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

net/publication/267097426

PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR

OPERATING AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) SITES

Conference Paper · October 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4676.8646

CITATIONS READS

0 118

5 authors, including:

Christopher J Brown
University of North Florida
61 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING LARGE-SCALE NUTRIENT REMOVAL/STORAGE PROJECTS ON THE BLUE HEAD RANCH PROPERTY View project

Florida DOT Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher J Brown on 20 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM FOR OPERATING AQUIFER STORAGE
AND RECOVERY (ASR) SITES

JOHNSON C., TANCRETO A., MILLER J., LINKFIELD T., and BROWN C.*.

University of North Florida, School of Engineering, Civil Engineering

Department,[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: Adaptive assessment, Aquifer, Framework Planning

Abstract
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects have been operating around the world for several
decades in a variety of hydrogeologic regimes and supporting a myriad of water supply pur-
poses. Unfortunately, recurring problems have continually arisen that could have been avoided
if ASR lessons learned and improved adaptive assessment programs were instituted.The purpose
of this paper is to expound upon the current planning methodologies for designing and operating
a successful ASR system and to start the preliminary development of an appropriate adaptive
assessment program for ASR projects. The first section of this document introduces five ASR
sites with varying hydrogeological settings across the Unites States and details the major issues
and creative solutions utilized at each site. The second section explains the current planning and
operating methods. In the third section, recommendations are made for the initial development
of an adaptive assessment protocol for the purposes of altering or enhancing the current plan-
ning methods in order to optimize the design and operation of each project.This is generally ac-
complished by collecting lessons learned from each project site so that in the future, recurring
issues can be minimized.

1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to perform a comparative review and analysis of multiple ASR site
configurations and subsequent operating data to evaluate common traits, potential issues, and
lessons learned for advancement in defining proper ASR planning processes and procedures.
Currently there is minimal framework defining the proper design process and management prac-
tices of ASR projects. By reviewing past designs, implementation of recommended management
strategies, and future improvement plans of ASR projects, a refinedoutline for improved ASR
planning methodologies can be recommended. Data was analyzed in detail for fiveASR sites
located within the United States, as denoted in Figure 1 by the orange markers.

*Figure not to scale

Figure 1.Five ASR project site locations.

10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014 249

249
2. Materials and Methods
The five ASR sites were selected based on the physical properties of each aquifer and basin, as
well as the operational characteristics (including the intended use of the stored water bubble)
and system-wide objectives which varied greatly between each ASR site. Data was collected
from sources such as; annual reports, feasibility studies, performance evaluations, and previous
management reports and operation plans. A brief summary of each site’s characteristics, back-
ground information, and operational history is provided in the following sections to aid in the
revision of the existing ASR planning guidelines and to help in the formulation of an adaptive
assessment program.

2.1 Las Posas Basin, Calleguas Municipal Water District

The Las Posas Basin ASR Project for Calleguas Municipal Water District stores surplus water
within the confined Fox Canyon Aquifer (FCA) of the Eastern Management Sub-Area (EMSA)
of Las Posas Groundwater Basin.The current project has been in-place for almost 20 years, in-
cludes 26 wells with a total recharge capacity of approximately 242,000 m3/day and was origi-
nally constructed to provide a reliable emergency water supply (Calleguas 2004).The project
provides local storage within the FCAwhen other imported water supplies are limited. The FCA
is located in a basin dominated by alternating layers of marine sands, marine gravels, and ma-
rine silts/clays (Pyne 1995; Brown 2005). The aquifer thickness ranges from 60 to 122 meters
with a transmissivity ranging from 56 to 1,487 m2/day and an observed storage coefficient of 4 x
10-6 (Brown 2005). The project source comes from the existing state water project. Other re-
charge to the aquifer system originates from direct percolation, inflow from Oxnard Plain Basin,
recharge from increased base flow in the form of wastewater discharges in Simi Valley and
Moorpark, shallow dewatering discharges in Simi Valley, and urban runoff (Bondy et al. 2012).
The various incoming base flows recharge the shallow alluvium surficial aquifer and underlying
confined aquifers including the FCA. Over time, as pumping increased from the FCA, poorer
quality recharge water was able to enter the aquifer from shallower aquifer zones (Bondy et al.
2012). Historically, well clogging has been a major issue (Brown 2005) but pro-active manage-
ment has alleviated that problem, albeit at a higher maintenance cost. Currently, the main
groundwater management issues identified include localized pumping depressions in the West
Las Posas Basin, water quality including salinity management, and overall groundwater demand
for the future. When in-lieu water deliveries are not being provided for the West Las Posas ba-
sin, declining water levels become a concern (Bachman 2012). These lowered water levels
could induce poor water quality to flow or leak from surrounding areas and eventually cause
increased pumping lifts, decreased production, and finally unsuitable well production (Bondy et
al. 2012). Short (interim), medium, and long term strategies for management are currently
planned to address all of the main issues of the Las Posas Basin ASR Project (Bondy et al.
2012). While the interim measures are in-place, LPUG will complete a number of critical plan-
ning tasks for the medium-term and long-term strategies.

