity. Because treatment lagoons take up large land areas, the WHO guidelines are
mainly for smaller towns. As towns grow, better treatment systems may be needed. Unlike the WHO guidelines, the much more
stringent California-type standards are based on avoiding the presence of pathogens in the wastewater altogether, regardless of
whether they are capable of causing disease or not, and the essentially complete elimination of such pathogens in the
treatment process. This is the preferred approach where such treatment is feasible, where the public demands zero or minimum
risk, and where municipalities, irrigation districts, and farmers need to protect themselves against lawsuits in case of disease
outbreaks where contaminated agricultural products are implied (Shelef, 1990). Another factor to consider is whether the crops
will be entirely consumed by local people with built-up immunities to certain diseases, or whether the crops will also be
consumed by outsiders (visitors to the region or people in other regions to which the crops are exported). If the crops are also
consumed by outsiders, the more stringent standards should apply.
In addition to public health considerations, agronomic factors should also be considered and the wastewater should meet the
normal quality requirements (salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, nitrogen, toxic and trace elements, and so on) for irrigation water
(Bouwer and Idelovitch, 1987; Pettygrove and Asano, 1985). The California-type standards also apply to most other nonpotable
urban uses of sewage effluent, like urban irrigation (parks, playgrounds, and the like), recreational lakes, toilet flushing, fire
protection, car washing, and industrial uses. Since irrigation is mostly a consumptive use of water (most of it evaporates back
to the atmosphere while the rest moves downward through the soil to underlying groundwater) and requires large quantities of
water, it is an excellent way of reusing water, especially in areas with dry climates where crops and urban plantings need extra
water. However, the effects of such irrigation on underlying groundwater need to be better understood (Bouwer et al. 1999)
24.9.2. Artificial Recharge and Soil-Aquifer Treatment

