A dynamic programming model for optimal planning of aquifer storage and recovery facility operations

Aquifer storage recovery (ASR) is an innovative technology with the potential to augment dwindling water resources in regions experiencing rapid growth and development. Planning and design of ASR systems requires quantifying how much water should be stored and appropriate times for storage and withdrawals within a planning period. A monthly scale planning model has been developed in this study to derive optimal (least cost) long-term policies for operating ASR systems and is solved using a recursive deterministic dynamic programming approach. The outputs of the model include annual costs of operation, the amount of water to be imported each month as well as the schedule for storage and extraction. A case study modeled after a proposed ASR system for Mustang Island and Padre Island service areas of the city of Corpus Christi is used to illustrate the utility of the developed model. The results indicate that for the assumed baseline demands, the ASR system is to be kept operational for a period of 4 months starting from May through August. Model sensitivity analysis indicated that increased seasonal shortages can be met using ASR with little additional costs. For the assumed cost structure, a 16% shortage increased the costs by 1.6%. However, the operation time of ASR increased from 4 to 8 months. The developed dynamic programming model is a useful tool to assess the feasibility of evaluating the use of ASR systems during regional-scale water resources planning endeavors.     

Discussion of ‘Oceanographic and eustatic control of carbonate platform evolution and sequence stratigraphy on the Cretaceous (Valanginian–Campanian) passive margin,northern Gulf of Mexico’ by Phelps et al. (2014), Sedimentology, 61, 461–496

Errors in Phelps et al. ( 2014 ) arise from: (i) inclusion of the East Texas Basin and basin‐flank formations in a regional stratigraphic transect purported to represent the San Marcos Arch (axis of the Comanche Platform, central and south Texas); and (ii) revision of Edwards Group strata (Person Formation) that ignores well‐documented studies in the subsurface and adjacent outcrops in the Balcones fault zone and Edwards Plateau. Consequently, the Upper Albian Composite Sequence 104–101 of Phelps et al. ( 2014 ) should be revised from one cycle to three and the upper boundary of the Albian Supersequence should be elevated to 99·6 Ma.