2.2 Las Vegas Valley Water District

The Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) first began operating in 1989 and has injected
nearly 435 million m3 of water since its inception (Landmeyer et al. 2000; personal communica-
tion from Erin Cole 2013). The purpose of the LVVWD ASR system is to provide water to the
rapidly growing population during the peak summer months with the added benefit of ground-
water level restoration. Treated water from the Colorado River is stored in the principal
groundwater aquifer and recovered the during peak demand months. The well field is located
mostly in the central and northwestern portions of the Las Vegas Valley.
The ASR site is located above a vast variety of basin fill sediments. Early drilling logs indicate
two general types of alluvial deposits; poorly sorted heterogeneous mixtures of boulders,
gravel, sand, silt, and clay; and stringers of sorted gravel and sand deposits (Bernholtz et al.
1991). The aquifer is unconfined to semi-confined in nature with a highly variable transmissiv-

250 10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014

250
ity ranging from 93 to almost 3,700 m2/day. A number of important historical and ongoing op-
erational and management issues have been identified at the site. Historically, minor well clog-
ging and in-situ production of disinfection by-products have been a major issue (Katzer &
Brothers 1989; Brown 2005) but pro-active management has alleviated most of those problems.
In-situ production of chlorine-based disinfection by-products has been a serious issue at several
other ASR sites including one located in Lancaster, California (Fram et al. 2003). Currently, the
project managers have been dealing with well clogging due to gas entrainment issues. In 2001 a
study was conducted to determine the total dissolved gas (TDG) in the recovered water. The
study concluded that ASR operations combined with temperature changes between recharge op-
erations in the winter months and recovery operations in the summer months were the cause of
TDG pressures in the aquifer reaching 202.65 kilopascals (kPa) with a composition of predomi-
nantly air. When water levels were lower, the design of the pump caused the water to cascade
down the sides bringing air with it. Gas or air entrainment has long been identified as an injec-
tion well operational issue (Johnson 1981) yet the problem seems to reoccur with great fre-
quency and has been noted at other ASR sites including one located in Salem, Oregon (Golder
Associates 1996) and Highlands Ranch, Colorado (Bureau of Reclamation 1994; Pyne 1995).
2.3 Oak Creek
The Oak Creek Water and Sewer Utility has operated the Oak Creek ASR site since about 2000
(Miller 2001) and has discontinued recharge and recovery actions. This site is located south of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin which has historically relied on groundwater wells for fresh water, until
a large water treatment facility was built to withdraw water from Lake Michigan, thus creating a
need for alternative fresh water method. The purpose of theASR project was to take water from
the treatment plant and inject it into the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer and recover it during peak
demand. Aquifer tests of the primarily sandstone storage zone revealed that the aquifer was fully
confined with a transmissivity of 307 m2/day and a storage coefficient of 2 x 10-4. The ASR sys-
tem utilized old emergency wells and other municipal wells which were converted to perform
the specific function needed for the project. Historically, minor well clogging due to suspended
solids and in-situ production of undesirable water quality parameters has been a major issue
(Miller 2001; Brown 2005). Geochemical oxidation of pyrite was identified as one primary wa-
ter quality problem through analysis of the change in concentration of manganese in the recov-
ered water. Pilot tests of the ASR system revealed significant increases in dissolved manganese
and iron in the observation well during the storage phase, which was likely the result of reduc-
tive dissolution of iron and manganese hydroxides in the aquifer (ASRTAG 2002). These levels
exceeded the groundwater quality standards for those elements and therefore affected the overall
feasibility of the project, which needed additional geochemical modeling to address. In 2011,
the ASR site discontinued ASR operations due to geochemical-induced water quality problems.
This continues to be a major issue for many other ASR project sites, including Lychett Minster,
United Kingdom, Kissimmee River, Florida and Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Brown 2005).
2.4 San Antonio Water System
The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) ASR project is very large project located outside of
San Antonio, Texas. The SAWS ASR site was selected in 2004 after five potential aquifer loca-
tions were analyzed during a feasibility study due to its lower cost for recovery (personal com-
munication from Mike Brinkman 2013).
Water is taken from the Edwards aquifer and injected into the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer during
times of low water demand through a 225,000 m3/day capacity pipeline. At times of high water
demand, water is taken from the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer and treated before distribution. This is
done through a treatment, storage, and pumping plant located on site. The Carrizo Wilcox aqui-
fer consists of two geologic units, the Simsboro and Calvert Bluff Formations and the, overlying
Carrizo Sand. These both form seven layers of deposition that were eroded from the Rocky
Mountains. The mean transmissivity is approximately 28 m2/d and the specific storage has a
mean of 4.5×10-6 (Mace et al. 2000).

