The Resource for Semi-Arid Hydrologyswhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V8_N5/SWHVol8Issue5.pdf · Southwest Hydrology University of Arizona - SAHRA P.O. Box 210158-B Tucson, AZ 85721-0158

Southwest HydrologyUniversity of Arizona - SAHRA

P.O. Box 210158-BTucson, AZ

85721-0158

Address Service Requested

A publication of SAHRA, an NSF Science and Technology Center

NONPROFIT ORG.US POSTAGE

PAIDTUCSON AZPERMIT 541

T h e R e s o u r c e f o r S e m i - A r i d H y d r o l o g y

CO2Sequestration

Volume 8/Number 5 September/October 2009

It’s an amazing time to be in businessIn the last ten years we have witnessed seismic shifts—changes that have

affected our personal lives, our communities, and our professional pursuits.

Clear Creek Associates began in September 1999 as an Arizona

hydrological consulting company with a solid foundation of scientific and

professional experience. Over the last ten years, we have seen that experience

grow with the emergence of new technology and new perspectives on water

issues. As we mark our first decade in business, our staff, too, has grown by a

factor of ten. And we have expanded from a focus on the Southwest deserts

to exploring the West Coast’s unique water issues and pursuing the very

different challenges and opportunities on the East Coast.

As our company has evolved, our original approach has continued to

sustain us: practical solutions in groundwater science. That philosophy has

given us the ability to be flexible and responsive to our changing

environmental and economic landscape.

Celebrating ten years and two new offices:

Offering comprehensive hydrogeologic services in five integrated areas:

Groundwater Supply: extensive experience in groundwater development and aquifer storage and recovery including well drilling technology, borehole evaluation, well design and installation oversight, well rehabilitation, plus an Arizona well driller's license.

Groundwater Modeling: technical abilities combined with interpretive skill acquired through five decades of collective team experience in creating and interpreting models.

Hydrogeologic Investigations: focused application of hydrogeological analyses to resolve groundwater issues, address regulatory concerns and water rights issues, and support water-resources planning.

Environmental Services: sound relationships with regulators and demonstrated experience in developing remediation strategies and resolving environmental problems at complex sites in a cost-effective manner; integration of scientific and technical capabilities with legal, business, and community considerations.

Mining Support: clarifying communications, streamlining permitting, and helping companies develop positive relationships with environmental agencies.

Arizona:6155 E. Indian School Rd., Suite 100, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 (480)659-7131221 N. Court Ave., Suite 101, Tucson, AZ 85701 (520)622-3222

Announcing two new offices:California:114 N. Indian Hill Blvd., Suite A, Claremont, CA 91711 (909)624-8090Virginia:213A Loudoun Street SW, Leesburg, VA 20175 (703)777-4263

www.clearcreekassociates.com

The Leveloader Gold is a convenient data transfer unit designed for use with all versions of the Solinst Levelogger,Barologger and Rainlogger. View readings,program dataloggers and downloadmultiple data files in the field.

Rugged DataTransfer Device

Dedicated to Levelogger Series

Real-Time View

Stores 1.39 Million Datapoints

Re-program in the Field

Levelogger Proven to beWorth its Weight in Gold

Mandate To Deliver QualitySince the Levelogger Gold was launched at the beginning of 2006, Solinst has shippedthousands and thousands of units to satisfied customers all over the world.

"Our mandate is to design and deliver high quality products, and back it up with our 3 YearWarranty, demonstrating the Solinst commitment to our customers."

— Sarah Belshaw, President

The Levelogger Gold is a self contained water level datalogger, which is completely designed,

developed and manufactured in-house, in the tradition of all Solinst high quality products.

The Levelogger Gold uses infra-red data transfer, providing the flexibility of installing by use

of a simple wireline or by using a Direct Read Cable to surface. The Levelogger Gold

includes a pressure transducer, temperature thermistor, 10 year lithium battery (based

on 1 reading per minute), and internal data logger with a capacity of 40,000 temperature

and water level data points.

Dependable Water Level DataloggerMaintenance Free Design/Lifetime Calibration

Backwards Compatible

3 Year Warranty

Real-Time View

User-selectable Sampling Schedule

10 Year Battery (1 reading/minute)

SCADA Ready (SDI-12)

LeveloaderGold

LeveloggerJunior

Reduce Your Bottom LineA low cost alternative in theLevelogger Series

Accuracy of 0.1% FS

32,000 Datapoints

5 Year Battery

1 Year Warranty

Compatible with LeveloggerGold Series, Software and Accessories

Remote Monitoring System for Leveloggers

The STS Gold Telemetry System

provides an economical and efficient

method to access remote data

instantly. Built for Leveloggers, the

system combines high quality data

loggers, intuitive software and a variety

of wireless communication options to

create a remote monitoring solution.

Cellular, satellite and radio options give

the flexibility to suit any project. Alarm

notification and diagnostic reporting

make system maintenance simple.

Instant Access and Data Control Easy setup, operation and data management

Reliable data transfer over the internet

Manage the data yourself

No data hosting

ApplicationsRemote water level monitoring

Long-term monitoring

Management of water taking

Aquifer management

$385.00 US

From the PublisherIncreasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are contributing

to climate change, and most scientists agree that human activity, especially

the burning of fossil fuels, is responsible. Geologic sequestration of CO2 is

being advocated as a way to stop this increase and slow the rate of climate

warming. This involves capturing CO2 released to the atmosphere from such

point sources as power plants, compressing it into a dense liquid-like state,

and releasing it deep underground into geologic formations where, ideally,

it remains forever and can no longer affect climate. A lot of research and

testing is going into figuring out how well sequestration could work and

what the risks are. So far, the scale of the tests are extremely small compared to the amount of CO2

being generated, but advocates believe they are a significant first step to getting the large-scale buy-in

by major power generators needed to make a difference in atmospheric conditions.

Don’t forget to make plans to attend Southwest Hydrology’s upcoming workshop, “Water and Land

for Renewable Energy in the Southwest,” October 22-23 in Tucson. For information on the program,

speakers, and registration, see page 15 or visit our website.

We thank all the contributors to this issue, and extend special recognition to Greg Schnaar of

Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, who provided numerous ideas, contacts, comments, and content

for the feature articles. We also thank our valued sponsors and advertisers, recognized on pages 9 and

43, who are integral to our ongoing publication.

Betsy Woodhouse, Publisher

A bimonthly trade magazine for hydrologists, water managers, and other professionals working with water issues.

T h e R e s o u r c e f o r S e m i - A r i d H yd r o l o g y

Southwest Hydrology

PublisherBetsy Woodhouse

Technical EditorHoward Grahn

EditorsMary Black

Erika Noebel

Graphic DesignersCindy GroomsShiloe Fontes

Technical WriterAlison Williams

SAHRA Knowledge TransferGary Woodard

Contributors

Advisory BoardDavid Bolin, R.G.Charles Graf, R.G.Jim Holway, Ph.D.

Jeff JohnsonDavid Jordan, P.E.

Karl Kohlhoff, P.E., B.C.E.E.Stan Leake

Ari Michelsen, Ph.DMark Murphy, Ph.D.

Peggy RoeferMartin Steinpress, R.G., C.HG.

Printed in the USA by CityPress

Southwest Hydrology is published six times per yearby the NSF Center for Sustainability of semi-Arid

Hydrology and Riparian Areas (SAHRA), College of Engineering, The University of Arizona. Copyright 2009

by the Arizona Board of Regents. All rights reserved. Limited copies may be made for internal use only. Credit

must be given to the publisher. Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced without prior written

permission of the publisher.ISSN 1552-8383

SubscriptionsSubscriptions to Southwest Hydrology are free. To receive

the magazine, contact us as shown below.

AdvertisingAdvertising rates, sizes, and contracts are available at

www.swhydro.arizona.edu. Please direct ad inquiries to us as shown below. Space must be reserved 50 days

prior to publication date.

Free Job AnnouncementsSouthwest Hydrology will publish job announcements in the Employment Opportunities section. The first 70 words for each announcement is free; after that, the

charge is $70 per additional 70 words. To place an ad, contact us as shown below. All announcements, of any

length, may be posted on our website for no charge (www.swhydro.arizona.edu).

Editorial ContributionSouthwest Hydrology welcomes letters and contributions

of news, project summaries, product announcements, and items for The Calendar. Send submissions by mail

or email as shown below. Visit www.swhydro.arizona.edu for additional guidelines for submissions.

Web SitesSouthwest Hydrology - www.swhydro.arizona.edu

SAHRA - www.sahra.arizona.edu

CONTACT USSouthwest Hydrology

The University of Arizona, SAHRAPO Box 210158-B, Tucson, AZ 85721-0158.

Phone 520-626-1805. Email [email protected].

Scott Anderson Janick F. ArtiolaMatthew BaileyJohn L. Boyer

Daniel J. Collins

Stephen J. CullenAmy HardbergerSusan D. Hovorka

Joel E. KimmelshueBruce J. KobelskiRichard J. Myhre

This publication is supported by SAHRA (Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas) under the STC Program of the National Science Foundation, Agreement No. EAR-9876800. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of SAHRA or of the National Science Foundation.

Publishing Southwest Hydrology furthers SAHRA’s mission of promoting sustainable management of water resources in semi-arid

The MidwestGeological Sequestration Consortium’s Illinois Basin-Decatur site in Decatur, Illinois. Drilling of the ~7,000-foot-deep CO2 injection well began Feb. 14, 2009 and was completed May 4, 2009. Photo by Daniel Byers for MGSC.

Patricia R. PfeifferGregory SchnaarDennis H. Shirley

Jeffrey C. SilvertoothMarian Stone

The chart of nitrate-N concentration versus time on page 24of the July/August 2009 issue of Southwest Hydrology had the x-axis labeled incorrectly. The correct version is shown here.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Aug-04 Feb-05 Sept-05 Mar-06 Oct-06 Apr-07 Nov-07 Jun-08 Dec-08

Nitr

ate-

N C

onc.

(mg/

l)

MW10a MW-5 MW-2 Mesquite MWMW-1 NP-2 MW-3 NP-3

ADEQ MCL for Nitrates

Correction

4 | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2009 | Southwest Hydrology

FREE Technical notes, web-based training and product information at www.sontek.com.Questions? E-mail: [email protected] or call +1.858.546.8327See the RiverSurveyor-S5 in action! youtube.com/SonTekYSI

and the new RiverSurveyor could well be your favorite new toy too.

[SOUND PRINCIPLE NO. 31]

Even grown-upsplay with cool new toys.

M9S5

Complete 3-D velocity profiling, bathymetric measurement and discharge calculation as you transect the channel

Continuous shallow-to-deep discharge measurements Ideal for extreme flood or drought conditions Instant data from your mobile device Use in canals, streams and rivers Small, portable and easy to use

Sound Principles. Good Advice.

Inside This Issue

Departments8 On the Ground

■ Mine water used for irrigation, byJeffrey C. Silvertooth, Janick F. Artiola, and Joel E. Kimmelshue

■ ADDing Water for Central Arizona, by Matthew Bailey

12 Government ■ Revised review process for uranium ISR

■ NM limits H2O rights condemnation

■ ASARCO must clean El Paso GW

■ NV pipeline hearing postponed

■ CO requires water permits for CBM drilling

■ Fish show pollution in CA lakes

■ SoCal rebate demand exceeds supply

■ Releases invigorate Black Canyon flows

■ Pesticides to be tested for endocrine disruption

■ Animas-La Plata is finally filling

■ EPA reforms IRIS

12 HydroFacts

32 R&D ■ Rock snot blown away by streambed

movement

■ Lake Tahoe depths explored

■ Personalized water budgets tested in SoCal

■ Saltcedar beetles remotely sensed

■ Humpback chub numbers up

■ Bubble curtains help guide salmon

■ Nanomaterial water risks explored

■ Blocs block CO River adaptive management

37 The Water Page

38 People & Companies ■ Golder acquires E&H

■ CH2M HILL lauded for Rio Salado

■ Breslin takes helm of Water for People

39 In Print & Online ■ Gleick joins the blogosphere

■ Reference for new and pending regulations

■ Water recycling not catching fire in CA

■ CA’s coastal future

■ Special issue addresses emerging contaminants

■ A global view of water-quality trading

■ Isotopes predict contaminant degradation

■ Tool calculates water footprint

39 Business Directory

42 Calendar

18 Opportunities for Carbon Capture and Geologic Storage

Richard J. Myhre and Marian Stone

Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage is being touted as a means of substantially reducing the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere by the industrial and energy-supply sectors. New research is examining the feasibility of large-scale projects and the associated energy and eff ort required to separate CO2 from fuel or exhaust gases, pipe it to a suitable geological formation, and keep it immobilized and confi ned.

20 The Hydrology of Geologic Sequestration

Gregory Schnaar and Stephen J. Cullen

What makes a good geologic sequestration site? Finding a subsurface “trap” is critical but not easy when looking thousands of feet underground. Once a potential location is found, modeling can help predict what might happen to CO2 injected there. But ultimately, if the site is used, careful monitoring is the best tool for measuring successful sequestration.

22 Managing the Risks of CO2 Sequestration

Amy Hardberger and Scott Anderson

Th e primary risks of carbon capture and sequestration are leakage through unplugged wells, faults, fractures, or caprock to the earth’s surface or to drinking-water aquifers. Th ese risks can be managed with solid assessments of possible migration patterns, identifi cation of sites with suitable geology for storage, and sound state and federal regulation and monitoring.

24 Regulating Geologic Sequestration of CO2

Patricia R. Pfeiffer and Bruce J. Kobelski

Th e U.S. EPA regulates all underground injections in order to protect drinking-water aquifers, but the injection of CO2 calls for new guidelines. Proposed rules take into account the physical and chemical characteristics of CO2, such as its buoyancy and potentially corrosive nature, as well as the likely magnitude of its pressure front underground. Other issues under discussion include fi nancial responsibility, long-term liability, and use and ownership of the reserves.

26 Frio Brine Pilot: The First U.S. Sequestration Test

Susan D. Hovorka

What was learned in the past about the carbon capture and storage process was based on storage in reservoirs from which hydrocarbons had been extracted. But if widespread sequestration is to occur, storage in previously unperturbed formations also will be needed. Th e Frio Brine Pilot Study near the Texas coast was the fi rst in the country to inject CO2 into such a site, composed of brine-bearing sandstone.

28 Exploring Geologic CO2 Storage in Arizona

Dennis H. Shirley, Daniel J. Collins,and John L. Boyer

Demand for electricity in Arizona is predicted to double in the next 20 years. In an area rich in both generating plants and coal deposits on the Colorado Plateau, a well site has been chosen to evaluate the potential for storing CO2 emitted in power generation. Th e demonstration project will inject and monitor the CO2 plume, measure changes in water chemistry, and estimate the amount of CO2 that dissolves or becomes immobilized.

CO2 SequestrationThe supercritical state of CO2 in the subsurface has fluid-like behavior, thus many aspects of hydrology apply to its sequestration. A good candidate storage site, often identified with the help of multi-phase flow modeling, has sufficient porosity to accommodate the volumes of CO2 being injected and low-permeability caprock to prevent its escape. Monitoring through wells, geophysics, and surface measurements is used to determine if any leakage is occurring. If CO2 does escape, it could reach drinking-water aquifers and impact water quality, or it could migrate to the surface, thereby defeating the purpose of sequestration. Regulations to minimize the risks of CO2 sequestration are in development, and pilot projects to test the process are underway across the country, including in the Southwest.


When you work for the environment, every day is important and unpredictable. That’s why using Hydrolab® Series 5 multi-parameter water quality instruments is the way to go. You need the most reliable and durable multi-parameter sonde to get the most dependable measurements every time. It starts with the industry’s best sensor technologies, like the top-of-the line HACH LDO® sensor that provides unmatched data accuracy with long-lasting calibrations and no membranes to replace. Call 1-800-949-3766, or email us at [email protected] today to get started.

© 2008 Hach EnvironmentalHAC-022201

HAC-022201 KL.indd 1 12/5/07 8:06:54 PM

Mine Water Used for IrrigationJeffrey C. Silvertooth and Janick F. Artiola – University of Arizona and Joel E. Kimmelshue – NewFields Agricultural & Environmental Resources LLC

Resolution Copper Mining LLC, based in Superior, Arizona, is investigating what may be the largest untapped copper ore body in North America. To safely carry out the investigation, which includes construction of a 7,000-foot-deep shaft, groundwater that has naturally accumulated in the closed Magma underground mine must be removed. Thus, over the next two to three years, Resolution Copper will recover 6,000 to 7,000 acre-feet of water from the closed mine. Rather than simply disposing of it into the surrounding environment, Resolution Copper constructed a treatment plant and gravity pipeline to carry the water 27 miles to the New Magma Irrigation and Drainage District (NMIDD) in central Arizona, where growers will use it for crop irrigation at no cost.

