A Stakeholder driven approach to optimize modeling and monitoring of water resources

in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain

Jeannie Barlow, Wade Kress, Kathy Knierim, Connor Haugh

USGS, Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center

May 9, 2019

In cooperation with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, information regarding the Water-Supply Scenarios is preliminary and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information is provided on the condition that neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor the U.S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.

The Mississippi Alluvial Plain Aquifer: An Engine for Economic Activity

Agriculture in the MAP region • $6.56 billion total revenue• $11.88 billion total economic

impact

2017 agricultural gross domestic product (GDP)

• 84% Arkansas • 71% Mississippi

2Alhassan et al., 2018

USGS Science and Decisions Center

Central Valley

High Plains

MRVA

Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., 2005

4

Water Budgets of the 3 most used aquifers, all for irrigation

5ET: evapotranspiration, RO: surface runoff (quick flow), RC: recharge (base flow)ET + RO + RC = Ppt + Irr

Central Valley

High Plains

MRVA

95%

95%

63%26%

10%

Water Budgets by State

LA

TNMO

MS

AR

6021

19

6126

13

7126

3

6921

10

6529

6

How do we take advantage of these water budget opportunities? Integrated water availability assessment

Water availability in the Mississippi Delta: optimized monitoring and modeling for water management

MONITOR MODEL

UNDERSTANDING

??

Recharge

HydrogeologicModel

Water Resource ModelWater Budget

Model UncertaintyData Worth

Web-based Decision Support System

Geophysical Mapping

Runoff

Surface-Groundwater Exchange

Surface waterModel

GroundwaterLevels

ET

Surface water Monitoring

Remotely Sensed ET

ET Monitoring

WU Monitoring WL Monitoring

HYSEP EconomicsModel

QW Monitoring

WU Model

WU Monitoring

Water Use Monitoring and Mapping Efforts

Water-Use Network

13

usgs.gov/centers/lmg-water

Measuring Water Use

14

Real-Time GW Levels

Real-Time Water Use

??HydrogeologicModel

GW Flow Model

UncertaintyData Worth Geophysical

Mapping

Surface-Groundwater Exchange

GroundwaterLevels

Hydrogeologic Framework Mapping Efforts

16

B. Minsley, 2016

Ground geophysicsGRACE

Bore

hole

s

Medical Imaging

17

MRI

Geophysical ImagingEMI

AEM Survey

18

Largest AEM effort for water resource mapping in the CONUS

Total planned +40,000 line-km

Feb-March 18: 2,500 ln-km• High-res survey of Shellmound, MS• 250m & 1km line spacing

Nov 18-Feb 19: 17,000 ln-km• Regional flight grid over MAP• 6-12 km line spacing + river lines

Summer 2019: 10,000 ln-km• Regional flight grid with Tempest fixed

wing system

More 2020-2021

http://arcg.is/01nraa

Grain Size

Sed. Type

SW/GWExchange Potential

Fine Coarse

Clay Sand

Lower Potential Higher Potential

Resistivity(ohm*m) Low High

Resistivity Color Scale for EM data

Medical Imaging

20

Geophysical Imaging

2D Profile

Depth slice

21

Water quality for availability

QW Monitoring

Preliminary information - Subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.

Groundwater Quality Goals

23

Groundwater Age Tracers Salinity (Specific Conductance & Chloride)

Estimate Recharge Rates Airborne Electromagnetic Geophysical Survey

MERAS Model

Preliminary information - Subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.

2018 Sampling

24

Spatial Variation of Chloride Over Time

25Preliminary information - Subject to revision.

Not for citation or distribution.

USGS Station Number 322605091301101

USGS Station Number 322623091294901

Years 1940 - 1949

Years 1950 - 1959

Years 1960 - 1969

Years 1970 - 1979

Years 1980 - 1989

Years 1990 - 1999

Years 2000 - 2009

Years 2010 - 2019

Preliminary information - Subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.

