Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Alan H. Welch

Publications and source records attributed to Alan H. Welch.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2010

In-situ arsenic remediation in Carson Valley, Douglas County, west-central Nevada

Conventional arsenic remediation strategies primarily involve above-ground treatment that include costs involved in the disposal of sludge material. The primary advantages of in-situ remediation are that building and maintaining a large treatment facility are not necessary and that costs associated with the disposal of sludge are eliminated. A two-phase study was implemented to address the feasibility of in-situ arsenic remediation in Douglas County, Nevada. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater within Douglas County range from 1 to 85 micrograms per liter. The primary arsenic species in groundwater at greater than 250 ft from land surface is arsenite; however, in the upper 150 ft of the aquifer arsenate predominates. Where arsenite is the primary form of arsenic, the oxidation of arsenite to arsenate is necessary. The results of the first phase of this investigation indicated that arsenic concentrations can be remediated to below the drinking-water standard using aeration, chlorination, iron, and pH adjustment. Arsenic concentrations were remediated to less than 10 micrograms per liter in groundwater from the shallow and deep aquifer when iron concentrations of 3-6 milligrams per liter and pH adjustments to less than 6 were used. Because of the rapid depletion of dissolved oxygen, the secondary drinking-water standards for iron (300 micrograms per liter) and manganese (100 micrograms per liter) were exceeded during treatment. Treatment was more effective in the shallow well as indicated by a greater recovery of water meeting the arsenic standard. Laboratory and field tests were included in the second phase of this study. Laboratory column experiments using aquifer material indicated the treatment process followed during the first phase of this study will continue to work, without exceeding secondary drinking-water standards, provided that groundwater was pre-aerated and an adequate number of pore volumes treated. During the 147-day laboratory experiment, no decrease in flow through the column was observed. The primary mechanism of arsenic removal is through coprecipitation with iron oxide. Calculations based on the results of the column experiments and assuming 10 and 30 percent porosity indicated that treatment of approximately 237,000-714,000 gallons of water would be required in order to remediate arsenic concentrations to less than 10 micrograms per liter. During the first second-phase field experiment, effective injection of treated groundwater back into the aquifer was prevented due to clogging likely caused by entrained gases and the fine texture (sand, clay, and gravel) of the aquifer sediments. Because of the overflow of treated water from the injection wells, only 3,760 gallons of treated water were injected. Immediately upon terminating this first experiment, no arsenic remediation was apparent. However, approximately 24 hours after terminating the experiment arsenic concentrations in groundwater collected from one of the injection wells showed a decrease from about 30 to 15 micrograms per liter, indicating that some remediation had taken place. In agreement with the laboratory-column experiments, pre-aeration prevented the exceedence of the secondary drinking-water standards for iron and manganese. Because of complications associated with system hydraulics, no additional experiments were performed.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

Arsenic attenuation by oxidized aquifer sediments in Bangladesh

Recognition of arsenic (As) contamination of shallow fluvio-deltaic aquifers in the Bengal Basin has resulted in increasing exploitation of groundwater from deeper aquifers that generally contain low concentrations of dissolved As. Pumping-induced infiltration of high-As groundwater could eventually cause As concentrations in these aquifers to increase. This study investigates the adsorption capacity for As of sediment from a low-As aquifer near Dhaka, Bangladesh. A shallow, chemically-reducing aquifer at this site extends to a depth of 50 m and has maximum As concentrations in groundwater of 900 μg/L. At depths greater than 50 m, geochemical conditions are more oxidizing and groundwater has < 5 μg/L As. There is no thick layer of clay at this site to inhibit vertical transport of groundwater. Arsenite [As(III)] is the dominant oxidation state in contaminated groundwater; however, data from laboratory batch experiments show that As(III) is oxidized to arsenate [As(V)] by manganese (Mn) minerals that are present in the oxidized sediment. Thus, the long-term viability of the deeper aquifers as a source of water supply is likely to depend on As(V) adsorption. The adsorption capacity of these sediments is a function of the oxidation state of As and the concentration of other solutes that compete for adsorption sites. Arsenite that was not oxidized did adsorb, but to a much lesser extent than As(V). Phosphate (P) caused a substantial decrease in As(V) adsorption. Increasing pH and concentrations of silica (Si) had lesser effects on As(V) adsorption. The effect of bicarbonate (HCO 3 ) on As(V) adsorption was negligible. Equilibrium constants for adsorption of As(V), As(III), P, Si, HCO 3 , and H were determined from the experimental data and a quantitative model developed. Oxidation of As(III) was modeled with a first-order rate constant. This model was used to successfully simulate As(V) adsorption in the presence of multiple competing solutes. Results from these experiments show that oxidized sediments have a substantial but limited capacity for removal of As from groundwater.