Artificial recharge of groundwater has an important role to play in water reuse. Treated sewage effluent is then infiltrated into
the ground for recharge of aquifers. As the effluent water moves through the soil and the aquifer, it undergoes significant
quality improvements through physical, chemical, and biological processes in the underground environment. Collectively, these
processes and the water quality improvement obtained are called soilaquifer treatment (SAT) or geopurification. Recharge
systems for SAT can be designed as infiltration-recovery systems, where all effluent water is recovered as such from the
aquifer (systems A, B, and C in Fig. 24.13), or after blending with native groundwater (system D). SAT typically removes
essentially all suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and pathogens (viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and helminthic
eggs). Concentrations of synthetic organic carbon, phosphorous, and heavy metals are greatly reduced. Nitrogen can be left in
the water if needed as fertilizer for irrigation use. The SAT system is then operated to establish aerobic conditions in the soil
that produce nitrification. If nitrogen levels are to be reduced, the SAT system can be managed for nitrification-denitrification by
including anaerobic phases. Nitrogen also can be removed in the pretreatment process. If surface infiltration systems are used,
SAT will slightly increase the salt concentration of the water due to evaporation from the basins. For example, if the hydraulic
loading rate is 100 m/year and the evaporation 2 m/year, the salt increase will be 2 percent.
The performance of SAT systems is site-dependent and controlled by wastewater quality, soils, hydrogeology, and climate.
Thus, in new areas without local SAT experience, pilot or experimental systems should always precede full-scale, operational
systems so that the feasibility of SAT can be evaluated and the full-scale system can be designed and managed for optimum
performance. Examples of such experimental and demonstration projects are the Flushing Meadows Project (Bouwer et al.,
1980) and the 23rd Avenue Projects (Bouwer and Rice, 1984a) in the Salt River floodplain west of Phoenix, Arizona. Both
projects used secondary effluent (activated sludge) from Phoenix. Average quality parameters for the secondary effluent as it
infiltrated the soil in the basins and of the water after SAT are shown in Table 24.2. The metal concentrations of the effluent in
this table are recent values (Pat Wokulich, Water and Wastewater Department, City of Phoenix, personal. communication,
1990). Recent metal concentrations in the water after SAT were not determined. However, analyses of samples about 20 years
ago indicated much higher metal concentrations in the secondary effluent and removal percentages in the SAT system of 84
percent for zinc, 87 percent for copper, 12 percent for cadmium, and 16 percent for lead (Bouwer et al., 1980). Since the
present metal concentrations in the wastewater, as shown in Table 24.2, are much lower, higher removal percentages can be
expected. The vadose zone and aquifer in the 23rd Avenue Project consisted mainly of sand and gravel layers and the
groundwater table was at a depth of about 17 m. There were four parallel infiltration basins totaling 16 ha. The well for pumping
wastewater after SAT was located in the center of the basin area and was perforated from 30 to 55 m. The four basins of the
project were operated on a schedule of 2 weeks flooding followed by 2 weeks drying to obtain nitrification and denitrification in
the soil and to allow recovery of infiltration rates between flooding periods. Infiltration rates during flooding were about 0.5
m/day. Since the basins were dry about half the time, hydraulic loading rates were about 100 m/year.
Figure 24.13 Schematic of recharge and recovery SAT systems: (A) with natural drainage of
renovated water into stream, lake, or low area, (B) collection of renovated water by subsurface
drain, (C) infiltration areas in two parallel rows and line of wells midway between, and (D),
infiltration areas in center surrounded by a circle of wells.
The quality parameters of the water after SAT, listed inTable 24.2, indicate that the water meets the agronomic requirements
for crop irrigation and the health standards for California Title 22 effluent (Bouwer, 1985; Pettygrove and Asano, 1985). Hence,
the water is suitable for unrestricted irrigation (including sprinkler irrigation of fruits and vegetables consumed raw or brought
raw into the kitchen, and of parks and playgrounds) and for unrestricted aquatic recreation (including swimming and fishing).
Where sewage effluent or other low-quality water is used and the recharge systems are designed and operated as recharge and
recovery systems, the optimum combination of pretreatment, soil aquifer treatment (SAT) and postreatment must be selected.
The usual pretreatment in the United States then is primary and secondary treatment and chlorination because that is what is
typically necessary to comply with local treatment and discharge regulations. However, primary treatment may be sufficient
and even advantageous (Carlson et al., 1982; Leach et al., 1980; Rice and Bouwer, 1984), not only because it saves money, but
also because the higher total organic carbon (TOC) level of primary effluent may actually remove more recalcitrant or refractory
TOC in the SAT systems by secondary utilization and cometabolism (McCarty et al., 1984) and more nitrogen by denitrification
(Lance et al., 1980). Primary effluent may produce more clogging of the basin bottoms because of the higher suspended solids
content, and also because of the higher dissolved organics content which can aggravate biological clogging. Where the
resulting increased need for cleaning the basins is a problem, the primary effluent could be filtered first through a rapid sand or
similar filter, using a flocculent if desirable.
Table 24.2 Quality Parameters from Phoenix, Arizona, SAT system for mildly chlorinated secondary effluent (activated sludge)