Next Steps

26

Tracer Lumped Parameter Model (LPM)

Alternative Water-Supply Scenarios

• Irrigation efficiency• Instream weirs to increase

surface-water availability• Tailwater recovery and onsite

farm storage• Inter/intra-basin transfer(s)

Decrease GW Withdrawals

Irrigation efficiency in the Mississippi Delta; photo credit: Jason Krutz, MSU-DREC

Mundaring Water Treatment Plant, Australia; photo credit: http://www.water-technology.net

Alternative Water-Supply Scenarios

• Irrigation efficiency• Instream weirs to increase

surface-water availability• Tailwater recovery and onsite

farm storage• Inter/intra-basin transfer(s)

Decrease GW Withdrawals

• Enhanced aquifer recharge

Increase Recharge to the Alluvial Aquifer

Groundwater transfer and injection schematic

Image from Dr. J.R. Rigby, USDA-ARS

How much will water levels decline within the area of the Delta with the highest rate of water-level declines?

-35

-20

-24

-31

-27

-33-31

-27

-17

-8

1

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Irrigation Efficiency

DeltaWide Central

Delta

33%Adoption

66%Adoption 33%

Adoption66%

Adoption

10abstraction

wells

20abstraction

wells

30abstraction

wells

40abstraction

wells

Weirs –½ mile

service area

Q-T transfer½ mi

service area

Groundwater transfer and injection

Average water level decline within the area of interest at the end of 50 years

Base

-35

-20

-24

-31

-27

-33-31

-27

-17

-8

1

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Irrigation Efficiency

DeltaWide Central

Delta

33%Adoption

66%Adoption 33%

Adoption66%

Adoption

10abstraction

wells

20abstraction

wells

30abstraction

wells

40abstraction

wells

Weirs –½ mile

service area

Q-T transfer½ mi

service area

Groundwater transfer and injection

Average water level decline within the area of interest at the end of 50 years

Base

Key Findings

1. Irrigation efficiency practices implemented outside of the “cone of depression” positively benefit water levels within the cone of depression, and when combined with irrigation efficiency practices implemented within the “cone of depression”, result in greater water-level response than implementing irrigations practices within the “cone of depression” alone.

-35

-20

-24

-31

-27

-33-31

-27

-17

-8

1

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Irrigation Efficiency

DeltaWide Central

Delta

33%Adoption

66%Adoption 33%

Adoption66%

Adoption

10abstraction

wells

20abstraction

wells

30abstraction

wells

40abstraction

wells

Weirs –½ mile

service area

Q-T transfer½ mi

service area

Groundwater transfer and injection

Average water level decline within the area of interest at the end of 50 years

Base

Key Findings

2. The groundwater transfer and injection scenario was the only one that resulted in “recovery” after 50 years. Water-levels within the “cone of depression” were on average 1 ft higher than initial conditions at the end 50 year simulation.

Base Scenario

Land Surface

Initial Water Level, 2013

Alternative Scenario

Water Level Response

Land Surface

Initial Water Level, 2013

Water Level, 2063

Water Level, 2063

Economic Model for

each scenario

Cost per acre foot of water

level response due

to each scenario

How much will it cost? Connect water and economic models to estimate anticipated cost for

each scenario.

Economic Analysis: Most Realistic Scenarios

ScenarioEstimated Total NPV

Cost of ProjectAverage Water Level

Increase at Year 50 in Feet

Cost of Change -Average Foot of

IncreaseIrrigation Efficiency

Delta Wide $354,913,325 15 $23,660,888 Central Delta $9,295,469 10 $929,547

In Stream Weirs 1/2 Mile Service Area66% Adoption Rate $6,724,753 8 $840,59433% Adoption Rate $11,560,932 4 $2,890,233

Tallahatchie- Quiver 1/2 Mile Service Area66% Adoption Rate $51,427,291 4 $12,856,82333% Adoption Rate $49,113,657 2 $24,556,829

Enhanced Aquifer Recharge10 Abstraction Wells $52,762,173 8 $6,595,27220 Abstraction Wells $105,524,338 17 $6,207,31430 Abstraction Wells $158,286,513 27 $5,862,46340 Abstraction Wells $211,048,680 35 $6,029,962

Future efforts will involve optimizing multiple

solutions

?