Dhaka↗
USGS2007

Arsenic in the environment: Biology and chemistry

Arsenic (As) distribution and toxicology in the environment is a serious issue, with millions of individuals worldwide being affected by As toxicosis. Sources of As contamination are both natural and anthropogenic and the scale of contamination ranges from local to regional. There are many areas of research that are being actively pursued to address the As contamination problem. These include new methods of screening for As in the field, determining the epidemiology of As in humans, and identifying the risk of As uptake in agriculture. Remediation of As-affected water supplies is important and research includes assessing natural remediation potential as well as phytoremediation. Another area of active research is on the microbially mediated biogeochemical interactions of As in the environment. In 2005, a conference was convened to bring together scientists involved in many of the different areas of As research. In this paper, we present a synthesis of the As issues in the light of long-standing research and with regards to the new findings presented at this conference. This contribution provides a backdrop to the issues raised at the conference together with an overview of contemporary and historical issues of As contamination and health impacts.

Science of the Total Environment↗
USGS2007

Water Resources of the Basin and Range Carbonate-Rock Aquifer System, White Pine County, Nevada, and Adjacent Areas in Nevada and Utah - Draft Report

Summary of Major Findings This report summarizes results of a water-resources study for White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent areas in east-central Nevada and western Utah. The Basin and Range carbonate-rock aquifer system (BARCAS) study was initiated in December 2004 through Federal legislation (Section 131 of the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004) directing the Secretary of the Interior to complete a water-resources study through the U.S. Geological Survey, Desert Research Institute, and State of Utah. The study was designed as a regional water-resource assessment, with particular emphasis on summarizing the hydrogeologic framework and hydrologic processes that influence ground-water resources. The study area includes 13 hydrographic areas that cover most of White Pine County; in this report however, results for the northern and central parts of Little Smoky Valley were combined and presented as one hydrographic area. Hydrographic areas are the basic geographic units used by the State of Nevada and Utah and local agencies for water-resource planning and management, and are commonly defined on the basis of surface-water drainage areas. Hydrographic areas were further divided into subbasins that are separated by areas where bedrock is at or near the land surface. Subbasins represent subdivisions used in this study for estimating recharge, discharge, and water budget. Hydrographic areas represent the subdivision used for reporting summed and tabulated subbasin estimates.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Arsenic in ground water: A review of current knowledge and relation to the CALFED solution area with recommendations for needed research

Ground water with arsenic concentrations greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard exists throughout much of the CALFED solution area. These high concentrations are of con-cern from the standpoint of both existing water supply and development of conjunctive use projects. Much is known about arsenic mobility in ground water subject to different hydrologic and geochemical conditions. However, some important knowledge gaps exist that limit the ability to design water supply projects that could prevent arsenic mobilization or promote arsenic removal from ground water. A few well studied sys-tems could provide a much better understanding of methods for preventing or eliminating high arsenic problems. Within the context of the examination of a few detailed field studies, some important research needs include: 1.) Determining the significance of metal-bridging aqueous complexes involving inorgan-ic arsenic and natural organic matter, 2.) In the con-text of in situ remediation, determining whether of metal oxides. Little is known about the quantitative significance competition of inorganic arsenic with other inorganic aqueous species in natu-ral systems. Experiments should be conducted with actual aquifer materials, as the effects of aging on arsenic desorption in laboratory studies are quite sig-nificant. 3.) Devise methods to detect and quantify rates of oxidation/reduction reactions of arsenic that are carried out by microorganisms at ambient concen-trations of arsenic and under in situ conditions. The findings from detailed field studies have the potential for greatly reducing the cost of meeting the new drinking-water standard for arsenic. The research would benefit a broad constituency.

