Using target levels to develop a sustained yield pumping strategy

USING TARGET LEVELS TO DEVELOP A SUSTAINED YIELD PUMPING STRATEGY IN ARKANSAS, A "RIPARIAN RIGHTS STATE... sustained ,yield pumping strategy for the Grand Prairie.. DEVELOPING A SUSTAIN

USING TARGET LEVELS TO DEVELOP

A SUSTAINED YIELD PUMPING STRATEGY

IN ARKANSAS, A "RIPARIAN RIGHTS STATE

REVIEWERS

Craig Burns Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation

Joe Clements Little Rock District U.S Army Corps of Engineers

James Ferguson Agricultural Engineering Department University of Arkansas-Fayetteville

Carl Griffis Agricultural Engineering Department University of Arkansas-Fayetteville

Warren Harris Agricultural Engineering Department University of Arkansas-Fayetteville

A.H Ludwig U.S Geological Survey

P Douglas Mays

William Moorehead Attorney, Grand Prairie-White River Irrigation District

Jim Pender Little Rock

John Terry U.S Geological Survey

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the guidance and encouragement

invested their time to review the manuscript and make suggestions

to improve i t in style and content

Yield Pumping Strategy to Maintain

Introduction and Background ••••••.•••.•.•••• •••••• ••• 3 Theory • • • • 6

Development of a Hypothetical Pumping Strategy •.•• • 14

Groundwater Management and the Riparian Rights/Reasonable Use Doctrine

- References Cited • • • • • 31

Cases and Statutes Cited ••••••.••• •• •••••• • •••••• 33

INTRODUCTION Groundwater is the major source of water for consumptive use

elevations and thereby maintaining favorable hydraulic gradients

will maintain specific groundwater levels can be referred to as a

1

sustained ,yield pumping strategy for the Grand Prairie Using

and is not being proposed for implementation

necessary to implement the target approach in Arkansas

DEVELOPING A SUSTAINED YIELD PUMPING STRATEGY TO MAINTAIN TARGET LEVELS

Introduction and Background

the 1970)

Traditional particular

quantitative

groundwater withdrawals They are not designed to determine the pumping which

designed to develop sustained yield pumping strategies capable of

demonstrated for the Grand Prairie region of Arkansas

3

Fig: 1 G~and Prane study area

on the south and the Bayou Meto on the west In some locations,

comes primarily from parts of the aquifer lying outside the study

area

surface is "an imaginary surface connecting points to which water

well of its own accord

unconfined and saturated thicknesses are dangerously thin

successfully calibrated a digital model of the Quaternary aquifer

4

different simulation model (AQUISIM) for the area (Verdin et aI,

strategy involves calculating the volume of groundwater which can

be pumped out of each cell during a specified time period without

measured by the U.S Geological Survey each spring, a time period

•

volume which can occur at any of the constant head cells per unit

constant head cell is the same as the rate of movement out of the

5

cell The

hydraulic

cells

The ground and surface water levels which exist in the

Therefore, average spring groundwater levels in the constant head

(Peralta, et aI, 1983)

Theory

,

.-,

and D are, respectively, the horizontal recharge and discharge

i-I i

reference i+l

Under steady-state conditions, the volume entering the system (R)

Darcy's law,which has long been used to evaluate regional

r

units of length and time respectively):

and

cell For a cell in which the potentiometric surface is above the

the aquifer (water table or unconfined conditions), the saturated

groundwater level

steady state net pumping for any cell (i,j) as:

where

ss + [DTR(i-l,j) + DTR(i,j) + DTU(i,j-l) + DTU(i,j)]S(i,j) -DTU(i,j-l)S(i,j-l) - DTU (i,j)S(i,j+l)

(i,j), (L IT)

