Comparison of Three Groundwater Modeling Studies
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 113, Issue 3
Abstract
Three groundwater modeling studies of a water rights dispute in the San Juan basin of New Mexico are compared. Although these studies all use the same computer model and rely on the same data base, the conclusions they reach are very different. The discrepancies appear to be due primarily to different interpretations of the pump test data used to estimate aquifer parameters in the vicinity of a proposed well field. Since none of the modeling studies attempts to estimate the effect of ambiguous data interpretations on predicted drawdowns, there is no way to judge the relative value of the conflicting results. Although this outcome is disturbing it is not unusual. The credibility of such modeling studies could be greatly improved if they explicitly addressed the factors that control and limit model accuracy.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Baars, D. L. (1962). “Permian system of the Colorado plateau.” Bulletin of the Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists. 46(2). Feb., 149–218.
2.
Dames and Moore Inc. (1982). Critique of technical assessment impact of groundwater pumping proposed plains state water well field of Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. near Gallup, New Mexico for Shell Oil Company. Prepared for Shell Oil Co., Contact No. 00216‐247‐14. Dames and Moore, Inc. Golden, Colo.
3.
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice‐Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
4.
Geohydrology. (1982). Hydrologic report relating to Plains Electric Generating and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. application for permit to appropriate underground waters of the state of New Mexico in the Gallup underground water basin (G‐22 through G‐22‐5‐58) and application for plan of replacement. Prepared for Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative. Geohydrology Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, N. Mex.
5.
GeoTrans. (1982). Groundwater flow modeling evaluation of impacts to result from the proposed development of the San Andres‐Glorieta aquifer by Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Office. Geo‐Trans Inc., Reston, Va.
6.
Gordon, E. D. (1961). Geology and groundwater resources of the Grants‐Bluewater area, Valencia County, New Mexico. New Mexico State Engineer, Technical Report 20, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
7.
Hydrologic Engineering Center. (1982). Impact of a proposed groundwater appropriation on the Fort Wingate Army Depot, groundwater supply. Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, Calif.
8.
McLaughlin, D. (1984). A comparative analysis of groundwater model formulation: The San Andres‐Glorieta case study. Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, Calif.
9.
Shomaker, J. W. (1971). Water resources of the Fort Wingate Army Depot and adjacent areas, McKinley County, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report. Reston, Va.
10.
Theis, C. V. (1935). “The relation between the lowering of the potentiometric surface and the rate of discharge of a well using groundwater storage.” Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Vol. 16, Aug., 519–524.
11.
Trescott, P. D., Pinder, G. F., and Larson, S. P. (1976). Finite‐difference model for aquifer simulation in two dimensions with results of numerical experience. Techniques of Water‐Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Chapter C1, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jul 1, 1987
Published in print: Jul 1987
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.