NMIDD signed a memorandum of understanding with Resolution Copper for the water transfer project. Resolution Copper, NMIDD, and the growers are working with the University of Arizona and NewFields Agricultural & Environmental Resources LLC,

a consulting company, to ensure the safe utilization of the water.

Water pumped from the mine is treated in a new 2,500 gallon-per-minute, high-density-sludge lime treatment facility to remove metal ions and adjust the pH. The treatment uses lime and soda ash to raise the pH of the water from around 5.8 to 8.6, causing the metals (primarily iron) to precipitate. The treated water is piped to NMIDD, blended with Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, and introduced to the canal system for irrigation of cotton, alfalfa, sorghum, turf grass, and pasture.

Resolution Copper obtained a dewatering permit from the Arizona Department of Water Resources for removal of 5,000 acre-feet of water per year, an aquifer protection permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for containment of the sludge at the treatment plant, and a special-use permit from the U.S. Forest Service for portions of the pipeline crossing public land. The mine water is classified as naturally occurring groundwater rather than industrial wastewater, therefore no additional permit was needed for discharge into the irrigation canals.

Managing SalinityScientists’ greatest water-quality concern

regarding the mine water is salinity,

which could impact crop production if

not properly managed. The total dissolved

solids (TDS) concentration of the water is

around 6,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l).

All parties involved agreed that a 10:1

blending ratio of mine water to CAP water

would provide irrigation water with a TDS

concentration of around 1,200 mg/l, which

would be safe for irrigating even alfalfa,

the most sensitive crop grown in the area.

In all arid irrigation systems, additional

water is applied to crops beyond what

they need in order to adequately leach

soluble salts below the root zone. Based

on continuous measurement of flow,

knowledge of on-farm irrigation practices,

and documentation of irrigated acres,

researchers working with NMIDD

have determined that the continued

application of about 40 percent more

water than the crops can consume

will prevent soil salinization.

Monitoring the SystemTo learn more about the effects of the

process and to ensure its safety, all water

sources (CAP, mine, and blended) are

analyzed daily with real-time telemetric

monitoring systems. Samples of soil and

plant tissue will be collected quarterly

to monitor for evidence of impact from

the mine water. Finally, researchers

are tracking climatic conditions,

irrigation practices, farm management

practices, and crop-water demand.

The rate of pumping from the mine

varies according to irrigation demand,

and is greatest in the summer. Based on

expected demand, Resolution Copper

estimates the mine will be drained in

two to three years. After that, pumping

will continue at a much-reduced rate

to keep the mine open; some of that

water will be used for mine operations

as development proceeds, and some may

continue to be available to NMIDD.

The rate of pumping from the mine can

be modified daily to account for changes

in NMIDD demand. This flexibility

allows careful and timely management

of the overall salinity of the irrigation

water to within acceptable ranges, thereby

protecting the crops and soils as well as

optimizing the dewatering of the mine. ■

Contact Jeffrey Silvertooth at [email protected].

On the Ground

It’s a Southwest necessity.ITogether we can attain it.

• Groundwater resource evaluation and basin inventory analysis• Modeling of groundwater and surface water flow systems• Wellhead and aquifer source protection• Assured water supply planning and development• Litigation support for water rights and resource damage• Water quality evaluation and treatment (including arsenic)

For more information, contact Brad Cross at 480.905.9311 or via e-mail at [email protected].

LFR Inc. is an environmental management & consulting engineering firm with 29 offices nationwide. For more information, call 800.320.1028 or visit us at www.lfr.com.


Instruments starting at

$395.00!

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFr hhhhhhhhhh t rrrrrrrr ppppppppp ::::FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFrrrrrrrroFFFFFFFFFFFFrrrrrrrrroooooooomrrrrrroo ttttttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeettttttthhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee hhhhhhhheeeeee WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWaWWWaaaaaaaWWWaaaa LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeLLLLLLLLLLLeeeeeevvvvvveeeeevvvvvvvvvveeeeeeevvvvvveeeeeellllllllllllllllllllll eeeellllll EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEExxxxxxxEEExxxxppppppppppppppppppppexxppppp IIncccccccccccc........cccc...From the Water Level Experts: In-Situ® Inc.

CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498-1500 • WWW.IN-SITU.COM

Instrument FamilyReliable data logging of water level, temperature, and pressure

Complete family of level instruments for every application and budget

Real-time monitoring and alarming via telemetry

Comprehensive project support 24/7

Reliable, accurate water level monitoring

Application/technical notes and product specifications available at www.in-situ.com

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2009 | Southwest Hydrology | 9

ADD Water: Central Arizona’s Next Bucketof WaterMatthew Bailey – Snell & Wilmer LLP

Preserving Arizona’s OasisCentral Arizona’s image as an oasis in

the desert is the result of many historic

political, legal, and resource decisions.

Although the oasis is not under immediate

threat, central Arizona’s continuous

growth is nonetheless absorbing its

currently available water supplies. At

some point in the future, demand will

exceed supply. Thus, the same visionary

water resources management that made

central Arizona flush to this point is now

needed to cultivate its water future.

The “ADD Water” process seeks to achieve

just that. Officially called “Acquisition,

Development, and Delivery of Water,”

ADD Water is increasingly referred to as

central Arizona’s next bucket of water.

Once established, ADD Water will provide

a new water supply for water users within

the Central Arizona Project’s (CAP) three-

county service area. Ultimately, CAP

likely will acquire new water supplies from

sources such as retired farm land along

the Colorado River or treated brackish

groundwater in the Phoenix area and

distribute it to ADD Water participants

throughout CAP’s service area.

Project ADD WaterThe ADD Water concept originated when

various municipal water providers and

CAP began discussing a public process

for developing a new wholesale water-

supply program. These discussions

led, in part, to CAP’s adoption of its

Strategic Plan in 2006. In 2007, CAP

applied the Strategic Plan directive

to create Project ADD Water.

ADD Water is a CAP-led stakeholder

process. Stakeholders, who may join at

any time, can be any interested entities

willing to participate in the process,

such as agricultural interests, industrial

users, municipalities, and individuals.

Stakeholders meet regularly to develop

ADD Water’s framework around the

following question: Assuming CAP is

to be the primary entity that acquires,

develops, and delivers new water supplies

for its three-county service area, how

should the water be shared and paid for?

To address this question, ADD Water is

taking a five-step approach: 1) understand

stakeholder interests and information

needs; 2) determine, define, and prioritize

criteria; 3) generate alternatives; 4)

evaluate alternatives against criteria;

and 5) develop recommendations to

present to the CAP Board. The first and

second steps were completed in 2008;

some representative criteria include

meeting current and future water-user

demands in CAP’s three-county service

area and ensuring ADD Water’s financial

sustainability. The third step is expected

to wrap up by late summer 2009. The

remaining steps will begin thereafter.

Collaboration and ConsensusOne of ADD Water’s greatest innovations

is that the stakeholders are working

collaboratively through a public process

to determine how the program will

function. Unlike when Arizona’s water

supplies were allocated by courts or

government agencies, stakeholders

now are deciding ADD Water’s fate.

Perhaps a minor point to some, this

change in western water management

philosophy cannot be overstated.

ADD Water’s second great innovation

is its goal of consensus. Achieving

consensus among the views of the myriad

stakeholders means decision-making is

at times contentious, but this generates

healthy debate rather than an adversarial

environment. This innovative concept is

not often embraced throughout the West.

ADD Water represents a unique

opportunity for stakeholders to achieve

common goals of determining how

to share and pay for central Arizona’s

next bucket of water. The process is not

easy and reflects as many perspectives

as there are stakeholders. The inherent

struggles and diversity of interests should

make for better product, although many

long hours of hard work remain. In

the end, only stakeholder participation

will ensure ADD Water’s success. ■

Contact Matthew Bailey at [email protected].

On the Ground


[email protected]

A complete wireless groundwater monitoring network

From wireless field data collection and recording, to project execution in the office, Diver-NETZ*is a complete network of first-class technologies that integrates superior field instrumentationwith the industry’s latest communication and data management capabilities. All Diver-NETZcomponents are designed to streamline project workflows, enabling you to effectively manageyour groundwater resources for the long-term.

� Connect wirelessly to your groundwater monitoring networks� Dramatically improve data collection in the field � Achieve precise measurements of groundwater conditions with a complete line of dataloggers� Completely expandable and ready to work with Diver groundwater monitoring networks� Map, analyze, and report data using the best software in the industry

From field to office, Diver-NETZ offers a complete network of advanced technologies to help youmanage your groundwater resources effectively. Visit www.swstechnology.com to learn more.

©Schlumberger * Mark of Schlumberger † Based on actual field and office study

COLLECT l COMMUNICATE l COLLABORATE

†

NRC Changes Uranium Review ProcessIn June the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) published its final

generic environmental impact statement

(GEIS) for in-situ leach uranium recovery

(ISR) operations in the western United

States. In addition, NRC announced a

change to how environmental reviews

of new ISR facilities would take place.

NRC originally proposed preparing

environmental assessments (EAs) for

new facilities, but instead the agency will

issue full supplemental environmental

impact statements (SEIS), a more thorough

form of environmental review. SEISs also

provide greater opportunities for public

participation and comment. This change

was made in response to public concern

that the generic review approach would

overlook unique site characteristics.

NRC will continue to prepare EAs for

applications to expand or renew licenses of

existing operations. These may be issued for

public comment if a particular application

has high public interest, and will either

result in a finding of no significant impact

or lead to the preparation of an SEIS.

NRC expects approximately 17 license

applications for ISR milling facilities

through 2010, including new facilities,

expansions, and restarts. The GEIS will

serve as a starting point for site-specific

environmental reviews of these applications.

NRC believes this will improve efficiency,

and the agency expects to complete most

licensing reviews within two years.

The environmental reviews assess

impacts of ISR operations on land use,

transportation, surface water, groundwater,

geology, soils, threatened and endangered

species, and waste management, among

other things.

Visit www.nrc.gov. See the final “Generic Environmental Impact Statement on In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities”: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1910/.

NM Governor SignsWater Rights BillIn April, New Mexico Gov. Bill

Richardson signed a bill limiting the

power of municipalities to condemn

water rights. HB40 puts water used by

an acequia, community ditch, irrigation

district, conservancy district, or political

subdivision of the state beyond the

reach of condemnation. In other cases

where condemnation is still allowed, the

municipality must meet certain criteria,

including showing that the water is needed

for public health and safety or that there is

no other way to obtain the needed water

at a reasonable price. Just compensation

is required and mediation is encouraged.

Municipalities in New Mexico enjoy

preferential powers to hold water rights

unused for up to 40 years without threat

of forfeiture. The new bill may push

municipalities to be more proactive in

securing capacity in the marketplace to

meet their future water needs. The bill may

also help preserve the agricultural industry

by protecting farmers’ water rights.

Visit www.governor.state.nm.us and www.nmlegis.gov.

ASARCO Must CleanEl Paso GroundwaterMuch of the $52 million proposed for

cleanup of an ASARCO smelter site in

El Paso will be dedicated to groundwater

remediation, reported the El Paso

Times after a public meeting in May. A

presentation there by an official of the

Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality (TCEQ) was the first time the

government had acknowledged that

groundwater contamination is a serious

issue at this site, noted the paper.

According to the Times, groundwater

remediation will be accomplished using

$21 million to drill wells to keep the

diesel-fuel- and metal-contaminated

plume from spreading toward the Rio

Grande and to treat the pumped water.

Members of the Texas legislature

commented that $52 million would not

be enough for the cleanup and that the

true cost would be closer to $250 million,

leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab,

reported the Times. According to the

paper, funds are also needed to clean

contaminated soil in neighboring Juarez,

help former ASARCO workers who are

ill, and remediate contaminated dust

in homes. Over 1,200 public comments

were submitted prior to the meeting.

The site, which began as a lead smelter,

operated from 1887 to 1992. In 1995 the

Texas government found that the facility

had made unauthorized discharges of solid

waste, wastewater, and stormwater. In

1999 the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the state of Texas filed a civil

enforcement action against ASARCO,

which resulted in a decree requiring

ASARCO to complete corrective action

at the site. In 2005 TCEQ issued a

corrective action directive, but ASARCO

declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy that

same year. That case is still pending

in federal court in Corpus Christi.

In March 2009, TCEQ, EPA, and

ASARCO filed a settlement agreement

in the bankruptcy court, placing

the El Paso smelter property in an

environmental custodial trust with

$52 million in funding from ASARCO.

The bankruptcy court approved the

HydroFacts

continued on page 14

Number of Wild and Scenic Rivers designations by the U.S. Congress: 203

Total miles of river protected: 12,556

Miles added in March 2009: 1,100

Number of dams in U.S. National Inventory of Dams: 79,000

Miles of river impacted by dams: about 600,000

Gallons of water consumed per capita in the U.S., 1976: 1.6

Gallons of water consumed per capita in the U.S., 2007: 29

Terminal velocity of a small (1 mm) raindrop, in miles per hour: 9

Terminal velocity of a large (4 mm) raindrop, in miles per hour: 20

Sources: National Wild and Scenic Rivers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, International Bottled Water Association, United Nations, and SAHRA.

Government


Take me to the River...

It’s that easy.

Drop me in the Water.

Go straight to work collecting highly accurate stream and river discharge data with the new RiverRay Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). With over 25 years expe-rience delivering acoustic Doppler products, Teledyne RDI’s new RiverRay is the culmination of years of technology advances and invaluable customer feedback.

The revolutionary RiverRay delivers the simplicity and reli-ability your operations require, at a price that won’t break your budget. New features include:

Ease of use—easy to carry, easy to deploy, and easy to operate; just power and go.

Qrz-control—automatic adaptive sampling continuously optimizes your discharge measurement from bank to bank, thus ensuring the highest quality data without your intervention.

Reduced size and weight—the new phased array transducer provides increased data accuracy, as well as reduced size, weight, and flow disturbance.

Versatility—a single instrument that you can use as effectively in a 0.5m stream as in a 40m river.

RiverRay ...right on Q

Learn more at:www.rdinstruments.com/wr_main.html

Power and go with Teledyne RDI’s new RiverRay ADCP.

www.rdinstruments.com

settlement in June. TCEQ and EPA

will carry out the remediation plan.

Visit www.elpasotimes.com. See settlement agreement and related documents: www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/sites/asarco.html.

Snake Valley Pipeline Hearings PostponedIn April Nevada’s state engineer issued

an interim order delaying administrative

hearings on the Southern Nevada Water

Authority’s (SNWA) controversial

plan to extract groundwater from

Snake Valley and pipe it to the Las

Vegas area. The hearings, previously

scheduled for September, were delayed

until fall 2011 upon SNWA’s request

for more time to create a complex

groundwater-flow model, reported

the Las Vegas Sun in April.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune,

SNWA could not meet a June deadline to

provide documents to the state engineer

because of delays in the Bureau of Land

Management’s (BLM) review process.

SNWA said they needed to see BLM’s draft

environmental impact statement before

they could proceed, but BLM said they

could not finish the statement until SNWA

demonstrated the capability of its models.

BLM is involved because the proposed

pipeline would cross land it manages.

Although SNWA asked for only a one-year

delay, the Tribune reported that the state

engineer wanted to allow even more time

for interested parties in pending lawsuits

to prepare their own scientific studies.

SNWA told the Sun that the hearing delay

would not affect construction plans.

Visit www.lasvegassun.com and www.sltrib.com.

CBM Drilling Requires Water Permits in COThe Colorado Supreme Court ruled in

April that water diverted for coalbed

methane production requires a water

permit and sometimes an augmentation

plan. The state engineer and BP America,

an intervenor in the case, argued that the

withdrawal of groundwater for coalbed

methane is a nuisance rather than a

beneficial use, and therefore does not

need to be regulated under the priority

administration system of state water law.

Ranchers who used water they felt was

threatened by coalbed methane production

filed the case to protect their water rights,

claiming that the withdrawals for coalbed

methane were in fact a beneficial use.

