History of the Sole Source Aquifer Program: A Community-Based Approach for Protecting Aquifers Used for Drinking Water Supply

The Sole Source Aquifer Program has helped prevent contamination of many community drinking water supplies. If an aquifer supplies the sole or principal source of a community's drinking water, a local ground water user may petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act for its designation and protection as a "sole source aquifer." Since 1974, residents and officials of 65 communities and multi-community areas have petitioned and received assistance from the EPA to prevent contamination of their local ground water source of drinking water. This designation means that EPA may review federal financially assisted projects to determine if they would contaminate the aquifer and cause a public health hazard. If they could cause contamination, EPA can request that the project be modified or stopped. The significance of this program in terms of population served and funds affected has been substantial, indicating the Sole Source Aquifer Program has been an important local tool for protecting ground water used as a source of drinking water. Information is given on three different examples of sole source aquifer designations protected under this program: the New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer System, the Great Miami River Buried Valley Aquifer System (Ohio), and the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer (Idaho), serving populations of 543,000, 921,000, and 275,000, respectively. In all three examples, preventing ground water contamination through the Sole Source Aquifer Program has protected the community drinking water supply.     

Denitrification in a Deep Basalt Aquifer: Implications for Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) can provide a means of storing water for irrigation in agricultural areas where water availability is limited. A concern, however, is that the injected water may lead to a degradation of groundwater quality. In many agricultural areas, nitrate is a limiting factor. In the Umatilla Basin in north central Oregon, shallow alluvial groundwater with elevated nitrate‐nitrogen of <3 mg/L to >9 mg/L is injected into the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), a transmissive confined aquifer(s) with low natural recharge rates. Once recovery of the injected water begins, however, NO₃‐N in the recovered water decreases quickly to <3 mg/L (Eaton et al. 2009), suggesting that NO₃‐N may not persist within the CRBG during ASR storage. In contrast to NO₃‐N, other constituents in the recovered water show little variation, inconsistent with migration or simple mixing as an explanation of the NO₃‐N decrease. Nitrogen isotopic ratios (δ¹⁵N) increase markedly, ranging from +3.5 to > +50, and correlate inversely with NO₃‐N concentrations. This variation occurs in <3 weeks and recovery of <10% of the originally injected volume. TOC is low in the basalt aquifer, averaging <1.5 mg/L, but high in the injected source water, averaging >3.0 mg/L. Similar to nitrate concentrations, TOC drops in the recovered water, consistent with this component contributing to the denitrification of nitrate during storage.     

Presence of DDT and Lindane in a Karstic Groundwater Aquifer in Yucatan,Mexico

Pollution caused by pesticides is becoming relevant because of their harmful environmental effects. The persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity of some organochloride pesticides have resulted in their restricted use since 1970 and a requirement to monitor them in many countries. Pesticides have endocrine, immunological, reproductive and carcinogenic effects in both humans and animals. The facilitated infiltration of substances results in the pollution of hydric underground resources in karstic limestone such as that found in the state of Yucatan. Observing the north occidental region of the state of Yucatan is particularly important as it is characterized by agricultural activities (wide use of pesticides), significant human settlements and underground water flows oriented towards the north coast. In this study, the underground water quality of a karstic aquifer was evaluated by quantifying the presence of organochlorine pesticides in 29 wells located throughout the Mérida‐Progreso transect, Yucatan, Mexico. The presence of DDT, lindane and their metabolites was detected at concentrations above the permissible limits stated by Mexican regulatory standards (NOM‐127‐SSA1‐1994 2010) in the majority of wells studied. Continuous monitoring of the underground hydric resources in this region is therefore essential to raising awareness of pollution risks and the vulnerability of the coastal north to the contamination of the underground water flows.     

A Black Hills-Madison Aquifer Origin for Dakota Aquifer Groundwater in Northeastern Nebraska

Previous studies of the Dakota Aquifer in South Dakota attributed elevated groundwater sulfate concentrations to Madison Aquifer recharge in the Black Hills with subsequent chemical evolution prior to upward migration into the Dakota Aquifer. This study examines the plausibility of a Madison Aquifer origin for groundwater in northeastern Nebraska. Dakota Aquifer water samples were collected for major ion chemistry and isotopic analysis (¹⁸O, ²H, ³H, ¹⁴C, ¹³C, ³⁴S, ¹⁸O-SO₄, ⁸⁷Sr, ³⁷Cl). Results show that groundwater beneath the eastern, unconfined portion of the study area is distinctly different from groundwater sampled beneath the western, confined portion. In the east, groundwater is calcium-bicarbonate type, with δ¹⁸O values (−9.6 to −12.4) similar to local, modern precipitation (−7.4 to −10), and tritium values reflecting modern recharge. In the west, groundwater is calcium-sulfate type, having depleted δ¹⁸O values (−16 to −18) relative to local, modern precipitation, and ¹⁴C ages 32,000 to more than 47,000 years before present. Sulfate, δ¹⁸O, δ²H, δ³⁴S, and δ¹⁸O-SO₄ concentrations are similar to those found in Madison Aquifer groundwater in South Dakota. Thus, it is proposed that Madison Aquifer source water is also present within the Dakota Aquifer beneath northeastern Nebraska. A simple Darcy equation estimate of groundwater velocities and travel times using reported physical parameters from the Madison and Dakota Aquifers suggests such a migration is plausible. However, discrepancies between ¹⁴C and Darcy age estimates indicate that ¹⁴C ages may not accurately reflect aquifer residence time, due to mixtures of varying aged water.     

"火山灾害预警研究"项目成果介绍

本文详细介绍了“火山灾害预警研究”项目的立项背景、目标、所开展的主要工作、取得的成果、研究成果的社会效益和对该领域研究未来工作的展望。     

Arsenic Control During Aquifer Storage Recovery Cycle Tests in the Floridan Aquifer

Implementation of aquifer storage recovery (ASR) for water resource management in Florida is impeded by arsenic mobilization. Arsenic, released by pyrite oxidation during the recharge phase, sometimes results in groundwater concentrations that exceed the 10 µg/L criterion defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. ASR was proposed as a major storage component for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), in which excess surface water is stored during the wet season, and then distributed during the dry season for ecosystem restoration. To evaluate ASR system performance for CERP goals, three cycle tests were conducted, with extensive water‐quality monitoring in the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) at the Kissimmee River ASR (KRASR) pilot system. During each cycle test, redox evolution from sub‐oxic to sulfate‐reducing conditions occurs in the UFA storage zone, as indicated by decreasing Fe²⁺/H₂S mass ratios. Arsenic, released by pyrite oxidation during recharge, is sequestered during storage and recovery by co‐precipitation with iron sulfide. Mineral saturation indices indicate that amorphous iron oxide (a sorption surface for arsenic) is stable only during oxic and sub‐oxic conditions of the recharge phase, but iron sulfide (which co‐precipitates arsenic) is stable during the sulfate‐reducing conditions of the storage and recovery phases. Resultant arsenic concentrations in recovered water are below the 10 µg/L regulatory criterion during cycle tests 2 and 3. The arsenic sequestration process is appropriate for other ASR systems that recharge treated surface water into a sulfate‐reducing aquifer.