10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014 251

251
A number of important historical operational and management issues have been identified at the
site. One of the main problems encountered was that the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer was under the
jurisdiction of several entities. The two entities, Evergreen Underwater Conservation District
and SAWS, came to the agreement that SAWS had to begin recharge operations immediately,
not after several years of pumping. It also stated that SAWS could pump 7,900,000 m3/yr based
on the amount of land that the ASR field encompassed and up to the amount that would be
stored. Possible direct impacts to nearby private well owners were another operational obstacle
for the project. SAWS implemented mitigation programs ultimately agreeing to be responsible
for compensating landowners for any adverse effects that the ASR operations would cause, such
as extra drawdown caused by extended periods of recovery. Both of these measures ensure that
SAWS, Evergreen, and the included landowners have a positive working relationship. The Bu-
reau of Reclamation (1996) noted that ASR projects in Salt Lake City, Utah also struggled with
similar issues. Another key management and operational issue identified by SAWS included the
proximity to a brackish water supply. However, this seems manageable at the moment due to a
confining unit that acts as a divider between the injection location and the brackish water (per-
sonal communication Mike Brinkman 2013). SAWS also has issues with finding optimal oper-
ating criteria such as determining when to start and stop ASR operations, defining a storage vol-
ume for the amount of water available for recover, and doing a better job at defining the factors
that control the volume available. These include legal, regulatory, and water quality factors
(Malcolm Pirnie Inc et al. 2013).

2.5 Tualatin Valley Water District and City of Beaverton

The Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) and the City of Beaverton were jointly interested
in ASR as a new technology (Eaton 2004). From a municipal water production and ASR per-
spective, the Columbia River Basalt is the most important aquifer within the Tualatin Valley. As
is common in most basalt aquifers, numerous fault zones have been identified within the study
area, and these faults may have compartmentalized the regional basalt aquifer into sub-units. In
Beaverton, recovery at the ASR site is limited to 95% of injection by state to cover potential
basin losses through these faults.
The northern portion of the Cooper Mountain basalt aquifer was selected as the site of the ASR
pilot project because of its promising hydrogeologic conditions and existing large-capacity wells
and conveyance facilities. Aquifer tests and borehole geophysical tests were completed and the
results indicated that: the aquifer is relatively productive; the aquifer has a potentially large stor-
age capacity; the aquifer may sustain injection rates of greater than 2.65 m3 per minute; the
groundwater quality in the study area is good; and the existing wells are suitable for use as ASR
wells. The aquifer storage zone is confined to semi-confined with a transmissivity of about
1,242 m2/day and storage coefficient of 1 x 10-4 (Brown 2005).
Once ASR activities were implemented, no long-term decline in the static water level in the re-
gional basalt aquifer attributable to ASR activities was noted, which strongly suggests; no ap-
preciable net loss of stored water from the aquifer; no water quality standard exceedances were
noted, and no adverse chemical reactions that potentially could clog the aquifer near the injec-
tion wells were observed. The water quality remained excellent during the recovery phase,
which proves that Beaverton is a relatively successful ASR project.
A number of important historical and ongoing operational and management issues have been
identified at the site. These include high water levels in the aquifer during recharge events,
partly due to increased flow in an area seep. Seeps, or areas where water reaches the surface
from an underground aquifer, have considerable flooding risks, which can be problematic in ur-
banized environments, such as Beaverton. In order to aid in the interpretation of seep flows, it is
beneficial to monitor the existing seeps both before and during recharge events (Brown 2005).
Another issue at the Beaverton site was potential air entrainment. This can be attributed to a lack
of downhole control valve in the first operational ASR well and since the static water level of
the basalt aquifer is typically 61 meters below land surface. ASR No. 1 lacked a downhole con-