The district water court agreed with them

in 2007. The Colorado Supreme Court

affirmed the water court’s decision, stating

the coalbed methane process uses water

to accomplish a particular purpose, thus

meeting the 1969 definition of beneficial

use. In this case, the use is extraction and

storage and the purpose is the release

of methane gas. They found the use of

water could not be considered merely a

nuisance because it is an integral part of

the process, adding that even if the water

becomes a nuisance after it has been

extracted, that does not mean it has not

already been put to a beneficial use.

According to the Denver Post, Colorado

hosts 5,000 wells used for coalbed methane

production, but only those wells that

affect surface water will need a permit

and further, only those that impact senior

water rights will require an augmentation

plan. The state engineer told the Post

that energy companies have plenty of

resources to develop augmentation plans.

The Associated Press reported that

related legislation, developed by parties

in the lawsuit, was in the Colorado

Senate. The bill would allow energy

companies one year to apply for permits

and submit plans. It would also give

the state engineer a way to determine

which wells affect tributary water and

thus would fall under state water law.

Visit www.cobar.org, www.denverpost.com, and www.ap.org.

CA Lakes Polluted,Fish ShowIn May the California State Water

Resources Control Board released

findings of a 2007 study that looked

at contamination in fish samples from

150 lakes and reservoirs. Only 15 percent

of the lakes sampled were considered

clean—meaning all average pollutant

concentrations in all species in the

lake were below state thresholds.

The survey was conducted as part of

the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring

Program and was the largest study

ever conducted on contaminants in

sport fish from lakes and reservoirs in

California. The results are from the first

year of the two-year statewide survey.

In 2007 over 6,000 fish were analyzed

for PCBs, DDT, Dieldrin, chlordanes,

mercury, and selenium. The contaminant

of greatest concern was mercury, a

legacy of mining that can turn up in

distant lakes as a result of atmospheric

deposition. Twenty-six percent of lakes

surveyed had at least one fish species

with an average mercury level exceeding

the consumption limit determined by

the Office of Environmental Health

Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

PCBs accounted for the second biggest

concern: 36 percent of the lakes had at least

one fish species that exceeded OEHHA’s

Fish Contaminant Goal (contaminant

levels that pose no significant health risk

at the standard consumption of one eight-

ounce fish serving per week). However,

only one percent of the lakes sampled had

a species with an average concentration

level that exceeds the point at which

OEHHA may consider a recommendation

of no consumption. Other pollutants were

also found, but at generally low levels.

Another 130 lakes were sampled in 2008,

and those results along with trend analyses

will be available in 2010. Altogether the

2007 and 2008 surveys included more than

200 popular fishing lakes and 50 other

lakes chosen out of California’s 9,000

by random sampling to provide a basis

for statewide statistical assessment.

Visit www.waterboards.ca.gov. See Davis, J.A., A.R. Melwani, S.N. Bezalel, and others, 2009. Contaminants in fish from California lakes and reservoirs: Technical report on year one of a two-year screening survey, California State Water Resources Control Board.

SoCal Rebate Demand Exceeds SupplyWithin hours of releasing funding in

May, the SoCal Water$mart rebate

program ran out of money for the

remainder of its fiscal year ending

June 30, reported the San Diego Union

Tribune. The program’s funding allocation

for April ran out in eight days.

continued on page 16

Government


onset

Water logged

HOBO® Water Level Loggers combine research-grade performance with exceptional value. Ideal for use in wells, lakes, and tidal areas, HOBO

Water Level Loggers provide a number of advantages:$495

onsetcomp.com/sw

HOBO

To Learn more call1-866-460-8979

Get hands-on tips on

onsetcomp.com/sw

®

Details at www.swhydro.arizona.edu/renewable

Water and Land for RenewableEnergy in the SouthwestFocus on Concentrating Solar Powera workshop & symposium hosted by Southwest Hydrology

October 22-23, 2009Marriott University Park Hotel, Tucson, ArizonaTopics:

• Issues and opportunities for renewable energy in the Southwest

• Incentives and barriers to renewable development

• Federal, state, and utility roles

• The permitting process

• Land and water requirements and availability

• Costs and benefits of various technologies

Renewableenergy is coming

to the Southwest-How will it impact

our natural resources?

Sponsored by:Hosted by:

Register NOW! • $220 early registration

deadline is Sept. 18

Reserve your room:• $109 single/double rate

available until Sept. 21

• CLE credit available

Participating organizations include:


The Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California administers the

program for other water wholesalers

and retailers. It makes available rebates

for clothes washers, toilets, synthetic

grass, and irrigation equipment and

controls. According to the Union Tribune,

the rebate program started in July

2008 with $4 million from water sales

revenues, and funding was increased to

$6 million as a result of high demand.

Rebates were originally guaranteed

to anyone with a receipt, but funding

shortages led the district to institute

a reservation system, allocating a

certain amount of money each month,

reported the Union Tribune. With many

southern California water agencies

resorting to voluntary or mandatory

conservation measures as a result of

drought, water users were trying to take

advantage of ways to help conserve.

Visit www3.signonsandiego.com and www.sdcwa.org.

Black Canyon Surges with Spring FlowIn May, 7,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)

of water was released down Black Canyon

of the Gunnison in Colorado for the first

time in decades, reported the Denver

Post and the Colorado Springs Gazette.

According to the papers, before three dams

were constructed upstream of the canyon

between 1937 and 1978, peak spring

flows reached 13,000 cfs with an average

of more than 6,000 cfs. In 2007 the peak

flow was only 1,700 cfs. The National Park

Service (NPS) and environmental groups

had expressed concern about negative

effects on the ecosystem: vegetation and

debris were no longer washing away

and were impairing water quality and

fish habitat, reported the Gazette.

Although NPS was granted a water right

for protective flows in 1978, years of

wrangling with other interests prevented

the amount of water in the right from

being established. In 2003, conservation

groups successfully challenged an

agreement between the state of Colorado

and federal agencies that would have

prevented protective flows. In late

2006, a federal court judge determined

the 2003 agreement violated several

provisions of federal law. That ruling

established the federal government’s

responsibility to maintain the park’s

water right and natural resources.

After months of negotiation,

conservationists, water users,

hydroelectric-power producers, federal

agencies, the state of Colorado, and other

groups reached a settlement guaranteeing a

year-round minimum flow of 300 cfs along

with higher annual peak and shoulder

flows tied to natural water availability. The

final settlement agreement was approved

by the state water court in early 2009,

allowing May’s high flow to take place.

Visit www.westernresourceadvocates.org, www.gazette.com, and www.denverpost.com.

EPA to Test Pesticides for Endocrine DisruptionIn April, the U.S. EPA issued the first

list of pesticides to be screened for their

potential to disrupt endocrine systems

in humans and animals. The testing

is part of the Endocrine Disruptor

Screening Program (EDSP) initiated by

the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act.

EPA also announced revised policies and

procedures that the agency will follow

to order initial screening tests, minimize

duplicative testing, promote equitable

cost-sharing, and protect manufacturers’

confidential business information.

EPA planned to issue test orders in summer

2009 to the manufacturers of 67 pesticide

chemicals to determine whether they are

endocrine disruptors. Manufacturers are

required to conduct testing as specified

by the screening program and submit

results to EPA in a reasonable time

period, or EPA can suspend the sale

or distribution of the substance. The

listed pesticide chemicals were selected

because they have high potential for

human exposure through food and water,

residential activity, or agricultural pesticide

application. Testing will eventually be

expanded to cover all pesticide chemicals.

If a chemical is found to have the potential

to disrupt endocrine systems, it will

proceed to Tier 2 testing, designed to

identify adverse endocrine-related effects

and establish a quantitative relationship

Government

www.elmontgomery.comTUCSON PHOENIX SANTIAGO DE CHILE

25Twenty-five years of excellence

1989 19

94 1999

2004

2009

1984


between dose and effect. EPA is currently

developing and validating Tier 2 tests.

Visit www.epa.gov.

Animas-La Plata Project Begins PumpingThe Bureau of Reclamation’s 40-year-

old Animas-La Plata project in Colorado

began pumping water to fill its 120,000

acre-foot-capacity reservoir, Lake

Nighthorse, in early May, but an almost

immediate malfunction pushed back the

date the reservoir will be full by as much as

six months, reported the Durango Herald.

The reservoir is being filled from the

Animas River by eight pumps with

capacities varying from 14 to 56 cubic

feet per second, noted the paper. It was

expected to fill over a span of 18 months

to three years, but the crest gates that

allow water to flow into a fish screen area

before it is pumped uphill malfunctioned.

According to the Herald, the problem

was expected to be solved in only a

few days but caused the project to miss

high flows from spring snowmelt.

The project was authorized by Congress

in 1968 but has been hampered by

setbacks. According to the Herald,

these included suspension of federal

funding, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

concerns about the endangered Colorado

pikeminnow, lawsuits by environmental

groups over loss of wetlands and

wildlife habitat, cost increases from

$338 million to $500 million, and

reduction in the scale of the project

to address opponents’ concerns.

The project was originally developed to

supply over 190,000 acre-feet of water per

year for irrigation and drinking, but the

final version is limited to 57,100 acre-feet

of depletion and contains no water for

irrigation, reported the Herald. It does,

however, provide water for the Southern

Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain

Ute Indian Tribe as part of the 1986

settlement of their water right claims.

Other Colorado partners in the project

are the state and the Animas-La Plata

Water Conservancy District. New

Mexico partners—the Navajo Nation,

the San Juan Water Commission, and

the La Plata Conservancy District—

also receive water from project

drawn from the San Juan River.

Visit www.durangoherald.com.

EPA Reforms IRIS ProcessIn May, the U.S. EPA announced reforms

to its Integrated Risk Information

System (IRIS). This database includes

information on ways human health

is impacted by exposure to chemical

substances released to air, water, and land

at contaminated sites, as well as exposure

through the use and disposal of products.

It currently contains qualitative and

quantitative health effects information

for more than 540 chemical substances

found in the environment. Government

agencies and private entities use IRIS to

help characterize public health risks of

chemical substances at specific sites.

In the past, the IRIS program has been

hampered by an assessment development

process that took too long, was redundant,

and was not transparent to the public (see

Southwest Hydrology, Sept/Oct 2008). In

January 2009 the General Accountability

Office identified the IRIS process as one of

three program areas warranting attention

by Congress and the executive branch.

The new process will be entirely managed

by EPA and contains a streamlined

review schedule. It will no longer provide

other federal agencies the opportunity

to request suspension of an assessment

process in order to conduct research

on “mission-critical” chemicals. Other

federal agencies and White House offices

will still have opportunities to submit

comments as long as they are from health

scientists and focus on scientific and

technical aspects. After considering this

input, EPA will have final authority over

the contents of all IRIS assessments.

Rigorous independent external peer review

as well as public review and comment

will remain key components of the new

IRIS process. In addition, all written

comments from other federal agencies,

including White House offices, regarding

IRIS assessments will be made public. ■

Visit www.epa.gov/iris/process.


Industrial carbon dioxide capture

and geologic storage (CO2 capture

and storage, or CCS) is the subject

of substantial research, development,

and demonstration (RD&D) activity

around the world because of its potential

to significantly reduce the amount of

CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from

industrial and energy-supply activities.

These two economic sectors are the

largest emitters of greenhouse gases,

together accounting for about 45 percent

of global anthropogenic emissions,

according to the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007).

Adding CCS to fossil-fuel power plants

and other large industrial facilities—

which can reduce a plant’s CO2 emissions

by 80 percent or more—would enable

these sectors to significantly reduce their

“carbon footprint.” However, not all

of these large emitters will adopt CCS.

The feasibility of adding CCS to existing

plants depends on such considerations

as adequate space for new equipment,

access to safe geologic storage, and cost-

effectiveness. Newer plants generally offer

the most cost-effective opportunities

for CCS conversion, and many coal-

based plants currently being built in

the United States are designed to later

incorporate CCS, should regulations make

it advantageous (or necessary) to do so.

The magnitude of the combined electric-

power and industrial-sector CO2 emissions

means that developing and applying CCS

to even a portion of this sector could

impact overall efforts to stabilize and

ultimately reduce CO2 concentrations in

the atmosphere. In fact, many analysts

believe such an achievement will not be

possible without widespread deployment

of CCS. The challenge lies in making

CCS available for broad commercial

application by resolving current technical,

economic, and legal/regulatory barriers.

CCS Consumes EnergyCO2 is a nontoxic natural substance that

is the primary product of combustion

and other industrial and agricultural

processes. Most technologies for separating

it from other gases were developed

for applications where separation was

required commercially, such as in

natural gas processing and urea fertilizer

manufacturing. Some of these processes

are now being modified for different

operating pressures, gas-stream impurities,

or gas-treatment volumes in order to

capture CO2 from fuel or exhaust gases

at power plants, oil refineries, cement

plants, and other large facilities.

The separation processes currently

use significant amounts of energy,

and many CO2 capture processes

increase cooling-water requirements.

Accordingly, much current RD&D

is aimed at process improvements or

alternatives that use less energy and

cooling water, take up less space, and

avoid the need for expensive construction

materials or gas pretreatment systems.

Once the CO2 is separated, it must be

compressed to a dense phase—a liquid-

like state known as a supercritical fluid—

to make underground storage and any

intermediate pipeline transportation

more efficient. Compressing CO2 to

dense-phase conditions also consumes

energy, and often represents the second-

largest CCS energy use after separation.

Thus RD&D also is underway on more

efficient CO2 compression techniques.

If an industrial facility with CO2 capture

does not overlie a geologic formation

suitable for long-term storage, the

compressed CO2 must be transported

to an injection wellhead via pipeline.

CO2 pipeline technology is mature;

several thousand miles of pipelines have

operated safely for decades to supply

CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. In

the Southwest, the industrial facilities

generating the largest amounts of CO2

tend to align well with geology suitable for

storage, so costs associated with pipeline

runs are not likely to be prohibitive.

The energy use for transporting

supercritical CO2 is relatively small.

CO2 injection technology is also mature,

given decades of commercial application

for enhanced oil recovery. Injection wells

are similar to oil and gas wells, and are

drilled and completed using the same

types of rigs and construction methods.

Cements and other downhole materials

may be specially selected to withstand

the mildly acidic conditions that can be

produced by CO2 storage in aqueous

environments. As with pipeline transport,

the energy use associated with injecting

CO2 already compressed to dense-

phase conditions is relatively small.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE,

2009) estimates that the sum of all energy

uses for CCS application to existing

coal-fired power plants could equal 20 to

30 percent of the plant’s energy output

without CCS. Because this represents

both a significant portion of CCS costs

and a large new energy demand, DOE

has established RD&D programs aimed at

reducing CCS energy requirements for coal

power applications to about 10 percent of

the plant’s output without CCS, halving

the energy use of today’s systems.

Opportunities for Carbon Capture and Geologic StorageRichard J. Myhre and Marian Stone – Bevilacqua-Knight Inc.

CO2 Sequestration


Where Will It Go?DOE’s regional carbon sequestration research teams have estimated a potential geologic CO2 storage “resource” of roughly 3,500 billion metric tons in the United States and portions of Canada (NETL, 2008). This figure is derived from estimates of available pore space ranging from 1 to 4 percent in deep (>3,000 feet) sedimentary basins believed to contain high-salinity water (>10,000 parts per million total dissolved solids) in closed reservoirs or with regional confining layers of shale or other low-permeability rock (see map, above). The estimate also includes storage opportunities in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and deep, unmineable coal seams. This storage resource corresponds to over 1,100 years of the current rate of CO2 emissions from the area’s point sources (NETL, 2008). Although some fraction will prove uneconomical for development, in general, storage space will not be the limiting factor to CCS deployment.

RD&D efforts are concentrated on developing and refining computer models to predict, and monitoring techniques to detect, the subsurface location and behavior of CO2 over time. The physical and chemical mechanisms by which CO2 is immobilized and stabilized in the subsurface include structural trapping, residual or pore space trapping, dissolution/solubility trapping, mineralization, and in

the case of storage in coal seams, surface

adsorption. Standard practices in oil and

gas production often can be adapted to

CO2 monitoring. To protect freshwater

resources, shallower monitoring wells are

typically used to warn of encroachment by

saline waters from the CO2 injection zone.

Integration and overall scale-up of CCS

processes is another critical step to

commercialization. Together, three of the

world’s largest long-term CO2 storage

projects—the Weyburn-Midale CO2

Monitoring Project in Saskatchewan,

Canada, the Sleipner Saline Aquifer CO2

Storage project in the North Sea, and the In

Salah Project in Algeria—currently inject

an amount equal to about one-fourth of the

annual CO2 emissions of the single largest

coal-fired power plant in the Southwest.