San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science↗
USGS2006

Arsenic in ground water of the Western United States

Natural occurrences of ground water with moderate (10 to 50 micrograms per liter) to high (greater than 50 micrograms per liter) concentrations of arsenic are common throughout much of the Western United States. High concentrations of arsenic are generally associated with one of four geochemical environments: (1) basin-fill deposits of alluvial-lacustrine origin, particularly in semiarid areas, (2) volcanic deposits, (3) geothermal systems, and (4) uranium and gold-mining areas. These findings are based on an extensive literature review, compilation of unpublished reports and data, and the review of data bases containing more than 7,000 analyses of ground-water samples for arsenic. In the first two environments, arsenic appears to be associated with sediments derived, in part, from volcanic rocks of intermediate to acidic composition. Dissolved arsenic concentrations in water from volcanic aquifers in the same regions, however, may be low (less than 10 micrograms per liter). Solid phases (minerals, amorphous solids, and sedimentary organic matter) that supply the dissolved arsenic have not been identified in most areas. Alluvial and lacustrine sedimentary deposits appear to be an important source of arsenic in volcanic areas (such as Lane County, Oregon) and in areas underlain by basin-fill deposits (such as Carson Desert in Nevada and the Tulare Lake basin in California). Mobilization of arsenic in sedimentary aquifers may be, in part, a result of changes in the geochemical environment due to agricultural irrigation. In the deeper subsurface, elevated arsenic concentrations are associated with compaction caused by groundwater withdrawals.

Groundwater↗
USGS2005

Arsenic in ground water of the United States: occurrence and geochemistry

Concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic in ground water vary regionally due to a combination of climate and geology. Although slightly less than half of 30,000 arsenic analyses of ground water in the United States were 1 μg/L, about 10% exceeded 10 μg/L. At a broad regional scale, arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 μg/L appear to be more frequently observed in the western United States than in the eastern half. Arsenic concentrations in ground water of the Appalachian Highlands and the Atlantic Plain generally are very low ( 1 μg/L). Concentrations are somewhat greater in the Interior Plains and the Rocky Mountain System. Investigations of ground water in New England, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin within the last decade suggest that arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 μg/L are more widespread and common than previously recognized. Arsenic release from iron oxide appears to be the most common cause of widespread arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 μg/L in ground water. This can occur in response to different geochemical conditions, including release of arsenic to ground water through reaction of iron oxide with either natural or anthropogenic (i.e., petroleum products) organic carbon. Iron oxide also can release arsenic to alkaline ground water, such as that found in some felsic volcanic rocks and alkaline aquifers of the western United States. Sulfide minerals are both a source and sink for arsenic. Geothermal water and high evaporation rates also are associated with arsenic concentrations 10g/L in ground and surface water, particularly in the west. Arsenic release from iron oxide appears to be the most common cause of widespread arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 µg/L a ground water. This can occur in response to different geochemical conditions, including release of arsenic to ground water through reaction of iron oxide with either natural or anthropogenic (i.e., petroleum products) organic carbon. Iron oxide also can release arsenic to alkaline ground water, such as that found in some felsic volcanic rocks and alkaline aquifers of the Western United States. Sulfide minerals are both a source and sink for arsenic. Geothermal water and high evaporation rates also are associated with arsenic concentrations ≥ 10g/L in ground and surface water, particularly in the west.

