4.3 Article

Forensic isotope analysis to refine a hydrologic conceptual model

Journal

GROUND WATER
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 372-383

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00421.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Water resources in the and southwestern United States are frequently the subject of conflict from competing private and public interests. Legal remedies may remove impasses, but the technical analysis of the problem often determines the future success of legal solutions. In Owens Valley, California, the source of water for the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA) is flow diverted from the Owens River and its tributaries and ground water from valley aquifers. Future management of ground water delivered to the LAA needs technical support regarding quantity available, interconnection of shallow and confined aquifers, impact on local springs, and rate of recharge. Ground water flow models and ground water composition are tools already in use, but these have large uncertainty for local interpretations. This study conducted targeted sampling of springs and wells to evaluate the hydrologic system to corroborate conceptual and numerical models. The effort included measurement of intrinsic isotopic composition at key locations in the aquifers. The stable isotopic data of boron (delta B-11), sulfur (delta S-34), oxygen (delta O-18), hydrogen (delta D), and tritium (H-3) supported by basic chemical data provided rules for characterizing the upper and the lower aquifer system, confirmed the interpretation of ground water flow near faults and flow barriers, and detected hydraulic connections between the LAA and the perennial springs at key locations along the unlined reach of the LAA. This study exemplifies the use of forensic isotopic approaches as independent checks on the consistency of interpretations of conceptual models of a ground water system and the numerical hydrologic simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available