Experience from more large-scale projects

will be needed before undertaking

widespread commercial deployment,

and small-scale injection tests will help

characterize commercially suitable CO2

storage sites in areas without a long

history of oil and gas production.

Research in the SouthwestThe Southwest is home to two DOE

Regional Carbon Sequestration

Partnerships, each guided by three main

goals: 1) characterizing the West’s CO2

storage resource base; 2) drilling test wells

to confirm the stratigraphy and rock and

fluid properties of promising sedimentary

strata; and 3) validating CO2 storage

capability, groundwater protection, and

monitoring techniques through CO2

injection tests. The West Coast Regional

Carbon Sequestration Partnership will

soon drill a CO2 injection test well near

Arizona Public Service Company’s

Cholla power plant in northeastern

Arizona near Holbrook (see page 28). The

Southwest Regional Carbon Sequestration

Partnership (SWP) has ongoing CO2

injection and monitoring projects in

New Mexico, Utah, and Texas. ■

Contact Richard Myhre at [email protected].

ReferencesIPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and NY.

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 2008. Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, 2nd ed., U.S. Dept. of Energy, www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlas/ATLAS.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2009. Retrofitting the existing coal fleet with carbon capture technology, www.fossil.energy.gov (accessed June 25, 2009).

Deep saline formations (shown in dark blue) are prevalent throughout much of the Southwest and offer the largest potential CO2 storage capacity (from NETL, 2008).

Expertise and Technology

for Managing Water

Resources

Decision-support system development and application Groundwater/surface water modeling GIS, data mining, and data management Conjunctive use strategies Litigation support

Visit INTERA on the web at www.intera.com, or call:

Albuquerque, NM 505-246-1600 Austin, TX 512-425-2000 Boulder, CO 303-652-8899 Tampa, FL 813-600-5737


Although somewhat controversial,

geologic sequestration of carbon

dioxide (CO2) is poised to become

a key component of the global response

to climate change. In the United States,

geologic sequestration is now recognized

as the only feasible approach to continued

dependence on coal while mitigating CO2

emissions. Understandably, the popularity

of geologic sequestration has increased

among researchers, industry, and policy

advocates in the last several years, as a U.S.

Department of Energy-directed research

program has moved forward and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has

begun to build a regulatory approach for

these projects. However, concerns remain

that geologic sequestration projects may

pose a threat to groundwater and in

the long-term may prove ineffective for

isolating CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 has been injected underground

for over 30 years to enhance oil and

gas recovery, so much of the necessary

infrastructure, technology, and expertise

already exist. However, the gargantuan

volumes of CO2 that will have to be

injected in order to mitigate anthropogenic

atmospheric emissions (see sidebar) dwarf

the scale of existing projects and pose

several unique challenges. CO2 injection

for geologic sequestration will likely be

more closely regulated than enhanced

oil and gas recovery projects, requiring

substantial characterization and monitoring

of the site. For example, proposed EPA

regulations under the Underground

Injection Control (UIC) program require

the demonstration of site injectivity and

long-term storage effectiveness, as well as

delineation of the three-dimensional area

of impact, through an iterative approach

of site characterization, multiphase fluid

modeling, and monitoring (EPA, 2008).

Trapping MechanismsCO2 will in most cases be injected

underground as a supercritical fluid—a

phase state exhibiting properties of both a

liquid and vapor. The injected CO2 remains

a supercritical fluid at depths greater

than around 2,600 feet due to elevated

temperature and pressure. At lesser depths,

CO2 exists in either liquid or gaseous form.

Maintaining CO2 as a supercritical fluid

is ideal, as this results in the maximum

storage of CO2 per volume of porous media.

CO2 injectate may contain impurities,

including mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and

sulfur dioxide. At sufficient concentrations,

these impurities may significantly alter the

physico-chemical properties of the injectate.

Compared to

aqueous fluids,

supercritical CO2

has low density

and viscosity. Pure-

phase CO2 plumes

in the subsurface

will thus be highly

mobile and tend

to move upward.

Lateral and

even downward

CO2 movement

is also expected in response to

pressure differentials between the

injectate and native fluids.

Several subsurface processes, collectively

referred to as trapping mechanisms,

may promote long-term sequestration of

CO2. These include physical containment

beneath low-permeability geologic strata

(caprock); trapping as a residual, non-

mobile fluid phase in formation pore space

(capillary trapping); dissolution of CO2

into native groundwater; precipitation of

carbon-bearing minerals (mineralization),

and sorption of CO2 onto mineral surfaces

(Metz and others, 2005). In the short

term, physical containment beneath

caprock is essential for isolating CO2 from

overlying aquifers and the atmosphere.

Over longer periods, a combination of

these trapping mechanisms is expected to

permanently sequester the injected CO2.

There is some risk that injected CO2

could escape the target storage formation

and move upward toward drinking-

water aquifers and the atmosphere.

Abandoned well bores that penetrate

the storage formation are recognized

as the most likely leakage pathway for

CO2. However, CO2 may also migrate

through faults or fractures in the caprock

system. Saripalli and McGrail (2002)

demonstrated that an accumulated

CO2 thickness of approximately 60 feet

beneath the caprock is sufficient to

cause leakage into caprock microcracks

or crevices 2 microns in diameter.

Project SitingGeologic sequestration is envisioned to take

place primarily in deep saline formations

and oil reservoirs. More than 90 percent of

storage capacity is projected to be in saline

formations (Dooley and others, 2006),

which are predominantly sandstone and

carbonate strata containing groundwater

unsuitable for drinking water (>10,000

milligrams per liter total dissolved solids).

Other geologic formations of interest for

sequestration include natural-gas reservoirs,

unmineable coal seams, saline-filled

basalts, salt caverns, and organic shales.

The Hydrology of Geologic SequestrationGregory Schnaar and Stephen J. Cullen – Daniel B. Stephens & Associates Inc.

Schematic diagram illustrating the geologic sequestration of CO2.

≥ ~2

,400

feet

CO2 Sequestration


Although they account for less than 10 percent of potential storage capacity, oil reservoirs may be the focus of early geologic sequestration projects. Actively produced fields and so-called “depleted” reservoirs are both of interest for CO2 storage, and some well fields may already have the required infrastructure for CO2 injection. Oil reservoirs are also generally better characterized than deep saline formations, and are overlain by caprock sufficient to restrict the upward movement of oil and gas.

Regardless of the type of formation, a promising geologic sequestration site must have a target formation with sufficient injectivity to receive the amounts of CO2 to be injected and be overlain by at least one caprock layer that will restrict upward flow of CO2. The caprock structure is also important. For instance, if the strata dip too steeply, CO2 could migrate laterally along the target formation/caprock interface. Anticlinal formations are ideal physical

traps for geologic sequestration sites.

Site MonitoringMonitoring is an essential component

of the management of a geologic

sequestration site, providing data

related to the effectiveness of CO2

storage as well as any risks to drinking-

water aquifers and the atmosphere.

Monitoring programs at geologic

sequestration sites will be designed to

track the evolution of injected CO2

and any mobilized constituents, as well

as formation pressure. A variety of

techniques, developed for use at oil and

gas well fields and contaminated sites, are

available to monitor these parameters.

Monitoring for changes in pressure,

aqueous geochemistry, salinity, or the

presence of drinking-water contaminants

will require direct access to the target

formation and overlying strata via

monitoring wells. However, installation

of monitoring wells will be a relatively

expensive part of these projects, and

there is some risk that the monitoring

wells themselves could become conduits

for fluid movement. Therefore, a

limited number of monitoring wells will

likely be placed strategically in areas

predicted to overlie the eventual CO2

plume and area of elevated pressure.

Geophysical techniques have been used

to monitor changes in CO2 saturation

at geologic sequestration projects (such as Doughty and others, 2008, and Bickle and others, 2007), including seismic and electromagnetic surveys. These techniques have been employed both at the ground surface and down-hole, and are capable of providing monitoring data over much larger areas than could reasonably be accessed with monitoring wells. Although geophysical methods in general will be a key component of monitoring geologic sequestration sites, no single technique is applicable to all sites. An evaluation will need to be conducted for each geologic sequestration site to determine the appropriate suite of monitoring technologies to be used.

Because leakage of CO2 to the atmosphere and into buildings is of concern, it is likely that surface air and soil gas will be monitored in the vicinity of geologic sequestration projects. Monitoring at the surface and in the vadose zone can detect and quantify leakage of CO2 from the target formation, and will also indicate if CO2 has leaked into drinking-water

aquifers. Surface monitoring for CO2 may

be accomplished using an infrared gas

analyzer attached to an eddy covariance

tower. Soil gas may be sampled using

vapor monitoring wells, and flux of

CO2 from the soil to surface air can be

measured using soil-flux chambers. In

each of these applications, it is important

to characterize natural variability in

CO2 concentrations for comparison to

monitoring data, and to collect sufficient

spatial data to account for this variability.

Computational ModelingCO2 flow through the subsurface is

extremely complex, involving multiphase

fluid flow, CO2 dissolution into

groundwater, mineral precipitation

and dissolution, and in some cases,

geomechanical impacts. The fate and

transport of CO2 will be very site-specific,

depending on geological structure and

mineralogy. The transport properties of

CO2 also vary greatly with temperature

and pressure. For these reasons, state-

of-the-art computational modeling has

been advocated as an integral tool for

see Hydrology, page 30

Can We Make a Difference?CO2 is released to the atmosphere by many sources, but most estimates are that around 95 percent comes from natural processes, primarily the decay of organic material. How, then, can the small fraction generated by humans make any difference? Most scientists think that until recently, the rate of CO2 release was balanced by its absorption, primarily by plants and the ocean, keeping the atmospheric concentration relatively stable. But anthropogenic sources have upset this balance, resulting in steadily increasing concentrations that affect global climate. Thus, the focus on reducing these sources is an attempt to regain the balance. Some figures:

• Global CO2 anthropogenic emissions, 2006: 29.2 billion metric tons (bmt) (EIA, 2009)

• U.S. CO2 anthropogenic emissions, 2006: 6 bmt (EIA, 2009)

• U.S. CO2 emissions from nontransportation (potentially capturable) sources, 2006: 4 bmt (EIA, 2009)

• More than 8,100 large CO2 point sources (potentially capturable) worldwide account for more than 60 percent of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions; they are predominantly fossil-fueled electric power plants (GTSP, 2006).

• The cumulative amount of CO2 that would need to be stored over the next century to to achieve atmospheric CO2 stabilization is estimated to be 20 bmt in the United States and more than 100 bmt worldwide—this would require increasing current sequestration deployment by three to four orders of magnitude (GTSP, 2006).

Based on these figures, if all 8,100 large sources were captured at 80% efficiency, that would represent less than 14% of the amount needed to achieve stabilization.

ReferencesEnergy Information Administration, 2009, Annual Energy Outlook, U.S. Dept. of Energy,

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.Global Technology Strategy Program, 2006. Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage.

www.pnl.gov/gtsp/docs/ccs_report.pdf.


The most effective way to combat

the predicted impacts of climate

change is to limit carbon dioxide

(CO2) emissions, particularly from coal-

burning power plants which produce half

the nation’s electricity. Technologies such

as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

enable coal to be used while avoiding

significant greenhouse-gas emissions. CCS

is technically ready to be deployed now,

but it is expensive. However if the current

administration successfully passes and

funds a climate bill, the market for carbon

will be primed and CCS will achieve the

incentive needed for commercialization.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC, 2005) concluded that the

local health, safety, and environmental

risks of CCS are comparable to the risks

of current activities such as natural-gas

storage and enhanced oil recovery if

there is “appropriate site selection based

on available subsurface information,

a monitoring programme to detect

problems, a regulatory system and

the appropriate use of remediation

methods to stop or control CO2 releases

if they arise.” Early sequestration

projects combined with over 30 years of

experience injecting CO2 for enhanced

oil recovery provide confidence that

long-term sequestration is feasible in

properly selected geologic formations

The RisksWhat are the risks? Those most

commonly cited include long-term

leakage of CO2 back to the atmosphere

through an inadequate seal, a seal

damaged through operation, or via

well holes back to the atmosphere;

localized, high-volume leaks to the

atmosphere producing an asphyxiation

hazard to people or ecosystems; and

leakage to and contamination of

groundwater by either CO2 and its

co-contaminants or by saline water

forced upward by high CO2 pressures.

Leakage: This is the most frequently

voiced concern about CCS. For a confining

layer to be effective, it must be laterally

extensive and thick enough to counter

total buoyant forces of CO2 accumulation.

Potential escape mechanisms include

unplugged wells, faults, fractures, and

insufficient impermeable caprock. These

risks can be managed by demonstrating

the effectiveness, lateral extent, and

uniformity of the reservoir seal or

confining layer before the site is selected,

using standard structural geologic and

geophysical studies that map fractures,

faults, and quantify the potential for

fault slippage. Injection pressure must

be managed to avoid risk of tensile

failure (fracturing of caprock) or sheer

failure (reactivation of dormant faults).

Current regulations tend to focus only

on prevention of tensile failure. All

wells in the surrounding area should

be catalogued and properly sealed.

Assessment of possible migration patterns

can help determine where existing

fluid could travel when displaced.

Opponents of CCS often cite a 1986

incident at Nyos Lake, Cameroon. In this

volcanic lake, CO2 accumulated gradually

in the lower depths of the lake and then,

triggered by a natural event, rose suddenly

to the surface, emitting a large cloud of

CO2 that suffocated nearby people and

livestock. While tragic, this situation is

not an appropriate corollary to regulated

CCS: a shallow, tectonically active

volcanic crater would never be considered

an appropriate sequestration site.

Contamination: A principal concern

expressed about CCS is that CO2 leaks

could impact drinking-water aquifers.

One regulatory proposal to guard against

this is to prohibit any CCS activities

above the lowest drinking-water aquifer.

Aquifers are shallower than potential

storage formations in most areas, but

a potential conflict could arise where

deep groundwater resources exist. In

such areas, hydrologic studies and monitoring well protocols could be designed to ensure the protection of the drinking-water source and permit CCS.

Injected CO2 can displace existing saline water far beyond the space occupied by the CO2 plume. Regulations can be tailored to prevent this from posing a threat to underground drinking-water sources by requiring a containment zone that will retain displaced water pressure generated by the project. Hydrologic transport models that incorporate movement of both the CO2 plume and formation fluid can assist with the evaluation. Remedial response protocols should be

established if a drinking-water source is potentially endangered. If danger is detected, ceasing injection will quickly reduce pressure. Additional steps to reduce pressure or prevent migration to a water source can then be considered.

Finally, there is some concern that CO2

injected into brine reservoirs could pollute future drinking-water alternatives. Presently, water with concentrations of up to 10,000 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS) is considered to be of drinking-water quality. In comparison, seawater has 35,000 ppm TDS. The water quality of the brine reservoirs under consideration for carbon storage has three times the concentration of the dissolved solids of seawater. Protecting deep sources of water with that level of TDS should not prohibit or limit CCS projects. However, consideration should be given to protecting groundwater just above 10,000 ppm TDS since such water may in fact be an important resource in the future.

How Are Risks Managed?Perhaps the biggest tool to manage risk

is the regulatory framework promulgated

for CCS projects at the state or federal

Managing the Risks of CO2 SequestrationAmy Hardberger and Scott Anderson – Environmental Defense Fund

A principal concern expressed about CCS is that CO2 leaks

could impact drinking-water aquifers.[

CO2 Sequestration


level. Regulations must be grounded in

a thorough scientific understanding of

the risks involved and ensure they are

managed properly. Rules must be flexible,

adaptive, performance-based, and include

requirements for site characterization,

site selection, and long-term monitoring.

Site selection is one of the most

important aspects of a CCS project.

The proposed site must have large

capacity and retention capabilities, and

geology that promotes both structural

trapping and residual pore-space

trapping. Rock chemistry that facilitates

dissolution and mineralization to ensure

permanence is also desirable. Under

most circumstances, CO2 will dissolve

in water and lower pH. In a system

containing reactive mineral phases,

decrease in pH is buffered by dissolution

of carbonate-bearing silicate minerals.

Once a project has begun, monitoring

of groundwater quality, geochemical

changes, and pressure changes should

be performed above the confining zone

to detect any problems before they

become serious. Operators should have

the flexibility to choose monitoring

protocols as long as they meet overall

requirements and cover the CO2 plume,

extent of injected or displaced fluids,

and areas of increased pressure. Key

monitoring parameters include pressure,

temperature, and fluid chemistry in the

injection reservoir and immediately above

the primary confining zone. A variety

of surface and downhole geophysical

techniques can provide information

on the location and geometry of the

CO2 plume and the integrity of the

confining unit and wells. At the surface,

soil-gas and surface-air monitoring

can detect CO2 leakage (WRI, 2008).