252 10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014

252
trol valve or well liner due to its original installation date in 1945. In addition, rehabilitation of
the well to add a downhole valve would be difficult due to well bore alignment issues and di-
ameter constraints. The improper construction of early ASR wells contributed to injection turbu-
lence which was one of the main operational issues encountered at the site. It was also found
that periodic back flushing of the wells is critical to minimizing well clogging and upholding
efficient ASR well operations (Brown 2005). The recovered water from the basalt aquifer ex-
perienced small increases in radon, iron, manganese, and trihalomethanes (THM); but all in-
creases were well below drinking water standards. The recovered water also had elevated levels
of dissolved oxygen on the first day of pumping, and this is attributed to the fact that the water
close to the wellbore has had the shortest opportunity for microbial activity, and consequent re-
duction in dissolved oxygen. Another issue to note is that the recovery percentage was 85% of
the 6.17 million m3 banked over the first six years of operation. The remaining 15% was not dis-
tributed evenly over the basin, resulting in a localized mound that influences local recharge per-
formance negatively.

3. Results
3.1 Current Planning and Implementation Methodologies
The importance of proper planning can largely influence the success of ASR while simultane-
ously reducing operational risk and uncertainty of variables including water quality, recharge
and recovery volumes, cost, and other factors. Although there is not a set program standard re-
garding proper ASR technology use and implementation, previous research, journals and aca-
demic papers have been written on the topic. Pyne (1995) states that “although each ASR pro-
ject tends to have important and site-specific issues that determine the nature and direction of
activities, common themes emerging from these different projects form the basis of a recom-
mended process for consideration at potential new ASR sites.” His broad approach includes a
minimum of three phases; preliminary feasibility assessment and conceptual design, field inves-
tigation and test program, and recharge facilities expansion.

3.1.1 Phase 1
To begin phase 1 for any proposed ASR project, all objectives must be clearly defined and ac-
cepted by the parties involved. There are primary objectives for which the ASR is mainly de-
signed to achieve and there also may be secondary objectives that are incorporated into the de-
sign for added benefit. The ASR site locations should be based on its potential to achieve all
desired objectives and ability to incorporate ASR project features. Since the main purpose of
most ASR wells is related to storage and recovery, a suitable storage zone for injection and re-
charge must be identified. This is an important step in the design process because it identifies
the specific area where further research will be required and where potential facilities needed for
the preliminary or final design of the ASR system should be located. 
Environmental, regulatory, and water rights issues should be evaluated in great detail during the
conceptual design of the ASR site. It is common to find multiple users sharing the water stored
within an ASR site and rights to water usage can become an issue since groundwater ownership
is determined by each state’s laws. There are also environmental issues that can arise from the
implementation of an ASR such as impacts to groundwater levels, water quality, and adjacent
water bodies (Pyne 1995). In many states, ASR wells may require certain permitting and com-
pliance to operate. Water quality guidelines for ASR systems may be applicable for certain
countries, states, or environmental protection agencies. These guidelines may outline the mini-
mum level of pretreatment required, minimum residence time, monitoring practices including
the use of observation wells, maximum concentrations of contaminants in injected water, and
others (Martin et al. 2002). Finally, an economic analysis should be conducted to determine the
operating cost of the ASR to compare it to other water management alternatives.
The water source(s) available for recharge, either through natural or artificial recharge processes