Ground Water↗
USGS2005

Characterization of surface-water quality in the S-Line Canal and potential geochemical reactions from storage of surface water in the Basalt aquifer near Fallon, Nevada

The Fallon basalt aquifer serves as the sole source of municipal water supply for the Lahontan Valley in west-central Nevada. Principal users include the City of Fallon, Naval Air Station Fallon, and the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. Pumpage from the aquifer increased from about 1,700 acre-feet per year in the early 1970's to more than 3,000 acre-feet per year in the late 1990's, and has been accompanied by declines in water levels and changes in water quality. Storage of surface water in the basalt may mitigate the effects of pumpage, but may cause undesirable changes in water chemistry. In May 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey began a study, in cooperation with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, to characterize the surface-water quality of the S-Line Canal, a likely source of water for augmenting recharge. Because arsenic concentrations in ground water of the basalt aquifer exceed drinking water standards, the potential for arsenic release to artificial recharge was explored by using geochemical modeling. Model results suggest that arsenic release may increase concentrations to levels that could limit the use of artificial recharge. Field-based experiments are needed to evaluate the underlying model assumptions.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2000

Arsenic in Ground-Water Resources of the United States

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in rocks, soils, and the waters in contact with them. Recognized as a toxic element for centuries, arsenic today also is a human health concern because it can contribute to skin, bladder, and other cancers (National Research Council, 1999). Recently, the National Research Council (1999) recommended lowering the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) allowed for arsenic in drinking water of 50 ?g/L (micrograms per liter), citing risks for developing bladder and other cancers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will propose a new, and likely lower, arsenic MCL during 2000 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). This fact sheet provides information on where and to what extent natural concentrations of arsenic in ground water exceed possible new standards. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has collected and analyzed arsenic in potable (drinkable) water from 18,850 wells in 595 counties across the United States during the past two decades. These wells are used for irrigation, industrial purposes, and research, as well as for public and private water supply. Arsenic concentrations in samples from these wells are similar to those found in nearby public supplies (see Focazio and others, 1999). The large number of samples, broad geographic coverage, and consistency of methods produce a more accurate and detailed picture of arsenic concentrations than provided by any previous studies.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2000

A Retrospective Analysis on the Occurrence of Arsenic in Ground-Water Resources of the United States and Limitations in Drinking-Water-Supply Characterizations

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to review current drinking-water standards for arsenic, propose a maximum contaminant level for arsenic by January 1, 2000, and issue a final regulation by January, 2001. Quantification of the national occurrence of targeted ranges in arsenic concentration in ground water used for public drinking-water supplies is an important component of USEPA's regulatory process. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) were used in a retrospective analysis of arsenic in the ground-water resources of the United States. The analysis augments other existing sources of data on the occurrence of arsenic collected in ground water at public water-supply systems.The USGS, through its District offices and national programs, has been compiling data for many years on arsenic concentrations collected from wells used for public water supply, research, agriculture, industry, and domestic water supply throughout the United States. These data have been collected for a variety of purposes ranging from simple descriptions of the occurrence of arsenic in local or regional ground-water resources to detailed studies on arsenic geochemistry associated with contamination sites. A total of 18,864 sample locations were selected from the USGS NWIS data base regardless of well type, of which 2,262 were taken from public water-supply sources. Samples with non-potable water (dissolved-solids concentration greater than 2,000 milligrams per liter and water temperature greater than 50o Celsius) were not selected for the retrospective analysis and other criteria for selection included the amount and type of ancillary data available for each sample. The 1,528 counties with sufficient data included 76 percent of all large public water-supply systems (serving more than 10,000 people) and 61 percent of all small public water-supply systems (serving more than 1,000 and less than 10,000 people) in the United States. The arsenic data were summarized for the selected counties by associating the arsenic concentrations measured in the ground-water resource with the numbers and sizes of public water-supply systems using ground water in those counties. Targeted arsenic concentrations of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 ug/L were exceeded in the ground-water resource associated with 36, 25, 14, 8, 3, and 1 percent respectively of all public water-supply systems accounted for in the analysis.Contributions to uncertainty such as changes in sampling methods and changes in laboratory reporting appear to be less important to the national occurrence estimates than other factors such as temporal variability in arsenic concentrations at a given well, the types of wells sampled, and density and types of sampling locations. In addition, no attempt was made to quantify arsenic concentrations in relation to depth within aquifers. With these qualifications, the USGS data represent the ground-water resource in general and are not restricted to wells currently used for public drinking-water sources. In this way, the broad spatial extent, large number of water samples, and low detection limits used for the USGS data provide a unique source of information to determine where targeted concentrations of arsenic are likely to occur in the ground-water resources within much of the United States.These results indicate USGS data can be effectively used to augment national estimates of arsenic occurrence in the nation's ground-water resources if limitations are recognized. Existing estimates of the occurrence of arsenic in ground water that are used as a source of drinking water can be supplemented with the USGS arsenic concentration data when associated with the public water-supply data base. One such supplementary application is the additional insight gained by establishing relations between arsenic concentration data in the ground-water resource and small public wat