In summary, although CCS presents

some challenges, environmental concerns

can be mitigated through careful project

planning and execution. Considering

the urgency of climate change, the

benefits of CCS far exceed the risk. ■

Contact Amy Hardberger at [email protected].

ReferencesIPCC, 2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, ed.

by B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, and others. Cambridge University Press.

World Resources Institute (WRI), 2008. Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage, Washington, DC.

www.golder.com

Focused on solutions that work.Specializing in ground engineering and environmental solutions, with local expertise in water resources, Golder gives you global reach and local presence on six continents. For 45 years, Golder has developed a rock-solid reputation built on client service, innovative thinking and cost-effective solutions.

A World of Capabilities Delivered Locally.

Local offi ces:

Tucson (520) 888-8818 | Phoenix (480) 966-0153Albuquerque (505) 821-3043 | Silver City (505) 388-0118

[email protected]

We see solutions where others don’t.


In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

to establish an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW) from endangerment by fluids injected into wells. USDWs are defined as aquifers containing less than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of total dissolved solids. The UIC program has regulatory authority over the construction, operation, permitting, and closure of injection wells from the well head down.

States and tribes may choose to apply for primary enforcement authority, or primacy, to implement the UIC program within their respective borders. A state or tribal UIC program must meet all federal requirements in order to obtain primacy; otherwise, EPA

implements the program directly.

Underground Injection of CO2Geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) through well injection meets the definition of “underground injection” as outlined in the SDWA, and therefore is regulated under the UIC program. However, the current UIC regulations were not specifically designed for the injection of CO2. Thus, EPA has developed new regulations for this type of injection to prevent endangerment of USDWs.

EPA is moving rapidly to develop federal regulations for CO2 geologic sequestration wells under the UIC program. Proposed July 25, 2008 regulations would revise the UIC program’s regulatory framework to address the unique nature of CO2 injection. The proposal creates a new geologic sequestration well class, Class VI.

EPA is also conducting research related

to USDW protection as well as other

potential environmental impacts associated

with CO2 geologic sequestration.

Geologic sequestration of CO2 differs

from other types of injection activities

currently regulated under existing

UIC requirements. There are specific

characteristics of CO2 geologic

sequestration that warrant the tailored

requirements in the July 2008 proposal.

It is predicted that over time, the CO2

plume and pressure front associated with

a full-scale geologic sequestration project

will be much larger than those of other

types of UIC operations. In addition,

the relative buoyancy and complex

behavior of the CO2 in the subsurface

suggest that the area of influence will be

noncircular. Therefore, the traditional

area-of-review delineation methods such

as a fixed radius or simple mathematical

computation would not be sufficient to

predict the extent of CO2 movement.

The July proposal includes enhancements

to typical deep-well construction and

operation requirements to provide

additional barriers to CO2 leakage

outside of the injection zone due to CO2’s

buoyancy. The potentially corrosive

nature of the injectate (when in contact

with water) is also being addressed in

the proposed regulations. For example,

a leaking annulus would be a significant

migration pathway for CO2. Therefore,

the quality of the well materials, proper

well construction, composition and

placement of appropriate cement along

the wellbore, and appropriate maintenance

are crucial components being addressed.

EPA is coordinating with the Department

of Energy’s Regional Carbon Sequestration

Partnership as it conducts pilot projects to

determine the most suitable technologies

and specific infrastructure needs for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in various areas of the country. The research is funded through an interagency agreement with DOE for work on the potential groundwater quality impacts of CO2 injection at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) in California. EPA is also working with U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Department of Treasury, states, tribes, industry, NGOs and international organizations.

States also are moving toward the regulation of geologic sequestration (see map, above right). Several state legislatures have recently enacted laws aimed at accelerating efforts to reduce carbon emissions and are working to publish regulations for geologic sequestration this year. If state or tribal UIC regulations are issued prior to EPA regulations and determined by EPA to be less stringent, then the state or tribe will be required to revise their regulations

to obtain EPA primacy approval.

Challenges of Nationwide RegulationIn developing the proposed rule for nationwide regulation of geologic sequestration, EPA and stakeholders have considered a number of challenges.

Geologic Variability: The proposed rule limits CO2 injection to formations beneath the lowermost USDW. The eastern United States is well-suited for this requirement because most eastern USDWs are shallow and the salinity of geologic formations typically increases with depth. Some saline formations along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana, however, transition into USDWs within very short distances due to nearby aquifer recharge zones. In the West, the occurrence of USDWs is far more complex. For example, USDWs are found at depths greater than 10,000 feet in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and 6,500 feet on the North Slope of Alaska. In such areas,

Regulating Geologic Sequestration of CO2Patricia R. Pfeiffer and Bruce J. Kobelski – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[The CO2 plume and pressure front associated with full-scale

geologic sequestration projects will be much larger than

other types of underground injection operations.

tiP

CO2 Sequestration


aquifers that are not of drinking water quality—and thus might be potential geologic sequestration sites—are typically sandwiched between those that are. Given this variability, the proposed requirement would severely limit the deployment of geologic sequestration in some parts of the western United States and Alaska.

Financial Responsibility: The proposed rule requires operators to provide financial assurance mechanisms to ensure that adequate resources are available for corrective action, the plugging and abandonment of injection wells, post-injection site care and site closure, and for emergency and remedial response for failed injection wells. EPA held three webcasts during spring 2009 to discuss potential financial responsibility mechanisms for geologic sequestration wells with the aim of leveraging the experience of states, regions, and other stakeholders to determine which fiscal responsibility instruments and mechanisms are appropriate for Class VI wells. A summary of the webcasts is available in the rulemaking docket at www.regulations.gov.

Long-Term Liability: During the public comment period for the proposed rule, EPA received numerous comments regarding long-term liability of geologic sequestration sites. The unusually large volume and the nature of the injectate were identified as two primary concerns. Due to the volume of injected fluid, commercial-scale sequestration projects have the potential to impact very

large geographic areas. The increased pressure in receiving formations could cause the displacement of native brines and the migration of CO2 plumes over considerable distances, potentially affecting USDWs at great distances from the injection well. Research has shown that eventually these large plumes will stabilize and be trapped through natural physical and chemical processes. However, due to the time scale at which these processes occur, some stakeholders have suggested transferring liability to either state or federal entities. This issue is under discussion both within and outside the federal government, and strategies continue to emerge as the process moves forward.

Conversion from Enhanced Oil Recovery to Geologic Sequestration: Current practices for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) include the injection of CO2. Following publication of the proposed rule, many

operators have expressed the need for regulatory certainty for wells that both enhance oil recovery and sequester CO2. Stakeholders are concerned that it may be difficult to clarify the distinction between a well used for EOR (Class II) and a well used for geologic sequestration (Class VI). While many suggestions have been offered concerning schemes for transitioning between well classes, EPA is still evaluating this issue.

Other Challenges: Some sequestration-related issues being discussed are currently outside SDWA authority, but are nevertheless important, including the use and ownership of pore space, potential impacts to mineral rights, and the application of eminent domain. For example, reservoir interference and pore-space rights have traditionally been managed by the states. However, areas-of-review for full-scale projects are predicted to cover large areas and may involve transboundary concerns, such as CO2 influences that cross national, state, tribal, or federal boundaries.

Another topic under discussion is the potential for geologic sequestration injection in proximity to other resources such as oil- and gas-bearing formations. Resource extraction and processing procedures must be developed and used where these situations occur. Drilling procedures and operations associated with resource extraction will need to be developed to prevent injected CO2 from escaping to the atmosphere. ■

Contact Patricia Pfeiffer at [email protected]. Although the authors are employees of U.S. EPA, this article is not a statement of EPA policy. For information on GS and the UIC program, visit www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/. For information on the DOE/EPA partnership, visit fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/partnerships/. For information on the EPA/LBNL partnership, visit www-esd.lbl.gov/GCS/projects/CO2/index_CO2.html.

WA

OR

CA

AZ

NVUT

ID

MTND

MNSD

WV

CO

NM

TX

OK

KS

NEIA

MD

AR

LA

MI

MI

WI

IL INOH

KY

TN

MS ALGA

FL

SC

NC

VAVW

PA

NY

ME

VTNH

MA

CT

NJMDRI

DCDE

states with final rule

states with draft rule

states with relevant legislation

Graphic by: Chris Guzzetti, EPA Region 8

Status of state carbon capture and storage regulations, as of June 2009.

D/H 13C/12C 15N/14N 18O/16O 34S/32S

• 13C/12C of MTBE, BTEX, and Chlorinated Solvents in Water and Soil• 15N/14N & 18O/16O of NO

3-; 15N/14N of NH

3; D/H & 18O/16O in Water

• 34S/32S & 18O/16O of Sulfate in Water• D/H & 13C/12C of Crude, Petroleum Fuels and Gases

Isotopes Laboratorya DPRA Company

www.ZymaxUSA.com 760.781.3338 [email protected]


Sandstones of the Frio Formation east

of Houston, Texas were selected to

test the feasibility of using carbon

capture and storage (CCS) in geologic

formations to reduce atmospheric

buildup of greenhouse gases. The Frio

Brine pilot study was based on two small-

volume, short-duration carbon dioxide

(CO2) injections into two previously

unperturbed brine-bearing sandstones.

These injections were designed to answer

questions about CCS using a process

of intensive multiphysics monitoring

before, during, and after injection,

with subsequent history-matching to

test the accuracy of numerical models

of flow and geochemical changes.

Prior to this study, experience with

trapped buoyant fluids

such as oil, methane, and

CO2 provided reason

for optimism that CO2

injected for storage would

be retained in analogous

settings for long periods of

time. But previous storage

experience was only in

formations (reservoirs)

from which hydrocarbons

had been extracted. The

volume of those fluids

constitute a fraction of

the CO2 produced from

combustion of fossil fuel; if

significant CCS is to occur,

injection into brine-bearing

formations that have never

held hydrocarbons will

be needed. Moreover, the

natural accumulation of

hydrocarbons is typically

much slower than the rate

of injection that would

be used to sequester

large volumes of CO2.

Thus, testing was needed

to examine storage in

unperturbed formations.

A pre-injection study

showed that a small

area could be more

rigorously monitored than a large area,

and that limiting injection time to a

short period would allow observation

and monitoring through all stages of

the process through post-injection

stabilization, thus providing critical

information relevant to the performance

of large-scale, long-duration tests.

Finding a SiteHigh permeability, steep local dip, and

limited lateral flow were considered

desirable formation characteristics

that would allow rapid equilibration

within the experiment. The need

for a well-characterized site, as well

as budgetary and public-acceptance

considerations, led us to seek brine-

bearing sandstones within an oil-field

setting. Texas American Resources Company made available a site in South Liberty Field, south of Dayton, Texas, where the upper Frio Formation lies between a shale confining zone above and an oil-producing formation below. A new injection well was drilled and an existing production well was modified to serve as an observation well.

Existing and new borehole-based geophysical measurements, a 3-D seismic survey, geochemical sampling, and core analyses provided detailed characteristics of the formation that were used to test conceptual hydrologic and geochemical models in advance of the injection tests. Additional hydrologic and tracer tests provided data on permeability between wells. Detailed modeling using

Frio Brine Pilot: the First U.S. Sequestration TestSusan D. Hovorka – Gulf Coast Carbon Center, University of Texas at Austin.

Permeability from log calculations and averages used in TOUGH2 simulation. Saturation logging illustrates the displacement of brine by CO2. Shaded areas show calculated CO2 saturation with depth in the observation well; at the end of injection (Day 10), saturation was the maximum observed. After injection, CO2 saturation decreased as the plume spread. The black lines show the modeled concentration of CO2. During injection, CO2 moved outward more rapidly than predicted. The slight offset in the location of the plume between the model prediction and test results is due to higher reservoir heterogeneity (lower bed continuity) than in the model. The key result is that the CO2 was trapped in the formation by capillary forces as predicted. Figure prepared by Christine Doughty from data provided by Shinichi Sakuri.

Shale Depth Day Day Day Day Day Porosity Fraction (ft) 4 10 29 66 142 fraction

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.4 0

Frio

“C

” sand

sto

ne

Top “C”shale

Model porosity

Model permeability

CO2 saturation calculated from pulsedneutron reservoir saturation tool log

CO2 saturation calculated by model

Perforations

4995.0

5000

5010

5020

5030

5040

5050

5055.0

CO2 Sequestration


TOUGH2, a numerical simulation model

for multiphase flow, was performed

throughout the tests (Doughty and others,

2007). Good matches between modeled

and observed CO2 saturation imparted

confidence in model predictions of CO2

movement and permanent storage.

Geophysical logging, pressure and

temperature measurement, and

geochemical sampling were also conducted

during injection to allow comparison

of pre- and post-injection conditions

(Hovorka and others, 2006). Monitoring

objectives were to measure changes in CO2

saturation during the months following

injection in cross-section and aerially, and

to document accompanying changes in

pressure and temperature using gas-phase

and aqueous tracers and brine chemistry.

Test No.1The first test, conducted in September

2004, injected about 1,600 tons of CO2

at a depth of 5,050 feet below the surface

over 10 days; observations were collected

over 18 months. Initially the front of the

CO2 plume moved more rapidly than

had been modeled, but by the end of the

10-day injection, the plume geometry in

the plane of the observation and injection

wells had thickened to a distribution similar to that modeled (see figure, left).

As expected, part of the CO2 dissolved rapidly into brine, causing pH to fall and calcite to dissolve (Kharaka and others, 2006). Unexpectedly large amounts of iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) were also dissolved in the initial fluids as CO2 moved though the rock-water system. Concentration decreased after injection but did not fall to initial values. Geochemical modeling conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory predicted that iron would be present only in trace amounts. No manganese phase was predicted from

mineralogic study, however the Fe-Mn

spikes were duplicated in the laboratory

in follow-up testing. We deduce that

these metals were released by small

amounts of high-surface-area, reactive

trace minerals such as clay or fine

pyrite, which were then depleted. In

addition, contamination by fluids that

reacted with the steel tubing contributed

to the amount of iron released.

Post-injection measurements showed

that CO2 migration under gravity slowed

greatly two months after injection.

This matched modeled predictions that

a significant amount of CO2 would

become trapped as relative permeability

to CO2 decreased as a function of

saturation, a common two-phase

capillary trapping process known from

hydrocarbon production. A production

test months after the end of injection

was unable to produce significant CO2,

demonstrating that it was effectively

trapped because saturation had

decreased to near-residual and relative

permeability to CO2 was near zero.

Post-injection measurements showed that CO2 migration

under gravity slowed greatly two months after injection.[

see Frio Brine, page 31

Roscoe Moss Company

No single screen type is appropriate for all wells. Roscoe Moss Company is the only manufacturer in the world producing shutter screen, continuous slot screen, bridge slot screen, and slotted pipe. This ensures that Roscoe Moss Company’s customers receive unbiased technical assistance directed toward solving their specific problems.

4360 Worth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90063 • Phone (323) 263-4111 • Fax (323) 263-4497www.roscoemoss.com • [email protected]© 2006 Roscoe Moss Company. All Rights Reserved.

We make water work worldwide.


Arizona power companies are in

a predicament. On one front,

population growth has led to

substantial rise in demand for electric

power. If recent trends continue, this

demand will increase about 3.6 percent

per year in Arizona and electricity

consumption will double in about

20 years (Western Resource Advocates,

2007). With abundant coal resources in

Arizona’s Black Mesa Basin and elsewhere

in the western interior, utilities have

turned to coal-fired generating plants

as the dominant power source. Yet coal

is the largest anthropogenic emitter

of carbon dioxide (CO2) globally, and

pending legislation would regulate carbon

emissions by imposing significant limits

on conventional coal-power generation.

Consequently, reliance on coal power may

be viable in the future only if conventional

or next-generation, advanced-technology

coal plants can achieve carbon capture

and geologic storage. Moreover, from an

industry perspective, investment in costly

capture technology would be considered

only under reasonable assurance that

production-scale CO2 emissions could be

safely and reliably stored

underground. Thus, a

critical first step is testing

geologic sequestration of

CO2 at a very small scale

where the process can

be carefully studied.