10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014 253

253
should be carefully considered. Many issues with the injected water supply may arise such as
variability in flow, water quality, and an increase or decrease of sources. If one of the main ob-
jectives is to recover water for reuse by a service area then water demand should be evaluated to
ensure the supply will be reliable, treatment processes will be built to the proper capacity, and
the volume of recovery will meet the current and future demand (Pyne 1995). Many water qual-
ity parameters for potable water must be addressed and proper design must ensure their man-
agement. This could include items such as conventional parameters, toxins, pathogens, disinfec-
tion by-products and emerging contaminants. According to Brown (2005), conventional pa-
rameters include total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, alkalinity, color, chloride, sulfate and
total dissolved solids (TDS). Pathogens and disinfection by-products are a common occurrence
for any source water that has been treated using various methods of disinfection. Water may
need to go through a pre-treatment process to meet regulatory requirements and improve overall
water quality parameters before it is stored within the aquifer.
One of the most important planning steps for ASR design is evaluating the hydrogeologic condi-
tions within an aquifer to determine stratigraphy, aquifer properties, suitable storage zones, in-
situ water quality, hydraulic characteristics, mineralogy, geochemical properties, structures,
boundaries, groundwater velocity and direction, contamination, and many others (Pyne 1995).
The aquifer hydrogeology will control the distribution of the injected water within the aquifer
storage zone and subsequent ASR recovery operations (Brown 2005). For useful storage to oc-
cur the ASR site should have lateral and horizontal boundaries without significant leakage (con-
fined aquifers), which help increase the water levels and useful storage zone within the aquifer
(Maliva et al. 2006). If the suitable storage zone is within an unconfined aquifer it should have a
relatively high porosity so the stored water stays close to ASR well, have a setback buffer, and a
substantial thickness of unsaturated area (Brown 2005). The effective porosity of the aquifer
measures the available connected void spaces between sediment grains and directly influences
groundwater circulation and flow velocity. The difference in horizontal hydraulic conductivity
between the most and least conductive beds may be several orders of magnitude, and injected
water will enter and move through the most conductive zones within the aquifer. Varying rates
of hydraulic conductivity can cause changes in dispersivities in the longitudinal direction over
two or three orders of magnitude (Brown 2005). The dispersivity and salinity of native storage
zone water has also been found to be important variable for ASR performance because it can
induce layered mixing and zones of diffusion (Maliva et al. 2006).

3.1.2 Phase 2
ASR program development for phase 2 concentrates mainly on field testing and test facilities.
To begin, a test well may be constructed to perform pumping and injection testing. Pumping
tests help establish the well and formation loss coefficients, well efficiency, and other hydraulic
characteristics. Accurate hydraulic characteristics including flow rate, volume stored, water
level and pressure within the well are essential to establishing projected ASR performance. It is
important to test the water at multiple different stages of pumping or injection to determine if
the quality is changing with time or if any plugging is occurring. If treatment processes are pre-
sent, a zone may occur within a radius of tens of meters of the well in which ambient microbial
activity is accelerated, geochemical changes are more prevalent and water changes occur (Pyne
2005). The appropriate amount and duration of ASR cycles is important because water quality
results may show that leakage through a confining layer or a geochemical reaction is taking
place. ASR testing cycles may need to be modified depending on the water quality difference
between stored and native water, potential for geochemical reactions and storage time.
Either before or during phase 2, hydrogeologic modeling may provide many additional benefits
regarding the possible movement of the injected water within the aquifer or overall ASR pro-
jected performance. Modeling could include analytical methods, physical, or numerical calcula-
tions through the use of a computer. Modeling has increasingly become more refined and often-
times results can provide details that aid in the planning process. This is especially true for aqui-

254 10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014

254
fers that may have complex interactions between the ambient ground water and recharge water
that may have a significant difference in salinity or water quality.

3.1.3 Phase 3
Phase 3 of the ASR Program development, ASR well field expansion, deals with ensuring the
well field layout is designed to meet ASR purposes. The well field must be designed so the re-
charge and recovery flow rate distributions are equal. To prevent the flux of water from moving
based on varying flow rates. This design is directly related to the well spacing since it influences
the size of the volume of the stored water and subsequent recovery efficiency and optimization.
Multiple wells at varying depths may also aid storage abilities by storing water in multiple aqui-
fers, at varying depths, within the same site. The layout of the well field must also take into con-
sideration the natural hydraulic gradient, density contrasts and groundwater velocity movement
due to its influence on the movement of the stored water.
The design of an ASR well is unique due to the specific functionality and purpose of an ASR
system. An ASR well will have periods of wetting and drying during recharge and recovery pe-
riods which can lead to the formation of rust in steel castings. Rust may contribute to well clog-
ging and therefore the casting materials of wells should be carefully selected. The screen and
gravel pack must be designed so that it will keep the well casing from clogging due to the
buildup of solids. The design is dependent on the surrounding geotechnical conditions, possible
geochemical reactions that form solids, and potential microorganism growth. To help alleviate
further geochemical or bacterial activity, associated plugging and air entrainment, cascading
inside the well must be controlled. Cascading occurs when water cascades down the well caus-
ing air binding in the storage zone.