as it entered the infiltration basins (left column) and after SAT and pumping it from a well in the center of the infiltration basin
area (right column).
Secondary Effluent (mg/L) Recovery Well Samples (mg/L)
Total dissolved solids 750 790
Suspended solids 11 1
Ammonium nitrogen 16 0.1
Nitrate nitrogen 0.5 5.3
Organic nitrogen 1.5 0.1
Phosphate phosphorus 5.5 0.4
Fluoride 1.2 0.7
Boron 0.6 0.6
Biochemical oxygen demand 12 0
Total organic carbon 12 1.9
Zinc 0.036
Copper 0.008
Cadmium 0.0001
Lead 0.002
Fecal coliforms, per 100 ml 3500 0.3
Viruses, PFU/100 1 2118 0
Disinfection will be most effective after SAT when the suspended solids concentrations or turbidity are very low and most
pathogens have already been removed by SAT. Ultraviolet irradiation may then be the best disinfection technique to minimize
formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs). Some mild chlorination prior to infiltration may be desirable so that the rest of the
pathogens can be removed by SAT and postdisinfection is not necessary if the water is used for nonpotable purposes. In
general, pretreatment of the sewage effluent should be matched to the benefits from SAT so that posttreatment other than
disinfection will not be necessary to meet the quality requirements of the intended use of the water. If the system is designed
and managed as a complete recharge and recovery system, posttreatment is a viable option that can reduce pretreatment and
maximize SAT benefits. However, there may be conflicts between optimum pretreatment for SAT and the pretreatment
necessary to comply with local regulations. Also, popular demand may call for best available demonstrated control technology
(BADCT)-type pretreatment procedures at least in the United States.
Nitrogen removal in SAT systems is achieved by biological denitrification of nitrate, which occurs under anaerobic conditions
and requires organic carbon as an energy source for the denitrifiers (about 2.5 mg/L BOD or 0.8–1.3 mg/L biodegradable
organic carbon for each mg/l nitrate nitrogen to be denitrified). For conventional secondary effluent, nitrogen concentrations in
the United States with an in-house water use of about 350 L per person per day will be on the order of 15 to 20 mg/L, mostly as
ammonium. Short, frequent flooding and drying of the basins (a few days each, for example) will then create mostly aerobic
conditions in the soil and almost all the ammonium in the effluent will be converted to nitrate in the water moving down to the
groundwater, with little nitrogen removal in the SAT system. Where in-house water use is less, effluent nitrogen concentrations
can be expected to be proportionally higher.
To get denitrification in the recharge system, flooding periods must be long enough to get anaerobic conditions in the soil so
that the ammonium is adsorbed to the clay particles or organic matter. This process requires soils like loamy sands or sandy
loams, or even finer, with some clay so that the soils have some cation exchange capacity. Before the clay particles are
saturated with ammonium, flooding is stopped and the basin is dried. Atmospheric oxygen will then enter the soil to create
aerobic conditions for nitrification of adsorbed ammonium. Part of the resulting nitrate will then be denitrified in
microanaerobic zones still present in the aerobic zone. The remaining nitrate will be leached out when flooding is resumed,
causing a nitrate spike in the water moving down to the groundwater. In the United States, these spikes can exceed 100 mg/L
NO3 -N but they are attenuated with distance of travel and mixing in the aquifer, so that they are not found in water from
recovery wells outside the recharge area. Typical schedules for enhancing denitrification may be 10 days flooding alternated
with 10 days drying in the summer and 20 days drying in the winter. Such schedules have yielded 50 to 70 percent removal of
nitrogen (Bouwer and Rice, 1984a). Most of the nitrogen transformations take place in the upper 1 m of the soil profile.
Recently, a new process for nitrogen removal has been discovered where by ammonium and nitrate react biochemically to
produce free nitrogen gas while leaving some residual nitrate nitrogen at a concentration of about 10% of the total ammonium
and nitrate nitrogen input concentration. The process is autotrophic (requires no organic carbon) and anaerobic so that it can
occur in aquifers using carbonate as the carbon source. It is called the anammox process for anaerobic ammonium oxidation
(Van de Graaf et., 1995)
If secondary effluent received additional aeration in the treatment plant or in an aerated lagoon, part of the ammonium is
already converted to nitrate and BOD is reduced. Denitrification may still occur in the SAT system when flooding periods are
long enough to create anaerobic conditions in the soil, but nitrogen removal may be less than for the previous case because of
insufficient BOD. In such cases, it may be preferable to nitrify and denitrify in the treatment plant, which creates an effluent with
sufficiently low nitrogen concentrations (mostly as nitrate) and low BOD levels. Extended flooding periods to create anaerobic
conditions in the soil may then further reduce the nitrate nitrogen, but not by much (perhaps by a few mg/L at most, depending
on the BOD level of the effluent and synthesis of organic carbon in the SAT system itself). More research is needed to see how
much organic carbon is formed in the SAT system by biological processes (algae, microorganisms, autotrophic bacteria like
nitrifiers, and so on). Also, more research is needed on sustainability of SAT and associated pretreatment and/or posttreatment
requirements.
A very important aspect of water reuse via artificial recharge of groundwater is that it also greatly enhances the aesthetics and
public acceptance of water reuse, because the water has had SAT and it comes out of wells rather than out of the end of
advanced wastewater treatment plants where water is recycled after in-plant treatment only and put directly back in the water
distribution system (direct or “pipe-to-pipe” recycling).
24.9.3. Well Recharge with Sewage Effluent