The Starting PointIn Arizona, the Colorado

Plateau Province is the

obvious starting point to

evaluate geologic storage

of CO2. According to the

Department of Energy, six

large coal-fired electrical

generating stations operating

in this region produce

over 70 million tons of

CO2 annually, or roughly

three percent of overall

CO2 emissions from the

electric power sector. Over a

billion tons of high-quality

coal are found in shallow, mineable

deposits in the Black Mesa area alone.

The Colorado Plateau in Arizona is

underlain by a thick sequence of nearly

flat-lying sedimentary strata with multiple

potential reservoirs in the Paleozoic

section that may be suitable for long-

term CO2 storage. The reservoirs range

in depth from approximately 3,000 to

7,500 feet and are capped by thick and

regionally extensive shale confining beds.

However, hydrologic conditions and

water quality in the plateau are poorly

known in all but the uppermost aquifer.

To evaluate potential CO2 storage in this

area, Arizona industry partners have

teamed with the West Coast Regional

Carbon Sequestration Partnership

(WESTCARB) to conduct the Arizona

Utilities CO2 Storage Pilot. The pilot

project entails drilling, constructing, and

testing one injection well for CO2 storage.

The proposed well is an experimental

technology well to allow the WESTCARB

consortium to gather information on

the geology and suitability for CO2

sequestration in the Holbrook Basin

and in areas with similar geology in the

southern Colorado Plateau. Sponsoring

industry partners include Arizona Public

Service Company (APS), Salt River

Project, Tucson Electric Power, Arizona

Electric Power Cooperative, and Peabody

Investments. Project funding, in kind

services, and/or technical contributions

are provided by the California Energy

Commission, U.S. Department of Energy,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

(LBNL), Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI), and the five industry partners.

The total project budget is $5.5 million.

Site SelectionBased on regional geologic and

hydrologic conditions (Montgomery

& Associates, 2007), a site at the APS

Cholla Power Plant near Joseph City,

Arizona was selected for the pilot project.

Two important factors were pivotal in

selecting the site. First, of all land in

the Colorado Plateau of northeastern

Arizona outside the Navajo Nation

and Hopi Indian Reservation, this area

offers the best potential for CO2 storage.

Second, highly saline conditions present

Exploring Geologic CO2 Storage in ArizonaDennis H. Shirley – Montgomery & Associates Inc., Daniel J. Collins – Sandia Technologies LLC, and John L. Boyer – Arizona Public Service Company

East-west regional schematic geologic cross-section of the WESTCARB CO2 sequestration pilot project.

Moenkopi Formation

Mississippian and Devonian carbonates

Naco Formation

*These units are potential CO2 storage reservoirs where depths exceed 3,000 feet below the surface

west east

Alti

tude

abo

ve m

ean

sea

leve

l (fe

et)

Section distance (miles)

Oak

Cre

ek

basaltMoenkopiFormation

MeteorCrater

WinslowHolbrookLi

ttle

Col

orad

o R

iver

Prop

osed

test

wel

l(p

roje

cted

)

Target:3,000 – 4,000 feetbelow ground surface

Supai Formationevaporites

Supai Formation

Precambrian

Precambrian

TapeatsSandstone

ChinleFormation

Kaibab-Coconinoformations

Lower SupaiEsplanade

Kaibab-Coconino-Schnebly Hill formations

confiningconfining and/or reservoirreservoir*8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

00 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 146

CO2 Sequestration


in the uppermost aquifer suggest that

underlying groundwater in potential

CO2 reservoirs will also be saline.

The well site selected for the

demonstration project offers: 1) target

reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian Naco

Formation and the Devonian Martin

Formation (a primary target; see

diagram below left), which likely have

saline groundwater conditions and

possibly have permeability and porosity

suitable for CO2 storage; 2) sufficient

depth of burial and hydrostatic head

for CO2 storage as a supercritical fluid;

3) extensive overlying fine-grained

confining beds to prevent vertical leakage

of CO2; 4) access to or near the site

on paved roads; and 5) an easement

for land use and ease of permitting

through the cooperation of APS.

Drilling, Completion,and TestingThe test well will be drilled into

Precambrian basement rock at a depth

of approximately 4,000 feet using

conventional mud-rotary drilling. LBNL

and EPRI scientists have engaged Sandia

Technologies of Houston, Texas, and

Montgomery & Associates of Scottsdale,

Arizona, to oversee and manage the well-

drilling and testing program. As property

owner, APS obtained a drilling permit from

the Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission (AOGCC), a temporary

aquifer protection permit from the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality, and

an underground injection control permit

from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency for the planned CO2 injection

pilot test. Well drilling began in July.

Well completion plans (Sandia

Technologies and Montgomery &

Associates, 2009) call for setting and

cementing a conductor casing followed

by drilling a 12¼-inch borehole into the

upper Supai Formation to a depth of

around 965 feet. A protective surface casing

will be installed to isolate the wellbore

and regional C-Aquifer from underlying

saline groundwater. The surface casing

will be equipped with a pressure-seal

assembly for required pressure testing

and subsequent blow-out prevention. The

remaining borehole will be drilled with an

8½-inch drill bit using a salt-based mud.

Due to uncertainty regarding the adequacy

of downhole conditions for CO2 injection

in the Naco and Martin formations, one or

two drill-stem tests are planned to isolate

each formation during drilling to obtain

interval-specific information on formation

pressures, water quality, and permeability.

Upon reaching total depth, a full suite of

geophysical logs will be obtained in the

uncased borehole, and sidewall cores will

be collected from selected intervals. If field

data confirm adequacy of the injection

intervals, a 5½-inch protective casing will be

set and cemented in the borehole and zones

will be selected for perforation of the casing.

And Finally, InjectionField and laboratory data obtained from

the test well, such as water quality and

petrophysical properties, will be evaluated

to determine if the pilot CO2 injection

test should proceed. If testing confirms

saline groundwater exists in sufficiently

permeable zones within the Martin and/or

Naco formations, up to 2,000 metric tons

of food-grade CO2 will then be transported

by truck to the site and injected into the

completed well. Injection will occur in

targeted zones between depths of 3,200

and 3,700 feet within the perforated casing.

Vertical seismic profiling and formation

fluid sampling of the injection well will be

conducted prior to and for three to five

months after the end of CO2 injection.

The CO2 used in this test is the amount

generated by a typical 1,000-megawatt

coal-fired power plant in approximately

2.2 hours. Although this amount is quite

small, the pilot project will provide critical

information about the injectivity of CO2

into the geologic formation, test numerical

modeling codes that estimate the extent

and stabilization of the CO2 plume,

measure changes in water chemistry

within the formation, test and demonstrate

methods for monitoring the location of

the CO2 plume, and estimate the amount

of the injected CO2 that dissolves in the

reservoir water or becomes immobilized

in the formation. Upon completion of

testing, the injection well will be plugged

and abandoned, or preserved as a

monitor well under APS ownership. ■

Contact Dennis Shirley at [email protected].

ReferencesMontgomery & Associates, 2007. Regional Geologic

and Hydrologic Characterization, Northern Arizona Saline Formation CO2 Storage Pilot, Colorado Plateau Region of Northern Arizona, report prepared for West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, May 7, 2008, 38 pp.

Sandia Technologies and Montgomery & Associates, 2009. WESTCARB Arizona Utilities Carbon Dioxide Storage Pilot Test, Pilot Well Installation Plan, prepared for EPRI, WESTCARB & APS Cholla Plant, May 2009.

Western Resource Advocates, 2007. A Clean Electric Energy Strategy for Arizona, 31 pp.

A critical first step is testing geologic sequestration of CO2 at

a very small scale where the process can be carefully studied.[


managing geologic sequestration projects

and understanding associated risks.

Proposed U.S. EPA regulations require

computational modeling results to be

provided in permit applications, and

ongoing model calibration to monitoring

data during the lifetime of the project.

Existing model frameworks developed for

multiphase flow and reactive transport

problems can be applied to modeling

the injection of CO2. Modeling CO2

injection and sequestration poses

several challenges, however, such as

the need to properly characterize CO2

transport properties across a large

range of temperatures and pressures,

and to adequately characterize the vast

subsurface areas considered for injection.

Several research studies published in

the last several years have modeled

the subsurface injection of CO2 for

geologic sequestration (Schnaar and

Digiulio, 2009). The most comprehensive

numerical models reported in peer-

reviewed literature are capable of

replicating formation heterogeneity

using statistical routines, CO2 migration through artificial penetrations, hysteretic relative permeability curves and residual CO2 trapping, and mineral precipitation and dissolution reactions and subsequent changes in formation porosity and permeability. Somewhat simpler analytical and semi-analytical models have been developed for initial site screening.

A limited number of studies (such as Doughty and others, 2008) have compared initial modeling predictions to monitoring data collected from early geologic sequestration pilot projects. These studies have demonstrated the necessity of calibrating models to monitoring data whenever feasible. For example, CO2 is prone to traveling through high-permeability channels that may not have been identified during initial site characterization and included in the model grid. The most comprehensive understanding of the migration of CO2 and mobilized constituents will be obtained through an integrated site characterization,

monitoring, and modeling approach. ■

Contact Greg Schnaar at [email protected].

ReferencesBickle, M., A. Chadwick, H.E. Huppert, M.

Hallworth, and S. Lyle. 2007. Modeling carbon dioxide accumulation at Sleipner: Implications for underground carbon storage, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 255: 164–176.

Dooley, J.J., R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson, and others, 2006. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Core Element of a Global Energy Technology Strategy to Address Climate Change. Battelle, Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, MD.

Doughty, C., B.M. Freifeld, and R.C. Trautz, 2008. Site characterization for CO2 geologic storage and vice versa: the Frio Brine Pilot, Texas, USA as a case study, Environ. Geol., 54: 1635-1656.

Metz, B., O. Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, and others (eds.), 2005. Carbon dioxide capture and storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Spec. Rept., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.

Saripalli, P., and P. McGrail, 2002. Semi-analytical approaches to modeling deep well injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration, Energy Convers. Mngmt., 43: 185-198.

Schnaar, G., and D.C. Digiulio, 2009. Computational modeling of the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, Vadose Zone Journal, 8: 389-403.

U.S. EPA, 2008. Proposed rule for federal requirements under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration (GS) wells, USEPA,Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_sequestration.html#regdevelopment.

Hydrology, continued from page 21

Laboratories, Inc. A Full Service Environmental Laboratory

ACZ is full service environmental testing laboratory with inorganic,

organic and radiochemistry capabilities.

www.acz.com : [email protected] (800)-334-5493

Testing Capabilities Include Low-Level Metals - Mercury 1631

TCLP/SPLP - Acid Base Accounting In Vitro-Bioavailability of Metals

Leaching Studies - Radiochemistry

ACZ

ACZ specializes in the analysis of trace level contaminates in soils, water, biota, waste and

plant tissues.

Serving the West Since 1980


Test No.2In September 2006, the second injection test was conducted using the same injector/monitoring wells, but the injection was into the Frio Blue sandstone, a hydrologically separate formation 390 feet below that investigated in the first test. This test injected a smaller volume (about 250 tons) of CO2 over five days into the lower part of a 30-foot-thick unit in a heterogeneous fluvial sandstone and monitored the stabilization. A low injection rate was used to simulate processes at the edge of the plume, where attenuated injection pressure causes buoyancy to exert a significant influence on flow processes, as was observed in the results. A seismic source-and-receiver system set up by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory provided CO2 migration data that could be fully integrated with other concurrent borehole measurements (Daley and others, 2007).

Seismic data were collected every 10 seconds during injection and provided 3-D information on CO2 migration. During injection it traveled vertically near the injection wall and laterally through a thin

high-permeability zone; it was detected near

the top of the Frio Blue sandstone at the

observation well 100 feet away. Differences

in measurements from the two different

injections illustrate the interactions among

injection rates, injection strategy, the

heterogeneity of the injection interval,

and their impact on plume evolution.

Meanwhile, Back on Top…The feasibility of near-surface monitoring

in this setting using soil-gas fluxes and

concentrations, introduced tracers,

and shallow-aquifer response was also

tested. High complexity in seasonal

aquifer level and composition was

noted in this high-water-table, warm

environment that had been perturbed

by the developed oil field with roads that

pond drainage. Introduced tracers were

used to document no leakage of CO2 to

the surface. The test site was closed when

the experiment ended in May 2009.

Another important objective of

the Frio Brine study was to gain

public acceptance of CCS. This was

accomplished through outreach, which

included site visits by researchers, local

citizens, and environmental groups;

media interviews; and an online log

(www.gulfcoastcarbon.org). The public and

environmental concerns expressed were

moderate, practical, and proportional to

the minimal risks taken by the project, and

generally related to issues such as traffic

and potential risks to water resources.

Overall, press coverage was positive. ■

Contact Susan Hovorka at [email protected].

ReferencesDaley, T.M., R.D. Solbau, J.B. Ajo-Franklin, and

S.M. Benson, 2007. Continuous active-source monitoring of CO2 injection in a brine aquifer, Geophys., 72(5): A57–A61, DOI:10.1190/1.2754716.

Doughty C., B.M. Freifeld, and R.C. Trautz, 2007. Site characterization for CO2 geologic storage and vice versa: The Frio brine pilot, Texas, USA as a case study, Envir. Geol., 54(8): 1635-1656, DOI: 0.1007/s00254-007-0942-0.

Hovorka, S.D., C. Doughty, S.M. Benson, and others, 2006. Measuring permanence of CO2 storage in saline formations: The Frio experiment, Environ. Geosci., 13(2): 105–121.

Kharaka, Y.K., D.R. Cole, S.D. Hovorka, and others, 2006. Gas-water-rock interactions in Frio Formation following CO2 injection: Implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins, Geol., 34(7): 577–580.

Frio Brine, continued from page 27


Streambed Movement Deters Nuisance AlgaeResearchers at the University of

Colorado at Boulder have discovered

a potential way to stop the spread of a

stalk-forming freshwater algae called

Didymosphenia geminata, or rock snot.

Although some amount of rock

snot is tolerable, it can grow out of

control, covering the stream bed with

thick mats, outcompeting natural

algae, and destroying habitat for

insects that fish eat. The researchers

monitored the abundance and

coverage of D. geminata in Boulder

Creek during the summer of 2006.

The results, published in the online

version of the journal Hydrobiologia,

show that the algae prefer systems with

low phosphorous concentrations and

low mean discharge. The researchers

also found that large changes in

hydrologic conditions played a greater

role in controlling the algae than did

water quality conditions, except for

total dissolved phosphorous. They

believe that higher flows leading to

streambed movement—and specifically

the initiation of motion as measured by

Shields stress—may be the dominant

scouring mechanism and a way to

potentially control the algae’s growth.

However, other studies of D. geminata

have shown the algae prefer or are

limited by various water quality

parameters. The authors of the present

study noted that the small number

of samples collected and the short

amount of time and distance between

sites made assessing the importance

of water-quality variables difficult.

According to the authors, their findings

suggest that controlled reservoir releases

during the summer could limit the

impact of D. geminata. A researcher is

now working on a model to predict how

much water flow it would take to create

movement in the streambed at a given

point in the creek. The authors also

advocate the development of predictive

models that include water quality,

hydrologic, and biologic parameters

that would allow for the testing of

specific management strategies.

Visit www.colorado.edu. See Miller, M.P., D.M. McKnight, J.D. Cullis, and others, 2009. Factors controlling streambed coverage of Didymosphenia geminata in two regulated streams in the Colorado Front Range, Hydrobiologia, 630(1): 207-218.

Depths of Lake Tahoe ExploredThe Undersea Voyager Project, a

nonprofit organization whose mission

is to explore Earth’s oceans, spent the

month of May studying Lake Tahoe

to train project crew in underwater

exploration and provide information that

can be used to preserve the lake.

The project conducted experiments as

deep as 1,600 feet below the surface

using a manned submarine, a remotely

operated vehicle, and a dive team.

R & D


The crew planned to transect the

lake, evaluate three previously little-

studied tsunami-producing fault lines,

study plant and animal life, explore

shipwrecks, and perform water-

quality analyses. According to the

Reno Gazette-Journal, the two-person

submarine made more than 40 dives in

Tahoe and nearby Fallen Leaf Lake.

Long renowned for its impressive

clarity, Lake Tahoe is now threatened

by sediment input, algae growth, and

aquatic invasive species. The project

used ultraviolet lights on the submersible

to fluoresce algae in order to locate

and map their presence. At Fallen

Leaf Lake, 1,000-year-old trees were

sonar tagged and cored to determine

historic weather patterns. According

to the Gazette-Journal, the crew found

evidence that trees were rooted in the

lake bottom, giving evidence that ancient

droughts lowered the lake level far and

long enough to allow them to grow.