4. Discussion
After researching and reviewing the current planning practices along with existing ASR sites, it
is apparent that the problems are widespread and can be subdivided into three main categories;
operational issues, institutional issues, and geochemical or geological issues. A majority of the
major issues associated with each site are the direct result of an incomprehensive field investiga-
tion and planning which resulted in incomplete or improper design. While every site is different,
more extensive field investigations will aid in designing a system that decreases the possibility
for the common mistakes from reoccurring in a new site. The following sections detail the major
issues encountered at each site, how they could have been avoided or minimized, and potential
methods for alleviation by adopting an adaptive assessment mindset.

4.1 Operational Issues

4.1.1 Air Entrainment
As was stated in Section 2.2 and 2.5 of this paper, the major issue encountered at the LVVWD
ASR site and Beaverton site was entrained air. Entrained air is very undesirable for an aquifer
and can lead to a variety of problems including; well clogging, reduction of transmissivity in the
storage zone, as well as changes in oxidation-reduction potential, potentially leading to prob-
lems with geochemical reactions (Bouwer et al. 2008). A study was conducted by the LVVWD
and determined that the majority of the air was getting into the system during ASR operations.
One solution for reducing and/or eliminating the possibility of air getting trapped in the aquifer
is to ensure the well is designed properly, in that the recharge conduits are always fully sub-
merged (Brown 2005) or a downhole control valve is utilized. Issues related to well design can
be eliminated in the field investigation and testing phase of the ASR design process. It is impor-
tant to consider the changes in water level within the aquifer when designing the well system.
During the field investigation, the existing groundwater level should be determined at each well
point within the well field multiple times throughout the year. Variations in temperature along
with draw down from other wells can cause fluctuations in the groundwater levels. Thus, it is

10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014 255

255
important to note those fluctuations to ensure that the depth of the wellhead is enough to com-
pensate. If proper design is not enough to eliminate the entrainment of air in the aquifer, the ad-
dition of downhole control valves can allow the well to maintain positive pressure within the
injection tube. In turn, this will prevent water from cascading down the side of the well causing
air entrainment and possible other issues as stated in section 3.

4.1.2 Injection Turbulence

The main operational issue with the Beaverton site, as stated in section 2.5, was turbulence dur-
ing injection. Injection turbulence can ultimately lead to backpressure, head losses, and turbid-
ity. This issue was attributed to the fact that old production wells had not been properly con-
structed for ASR injection, which resulted in performance losses and special operation steps.
These old wells were open hole wells which are not suitable for ASR projects. In order to ac-
commodate for less turbulence, the open sections of the old wells should be lined, and any new
wells should be constructed with stainless steel, or some material of similar quality, casing and
wire wrap screen. It also must be noted during construction that the borehole diameter must be
large enough to accommodate not only the potential volume of water being injected, but also the
pump, downhole control valve, control lines, transducer sounding tube, and water level sound-
ing tube. Inadequate borehole diameters can lead to compressing of these items and can nega-
tively affect injection turbulence and can also lead to backpressure, head losses, and turbidity
(AWWA 2008).

4.2 Geochemical and Geological Issues

4.2.1 Salinity
The main issue within the Las Posas basin is water quality due the higher salt concentrates from
the recharge of the base flow due to the leakage from the overlying aquifer and the surface water.
For the San Antonio ASR project, the site is close to a brackish water supply but monitoring at
the site will ensure there is not a significant amount of leakage of the poor quality brackish water
into the ASR storage zone through the confining unit. As explained in section 3, salinity can have
many adverse effects on the performance of the ASR recovery and performance. Also, high salin-
ity may require the designer to select stainless steel well casing at a greater overall cost to the
project. At the Las Posas site, more intense field investigations may have identified the higher
salt concentrations within the shallow aquifer and the geological characteristics of the confining
layer which has allowed leakage to occur. Since the leakage from the shallow aquifer is a main
source of recharge for Las Posas, planning for an increase in poor water quality should have been
further analyzed. For San Antonio, defining the possible leakage through confining unit due to
pumping rates is important to estimate and prepare for to ensure excessive drawdown does not
promote leakage. In general, both current and future source water quality for injection must be
considered during the design phase to ensure that treatment facilities are minimized to the extent
practical and costs kept as low as possible. Methods of remediation for salinity include treatment
processes for desalting the water, mixing water of higher quality or changing the source water,
and placing injection wells in a formation that can confine areas of higher or lower quality.