DTR(i,j) = the midpoint transmissivity between cell

(i,j) and cell (i+l,j) =VT(i,j) T(i+l,j),

2

8

The

linearized

(L2/T)

pumping values

i t retains the observed value at an observation point and because

groundwater levels can be determined using equation 3 However, these pumping values can be physically unrealistic

recharge

kriged

groundwater elevation represents a localized

where high

the The

the potentiometric surface and the ground surface from the ground

Prairie generally varies between 4 and 11 feet

minimum

pumping

and maximum desired pumping values for the steady

state the program uses hydraulic conductivity and the elevations of the top

10

which no recharge can physically occur, the minimum pumping

other sources of water

by a user-specified volume if desired

(recharges)

water must be available to enter the cell from outside the study

requires specific hydrogeologic field data

distributed in time

during the summer

The major portion is pumped for irrigation

As a result, water levels decline during the

situation An example- and elaboration of the dynamic verification

12

process is described in the next section

Development of a Hypothetical Pumping Strategy

example, spring 1982 groundwater levels for the Grand Prairie are

These estimated water levels serve as input levels for TARGET2, a

(1972) and Peralta, et al (1983), a hydraulic conductivity of 270

difference between the target elevations and the "input elevations

5) is physically realistic

The volumes shown in Figure 5 are net values (the sum of all

14

Sample set of target groundyat~r

el~vneions (fe above sea level)

I

I ,

I

I

11 1718 176 446 631 28 -2206 523

Steady state pumping values which will maintain the target elevations

and the world outside the study area's aquifer.) One may notice

uneven nature of the bottom of the aqUifer, as well as the limits placed on desirable saturated thicknesses while inputting data to

changing the lower limit on acceptable pumping for most cells

To iterate, the pumping values shown in Figure 5 represent a

pumped from that cell for it to maintain its groundwater level in relation to its neighbors

Absolute verification of the physical feasibility of

sum of all values in constant head cells is approximately 120,000 acre-feet, an estimate of net recharge to the aquifer required to

maintained over the long term under a sustained yield strategy as

the regional groundwater flow pattern

16

each month was estimated

This composite percentage varied from

monthly values is its annual value

The twelve pumping volumes

use of AQUISIM for the Grand Prairie (Peralta, et aI, 1983)

difference between simulated and target levels was less than 0.03

values are comparable to those obtained in other upublished tests

-0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -1.1 -O.S -0.1 0.0 -0.1 /-0.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -O.l -0.2 0.0 -0.2

0.0 -0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 ·0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 -0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Simulated - target elevations in August,

after 113 months of simulation (ft)

~

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

irrigation season, displays the greatest difference between

the "worst" cell is within 1.1 feet of the target elevation

groundwater

necessary supplemental water

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS/REASONABLE USE DOCTRINE

Arkansas Water Law

by case basis (Peralta,A.,1982)

being is important, both in ascertaining whether the target level

this report, applicable Arkansas water law is briefly reviewed to

Commission, 1981.)

Arkansas is blessed with an average of forty-nine inches of

19

Most water disputes in the past have concerned disposal of excess

of a general nature ••• and not inconsistent with the Constitution

ownership of land overlying groundwater

The riparian rights doctrine (as opposed to the doctrine of

has priority in Use of water <n derogat<on of ~ ~ anot er s rights."3 h '

Like' other

due process.S

Riparian rights are usufructUary rights rights to use water

cases Basically, this means to "use your property in a manner

which will not injure others."

governed by the "natural flow" rule which basically limited water

owner was "entitled to the usual flow of a stream in its natural

channel over his land, undiminished in quantity and unimpaired in

virtually unchanged

reasonable use in Arkansas, the Court stated that:

"the purpose of the law is to secure to each

situated."12

for

21

equal.13 Arkansas statutory law delineates priority of surface

(2)maintaining health; and (3) increasing wealth.14

Because of the hidden nature of groundwater, the old English

underground water supply of his neighbor

An owner of land overlying groundwater has the right to use

,

the reasonable use rule is modified in times of scarcity to

activity which produces harm is weighed against the legal gravity

fact, in the Grand Prairie, a number of wells have already become

follow

"It recognizes that there is no sound reason for

riparian owners."22

23

The ArkanRas high court has stated that unreasonable use is

affected welles) to a greater depth.2S

supply of other riparian owners."27

of the State's water as a standard In Harris v Brooks the court elucidated:

"In all our consideration of the reasonable

use theory as we have attempted to explain

benefits accruing to society in general from

a maximum utilization of our water resources

application."28

have a right to make reasonable beneficial use of the water "with

arise

Domestic use is preferred over other uses of both ground and

the supply is insufficient to meet needs

As a general rule, the Arkansas Supreme Court has sought to

modified the common law on several occassions and appears willing

to make further changes as the need arises

25

Reasonable Use and the Target Level Approach

The use of target levels by the appropriate state agency or water management district to achieve or maintain a safe sustained yield is not incompatible with the reasonable use and correlative

level" approach to determine the reasonableness of disputed water

aquifers being depleted by mining

beneficial use Users complying with a prescribed target level

litigation over water use

law in the state and the rules governing municipalities set some

Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled in Lingo v City of Jacksonville

the court's decision in Jones v Oz-Ark-Val Poultry Co.(32), that

be extended to a water management agency

27

Action by the Arkansas General Assembly to facillitate

ground and surface water in Arkansas

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

estimate the annual pumping rates which will maintain groundwater

particularly attractive from a management point of view

employing the target level approach include:

groundwater management technique with minimal changes in existing Arkansas water law;

be available for use year after year;

limited or unavailable;

degradation by maintaining appropriate water levels;

litigation charging unreasonable use;

and

29

The target level approach is not incompatible with the

presently

adequate

unsupportable

areas of Arkansas and in other states as well

REFERENCES CITED

Thompson, and R Kazman 1945 Groundwater supplies

Station, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Fayetteville, Arkansas

Washington, D.C

Program, Colorado State University, Ft Collins, Colorado

Water Conservation Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas

York

water management in Arkansas

tion, Little Rock, Arkansas

The Winthrop Rockefeller

for the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water in the

Soil and Water Conservation Commission Contract, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas

31

REFERENCES CITED (CONT.)

Sophocleous, Marios 1983 Groundwater observation network design for the Kansas Groundwater Management Districts, U.S.A.,

Journal of Hydrology, 61, 371-389

Arkansas

kernels generation and for simulation of an isolated aquifer

State University, Ft Collins, Colorado

CASES AND STATUTES CITED

Ark Stat Ann 1-101

Taylor v Rudy, 99 Ark 128, 137 S.W 574

Boone v Wilson, 125 Ark 364, 188 S.W 1160 (1916)

Harrell v City of Conway, 224 Ark 100, 271 S.W 2d 924 (1954) Harris v Brooks, 225 Ark 436, 283 S.W 2d 129 (1955)

Jones v.OZ-ARK-VAL Poultry Co.,228 Ark.76,306 S.W 2d 111 (1957) Scott v Slaughter, 237 Ark 394, 373 S.W 2d 577 (1963)

Thomas v LaCotts, 222 Ark 171, 257 S.W 2d 936 (1953)

Meriwether Sand and Gravel Co v State, 181 Ark 216, 26 S.W 2d 57 (1930)

Thomas v LaCotts, 222 Ark 171, 257 S.W 2d 936 (1953)

Meriwether Sand and Gravel Co v State, 181 Ark 216, 26 S.W 2d 57 (1930) •

Harrell v City of Conway, 224 Ark 100, 271 S W 2d 924 (1954) •

Jones v OZ-ARK-VAL Poultry Co.,228 Ark.76,306 S.W 2d III (1957)

Harrell v City of Conway, 224 Ark 100, 271 S.W 2d 924 (1954)

Meriwether Sand and Gravel Co v State, 181 Ark 216, 26 S.W 2d 57 (1930)

9

Ibid

Thomas v LaCotts, 222 Ark 171, 257 S.W 2d 936 (1953)

Harrell v City of Conway, 224 Ark 100, 271 S.W 2d 924 (1954) Harris v Brooks, 225 Ark 436, 283 S.W 2d 129 (1955)

10

Harris v Brooks, 225 Ark 436, 283 S.W 2d 129 (1955)

33

CASES AND STATUTES CITED (Cont.)

CASES AND STATUTES CITED (Cont.)