The project website provides a live feed

of images, video, and findings. The

subsequent ocean expedition is expected

to last five years.

Visit www.underseavoyager.org and www.rgj.com.

Water Budgets for Conservation TestedTen water agencies in southern California

are testing a water budget program

developed by the San Diego County

Water Authority and the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation to help measure the water

needs and usages of their customers,

reported voiceofsandiego.org in April.

According to the website, infrared

satellite imagery shows what kind

of landscaping a parcel has. Using

information extracted on vegetation type

and square footage, the program then

estimates how much water a property

needs for its landscape while accounting

for climate and seasonal variations.

Helix Water District is piloting the

program with 878 customers—1.5

percent of its customer base—reported

the news source. Helix will send these

customers a personalized water budget

based on program results to educate

people on their current water use and

their estimated needs. Although the

district told the website that many

properties are already under budget, one

restaurant is metered at 25,000 gallons

a month while the program estimates

it only needs 6,100. This summer the

district began charging higher rates to

those customers who exceed their budget.

A drawback of the water budget

program, reported the website, is that

the budgets took a year to develop,

including on-site visits to ground-

truth the satellite imagery. The district

does not yet have plans to use the

program for all of its 55,000 accounts.

Visit voiceofsandiego.org.continued on next page


Satellite Monitors Tamarisk-Eating BugsScientists at the University

of Utah are using satellite

data to monitor saltcedar

leaf beetles that have

been deployed to attack

invasive tamarisk in the

Southwest. The beetle

was first released in Utah

in 2004; widespread

defoliation was noticed

near Moab in 2007. Many

stretches of the Colorado

River Basin are remote, so

the researchers tried using

satellite images to detect

leaf loss due to the beetles.

The scientists used two

instruments—ASTER

and MODIS—on one of

NASA’s Earth-observing satellites to

study four areas in the Colorado River

Basin. Both instruments make images

using red and near-infrared light. In

near-infrared images, tamarisk-covered

areas appear red and defoliated areas

are brown or black. ASTER produces

higher-resolution images that can

be used to map defoliated areas (see

images, above), while MODIS provides

frequent but lower-resolution images

that can detect changes over time.

Images from both instruments showed

extensive tamarisk defoliation between

2006 and 2007. The researchers also used

the satellite to estimate evapotranspiration

from the satellite data and showed

that tamarisk water-use declined

modestly as plants were defoliated.

Visit unews.utah.edu.

Endangered Humpback Chub Population IncreasesBetween 2001 and 2008, the adult

population of the endangered humpback

chub in the Grand Canyon increased

about 50 percent, according to a U.S.

Geological Survey report released in

April. This increase reverses population

declines that occurred from 1989

to 2001. The researchers estimate

there are between 6,000 and 10,000

adult chub in the Grand Canyon.

Researchers believe that three primary

factors contributed to the increase: the

experimental removal of large numbers of

rainbow trout and brown trout, drought-

induced warming beginning in 2003, and

a series of experimental flow releases from

Glen Canyon between 2000 and 2008.

First, rainbow and brown trout are

thought to prey on young fish and

compete with the humpback chub for

food. Between 2003 and 2006, the rainbow

trout population in the Colorado River

near the Little Colorado River, the area

where most Grand Canyon chub are

found, was reduced by more than 80

percent. Second, prior to 2003, water

temperatures in the main channel of

the Colorado River were too cold for

humpback chub to successfully reproduce

near the Little Colorado River. As the level

of Lake Powell dropped, warmer water

Infrared images from ASTER of the confluence of the Colorado (flowing from the top) and Dolores (entering from the right) rivers in Utah show the effects of salt-cedar beetles between 2006 (left) and 2007 (right). Vegetation, including an alfalfa field just below the confluence, appears bright red. The river-bottom area appears much darker in the 2007 image where beetles ate the tamarisk leaves.

Pho

to: P

hil D

enni

son,

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah,

fro

m N

AS

A d

ata.

R & D


found closer to the surface of the reservoir

reached the release structures. Third,

humpback chub hatched in 1999 may

have prospered as the result of substantial

instream warming created by the 2000

low summer steady-flow experiment.

The humpback chub, a freshwater

fish that may live up to 40 years and

is found only in the Colorado River

Basin, was placed on the first federal

list of endangered species in 1967. Only

six populations are currently known to

exist—five above Lees Ferry, Arizona,

and one in the Grand Canyon.

Other populations of native fish in the

Grand Canyon have experienced similar

rebounds, in contrast to those in the rest

of the Colorado River Basin. Factors

that likely contributed to the historical

decline of Grand Canyon native fish

include changes in flow and reduced

water temperature resulting from the

regulation of the Colorado River by Glen

Canyon Dam, the weakening of young

fish by nonnative parasites such as Asian

tapeworm, and competition with and

predation by nonnative fish species.

Specific recovery goals for humpback

chub in the Grand Canyon are currently

being developed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, which has jurisdiction

over federally endangered species.

Visit www.usgs.gov. See Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of Humpback Chub: An update considering data from 1989-2008, USGS open-file report 2009-175.

California Tests Nonphysical Fish BarrierIn May, the California Department

of Water Resources announced the

preliminary success of an experimental,

nonphysical fish barrier designed to keep

young Chinook salmon on a safer path

to the ocean, away from the agricultural

diversions and huge pumps sending water

south from the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta to other parts of California.

The bubble curtain, located where

the Old River diverges from the San

Joaquin River, combines acoustics and

a strobe-lit sheet of bubbles to create an

underwater wall of light and sound at

frequencies that repel juvenile Chinook

salmon. Past studies have shown that

salmon that stay in the main stem of the

San Joaquin River have better survival

rates than do those that move into the

central delta through the Old River.

In previous years, a rock barrier

was installed as part of an adaptive

management plan to protect the migrating

Chinook. However, a December 2008

biological opinion on delta smelt found

that the rock barrier negatively impacted

that species, and The Associated Press

reported that changes in water flow

from the rock barrier cause more

smelt to be sucked into the pumps.

According to AP, without a barrier, half

the Chinook salmon enter the Old River—

approximately equal to its share of flow—

and the previous rock wall, culvert, and

net combination stopped 100 percent of

the fish. The nonphysical barrier stopped

about 80 percent of Chinook smolts in

the first three of seven planned releases

continued on next page

1730 W. Sunrise Blvd.

Suite B-104

Gilbert, Arizona 85233

Ph: 480.926.4558

Fx: 480.926.4579

Web: www.swexp.com

Over 60 years combined experience!

Five logging trucks ready to roll your way!

Geophysical Well Logging/InspectionsBasic well logging to advanced methods• Leader in the industry in imaging acquisition &

analysis & fracture characterization

• 2” to 8 ft. diameters to 10,000 ft in depth

• Open & cased hole capabilities

• Acoustic, electric, induction, nuclear, fluid

properties, acoustic/optical televiewer, gyro &

magnetic deviation

• Backpack/helicopter/ATV/4x4 truck

Exploration for Water, Minerals & Geothermal• Physical parameters

Environmental & Engineering• Pier evaluation, elastic moduli, rock properties

• Flow log acquisition, analysis, modeling

• Ambient & stressed flow; single & multi-well testing

& analysis

• Fluid sampling

Well evaluations with video and imaging• Water production wells, gas storage and monitor wells

• Real-time digital video—DVDs on site

• Casing thickness evaluation (4” to 20”)


of hatchery juveniles. The four remaining

releases were planned for late May 2009.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that

similar nonphysical barriers have been

used successfully in the Great Lakes and

in England, while AP said that scientists

with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in

Denver performed lab tests that found just

the right combination of bubbles, lights,

and low-frequency bass notes to deter

Chinook smolts. However, University of

California, Davis wildlife biologist Peter

Moyle told the Chronicle that nonphysical

barriers work best temporarily because

fish can become used to them over time.

AP noted the $1 million price tag is

twice the cost of installing and removing

the rock barrier every year but may

become cheaper if it is permanent.

Visit water.ca.gov, www.sfgate.com, and www.ap.org.

Risks of Nanomaterials in Desal, Other ProcessesIn April, the European Commission’s

Directorate General for the Environment

produced an issue of the Science for

Environment Policy Newsletter on the

use and safety of nanomaterials.

Desalination & Water Reuse noted that

some of these nanomaterials are used

in new processes for desalination and

water treatment. Carbon nanotubes are

very strong, conduct heat efficiently,

and have useful electrical properties.

In nanostructured water-treatment

filters, either carbon nanotubes or

nanocapillary arrays provide the basis

for nanofiltration. In nanoreactive

membranes, functionalized nanoparticles

aid the filtration process.

While the newsletter noted that

more research into the risks of

nanotechnology is needed, it discussed

some research results to date. One study

showed that a specific type of carbon

nanotube has asbestos-like effects on

mice, while two others found that

nanomaterials can damage DNA.

Another article referenced in the

newsletter identified gaps in knowledge

about the interaction of engineered

nanoparticles with fungi, bacteria,

and algae in natural ecosystems,

and yet another noted that research

efforts should focus on developing

more sensitive analytical methods

for characterizing and detecting

nanoparticles in the environment.

Other studies raised concerns about

the toxicity of nanomaterials, their

potential to cause respiratory and

cardiovascular disease, the ways they

might be released into the environment

during their life cycle, and how to protect

workers exposed to nanomatierals.

Visit ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/ and www.desalination.biz. See the special issue on nanomaterials at ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/12si.pdf.

Colorado River Adaptive Management QuestionedDespite science that shows the ecological

benefits of changing the flow regime

of the Colorado River through the

Grand Canyon, a 25-member Adaptive

Management Work Group failed to

change Glen Canyon Dam operating

conditions in any way, charged

Greenwire in May. According to the

news service, the group was developed

for just this purpose as part of the Grand

Canyon Protection Act in 1992, but

members continue to vote in blocs of

power producers and Colorado River

Basin states versus environmental

groups and wildlife agencies.

The construction of Glen Canyon Dam

and Lake Powell altered flows on the

Colorado River, capturing sediment

and cooling water temperatures—both

problems for native fish. Greenwire

said that three high-flow experiments

conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation

since the mid-1990s have demonstrated

that a high flow in the spring—mimicking

historic snowmelt—followed by low

summer flows to prevent erosion can

benefit the native humpback chub, which

thrives in the habitat created by sandbars.

In fact, USGS scientists have found

that the humpback chub population

in the Grand Canyon increased by 50

percent between 2001 and 2008 (see

page 32), probably partially as a result

of these experiments. According to

Greenwire, federal biologists say this

research is enough to advocate a flow-

regime change, which was also advocated

by the Grand Canyon National Park

superintendent last year. But power

utilities and the states have not agreed

to make permanent changes to the flow

regime because that could mean lost

power and revenue, claimed Greenwire. ■

Visit www.eenews.net/gw.

R & D

2015 N. Forbes Ave. Suite 105 Tucson, Arizona 85745

1122

www.geosystemsanalysis.com

Groundwater Recharge Studies

Mine Closure and Reclamation Studies

Water Resources Heap Leach Optimization

Vadose Zone Monitoring

Flow and Transport Modeling Hydrologic Testing Laboratory

Innovative Solutions in Hydrology

Arizona · Nevada · Oregon


Lake Powell

Drought impact types:delineate dominant impactsagricultural (crops, pastures, grasslands)hydrological (rivers, groundwater, reservoirs)

abnormally drydrought - moderatedrought - severedrought - extremedrought - exceptional

28-day streamfl ow average, as of August 11, 2009

% of average*>150

129 - 150

110 - 129

100 - 109

90 - 99

70 - 89

50 - 69

<50not avail.

Seasonal Precipitation, Oct. 2008 - July 2009 Drought Monitoring, as of August 4, 2009

Prepared by NOAA, National Weather Service, Colorado Basin River Forcast Center

www.cbrfc.noaa.gov

Reservoir Storage as of August 1, 2009

Provided by USGS Water Watch, water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/

above average average below average

Capacity of Reservoirs Reported (1,000 acre-feet)(figures do not include Lake Mead and Lake Powell)

3188 * 14,365 37,048 72 8,320 2,478 3,889 3,260 5,2526,082

AZ3/4

CO76/74

ID24/24

MT42/45

NV1/7

NM13/13

OR24/31

UT25/28

WA10/13

WY12/13

Per

cent

of U

seab

le C

onte

nts

100

75

50

25

0

No. Reservoirs Reporting/No. Reservoirs

CA0/151

no re

port

Drought impact types:delineate dominant impactsagricultural (crops, pastures, grasslands)hydrological (rivers, groundwater, reservoirs)

abnormally drydrought - moderatedrought - severedrought - extremedrought - exceptional

A product of the Western Regional Climate Center and these agencies:

http://drought.unl.edu/dm

Southwest Weather

ge*

150

129

109

9

9

9

vail.

p , y

*1971-2000

Prepared by Mark Svoboda, National Drought Mitigation Center.

Data from USDA, National Resources Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center

www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov

average over 1971-2000

Colorado River Reservoir Storage

Data source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, www.usbr.gov/main/water

MAF = million acre-feet; amsl = above mean sea level. Vertical red bars indicate elevation range for the year.

Severe drought continued in South Texas. Public water systems in Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio were among 230 statewide under mandatory restrictions.

El Nino circulation began developing in the tropical Pacific Ocean in June, creating uncertainty in summer monsoon forecasts across the Southwest but hope for greater rainfall in California this winter.

The first half of the monsoon season delivered near-normal precipitation to Arizona and New Mexico.

California is in its third drought year, the 12th driest 3-year period in the state’s measured hydrologic record.

low <10much below

10-24below

25-75normal

76-90above

>90much above

high

percentile classes (based on all measurements at the location)

3350

3450

3550

3650

3750

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

dead storage elevation

elev

atio

n (fe

et a

msl

)

capacity: 24.3 MAF at 3,700 feet amsl

August 1, 2009 storage: 16.1 MAFat 3,641 feet amsl (66% full)

Two-month change: +11 ft. (+1.3 MAF)

850

950

1050

1150

1250

1935 1955 1975 1995

elev

atio

n (fe

et a

msl

)

dead storage elevation

capacity: 25.9 MAF at 1,220 feet amsl

August 1, 2009 storage: 11.0 MAF at 1,094 feet amsl (42% full)

Two-month change: -2.5 ft. (-0.2 MAF)

Lake Mead

The Water Page


Golder Acquires E&HIn May, Golder Associates Inc. purchased

Engineering and Hydrosystems Inc.

(E&H), a Denver-based consultancy.

In the transaction, Golder acquired

six engineers and scientists who

co-developed the Reservoir Conservation

approach for the World Bank, used

to identify approaches to sustainably

manage surface-water reservoirs

through sedimentation management.

Visit www.golder.com.

CH2M Hill Earns KudosCH2M Hill received the 2008 Chief of

Engineers Award of Excellence in the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Design

and Environmental Awards Program for its design work on the Rio Salado Restoration Project.

In partnership with the City of Phoenix and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CH2M Hill was the engineering design lead for this 40-year project that restored ecological function and provided flood protection for five miles of the Salt River through downtown Phoenix. The project included 595 acres of restored habitat, integrating a low-flow channel with terrace areas consistent with the natural hydrology and hydraulics of the river. Water for the project is pumped from a contaminated shallow aquifer, treated, and then used to meet all of the project’s water demands. Nearly 60 percent of

the water is returned to the aquifer, with

quality improved by natural processes.

Visit www.ch2m.com and www.phoenix.gov/riosalado/.

Breslin New CEO of Water for PeopleDenver-based Water for People, a nonprofit

international development organization,

recently named Ned Breslin its chief

executive officer. Breslin had been acting

CEO for the previous eight months; he joined

the organization in 2006 as the director of

international programs. During his tenure,

the international programs budget grew

from $3.3 million to $6.5 million. ■

Visit www.waterforpeople.org.

People & Companies

Schlumberger Water Services offers a complete range of technologies and services designed to assess and manage groundwaterresources in the wake of climate change.

[email protected]

© 2009 Schlumberger. * Mark of Schlumberger.

Sustainable Groundwater Resources

• Groundwater exploration and development• Water use and supply auditing (balancing and conservation)• Water quality evaluation and management

• Local, basin, and regional flow investigation and modeling• Aquifer recharge, storage, and recovery modeling and design• Advanced geophysical logging and interpretation

Aquifer Science & Technology provides geophysical surveys targeted for water resource investigations. We work with water agencies, water utilities, engineers and

hydrogeologists to provide services tailored to their specific project needs. We can provide a clear picture of the subsurface for projects including:

Well siting and groundwater explorationArtificial recharge siting studiesMonitoring recharge system performanceBasin analysis studiesWell rehabilitationSalt water intrusion and water quality studies

Please contact us to discuss how we can help you make your water resource studies more efficient and successful.