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1997

Ground-water quality assessment of the Carson River basin, Nevada and California — Results of investigations, 1987–91

Using existing Nevada State drinking-water standards as a measure of the overall water quality, ground-water quality in principal aquifers of the upper Carson River basin is generally excellent. Ground-water quality in the Carson Desert, the distal end of the Carson River basin, displays extremes in concentrations of major and minor inorganic constituents, with dissolved solids reaching concentrations exceeding sea water. More than 10 percent of sampled ground water in the principal aquifers contain concentrations of arsenic, dissolved solids, and manganese greater than the drinking-water standards. Nearly all sampled ground water in the basin had radon-222 activities greater than the proposed Federal maximum contaminant level of 300 picocuries per liter. Uranium concentrations greater than the proposed Federal maximum contaminant level of 20 micrograms per liter were found in ground water in the adjacent Sierra Nevada.

California, Nevada↗
USGS1996

Hydrogeology and potential effects of changes in water use, Carson Desert agricultural area, Churchill County, Nevada

Operating Criteria and Procedures for Newlands Project irrigation and Public Law 101-618 could result in reductions in surface water used for agriculture in the Carson Desert, potentially affecting ground-water supplies from shallow, intermediate, and basalt aquifers. A near-surface zone could exist at the top of the shallow aquifer near the center and eastern parts of the basin where underlying clay beds inhibit vertical flow and could limit the effects of changes in water use. In the basalt aquifer, water levels have declined about 10 feet from pre-pumping levels, and chloride and arsenic concentrations have increased. Conceptual models of the basin suggest that changes in water use in the western part of the basin would probably affect recharge to the shallow, intermediate, and basalt aquifers. Lining canals and removing land from production could cause water-level declines greater than 10 feet in the shallow aquifer up to 2 miles from lined canals. Removing land from production could cause water levels to decline from 4 to 17 feet, depending on the distribution of specific yield in the basin and the amount of water presently applied to irrigated fields. Where wells pump from a near-surface zone of the shallow aquifer, water level declines might not greatly affect pumping wells where the thickness of the zone is greatest, but could cause wells to go dry where the zone is thin.

Water Supply Paper↗
USGS1995

Gross-beta activity in ground water: natural sources and artifacts of sampling and laboratory analysis

