The Policy of “Pumping the Recharge” Is Out of Control

Abstract

Hydrogeologists have spent several scientific generations in understanding the source of water to well fields and the effects of wells on the interrelated surface water system. The benchmark is by Theis [1940], who emphasized that some groundwater is initially mined during aquifer development and, after sufficient time, well discharge will be made up by diminution of both rejected recharge and natural discharge. Rejected recharge is water that would reside in the aquifer, except for a lack of space available. Theis advised that a perennial safe yield is equivalent to the amount of rejected recharge and natural discharge that is “feasible to utilize.” His term “feasible” may have anticipated many current issues about aquifer sustainability. Papers published this year on the Ogallala aquifer in the central United States and on the global groundwater “footprint” [Scanlon et al., 2012; Gleeson et al., 2012] focus on recharge as an index of sustainability and have been featured in the popular press. However, I argue in this Forum that natural recharge rates alone cannot serve to address the core policy question regarding sustainable aquifer conditions in response to well field stresses. For the sake of users of hydrologic guidance, advisors on this topic may wish to reconsider the safe nature of “pumping the recharge.”

Simulation of the effects of rainfall and groundwater use on historical lake water levels, groundwater levels, and spring flows in central Florida

“…The dynamic nature of the groundwater system in central Florida is characterized by constant adjustments to changing hydrologic inflows and outflows. An aquifer responds to such adjustments through a combination of storage gains and losses that induce positive feedback from system boundaries-when inflows or reduced outflows from system boundaries match groundwater withdrawals, a hydrologic balance is achieved (Balleau, 2013). The effects of such behavior are reflected by changing water levels and flows.…”

The Water Budget Myth and Its Recharge Controversy: Linear vs. Nonlinear Models

“…Seward et al (2015) question Zhou's (2009) statement that aquifer sustainability depends on both natural recharge and capture, as the first is missing in Bredehoeft's (2002) capture equation. Seward et al (2015) also believe a large part of the hydrogeological community see no harm in “pumping the recharge” approaches to sustainability, referring to Balleau (2013), although the latter suggests to abandon the traditional concept of safe yield from the administrative functions, as the concept was dismissed by groundwater experts long time ago. Balleau (2013) even disapproves the use of a ratio of natural recharge to well‐field withdrawals as indicator of sustainability by Wada et al (2010).…”

“…Seward et al (2015) also believe a large part of the hydrogeological community see no harm in “pumping the recharge” approaches to sustainability, referring to Balleau (2013), although the latter suggests to abandon the traditional concept of safe yield from the administrative functions, as the concept was dismissed by groundwater experts long time ago. Balleau (2013) even disapproves the use of a ratio of natural recharge to well‐field withdrawals as indicator of sustainability by Wada et al (2010). Ferguson (2021) also criticizes Wada (2016) and Bierkens and Wada (2019) for applying recharge based approaches, and substantiates his comment referring to Bredehoeft (2002).…”

Investigating a spatial approach to groundwater quantity management using radius of influence with a case study of South Africa

“…The default information provided by hydrogeology is a 'pump-the-recharge' water balance (Balleau, 2013). This default creates serious problems because it (i) ignores the spatial and temporal aspects of sustainability (Theis, 1940;Bredehoeft, 2002); (ii) does not encompass the whole range of sustainability benefits and consequences (Kalf and Woolley, 2005;Pierce et al, 2013), (iii) is not even an indicator of the sustainability of any particular benefits/consequences option (Seward et al, 2006), and (iv) fuels the misconception that there is a single, numerical answer to sustainability (Balleau, 2013;Rudestam and Langridge, 2014).…”

“…Existing approaches to this problem are (i) attempting to solve it by using the capture principle instead of natural recharge as the conceptual basis for monitoring, modelling, and adaptive management (Bredehoeft, 2002;Maimone, 2004), (ii) disputing that there is a problem (Zhou, 2009), and (iii) ignoring it (Balleau, 2013). While monitoring, modelling and adaptive management might seem like a reasonable solution in principle, in practice many countries do not have the combination of scientific and institutional capacity to implement this solution.…”