Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Research about Carson River

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Carson River.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Managed aquifer recharge in snow-fed river basins: What, why and how?

What does climate change mean for snow-fed river basins? Climate change poses unique challenges in snow-fed river basins across the western United States because the majority of water supply originates as snow (Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015). In the Sierra Nevada, recent observations include changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt, and shifts in peak streamflow timing (Barnhart et al., 2016; Hatchett et al., 2017; Kim & Jain, 2010; McCabe, Wolock, & Valentin, 2018; Mote, Li, Lettenmaier, Xiao, & Engel, 2018). Such changes upstream alter surface water deliveries downstream, as well as groundwater recharge utilized as both primary and supplemental water supply (Godsey et al., 2014; Harpold, 2016; Jasechko et al., 2014). basin where snowmelt runoff produces substantial water supply to meet diverse agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the Carson Valley, a rich agricultural region (40,000 acres) that grows primarily alfalfa hay. The majority of irrigators rely on surface water delivered through a network of earthen ditches constructed in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. Flow through these earthen networks and the practice of flood irrigation contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Because no upstream surface water reservoirs exist, snowpack that accumulates through winter and melts slowly through spring has acted as a “natural” reservoir, providing ample supply through the summer irrigati agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the season. Some irrigators have permitted access to supplemental groundwater that is useful during periods of drought for augmenting shortfalls in surface water delivery. Groundwater is the primary source of municipal and industrial water supply for surrounding communities (e.g., Carson City, Minden, Gardnerville, Dayton). Across the basin, water use is highly regulated through federal, tribal, state and local water-sharing agreements based on prior appropriation doctrine (Wilds, 2014). Carson River surface water allocations follow the Alpine Decree, initiated by the United States Department of Interior in 1925 and signed into law in 1980, following 55 years of litigation, to adjudicate surface water rights to individual parties (NDWP, 1999). The Alpine Decree acknowledges return flows to lower river segments, and thus each river segment is distributed autonomously. This means that the most junior water right on an upper segment can be fulfilled before considering the most senior water right on a lower segment. Ultimately, the ruling is at the discretion of the Federal Water Master to satisfy the needs of each water right Downstream of Carson Valley, surface water flows are stored in Lahontan Reservoir, the nation’s first desert reclamation project (est. 1906), where releases are managed to meet the Newland’s Project irrigation water demand and for environmental use on the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Flows from the Carson River are supplemented through diversions from the Truckee River via the Truckee Canal, resulting in a trans-basin water supply system. How is the Water for the Seasons research program informing snow-fed river basin communities? In the Truckee-Carson River System, researchers and local water managers are working together to assess climate change impacts to water supply and explore how model simulations can produce useful information to support local climate adaptation. Twelve key water managers represent agricultural, environmental, urban and regulatory water-use communities, and bring to the table diverse input and perspectives on how to adapt to climate change. Hydrologists use this input to craft scenarios and simulations that meet the information needs of local water managers. Biannual workshops provide an opportunity for information exchange, where researchers and key water managers generate new knowledge of river system function. That is, researchers share results of models that examine the physical potential, and managers validate the on-the-ground potential, further informing the research process. Coincident to this research program, the region faced a prolonged drought period (2012-2016) with historically low snowpack, followed by a historic wet year (2017) that brought winter and spring flooding as a result of atmospheric river storm events (Sterle et al., 2019). For the Carson River, an important observation made by managers was that peak streamflow that had traditionally coincided with peak irrigation demands, had shifted to earlier in the spring, with summer baseflow also decreasing (Sterle & Singletary, 2017). Managers shared with researchers concerns over potential future impacts that changing snowpack will have on surface water deliveries and reliance on groundwater, as the region’s population and economy continue to grow. During workshops that occurred over this period, local water managers and researchers discussed ways to evaluate water distribution and use that honors the existing legal framework and accounts for changing snowpack regimes (amount, rain versus snow, timing). In response to managers growing interest, researchers introduced the concept of managed aquifer recharge as one potential strategy to adapt and enhance regional water sustainability. What is managed aquifer recharge? Simply stated, managed aquifer recharge is the intentional recharge of structures to spread water over agricultural lands, allowing water to naturally infiltrate into the groundwater system (Bouwer, 1999; Niswonger et al., 2017). The latter may occur during the irrigation season by applying excess water, or during the nonirrigation season when evapotranspiration losses are low. Figure 2 illustrates managed aquifer recharge in a snow-fed river basin, where streamflow generated from snowmelt runoff is diverted to agricultural lands to recharge the aquifer. Such flood irrigation practices, including water delivery through earthen ditch networks, provide incidental but significant aquifer recharge through seepage and deep drainage beneath fields (Niswonger, Allander, & Jeton, 2014). The effects of managed aquifer recharge can vary depending