4.2.2 Well Clogging

Well clogging has been an issue for injection wells for about 3 decades (Johnson 1981; Bichara
1986), yet it seems to be an ongoing operational issue. As was stated in Sections 2.1, 2.3, and
2.4, a major issue encountered at the Las Posas Calleguas, CA, Oak Creek, WI, and San Anto-
nio, TX sites was well clogging. Well clogging is one of the most common issues encountered
during ASR operation. The more common types of clogging that occur in ASR wells are; depo-
sition of total suspended solids (TSS) from the recharge source water, biological growth, geo-
chemical reactions, and particle rearrangement in the aquifer materials adjacent to the well
(Bouwer et al. 2008). A buildup of particles on the gravel pack, the borehole wall, or in the for-
mation immediately surrounding the borehole wall can cause a substantial decrease in pumping

256 10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014

256
efficiency. Minimizing TSS concentrations to less than 5 mg/L in the recharge water typically
helps prevent serious well clogging.
Issues related to well clogging can also be mitigated during the field investigation, testing phase
of ASR planning, and during a well-planned monitoring effort. As was previously stated, air
entrainment and cascading can also promote clogging of a well. One of the first field tests that
should occur is the test of source water compatibility. Introducing water into the system that re-
acts adversely with the ambient groundwater and hydrogeologic properties can cause geochemi-
cal reactions and solids to precipitate or biological clogging to occur. While these tests are
commonly performed for potential ASR sites, it is possible water chemistry and/or hydro-
geological properties vary between well sites. Therefore extensive testing for each well site
should be conducted to ensure the entire system functions successfully. Biological or microbial
clogging may occur related to the treatment processes selected for the site (e.g. if TSS or excess
color is not removed from source water). Finally, particles from the surrounding aquifer may
migrate during the recharge and recovery phase. As stated earlier, the screen and gravel pack
must be designed properly to alleviate excessive particle buildup or to keep formation particles
from entering the well. A common solution for well clogging that is implemented by many suc-
cessful ASR sites is to backflush the wells periodically to prevent buildup. Often times, chlorin-
ated water is used to breakdown the biological buildup as well as dislodge the fine particles
(Brown 2005).

4.3 Institutional Issues

4.3.1 Excessive Drawdown or Pumping Depressions
The Las Posas Basin has significant issues in the western portion of the basin due to a hydraulic
fault that hinders groundwater flow from reaching this area. This eventually causes a decline or
drawdown in hydraulic head within the aquifer, which will continue until the rate of flow out of
the well equals the amount of water supplied through recharge and injection. Therefore, wells
within basins having these issues should be monitored closely and possible caps on pumping
may need to be implemented. Also shifting pumping locations to address the declining water
levels based on the injection/extraction cycles may be needed. In-lieu deliveries or additional
conveyance options to basins may also help raised the ambient ground water elevations so
pumping depressions are less severe. A drawdown monitoring program should be implemented
to control and mediate excessive drawdown. Similar issues with possible excessive drawdown
have also been encountered at the SAWS ASR site but the plan of remediation includes finan-
cially compensating the other well users in the area.

4.3.2 Current and Future Demand

One of the most important aspects of all ASR projects is the ability to provide adequate storage
and supply to meet the current and future demand. This must be analyzed early in the design
phase. With fresh water sources being depleted, ensuring future demand is met will continue to
keep ASR projects more economically feasible than many other alternatives.

5. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our contacts at each of the ASR sites mentioned in this paper. Thank
you Erin Cole, LVVWD and Bryan Bondy, Calleguas Municipal Water District, for providing
us with such an abundance of information and allowing Mary Johnson to tour the ASR sites in
your areas. Thank you Jen Woody, Oregon Water Resources Department, and Greg Even, De-
partment of Public Works Los Angeles for the information regarding the Beaverton, Oregon
ASR site. Finally thank you to Monica Autrey of Destin Water Users, Inc.