Where sewage effluent is used for recharge with wells or other underground systems (trenches or vadose zone wells), it must
undergo extensive pretreatment, including advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) processes. First, this is necessary to achieve
essentially drinking water quality standards before recharge because aquifers generally are considered too coarse for
significant “aquifer treatment.” The only treatment that can be expected in aquifers is some additional TOC removal, removal of
microorganisms, improvement in taste and odor, and similar “aging” and “polishing” effects. Second nitrogen removal via the
anamox process, AWT is necessary to minimize clogging in the well by removing the clogging parameters. Where the AWT
includes RO, proper disposal of the reject water or brine can be expensive. Also, water after RO will have a very low TDS
concentration which makes it corrosive, aggressive, and “hungry.” The interaction between this water and the receiving aquifer
must then be well understood to make sure that the hungry water does not mobilize chemicals from minerals and other solid
phases of the aquifer that are not wanted in the final product water. Blending of the water after RO with water of a higher TDS
content before recharge may then be necessary to stabilize it and avoid unpleasant surprises when it is pumped up again.
Perhaps the expensive RO or other membrane filtration of sewage effluent or similar low quality water can be avoided by giving
the effluent a relative high dose of chlorine or other disinfectant prior to recharge. This may push biomass development farther
into the aquifer. The biomass would then be created at some distance from the well where the disinfectant has dissipated, so
that biomass is formed over a larger area than right around the well. It is hoped that the biomass would then be in the form of
biofilms on the solid aquifer matrix rather than as the pore plugging biomass formed by biological activity right around the well.
This biofilm zone could then actually perform as an in situ bioreactor that could remove organic compounds (including
disinfection by-products), nitrate, and other contaminants from the water. Chlorination before recharge has always been
considered problematic because of the potential for formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs). However, recent work by
Singer et al. (1993) has shown that DBPs like trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids (THMs and HAAs) can be biodegraded in
the aquifer, so that superchlorination or other disinfection (with chloramines or peroxide, for example) may not be
objectionable. Research is necessary to see what disinfection levels are needed in relation to TOC of the water, how far
biomass development has to be pushed out into the aquifer to get a good bioreactor, and how the bioreactor will perform in
terms of quality improvement of the water and reduction in local hydraulic conductivity so that water can still move through it.
However, if this super disinfection can be made to work it will be an important contribution to using sewage effluent or other
low quality water for recharge with aquifer wells, vadose zone wells, or seepage trenches, because it will eliminate the need for
expensive RO or other membrane filtration with associated brine disposal as pretreatment to remove organic carbon.
Conventional primary and secondary treatment followed by nitrification-denitrification, sand filtration, and possibly activated
carbon filtration may then be sufficient pretreatment.
24.9.4. Constructed Aquifers