Gross-beta activity has been used as an indicator of beta-emitting isotopes in water since at least the early 1950s. Originally designed for detection of radioactive releases from nuclear facilities and weapons tests, analysis of gross-beta activity is widely used in studies of naturally occurring radioactivity in ground water. Analyses of about 800 samples from 5 ground-water regions of the United States provide a basis for evaluating the utility of this measurement. The data suggest that measured gross-beta activities are due to (1) long-lived radionuclides in ground water, and (2) ingrowth of beta-emitting radionuclides during holding times between collection of samples and laboratory measurements. Although 40 K and 228 Ra appear to be the primary sources of beta activity in ground water, the sum of 40 K plus 228 Ra appears to be less than the measured gross-beta activity in most ground-water samples. The difference between the contribution from these radionuclides and gross-beta activity is most pronounced in ground water with gross-beta activities > 10 pCi/L, where these 2 radionuclides account for less than one-half the measured ross-beta activity. One exception is groundwater from the Coastal Plain of New Jersey, where 40 K plus 228 Ra generally contribute most of the gross-beta activity. In contrast, 40 K and 228 Ra generally contribute most of beta activity in ground water with gross-beta activities < 1 pCi/L. The gross-beta technique does not measure all beta activity in ground water. Although 3 H contributes beta activity to some ground water, it is driven from the sample before counting and therefore is not detected by gross-beta measurements. Beta-emitting radionuclides with half-lives shorter than a few days can decay to low values between sampling and counting. Although little is known about concentrations of most short-lived beta-emitting radionuclides in environmental ground water (water unaffected by direct releases from nuclear facilities and weapons tests), their activities are expected to be low. Ingrowth of beta-emitting radionuclides during sample holding times can contribute to gross-beta activity, particularly in ground water with gross-beta activities > 10 pCi/L. Ingrowth of beta-emitting progeny of 238 U, specifically 234 Pa and 234 Th, contributes much of the measured gross-beta activity in ground water from 4 of the 5 areas studied. Consequently, gross-beta activity measurements commonly overestimate the abundance of beta-emitting radionuclides actually present in ground water. Differing sample holding times before analysis lead to differing amounts of ingrowth of the two progeny. Therefore, holding times can affect observed gross-beta measurements, particularly in ground water with 238 U activities that are moderate to high compared with the activity of 40 K plus 228 Ra. Uncertainties associated with counting efficiencies for beta particles with different energies further complicate the interpretation of gross-beta measurements.

Applied Geochemistry↗
USGS1994

Ground-water quality and geochemistry in Carson and Eagle Valleys, western Nevada and eastern California

Aquifers in Carson and Eagle Valleys are an important source of water for human consumption and agriculture. Concentrations of major constituents in water from the principal aquifers on the west sides of Carson and Eagle Valleys appear to be a result of natural geochemical reactions with minerals derived primarily from plutonic rocks. In general, water from principal aquifers is acceptable for drinking when compared with current (1993) Nevada State drinking-water maximum contaminant level standards. Water was collected and analyzed for all inorganic constituents for which primary or secondary drinking-water standards have been established. About 3 percent of these sites had con- stituents that exceeded one or more primary or secondary drinking-water standards have been established. About 3 percent of these sites had con- stituents that exceeded one or more primary standards and water at about 10 percent of the sites had at least one constituent that surpassed a secondary standard. Arsenic exceeded the standard in water at less than 1 percent of the principal aquifer sites; nitrate surpassed its standard in water at 3 percent of 93 sites. Water from wells in the principal aquifer with high concentrations of nitrate was in areas where septic systems are used; these concentrations indicate that contamination may be entering the wells. Concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in water from the principal aquifers, exceed the proposed Federal standards for some constituents, but were not found t be above current (1993) State standards. The uranium concen- trations exceeded the proposed 20 micrograms per liter Federal standard at 10 percent of the sites. Of the sites analyzed for all of the inorganic constituents with primary standards plus uranium, 15 percent exceed one or more established standards. If the proposed 20 micrograms per liter standard for uranium is applied to the sampled sites, then 23 percent would exceed the standard for uranium or some other constituent with a primary drinking water standard. This represents a 50-percent increase in the frequency of exceedance. Almost all water sampled from the principal aquifers exceeds the 300 picocuries per liter proposed standard for radon. Ground-water sampling sites with the highest radon activities in water are most commonly located in the upland aquifers in the Sierra Nevada and in the principal aquifers beneath the west sides of Carson and Eagle Valleys.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1994

Hydrogeology and potential effects of changes in water use, Carson Desert agricultural area, Churchill County, Nevada