on the location and intensity of practice. For example, implementing managed aquifer recharge water into the groundwater system (Dillon, 2009). This differs from the incidental recharge that may occur as part of normal irrigation practices. Managed recharge may occur by injection into the aquifer through existingwells, or by using existing conveyance adjacent to/along the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance late-season instream flows due to increased return flows, resulting in greater downstream deliveries as well as improving ecological conditions (Niswonger et al., 2017). Implementing managed aquifer recharge away from the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance groundwater supply which is increasingly relied upon during surface water shortage (Green et al., 2011), by storing water in available aquifer space in the deep aquifer. At the basin scale, managed aquifer recharge may lead to regional groundwater sustainability. Is the Carson River Basin a candidate for managed aquifer recharge? The physical limitations to implementing managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin hinges on three key factors. The first factor relates to the physical connectivity between rivers and streams, and the irrigation delivery network of canals and ditches that divert water to agricultural lands (Niswonger et al., 2017). In the Carson River Basin the mechanisms for getting water to fields is already in place. Thus, intentionally routing high flows that occur in wet years through this system during the nonirrigation season would mimic what occurs naturally during the irrigation season. The second factor relates to the occurrence of atmospheric river storm events that deliver large amounts of precipitation to the region, much greater than average (Dettinger et al., 2015). With increased frequency and intensity projected under a warmer climate, such events have the potential to produce excess water over short periods of time that could be stored through mechanisms such as managed aquifer recharge (Niswonger et al., 2017). The third factor relates to the change in snowpack accumulation and shifts in snowmelt timing observed elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Godsey et al., 2014; Mote et al., 2018). Having a mechanism in place to maximize use of earlier snowmelt and shifts in streamflow timing could be advantageous and enhance regional groundwater sustainability. As part of the Water for the Seasons study, a hypothetical scenario was developed to determine the feasibility of managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin, assuming no legal constraints. During “wet” or above-average water years, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley would divert high flows and spread water over agricultural lands during the nonirrigation season. Assuming flows are abundant and “early,” diversions would begin prior to the growing season, when water would otherwise flow downstream to the Lahontan Reservoir. During “dry” years or drought periods, when surface water availability is less, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley could augment surface water shortages with groundwater, allowing available surface water flows to flow downstream. Researchers hypothesize the amount of water has the potential to boost baseflow to support environmental instream flows, for example. What concerns have local water managers expressed? The hypothetical managed aquifer recharge scenario was presented to water managers in a workshop setting. Presentations included an overview of the hydrologic and operations modeling tools used to evaluate managed aquifer recharge by simulating the timing and distribution of water in the upper watershed. Specifically, in the Upper Carson Valley, a hydrologic model (GSFLOW) simulates streamflow driven by snowmelt, and surface and groundwater interactions, while a river basin operations model (MODSIM) allocates water according to the prior appropriation doctrine in the basin (see Figure 1) (Morway, Niswonger, & Triana, 2016; Niswonger et al., 2017). Integrating these two modeling tools advances the evaluation of climate impacts on water availability in agricultural communities and the resulting impacts of alternative management strategies (Morway et al., 2016). When asked about the viability of managed aquifer recharge, the perspectives of 11 managers varied (Figure 3). Regardless of rating, all managers questioned, “How would thisreally work?” Several managers questioned whether models could simulate the connectivity between surface and groundwater to accurately quantify changes to instream flow. Others raised concerns that managed aquifer recharge violates the Alpine Decree and Nevada Water Law. Still others requested researchers consider alternatives that could work within the confines of current (2019) water law. Managers posed specific questions that should be considered when evaluating the potential for managed aquifer recharge. For example: What triggers implementation of managed aquifer recharge?How “high” or “low” must annual flows be to initiate managed aquifer recharge? When in the water year is this determined? Where exactly in the Carson Valley is managed aquiferre charge possible? For example, what areas away from the floodplain could ensure long-term storage? Can model simulations quantify potential benefits and consequences system-wide?Would this information support decision-making, such as permitting of additional supplemental groundwater rights? How are researchers going to address managers’ research questions? Managers’ perspectives help to validate the on-the-ground potential of particular strategies and further refine alternative management scenarios. For example, understanding that managers are concerned with oversaturated fields helps researchers to define conditions in the model, such as what defines a wet versus “too” wet type of year and where to focus irrigation for managed aquifer recharge. Incorporating these nuances provides more accurate quantification of the potential benefits and consequences for users across the basin. Modeling is underway to simulate managed aquifer recharge scenarios and explore basin-wide implications. Researchers and local water managers will convene to collaboratively review results and further assess whether this or other strategies could work under the confines of existing water law. Subsequent fact sheets will present these findings.