Constructed aquifers are basically sand filters for sewage or other water of impaired quality. They are constructed by
excavating a pit, lining it with plastic, putting a gravel layer with perforated drain pipe on the bottom, and filling it with about 2 m
of sand or other permeable soil (Fig. 24.14). They are flooded with sewage effluent for short periods (a few days at most) and
dried long enough for the clogging layer to dry, crack, and curl up so that it can be raked off. The outflow from the drain is used
for discharge into surface water or for irrigation or other nonpotable use. While the drainage water does not meet California’s
Title 22 requirements for unrestricted irrigation, it can meet the less stringent guidelines of the WHO for unrestricted irrigation
(Bouwer, 1993). Because of their simplicity, constructed aquifers are increasingly used in the Third World where sewage often is
extremely strong and pretreatment usually is of the primary type (mostly septic tanks or overloaded lagoons). Since the
suspended solids content of these effluents is still high, the clogging layer on the sand filter develops rapidly and may have to
be removed after every drying period. This is normally done manually by raking. Flooding periods may then only be 1 or 2 days,
followed by drying periods of 5–10 days, depending on climate. The systems thus are labor intensive. However, this is usually
not a problem with the rural poor where unemployment often is high and where simple, inexpensive, and labor-intensive
systems are preferable because they are dependable and they create jobs! Constructed aquifers are basically poor man’s
intermittent sand filters (no back flushing). The advantage is that they give more protection against infectious diseases than
lagooning alone. They also are used for small villages, hotels, resorts, and similar small developments, especially if the lagoons
are overloaded. More than 100 systems have been installed in France as of 1991 (Agences de l’ Eau et du Ministere de l’
Environnement, 1994) and there is a research and demonstration project in Morocco, south of Agadir.
Figure 24.14 Constructed aquifer or intermittent sand filter lined with plastic and with perforated
drain in gravel layer on bottom.
24.9.5. Potable Reuse after Soil Aquifer Treatment
The main concern in potable use of sewage water after recharge, SAT, and blending with native groundwater is with the trace
organic compounds that are still present in the water, albeit in very small concentrations [much less than 1 μg/L or parts per
billion (ppb), for example] that may well be below threshold values where they become toxic. Other constituents like nitrate,
pathogens, and heavy metals are no problem because they are removed in the pretreatment and SAT, and the water most likely
will be disinfected again before potable use.
Most natural organic carbon compounds (carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and so forth) in sewage effluent are biodegradable and,
hence, are decomposed in the soil. In addition, however, there is a broad spectrum of synthetic organic compounds that enter
the water as chemicals in industrial wastewater, hospital wastes, storm runoff, and domestic wastewater because of use of
household chemicals and pharmaceuticals. After treatment in the water reclamation plant, the concentrations of these
chemicals often are on the order of 1 part per billion (Bouwer and Rice, 1984a). A large number of these chemicals also are
biodegradable, especially the nonhalogenated compounds (E. J. Bouwer et al., 1984) and also certain disinfection byproducts
or DBPs (Singer et al., 1993). Some resistant organic compounds (also known as nonbiodegradable, stable, refractory, or
recalcitrant compounds) may accumulate in the adsorbed state in the soil and aquifer and eventually may move with the water
when the adsorption sites are “saturated” with these chemicals. This causes the transport of these chemicals in the
underground environment to be retarded relative to the velocity of the water itself (Bouwer, 1991). Retardation factors may vary
from as low as 2 or less to as much as 100 or more, depending on adsorption of the chemicals. Some of the resistant
compounds eventually may also be biodegraded in the adsorbed or mobile state through various bacterial processes, including
acclimatization, secondary utilization, and cometabolism (McCarty et al., 1984).
Maximum concentration limits for organic and other chemicals in drinking water normally are based on rodent bioassays. The
resulting values, however, are more and more considered to be very much on the conservative side. In addition, their validity is
increasingly questioned because the linear response theory used to extrapolate responses from unrealistically high doses in the
tests to low doses ingested by people does not recognize threshold values (Ames and Swirsky Gold, 1990). Hence, many
compounds now classified as carcinogenic actually may not cause cancer at the concentrations normally ingested. Also,
rodent bioassays fail to recognize genetic effects. Some chemicals have produced cancers in mice but not in rats (Calabrese,
1987; Lave et al., 1988). So if rodent bioassay results cannot be transferred from one rodent to another, how can they be
transferred to people? Also, rodent bioassays do not take into account physiological effects such as different metabolic
pathways for high doses than for low doses. This has caused toxic metabolic endproducts to be produced at high doses but
not at low doses, showing again that “it is the dose that makes the poison.” Thus, very small concentrations of synthetic
organic compounds in reclaimed water after SAT and mixing with native groundwater by macrodispersion (Bouwer, 1991) and
other processes may not be a cause for alarm in the potable use of such water, just as they are not considered a problem in
conventionally treated drinking water obtained from rivers or other surface waters that received sewage effluent. Concerns are
rising over pharmaceutically active chemicals (PACHs) in municipal wastewater, which along with pesticides and other
chemicals may have caused deformed frogs in sewage contaminated surface water and “feminization” of males resulting in
reduced reproduction and population, possibly because of hormone effects (endocrine disruptors) (Bouwer et al., 1999).
Epidemiological studies in areas where people drink water from aquifers recharged with sewage effluents have failed to provide
evidence of adverse effects on public health (Nellor et al., 1984; Sloss et al., 1996). Hence, the endorsement of indirect potable
reuse of municipal wastewater by the National Research Council (1994) and the American Water Works Association (McEwen
and Richardson, 1996). The key issue here is indirect reuse. Direct recycling with pipe-to-pipe connections between the sewage
treatment plant and the water supply system is not permitted. Rather, the water after treatment must go through surface water
(streams, lakes, reservoirs) or through groundwater (aquifers), or both, before it can be distributed for potable use. Going
through surface water has several disadvantages like evaporation losses, vulnerability to secondary contamination by animals
and human activities, and growth of algae which gives the water a bad taste and creates metabolic products (THM-precursors)
which on chlorination can form trihalomethanes. These disadvantages do not occur with groundwater recharge, which gives
the additional benefit of SAT, storage, and enhanced aesthetics and public acceptance of potable water reuse. Planned water
reuse basically compresses the hydrologic cycle from a noncontrolled global scale to a controlled local scale.
24.9.6. Integrated Water Management