6. References
Aquifer Storage Recovery Technical Advisory Group(ASRTAG). (2002). A Review of Aquifer
Storage Recovery Techniques.

10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014 257

257
 Bachman, S., (2012) Las Posas Basin ASR Project Annual Report 2007-2010
Bernholtz, A., Brothers, K., Katzer, T. (1991). Analyses of aquifer responses due tocontinued
artificial recharge of treated Colorado river water, lavages valley, Clark county, Nevada. Ari-
zona Hydrological Society Fourth Annual Symposium Proceedings. Francisco Grande Resort,
Casa Grande, September 12-13.
Bichara, A.F., (1986). Clogging of recharge wells by suspended solids. Journal ofIrrigation and
Drainage Engineering, 112(3):210-225.
Bondy, B., Bachman, S., Graumlich, H., (2012) Los Posas Basin-Specific Groundwater Man-
agement Plan, Final Draft.
Bouwer. H, Pyne. D, Brown, J., St Germain, D., Morris, T., Brown, C., Dillon, P., Rycus, M.
(2008). Design, operation, and maintenance for sustainable underground storage facilities.
AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO, USA.
Brown, C. (2005). Planning decision framework for brackish water aquifer, storage and recov-
ery (ASR) projects, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, USA.
Bureau of Reclamation, (1994). Final report highline well field asr project. United States Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 325 p.
Bureau of Reclamation, (1996). Summary report, southeast salt lake county artificial groundwater
recharge demonstration project.United States Bureau ofReclamation, Denver, Colorado, 15 p.
Calleguas Municipal Water District, (2004). Las posas basin asr project, summary memo, Thou-
sand Oaks, California, 4 p.
Martin, R., Dillion, P. (2002) ASRfuture directions for south Australia. Department of Water,
Land and Biodiversity Conservation.
Eaton, Larry, (2004). Email Communication. Beaverton ASR Site Executive Summary Informa-
tion, 4 p.
Fram, M.S., Bergamaschi, B.A., Goodwin, K.D., Fujii, R., Clark, J.F. (2003). Processesaffecting
the THM Concentrations Associated with the Third injection, Storage, and recovery test at
Lancaster, Antelope Valley, California, March 1998through April 1999. United States Geo-
logical Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4062, Sacramento, CA, 68 p.
Johnson, A.I., (1981). Some factors contributing to decreased well efficiency during fluid injec-
tion of water for subsurface injection. ASTM STP 735, 1: 89-100.
Katzer, T. and K. Brothers, (1989). Artificial recharge in lasvegas valley, ClarkCounty, Nevada.
Ground Water, 27(1):50-56.
Landmeyer, J.E., Bradley, P.M., Thomas, J.M. (2000). Biodegradation of disinfection byprod-
ucts as a potential removal process during ASR. Journal of the AWRA, 36(4):861-867.
Mace, R. E., Smyth, R. C., Xu, L., Liang, J. (2000). Transmissivity, Hydraulic conductivity, and
storativity of the carrizo-wilcox aquifer in Texas. Prepared for Texas Water Development
Board. Austin, Texas, 7 p.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc, ASR Systems LLC, Jackson, Sjoberg, McCarthy & Wilson, LLP, (2011)
Anassessment of ASR in Texas. Prepared for Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas,
23 p.
Maliva, R.G., Guo, W., Missimer, T. (2006) ASR: recent hydrogeological advances and system
performance, Water Environment Federation, Dec 2006.
Miller, T.J., (2001). ASR of drinking water using the cambrian-ordovician aquifer in Wisconsin.
Cooperative report prepared for the oak creek water and sewer utility and the AWWA research
foundation, published by the AWWA research foundation, Denver, Colorado, 349 pp.
Pyne, R.D.G., (1995). Groundwater recharge and wells: a guide to ASR. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida, 375 p.
Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council, (2013).ASR. Prepared for the Legislature, 1 p.
Pyne, R.D.G., (2005). ASR issues and concepts, St. Johns river water management district spe-
cial publication; St. Johns River Water Management District. Jacksonville, Florida.

258 10th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece / Thessaloniki, 2014

View publication stats

258