Does Groundwater Abstraction Cause Degradation of Rivers and Wetlands?

Acreman, Mike; Adams, B.; Birchall, P.; Connorton, B. J.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2000.tb00250.x

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may also need to consider any inflows between the two, especially major tributaries, which may involve rainfall-runoff forecasting (Acreman, 1996). Particular challenges exist for groundwater abstractions due to the time lag between groundwater abstraction and its impact on river flows (Acreman et al, 2000).…”

Section: Active Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining environmental river flow requirements – a review

Acreman

Dunbar

2004

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

504

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around the world, there is an increasing desire, supported by national and regional policies and legislation, to conserve or restore the ecological health and functioning of rivers and their associated wetlands for human use and biodiversity. To achieve this, many organisations have developed methods for defining environmental flows, i.e. the flow regime required in a river to achieve desired ecological objectives. This paper reviews the various methods available and suggests a simple categorisation of the methods into four types: look-up tables, desktop analysis; functional analysis and hydraulic habitat modelling. No method is necessarily better than another; each may be suitable for different applications. Whilst look-up methods are easy and cheap to apply, they can be expensive to develop, are less accurate and more suitable for scoping studies; in contrast, although hydraulic habitat modelling is more expensive to apply, it is suitable for impact assessment at specific sites. Each method would need to be used within a wider decision-support framework. These are generally either objective-based to define a target flow regime for a specific desired river status, or scenario-based to indicate the relative merits of various flow regime options for the river environment.

show abstract

Section: Active Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining environmental river flow requirements – a review

Acreman

Dunbar

2004

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

504

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, increasing consideration has been given to additional causes of low flows besides abstraction. Acreman et al 3 put…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, 27 of the 40 rivers identified had low flows attributed to public water supply abstraction or to summer spray irrigation under 'licences of right'. 3 Owen 4 proposed that over-abstraction of groundwater was an important cause of unsatisfactorily low flows in groundwaterdominated rivers. In particular, his comparison of the River Ver and the River Chess, both chalk-stream tributaries of the River Colne in Hertfordshire, UK, concluded that abstractions were having a major influence on the Ver's flows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The hydrological impact of low-flow alleviation measures

Clayton¹,

Morris²,

McIntyre³

et al. 2008

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The River Ver, a chalk stream in Hertfordshire, was identified as one of the 'top 40' low-flow rivers of England and Wales in 1992, and measures to improve flows were subsequently proposed under an alleviation of low flows (ALF) scheme. Consequently, the largest groundwater abstraction within the catchment at Friars Wash was closed, other than for emergencies. The impact of this closure on river flows as measured at a gauge near the outlet of the Ver catchment is evaluated. A range of methods was employed: analyses of hydrographs, flow duration curves, flow percentiles, baseflow index, correlations with data from an analogous catchment and rainfall-runoff modelling. Results suggest an apparent increase in river flow in the 11 years since the closure at Friars Wash; however, this cannot be attributed entirely to the ALF scheme. Further modelling investigations are recommended to support the assessment and to allow more localised effects on stream flow to be investigated.

show abstract

“…Figure 1a shows the location of major dams in the eastern US (defined as those 50 feet or more in height, or with a normal storage capacity of 5000 acre feet ( ∼ 6 200 000 m 3 ) or more, or with a maximum storage capacity of 25 000 acre feet (∼ 30 800 000 m 3 ) or more; USACE, 2012). Generally dams and reservoirs are considered the largest man-made regulations on streamflow, but other sources include farm ponds, surface water extraction, inter-basin transfers, and wastewater treatment plant discharge (e.g., Walker and Thoms, 1993;Acreman et al, 2000;Brandes et al, 2005;Thomas, 2006;Deitch et al, 2009;Kustu et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonstationarity of low flows and their timing in the eastern United States

Sadri

Kam

Sheffield

2016

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The analysis of the spatial and temporal patterns of low flows as well as their generation mechanisms over large geographic regions can provide valuable insights and understanding for climate change impacts, regional frequency analysis, risk assessment of extreme events, and decisionmaking regarding allowable withdrawals. The goal of this paper is to examine nonstationarity in low flow generation across the eastern US and explore the potential anthropogenic influences or climate drivers. We use nonparametric tests to identify abrupt and gradual changes in time series of low flows and their timing for 508 USGS streamflow gauging sites in the eastern US with more than 50 years of daily data, to systematically distinguish the effects of human intervention from those of climate variability. A time series decomposition algorithm was applied to 1-day, 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day annual low flow time series that combines the Box-Ljung test for detection of autocorrelation, the Pettitt test for abrupt step changes and the Mann-Kendall test for monotonic trends. Examination of the USGS notes for each site showed that many of the sites with step changes and around half of the sites with an increasing trend have been documented as having some kind of regulation. Sites with decreasing or no trend are less likely to have documented influences on flows. Overall, a general pattern of increasing low flows in the northeast and decreasing low flows in the southeast is evident over a common time period , even when discarding sites with significant autocorrelation, documented regulation or other human impacts. The north-south pattern of trends is consistent with changes in antecedent precipitation. The main exception is along the mid-Atlantic coastal aquifer system from eastern Virginia northwards, where low flows have decreased despite increasing precipitation, and suggests that declining groundwater levels due to pumping may have contributed to decreased low flows. For most sites, the majority of low flows occur in one season in the late summer to fall, as driven by the lower precipitation and higher evaporative demand in this season, but this is complicated in many regions because of the presence of a secondary low flow season in the winter for sites in the extreme northeast and in the spring for sites in Florida. Trends in low flow timing are generally undetectable, although abrupt step changes appear to be associated with regulation.

show abstract

Does Groundwater Abstraction Cause Degradation of Rivers and Wetlands?

Cited by 32 publications

References 3 publications

Defining environmental river flow requirements – a review

Defining environmental river flow requirements – a review

The hydrological impact of low-flow alleviation measures

Nonstationarity of low flows and their timing in the eastern United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About