24.9.6. Integrated Water Management
Artificial recharge and water reuse are important aspects of integrated water management where water resources
management problems are solved by considering all aspects, using a holistic or integrated approach. Integrated water
management includes not just quantity and quality aspects, and supply management, but also demand management, water
conservation, reuse and recycling, artificial recharge of groundwater, conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater,
economics, transfers of water rights and water marketing with willing buyers and sellers while protecting third-party interests,
environmental and ecological aspects, sociocultural aspects, sustainability, regional solutions (often on a watershed basis),
community involvement (public meetings with all stakeholders, and so on), more storage of water, multiple-purpose projects,
desalination (ocean water, brackish groundwater), and weather modification.
Integrated water management is readily achieved in countries where the water belongs to the state (i.e., the people). Where
water rights are in private hands, integrated water management and equitable distribution of water resources hopefully can be
achieved by water marketing, where the water would essentially go to the highest bidder. This would stimulate the most
economical use of water resources. However, some government intervention may be needed to ensure equitable distribution of
water and protection of third–party interests. If necessary, water from private owners could be obtained through the process of
eminent domain, as is now done for land. An example of reforming water law to achieve integrated water management and
equitable distribution of water resources is the White Paper developed in South Africa (Hayward, 1997).
24.10. REFERENCES
1. Agences de l’Eau et du Ministere de l’Environnement,Epuration des Eaux Uses Urbaines par Infiltration-Percolation: Etat
de l’Art et Etudes de Cas, Laboratoire de Hydrologie et Modelisation, Universit Montpellier II, Montpellier-Cedex, France,
1994.
2. Ames, B. N., and L. Swirsky Gold, “Too Many Rodent Carcinogens: Mitogenesis Increases Mutagenesis,”Science249:940–
971. 1990.
3. Bouwer, H. , “Analyzing groundwater mounds by resistance network”, Journal Irrigation and Drainage Division , Am. Soc.
Civil Enginners88 (IR 3): 15-36, 1962.
4. Bouwer, H., “Theory of Seepage from Open Channels, in V. T. Chow, ed.,Advances in Hydroscience, Academic Press, New
York, p. 121–170.1969.
5. Bouwer, H., “Predicting Reduction in Water Losses from Open Channels by Phreatophyte Control,”Water Resources
Research, 11:96–101, 1975.
6. Bouwer, H. , Groundwater Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA, 1978.
7. Bouwer, H., “Design Considerations for Earth Linings for Seepage Control,”Ground Water, 20(5):531–537, 1982.
8. Bouwer, H. , “Groundwater Recharge as a Treatment of Sewage Effluent for Unrestricted Irrigation in A. Arar and M. D.
Pescod, eds., Proceedings. FAO Regional Seminar on the Treatment and Use of Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Nicosia,
Butterworth, London. pp. 116–128.1985.
9. Bouwer, H. , “Intake rate: Cylinder in filtrometer”. In Methods of Soil Analyses, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods,
A. Klute, ed. Agronomy Monograph, 2nd. ed. P. 825-844, 1986.
10. Bouwer, H., “Effect of Water Depth and Groundwater Table on Infiltration from Recharge Basins,” In S. C. Harris, ed.,
Proceedings 1990 National Conference Irrigation and Drainage Division American Society of Civil Engineers, Durango, CO,
July 11–13, pp. 337–384.1990.
11. Bouwer, H., “Simple Derivation of the Retardation Equation and Application to Preferential Flow and Macrodispersion,”
Ground Water Journal, 29(1):41–46, 1991.
12. Bouwer, H., “From Sewage Farm to Zero Discharge,” European Water Pollution Control, 3(1):9–16, 1993.
13. Bouwer, H., “Estimating the Ability of the Vadose Zone to Transmit Liquids, In “L. G. Wilson, L. G. Everett, and S. J. Cullen,
eds.,” Handbook of Vadose Zone Characterization & Monitoring, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 177–188.1995.
14. Bouwer, H. “Discussion of Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Review Articles,” Ground Water, 34:171, 1996.
15. Bouwer, H. and E. Idelovitch, “Quality Requirements for Irrigation with Sewage Effluent, Journal of Irrigation Drainage
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers. 113(4):516–535, 1987.
16. Bouwer, H., and T. Maddock III, “Making Sense of the Interaction Between Groundwater and Streamflow: Lessons for
Watermasters and Adjudicators. RIVERS. 6(1):19–31, 1997)”.
17. Bouwer, H., and R. C. Rice, “Renovation of Wastewater at the 23rd Avenue Rapid-Infiltration Project, Phoenix, Arizona,”
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation56(1):76–83. 1984a.
18. Bouwer, H., and R. C. Rice, “Hydraulic Properties of Stony Vadose Zones,”Ground Water, 22(6):696–705, 1984b.
19. Bouwer, H., and R. C. Rice, “Effect of Water Depth in Groundwater Recharge Basins on Infiltration Rate,”Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 115(4):556–568, 1989.
20. Bouwer, H., R. C. Rice, and E. D. Escarcega, “High-rate Land Treatment: I. Infiltration and Hydraulic Aspects of the Flushing
Meadows Project”, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation46 (5): 835-843, 1974.
21. Bouwer, H., R. C. Rice, J. C. Lance, and R. G Gilbert, “Rapid Infiltration Research—the Flushing Meadows Project, Arizona,”
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 42(10):2457–2470, 1980.