Nevada

Long-term trends of surface-water mercury and methylmercury concentrations downstream of historic mining within the Carson River watershed

The Carson River is a vital water resource for local municipalities and migratory birds travelling the Pacific Flyway. Historic mining practices that used mercury (Hg) to extract gold from Comstock Lode ore has left much of the river system heavily contaminated with Hg, a practice that continues in many parts of the world today. Between 1998 and 2013, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) collected and analyzed Carson River water for Hg and methylmercury (MeHg) concentrations resulting in a sixteen year record of unfiltered total mercury (uf.THg), filtered (dissolved) Hg (f.THg), total methylmercury (uf.MeHg), filtered MeHg (f.MeHg), and particulate-bound THg (p.THg) and MeHg (p.MeHg) concentrations. This represents one of the longest continuous records of Hg speciation data for any riverine system, thereby providing a unique opportunity to evaluate long-term trends in concentrations and annual loads. During the period of analysis, uf.THg concentration and load trended downward at rates of −0.85% and −1.8% per year, respectively. Conversely, the f.THg concentration increased at a rate of 1.7% per year between 1998 and 2005, and 4.9% per year between 2005 and 2013. Trends in flow-normalized partition coefficients for both Hg and MeHg suggest a statistically significant shift from the particulate to the filtered phase. The upwardly accelerating f.THg concentration and observed shift from the solid phase to the aqueous phase among the pools of Hg and MeHg within the river water column signals an increased risk of deteriorating ecological conditions in the lower basin with respect to Hg contamination. More broadly, the 16-year trend analysis, completed 140 years after the commencement of major Hg releases to the Carson River, provides a poignant example of the ongoing legacy left behind by gold and silver mining techniques that relied on Hg amalgamation, and a cautionary tale for regions still pursuing the practice in other countries.

Nevada

Assessing potential effects of changes in water use with a numerical groundwater-flow model of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California

