TY - JOUR
T1 - Protecting groundwater levels and ecosystems with simple management approaches
AU - Noorduijn, Saskia L.
AU - Cook, Peter G.
AU - Simmons, Craig T.
AU - Richardson, Stuart B.
N1 - Funding Information:
We wish to thank the MDBA-NCGRT Strategic Groundwater Research Partnership Steering Committee, in particular Peter Hyde, Sue Hamilton, and Ray Evans. Thanks to the Guillaume Bertrand and Yu-Li Wang for their review of the manuscript and valuable comments.
Funding Information:
Funding information This work was funded by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)/National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) Strategic Research Partnership.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2019/2/13
Y1 - 2019/2/13
N2 - Groundwater quantity is often managed using simple tools. The most common are (1) basin or sub-basin scale volumetric allocations, usually based on either historic use or estimates of recharge, (2) trigger-level management which regulates use according to observations of groundwater level, and (3) buffer zones, which control the location of wells, particularly around groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs). The volumetric approach limits the long-term impact of abstraction and provides a stable, secure supply for groundwater users. However, this approach does not consider the spatial distribution of recharge and discharge, and so is poor at protecting GDEs. Buffer zones provide an effective means of limiting the short-term impact of abstraction on GDEs, and can also be used to shift impact from high to low priority GDEs. However, buffer zones mostly delay the impacts of abstraction on groundwater level and flow, and are less effective for managing long-term impacts. Groundwater response triggers aim to directly control groundwater levels, although the success of this approach is highly dependent on the location of the observation well, and the trigger value. This makes its successful implementation extremely difficult. Used alone, none of these approaches will successfully protect the environment. In combination, they can provide reasonable protection for ecosystems and reliability of groundwater supply for users.
AB - Groundwater quantity is often managed using simple tools. The most common are (1) basin or sub-basin scale volumetric allocations, usually based on either historic use or estimates of recharge, (2) trigger-level management which regulates use according to observations of groundwater level, and (3) buffer zones, which control the location of wells, particularly around groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs). The volumetric approach limits the long-term impact of abstraction and provides a stable, secure supply for groundwater users. However, this approach does not consider the spatial distribution of recharge and discharge, and so is poor at protecting GDEs. Buffer zones provide an effective means of limiting the short-term impact of abstraction on GDEs, and can also be used to shift impact from high to low priority GDEs. However, buffer zones mostly delay the impacts of abstraction on groundwater level and flow, and are less effective for managing long-term impacts. Groundwater response triggers aim to directly control groundwater levels, although the success of this approach is highly dependent on the location of the observation well, and the trigger value. This makes its successful implementation extremely difficult. Used alone, none of these approaches will successfully protect the environment. In combination, they can provide reasonable protection for ecosystems and reliability of groundwater supply for users.
KW - Buffer zones
KW - Groundwater management
KW - Groundwater/surface-water relations
KW - Sustainability
KW - Trigger levels
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053270748&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10040-018-1849-4
DO - 10.1007/s10040-018-1849-4
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85053270748
SN - 1431-2174
VL - 27
SP - 225
EP - 237
JO - Hydrogeology Journal
JF - Hydrogeology Journal
IS - 1
ER -