22. Bouwer, E. J., P. L. McCarty, H. Bouwer, and R. C. Rice, “Organic Contaminant Behavior During Rapid Infiltration of
Secondary Wastewater at the Phoenix 23rd Avenue Project, Water Research, 18:463–472, 1984.
23. Bouwer, H., P. Fox, P. Westerhoff, and J. E. Drewes, “Integrating Water Managment and Reuse: Causes for Concern?”
Water Quality International, January - February 1999, pp. 19-22.
24. Bouwer, H., J. T. Back, and J. M. Oliver, “Predicting Infiltration and Ground Water Mounding for Artificial Recharge,”
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Am. Soc. Civil Engrs.In press, 1999.
25. Calabrese, E. M, “Animal Extrapolation—a Look Inside the Toxicologists’ Black Box,”Journal of Environmental Science And
Technology, 21:612–6231987.
26. Carlson, R. D., K. D. Lindstedt, E. R. Bennett, and R. B. Hartman, “Rapid Infiltration Treatment of Primary and Secondary
Effluents”, Journal of Water Pollution Control Fededration, 54:270–280. 1982.
27. Devine, R. S. “The Trouble with Dams,”Atlantic Monthly, August 1995, p. 67–73. 1995.
28. Glover, Robert E. “Ground Water Movement”, U. S. Bureu of Reclamation, Engr. Monogr. 31, 67 pp, 1964.
29. Hantke, H., “Der Sickerschlitzgraben,” Brunnenbau, Bau von Wasserwerken, und Rohrleitungsbau (BBR), 34(6):207–208,
1983.
30. Hantush, Mahdi S. “Growth and Decay of Ground Water mounds in Response to Uniform Percolation”,Water Resources
Research3: 227-234, 1967.
31. Hayward, K. “South Africa Sets Out Policy on Water Management,” Water Quality International, p. 4May/June 1997.
32. Knoppers, R., and W. van Hulst., De Keerzijde van de Dam, Jan van Arkel, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
33. Lance, J. C., R. C. Rice, and R. G. Gilbert, “Renovation of Sewage Water by Soil Columns Flooded with Primary Effluent,”
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 52(2):381–388, 1980.
34. Lave, L. B., F. K. Ennever, H. S. Rosenkranz, and G. S. Omenn, “Information Value of the Rodent Bioassay,”Nature, 336
(Dec.):631–633, 1988.
35. Leach, L. E., C. G. Enfield, and C. C. Harlin, Jr., Summary of Long-Term Rapid Infiltration System Studies, Report No. EPA-
600/2080-165, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK, 1980.
36. Marino, Miguel A. “Artificial Ground Water Recharge, I. Circular Recharging Area, Journal Hydrology25: 201-208, 1975a.
37. Marino, Miguel A. “Artificial Ground Water Recharge, II. Rectangular Recharging Area”,Journal Hydrology26: 29-37, 1975b.
38. McCarty, P. L., B. E. Rittman, and E. J. Bouwer, “Microbiological Processes Affecting Chemical Transformations in
Groundwater,” in G. Bitton and C. P. Gerba, eds., Groundwater Pollution Microbiology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp.
89–116.1984.
39. McEwen, B., and T. Richardson, “Indirect Potable Reuse: Committee Report” Proceedings 1996 Water Reuse Conference,
American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, San Diego, CA, pp. 486–5031996.
40. National Research Council, Ground Water Recharge Using Waters of Impaired Quality, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1994.
41. Nellor, M. H., R. B. Baird, and J. R. Smith, Summary of Health Effects Study: Final Report, County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, Whittier, CA, 1984.
42. Oster, J. D., “Future Challenges of Irrigated Agriculture Using Poor Quality Water,” Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering, 22(IC):175–198, 1997.
43. Pearce, F., The Dammed, The Bodley Head, London, 1992.
44. Peters, J. H., and C. Castell-Exner, eds., Proceedings Dutch-German Workshop on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater,
September, 1993, Castricum, The Netherlands, KIWA, Nieuwegein 3430 BB, The Netherlands, 1993.
45. Pettygrove, G. S., and T. Asano, eds. Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater—A Guidance Manual, Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1985.
46. Pyne, R. D. G.Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide to Aquifer Storage Recovery, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL,
1995.
47. Rice, R. C, and H. Bouwer, “Soil-Aquifer Treatment Using Primary Effluent”. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation,
56(1):848, 1984.
48. Shelef, G. “The Role of Wastewater Reuse in Water Resources Management in Israel,in Proceedings 15th Biennial
Conference, International Association on Water Pollution Research Control, Kyoto, Japan, Water Scienc and Technology,
23:2081–2089. 1990.
49. Singer, P. C., R. D. G. Pyne, M. AVS, C. T. Miller, and C. Mojoonnier, “Examining the Impact of Aquifer Storage and Recovery
on DBPs, “ Journal American Water Works Association, 85–94. 1993.
50. Sloss, E. M., S. A. Geschwind, D. F. McCaffrey, and B. R. Ritz,Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water: An
Epidemiologic Assessment in Los Angeles County, 1987-1991, RAND, Corp.Santa Monica, CA, 1996.
51. Sumner, M. E, and B. A. Stewart, eds., Soil Crusting: Chemical and Physical Processes, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL,
1992.
52. Van de Graff, A. A., A. Mulder, P. de Bruyn, M. S. M. Jetten, L. A. Robertson, and J. G. Kuenen. “Anaerobic Oxidation of
Ammonium is a Biologically Meditated Process”, applied and Enviromental Microbiology61 (4): 1246-1251, 1995.
53. Warner, J. W., D. Molden, M. Chehata, and D. K. Sunada. “Mathematical Analysis of Artificial Recharge from Basins,” Water
Resources Bulletin, 25:401–411, 1989.
54. World Health Organization, Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture, Technical Bulletin
Series 77, WHO, Geneva, 1989.