••••••

WE FIND [email protected]

www.aquiferscience.com262.542.5733


Gleick Joins the BlogosphereCity Brights

San Francisco Chronicle

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, recently started

the “City Brights” blog on the San Francisco Chronicle website.

His comments address water issues ranging from desalination

to agriculture, bottled water, water conflicts, efficiency, and

sanitation and hygiene. Each post includes a “water number,” a

statistic that will likely surprise many readers; in fact this feature

could appropriately be called “reality check.” For example, Gleick

determined that his personal water bill amounts to nearly $4,400

per acre-foot, compared to $10 to $100 per acre-foot that farmers

typically pay. In another post, the water number was “not zero”

for the number of new dams built in California in the past few

decades—in spite of much publicity to the contrary. Gleick has

much to teach us about California, western, and world water

issues, and this site provides information in easy-to-digest nuggets.

Visit www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/.

Site Promotes Government TransparencyRegulations.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

This website allows users to search, view, and comment on

regulations issued by the U.S. government. It is currently

undergoing redesign, based on user comments collected over the

summer, to facilitate greater discussion about the issues.

Regulations.gov contains all proposed federal regulations and

the final rules as published in the Federal Register, as well as

supporting materials and public comments. Users can comment

on proposed rules to the relevant agencies through the site. It

holds 2 million documents from more than 160 federal entities.

Visit www.regulations.gov.

Water Recycling Progress Slow in CAWater Recycling 2030: Recommendations of California’s Recycled Water Task Force

National Water Research Institute

This paper outlines progress made in the last six years to address

challenges associated with implementing water recycling projects

in California. Progress was evaluated according to whether

2003 recommendations by the California Recycled Water Task

Force (CRWTF) have been implemented, and if so, what level of

success has been achieved. The task force identified 26 regulatory,

economic, and societal issues affecting the implementation of

water recycling projects and recommended means for addressing

each. Issues included such topics as bonds, cross-connections,

plumbing code changes, education, community involvement,

leadership, and other regulatory matters.

The white paper concluded that of 14 key issues identified by

CRWTF, no recommendations had been fully implemented

and recommendations for only five issues had been partially

implemented. Futhermore, of all 26 issues, recommendations

from only two issues had been fully implemented and from nine

were partially implemented. Finally, of the 15 issues for which

no recommendations had been implemented, some work was

underway for most.

According to the white paper, the top priorities have changed

since 2003; they now include communication with the public,

state leadership and advocacy, regulatory consistency, funding,

and public support. Five new issues were also identified:

constituents of emerging concern (pharmaceuticals and personal-

care products), antidegradation (protecting water quality while

supporting beneficial use), salinity management, indirect potable

reuse, and improved water-recycling information.

Primary obstacles to addressing the issues were identified as lack

of leadership (often at the state level), the need for legislative

change, and lack of funding.

Access the 52-page paper at www.nwri-usa.org/epublications.htm.

continued on next page

In Print & Online

john j ward, rg groundwater consultant

- water supply - water rights - peer review - litigation support - expert witness - due diligence

Tucson AZ

phone: (520) 296-8627 cell: (520) 490-2435

email: [email protected] web: www.wardgroundwater.com

Business Directory


A View of California’s Coastal FutureThe Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast

The Pacific Institute

This analysis prepared for three

California state agencies estimates that

480,000 people, a wide range of critical

infrastructure, vast areas of wetlands

and other natural ecosystems, and

nearly $100 billion in property along

the California coast are at increased risk

from flooding from a four-foot sea-level

rise if no adaptative measures are taken.

Populations in San Mateo, Orange, and

Alameda counties were found to be

especially vulnerable. The selected sea-

level rise is the projected change by 2100

based on medium- to medium-high

greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios.

In the past century, sea level has risen

nearly eight inches along the coast.

Adaptation strategies that could reduce

the impacts include coastal armoring and

other flood protection, erosion-prevention

measures, and reduced development in

vulnerable areas.

Detailed maps showing areas of population

and critical infrastructure at risk are

included in the report and available online.

Visit www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/.

Special Issue Addresses Emerging ContaminantsContaminants of Emerging Concern in Water Resources

American Water Resources Association

Edited by USGS scientists William

Battaglin and Dana Kolpin, the February

2009 issue of the Journal of the American

Water Resources Association contains

a collection of papers that address the

environmental occurrence of trace organic

compounds such as pharmaceuticals,

personal care products, pesticides, and

hormones, and their potential adverse

effects on aquatic and terrestrial life and

human health. The papers address how

the compounds enter the environment,

detection capabilities, and questions

concerning contaminant environmental

fate and behavior, as well as wastewater

and drinking-water treatment efficacies.

The edited volume arose from a 2007

AWRA specialty conference and

provides an overview of the detection

and sources of contaminants of emerging

concern, their fate and transport

in natural and engineered systems,

receptors and effects, and social and

engineering solutions to problems.

Journal available in libraries or to AWRA members at www.awra.com. Also visit toxics.usgs.gov.

Worldwide Water Quality Trades EvaluatedWater Quality Trading Programs: An International Overview

World Resources Institute

According to the World Resources

Institute, water-quality trading is gaining

traction in watersheds around the world.

The market-based approach works with

water-quality regulations to improve

water quality, provide flexibility in how

regulations are met, and potentially

lower the cost of regulatory compliance

and abatement. WRI researchers

identified 57 water-quality trading

programs worldwide, of which 26 are active, 21 are under consideration or development, and 10 are inactive or are completed pilots with no plans for future trades. Most were in the United States, with only six programs existing elsewhere—four in Australia, one in New Zealand, and one in Canada.

The authors identified five key factors that stakeholders attributed to successful implementation of their trading programs:

• strong regulatory and/or nonregulatory drivers, which helped create a demand for water-quality credits;

• minimal potential liability risks to the regulated community from meeting regulations through trades;

• robust, consistent, and standardized estimation methodologies for nonpoint source actions;

• standardized tools, transparent processes, and online registries to minimize transaction costs; and

• buy-in from local and state stakeholders.

Before going to the expense of developing a water-quality trading program, the report recommends that the relevant bodies—either governmental or nongovernmental—ensure these factors

are in place.

Access the 16-page report at www.wri.org/publication/water-trading-quality-programs-international-overview.

Predict Contaminant Degradation from IsotopesA Guide for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Groundwater Contaminants Using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis

U.S. EPA

When organic contaminants are degraded in the environment, the ratio of stable isotopes of elements in the compounds often changes, and the extent of degradation can be recognized and predicted from that change. Recent advances in analytical chemistry make possible compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) on dissolved organic contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons, and fuel oxygenates, at concentrations in water that are near their regulatory standards.

In Print & Online


Stable isotope analyses can provide an in-depth understanding of biodegradation or abiotic transformation processes in contaminated aquifers. Because CSIA is a new approach, there are no widely accepted standards for accuracy, precision, and sensitivity, and no established approaches to document accuracy, precision, sensitivity, or representativeness. This December 2008 publication provides recommendations for sampling, measurement, data evaluation, and interpretation in CSIA.

Access the 82-page report (EPA 600-R-08-148) at www.epa.gov/ada/pubs/reports/600r08148/600r08148.pdf.

Get Climate Info UpdatesClimate Change and Water E-Newsletter

U.S. EPA

EPA’s National Water Program now offers a weekly electronic newsletter covering news and information related to water programs and climate change. It provides short articles and links to related sites and is part of a larger effort

to inform clean-water and drinking-

water program managers about climate

change topics, issues, and opportunities.

Visit www.epa.gov/ow/climatechange/.

Watershed Resources ClearinghouseWatershed Central

U.S. EPA

This new website aims to help

watershed organizations and others

find information on implementing

watershed management projects.

The site links not only to EPA web

resources, but also to those of state,

tribal, and federal partners; universities;

and nonprofit organizations. Key

information includes environmental

data, watershed models, nearby local

organizations, guidance documents, and

other information, as well as links to

watershed technical resources, funding

sources, mapping applications, and

information on specific watersheds.

Also included is a wiki to facilitate

collaboration and information sharing.

Visit www.epa.gov/watershedcentral.

Calculate Water FootprintGlobal Water Tool

World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Businesses can calculate their water

footprint, determine areas where they

might improve efficiency, and evaluate

water-supply-related risks relative to their

global operations and supply chains with

this update of a web tool first released

in 2007. Created by CH2M Hill and the

World Business Council for Sustainable

Development, the tool appears best

suited to companies with a wide

international presence that need general

guidance for dealing with water issues,

particularly in countries with limited

water resources or that lack improved

water and sanitation facilities. ■

Access the Global Water Tool at www.wbcsd.org.

Excel spreadsheet tools for analyzing groundwater level records and displaying informationin ArcMap, by Fred D Tillmanhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm4f1

Southwest principal aquifers regional ground-water quality assessment, by D.W. Anning,S.A. Thiros, L.M. Bexfield, T.S. McKinney, and J.M. Greenhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3015

Spatially referenced statistical assessment of dissolved-solids load sources and transport in streams of the Upper Colorado River Basin, by T.A. Kenney, S.J. Gerner, S.G. Buto, and L.E. Spanglerhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5007

Identifying hydrologic processes in agricultural watersheds using precipitation-runoff models, by J.I. Linard, D.M. Wolock, R.M.T. Webb. and M.E. Wieczorekhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5126

Groundwater quality, age, and probability of contamination, Eagle River Watershed Valley-Fill Aquifer, North-Central Colorado, 2006-2007, by M.G. Rupert and L. Niel Plummerhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5082

Occurrence of selected organic compounds in groundwater used for public supply in the plio-pleistocene deposits in East-Central Nebraska and the Dawson and Denver Aquifers near Denver, Colorado, 2002-2004, by J.B. Bails, B.J. Dietsch, M.K. Landon, and S.S. Paschkehttp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5243


Calendar

September 13-16 WateReuse Association. 24th Annual WateReuse Symposium. Seattle, WA. www.watereuse.org/conferences/symposium/24

September 13-17 Ground Water Protection Council. Water/Energy Sustainability Symposium. Salt Lake City, UT.www.gwpc.org/meetings/forum/forum.htm

September 13-19 Rocky Mountain Section of AWWA and Rocky Mountain Water Environment Association. Joint Annual Conference. Albuquerque, NM. www.rmwea.org/rmwea/committees/annual_conference/annual.htm

September 14-16 Soil and Water Conservation Society. From Dust Bowl to Mud Bowl: Sedimentation, Conservation Measures, and the Future of Reservoirs. Kansas City, MO. www.swcs.org/en/conferences/sedimentation/

September 22-23 National Ground Water Association. 7th International Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Water. Baltimore, MD. www.ngwa.org/DEVELOPMENT/conferences/details/0909225013.aspx

September 23 Nevada Water Resources Association. Well Drillers Workshop. Las Vegas, NV. www.nvwra.org

September 29-30 Multi-State Salinity Coalition and Coachella Valley Water District. Water Supply, Agriculture, and Salinity Management Workshop. Indian Wells (Palm Springs area), CA. multi-statesalinitycoalition.com/events.php

September 29-October 1 San Francisco Estuary Partnership. Our Actions, Our Estuary: 9th Biennial State of the San Francisco Estuary Conference. Oakland, CA. www.sfestuary.org

October 2-5 National Ground Water Association. 2009 Theis Conference: Ground Water and Climate Change. Boulder, CO.www.ngwa.org

October 3-7 American Institute of Professional Geologists. 2009 Geology and Resources Conference: Rocky Mountains and the Colorado Plateau Canyons, Resources, and Hazards. Grand Junction, CO. www.aipg.org/

October 5-7 National Ground Water Association. Environmental Geochemistry of Metals: Investigation and Remediation (short course). Las Vegas, NV. www.ngwa.org

October 5-9 CA-NV Section American Water Works Association. 2009 Annual Fall Conference. Las Vegas, NV.ca-nv-awwa.org/iMISpublic/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Events44

October 6-7 Groundwater Resource Association of California. 27th Biennial Groundwater Conference & 18th GRAC Annual Meeting—Water Crisis and Uncertainty: Shaping Groundwater’s Future. Sacramento, CA. www.grac.org/

October 6-8 National Rural Water Association. Annual Conference and Technology Exhibit. Louisville, KY.www.nrwa.org/evLForum.htm

October 14-16 National Ground Water Association. Ground Water Management Issues Forum. Tahoe City, CA.www.ngwa.org/DEVELOPMENT/conferences/details/0910145009.aspx

October 15-16 New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 54th Annual New Mexico Water Conference: Water Planning ina Time of Uncertainty. Isleta Pueblo, NM. wrri.nmsu.edu

October 18-21 Geological Society of America. 2009 GSA Annual Meeting - From Volcanoes to Vineyards: Living with Dynamic Landscapes. Portland, OR. www.geosociety.org/meetings/2009/

October 19-23 International Mine Water Association. 2009 International Mine Water Conference. Pretoria, South Africa.www.wisa.org.za/minewater2009.htm

October 22-23 Southwest Hydrology. Water and Land for Renewable Energy in the Southwest (workshop). Tucson, AZ.www.swhydro.arizona.edu/renewable

November 2-4 National Ground Water Association. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in GW: Prevention, Assesment, and Remediation Conference (Nov. 2-3); Assessment of LNAPL Volume, Mobility, and Recovery (short course;Nov. 4); Petroleum Hydrogeology (short course; Nov. 4). Costa Mesa, CA. www.ngwa.org

November 3 Groundwater Resources Association of California. Nanotechnology for Environmental Cleanup and Pollution Control. Northern CA. www.grac.org/nanotech.asp

November 3-4 Nevada Water Resources Association. 2009 Truckee River Symposium. Reno, NV. www.nvwra.org

November 3-4 National Ground Water Association. Monitored Natural Attenuation: Mechanisms, Site Characterization, Evaluation, and Monitoring (short course). Denver, CO. www.ngwa.org/development/shortcourses/sc-details/147/091103147.aspx

November 5-7 California Groundwater Association. 61st Annual CGA Convention & Trade Show. Reno, NV.www.groundh2o.org/events/index.html

November 8 American Water Resources Association. 45th Annual Water Resources Conference. Seattle, WA.www.awra.org/pdf/AWRA2009Seattle.pdf

November 15-19 American Water Works Association. 2009 Water Quality Technology Conference and Exposition. Seattle, WA.www.awwa.org/Conferences/wqtc.cfm?ItemNumber=32120&navItemNumber=3545

SEPTEMBER 2009

OCTOBER 2009

NOVEMBER 2009


T h e R e s o u r c e f o r S e m i - A r i d H y d r o l o g y

We thank our advertisersfor their support:

P.O. Box 210158B, Tucson, AZ 85721-0158 · visit our web site: www.swhydro.arizona.edu · 520.626.1805

p. 2

p. 5

p. 32

p. 30 p. 43

back

p. 7

p. 25

p. 39

p. 29

p. 27

p. 39 p. 40

p. 23

p. 36

p. 9

p. 17p. 11 & 38

p. 30

p. 38

p. 35

p. 27

p. 34

p. 19p. 33

p. 15p. 3

p. 23

p. 8

p. 16

p. 41

p. 39

p. 10

p. 33p. 31

p. 36p. 41

p. 35 p. 13

303.278.3534 • 800.775.6745RockWare.com

Not Just Software. . .RockWare.For Over 26 Years.

Since 1983

RockWorks®

Hydrogeological Data Management, Analysis & Visualization

Free trial available at www.rockware.com

$2,499

AqQA™

Spreadsheet for Water Analysis


$249

PetraSim™

A Preprocessor and Postprocessor for TOUGH2, T2VOC, TMVOC & TOUGHREACT, TOUGH-FX/HYDRATE, and TETRAD


Call for Pricing

The Geochemist’s Workbench™ 8

GWB Essentials $999GWB Standard $3,499GWB Professional $ 7,999

Built for Speed

GWB Pro 8

The

Geo

chem

ist’s

Wor

kben

ch® is

a re

gist

ered

trad

emar

k of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f Illi

nois

.

Documents

The Resource for Semi-Arid Hydrologyswhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V8_N5/SWHVol8Issue5.pdf · Southwest Hydrology University of Arizona - SAHRA P.O. Box 210158-B Tucson, AZ 85721-0158