Operating Criteria and Procedures established in 1988 for delivery of water for irrigation in the Newlands Project area include regulations and methods to increase Project efficiency. Public Law 101-618 of 1990 includes a target of 75-percent Project efficiency and a program of water-rights acquisition for wetlands maintenance. The directives could result in large reductions in water used for irrigation in the Carson Desert, potentially affecting ground-water supplies. Previous studies of the area have been evaluated to determine the current understanding of how aquifers are recharged, what controls the flow and quality of ground water, potential effects of changes in water use, and what additional information would be needed to quantify further changes in water use. Inflow of surface water to the basin from Lahontan Reservoir averaged about 370,000 acre-ft/yr (acre-feet per year) from 1975 to 1992, supplying water for irrigation of more than 50,000 acres. More than half of the water released from the reservoir is lost to seepage, operational spills, and evaporation before delivery of about 170,000 acre-ft/yr to farm headgates. The volume of water delivered to farms that does not contribute to crop consumptive use (on-farm loss) is poorly known but could be as much as 60,000 acre-ft/yr. Consumptive use on irrigated land may be about 180,000 acre-ft/yr, of which 50,000 acre-ft/yr may be derived from the shallow aquifer. Outflow from irrigated land is a mixture of operational spill, runoff from irrigated fields, and ground-water seepage to drains. Total outflow averages about 170,000 to 190,000 acre-ft/yr. This water flows to wetlands at Carson Lake, Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, and Carson Sink. Three sedimentary aquifers were previously defined in the basin: a shallow aquifer having highly variable lithology and water quality, an intermediate aquifer containing principally fresh water, and a deep aquifer having water of poor quality. The deep aquifer could possibly be divided into sedimentary and volcanic zones. In addition, a near-surface zone may exist near the top of the shallow aquifer where vertical flow is inhibited by underlying clay beds. A basalt aquifer near the center of the basin is the source of public supply and is recharged by the shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifers. Water levels in the basalt aquifer have declined about 10 feet from pre-pumping levels, and chloride and arsenic concentrations in the water have increased. The average depth to ground water has decreased beneath large areas of the Carson Desert since 1904 as a result of recharge of surface water used for irrigation. Ground water generally flows from west to east, and dissolvedsolids concentrations increase greatly near areas of ground-water discharge, where State of Nevada drinking-water standards commonly are exceeded. Uncertainties in the rates of recharge to and discharge from the basin cause an imbalance in the calculated water budget. Estimates for total recharge range from 400,000 to 420,000 acreft/yr, whereas estimates for discharge range from 630,000 to 680,000 acre-ft/yr. Estimates of inflow to and outflow from aquifers of the study area are as follows: shallow aquifer, more than 120,000 acre-ft/yr; intermediate aquifer, possibly more than 25,000 acre-ft/yr; deep aquifer, unknown; and basalt aquifer, about 4,000 acre-ft/yr. Estimates for flow volumes to and from the shallow and intermediate aquifers are based on assumed aquifer properties and could be in error by an order of magnitude or more. Conceptual models of the basin show that ground-water flow is downward from the shallow aquifer to the intermediate aquifer in the western part and near the center of the basin, and is upward in the eastern part of the basin. Little is known about flow in the deep aquifer. Nearsurface clay beds inhibit vertical flow near the center and eastern part of the basin except where breached by relict sand-filled channels of the Carson River. Conceptual models of the basin show that changes in water use in the western part of the basin probably would affect recharge to the sedimentary and basalt aquifers. Near the center of the basin, water-use changes could affect the shallow and basalt aquifers but might have less effect on the intermediate aquifer. In the eastern part of the basin, changes could affect the shallow aquifer, but would probably not affect the intermediate or basalt aquifers. If seepage is decreased by lining canals, and land is removed from production, water-level declines in the shallow aquifer could be greater than 10 feet as far as 2 miles from the lined canals. Depending upon the distribution of specific yield, decreasing recharge by 25,000 to 50,000 acre-ft/yr beneath 30,000 acres could cause water levels to decline from 4 to 17 feet. Where ground water supplements crop consumptive use, water levels could temporarily rise when land is removed from production. Where water is pumped from a near-surface zone of the shallow aquifer, water-level declines might not greatly affect pumped wells where the nearsurface zone is thickest, but could cause wells to go dry where the zone is thin. The understanding of surface-water and ground-water relations, recharge and discharge of ground water, ground-water movement, and the potential effects of changes in water use in the Carson Desert can be refined by studying (1) the extent of potable water in the intermediate and basalt aquifers, (2) lithology and specific yield of aquifer materials, (3) data on ground-water levels and quality, and (4) data on surface-water flow and quality, as well as monitoring the effects of changes in water use as they take place.

Nevada↗