24.artificial Recharge of Groundwater Systems Design and Management

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

24.artificial Recharge of Groundwater Systems Design and Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

24.

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE OF GROUNDWATER:

USDA-ARS Water Conservation Laboratory

24.3.1. Surface Systems

24.3.2. Trenches, Shafts, and Wells.

Loams 0.2 m/day

Sandy loams 0.3 m/day

Loamy sands 0.5 m/day

Fine sands 1 m /day

Medium sands 5 m /day

Coarse sands >10 m/day

24.4.2. Cylinder Infiltrometers

Loamy sands–sandy loams –10

Structured clays (aggregated) –14

Dispersed clays –40

0800 Filled with water to top

0830 Water dropped 4 in, cylinder refilled to top

0900 Water dropped 3 in, cylinder refilled to top

1000 water dropped 5 in, cylinder refilled to top

1100 water dropped 4 in, end of test

24.4.4. Effect of Water Depth on Infiltration

24.4.5. Effect of Groundwater Depth on Infiltration Rate

24.4.6. Induced Recharge

24.5. GROUNDWATER MOUNDING

24.5.2. Groundwater Mounds

where α = (W/2 + x) n or (W/2 – x)n and β = (L/2 + y)n or (L/2 – y)n.

Hc = height of groundwater mound in center of recharge area,

Hn = height of groundwater table at control area,

W = width of recharge area,

Ln = distance between edge of recharge area and control area, and

24.6. CHALLENGING SOILS

24.7.2. Design and Management

24.8. SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS

24.8.2. Seepage Trenches

24.8.3. Aquifer Wells

24.8.4. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Wells

24.9. ROLE OF RECHARGE IN WATER REUSE

24.9.2. Artificial Recharge and Soil-Aquifer Treatment

Secondary Effluent (mg/L) Recovery Well Samples (mg/L)

Total dissolved solids 750 790

Ammonium nitrogen 16 0.1

Nitrate nitrogen 0.5 5.3

Organic nitrogen 1.5 0.1

Phosphate phosphorus 5.5 0.4

Fluoride 1.2 0.7

Boron 0.6 0.6

Biochemical oxygen demand 12 0

Total organic carbon 12 1.9

Fecal coliforms, per 100 ml 3500 0.3

Viruses, PFU/100 1 2118 0

24.9.3. Well Recharge with Sewage Effluent

24.9.4. Constructed Aquifers

24.9.6. Integrated Water Management

You might also like