Rapid growth and development within Carson Valley in Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California, has caused concern over the continued availability of groundwater, and whether the increased municipal demand could either impact the availability of water or result in decreased flow in the Carson River. Annual pumpage of groundwater has increased from less than 10,000 acre feet per year (acre-ft/yr) in the 1970s to about 31,000 acre-ft/yr in 2004, with most of the water used in agriculture. Municipal use of groundwater totaled about 10,000 acre-feet in 2000. In comparison, average streamflow entering the valley from 1940 to 2006 was 344,100 acre-ft/yr, while average flow exiting the valley was 297,400 acre-ft/yr. Carson Valley is underlain by semi-consolidated Tertiary sediments that are exposed on the eastern side and dip westward. Quaternary fluvial and alluvial deposits overlie the Tertiary sediments in the center and western side of the valley. The hydrology of Carson Valley is dominated by the Carson River, which supplies irrigation water for about 39,000 acres of farmland and maintains the water table less than 5 feet (ft) beneath much of the valley floor. Perennial and ephemeral watersheds drain the Carson Range and the Pine Nut Mountains, and mountain-front recharge to the groundwater system from these watersheds is estimated to average 36,000 acre-ft/yr. Groundwater in Carson Valley flows toward the Carson River and north toward the outlet of the Carson Valley. An upward hydraulic gradient exists over much of the valley, and artesian wells flow at land surface in some areas. Water levels declined as much as 15 ft since 1980 in some areas on the eastern side of the valley. Median estimated transmissivities of Quaternary alluvial-fan and fluvial sediments, and Tertiary sediments are 316; 3,120; and 110 feet squared per day (ft 2 /d), respectively, with larger transmissivity values in the central part of the valley and smaller values near the valley margins. A groundwater-flow model of Quaternary and Tertiary sediments in Carson Valley was developed using MODFLOW and calibrated to simulate historical conditions from water years 1971 through 2005. The 35-year transient simulation represented quarterly changes in precipitation, streamflow, pumping and irrigation. Inflows to the groundwater system simulated in the model include mountain-front recharge from watersheds in the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, valley recharge from precipitation and land application of wastewater, agricultural recharge from irrigation, and septic-tank discharge. Outflows from the groundwater system simulated in the model include evapotranspiration from the water table and groundwater withdrawals for municipal, domestic, irrigation and other water supplies. The exchange of water between groundwater, the Carson River, and the irrigation system was represented with a version of the Streamflow Routing (SFR) package that was modified to apply diversions from the irrigation network to irrigated areas as recharge. The groundwater-flow model was calibrated through nonlinear regression with UCODE to measured water levels and streamflow to estimate values of hydraulic conductivity, recharge and streambed hydraulic-conductivity that were represented by 18 optimized parameters. The aquifer system was simulated as confined to facilitate numerical convergence, and the hydraulic conductivity of the top active model layers that intersect the water table was multiplied by a factor to account for partial saturation. Storage values representative of specific yield were specified in parts of model layers where unconfined conditions are assumed to occur. The median transmissivity ( T ) values (11,000 and 800 ft 2 /d for the fluvial and alluvial-fan sediments, respectively) are both within the third quartile of T values estimated from specific-capacity data, but T values for Tertiary sediments are larger than the third quartile estimated from specific-capacity data. The estimated vertical anisotropy for the Quaternary fluvial sediments (9,000) is comparable to the value estimated for a previous model of Carson Valley. The estimated total volume of mountain-front recharge is equivalent to a previous estimate from the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) watershed models, but less recharge is estimated for the Carson Range and more recharge is estimated for the Pine Nut Mountains than the previous estimate. Simulated flow paths indicate that groundwater flows faster through the center of Carson Valley and slower through the lower hydraulic-conductivity Tertiary sediments to the east. Shallow flow in the center of the valley is towards drainage channels, but deeper flow is generally directed toward the basin outlet to the north. The aquifer system is in a dynamic equilibrium with large inflows from storage in dry years and large outflows to storage in wet years. Pumping has historically been less than 10 percent of outflows from the groundwater system, and agricultural recharge has been less than 10 percent of inflows to the groundwater system. Three principal sources of uncertainty that affect model results are: (1) the hydraulic characteristics of the Tertiary sediments on the eastern side of the basin, (2) the composition of sediments beneath the alluvial fans and (3) the extent of the confining unit represented within fluvial sediments in the center of the basin. The groundwater-flow model was used in five 55-year predictive simulations to evaluate the long-term effects of different water-use scenarios on water-budget components, groundwater levels, and streamflow in the Carson River. The predictive simulations represented water years 2006 through 2060 using quarterly stress periods with boundary conditions that varied cyclically to represent the transition from wet to dry conditions observed from water years 1995 through 2004. The five scenarios included a base scenario with 2005 pumping rates held constant throughout the simulation period and four other scenarios using: (1) pumping rates increased by 70 percent, including an additional 1,340 domestic wells, (2A) pumping rates more than doubled with municipal pumping increased by a factor of four over the base scenario, (2B) pumping rates of 2A with 2,040 fewer domestic wells, and (3) pumping rates of 2A with 3,700 acres removed from irrigation. The 55-year predictive simulations indicate that increasing groundwater withdrawals under the scenarios considered would result in as much as 40 ft and 60 ft of water-table decline on the west and east sides of Carson Valley, respectively. The water table in the central part of the valley would remain essentially unchanged, but water-level declines of as much as 30 ft are predicted for the deeper, confined aquifer. The increased withdrawals would reduce the volume of groundwater storage and decrease the mean downstream flow in the Carson River by as much as 16,500 acre-ft/yr. If, in addition, 3,700 acres were removed from irrigation, the reduction in mean downstream flow in the Carson River would be only 6,500 acre-ft/yr. The actual amount of flow reduction is uncertain because of potential changes in irrigation practices that may not be accounted for in the model. The projections of the predictive simulations are sensitive to rates of mountain-front recharge specified for the Carson Range and the Pine Nut Mountains. The model provides a tool that can be used to aid water managers and planners in making informed decisions. A prudent management approach would include continued monitoring of water levels on both the east and west sides of Carson Valley to either verify the predictions of the groundwater-flow model or to provide additional data for recalibration of the model if the predictions prove inaccurate.

California;Nevada