HydroVisions | Fall 2022

VOLUME THIRTY-ONE OCTOBER 2022

V.31

2022 Fall Issue th ANNIVERSARY

HYDROVISIONS is the official publication of the Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRA). GRA’s mailing address is 808 R Street. Suite 209, Sacramento, CA 95811. Any questions or comments concerning this publication should be directed to the newsletter editor at hydrovisions@grac.org The Groundwater Resources Association of California is dedicated to resource management that protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership.

EDITOR

Rodney Fricke hydrovisions@grac.org

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PRESIDENT (D) R.T. Van Valer Roscoe Moss Company Tel: 323-263-4111 VICE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY (D) Christy Kennedy Woodard & Curran Tel: 925-627-4122 TREASURER Rodney Fricke GEI Consultants Tel: 916-631-4500 DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER (D) Lyndsey Bloxom The Water Research Foundation Tel: 571-384-2106 IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT (D) Abigail Madrone West Yost Associates Tel: 530-756-5905 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR Sarah Erck Groundwater Resources Association of California Tel: 916-446-3626

DIRECTORS (D)

Jena Acos Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek Tel: 805-882-1427 Erik Cadaret West Yose Associates Tel: 530-756-5905 Marina Delgiannis Lake County Water Resources Tel: 707-263-2213 Murray Einarson Haley & Aldritch, Inc. Tel: 530-752-1130 Todd Jarvis Institute for Water & Watersheds, Oregon State University Tel: 541-737-4032 Yue Rong Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Tel: 213-576-6710 Abhishek Singh INTERA Tel: 217-721-0301 Clayton Sorensen Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Tel: 510-704-1000 x206 John Xiong Haley & Aldritch, Inc. Tel: 530-752-1130

To contact any GRA Officer or Director by email, go to www.grac.org/board-of-directors

The statements and opinions expressed in GRA’s HydroVisions and other publications are those of the authors and/or contributors, and are not necessarily those of the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members. Further, GRA makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this publication and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents. No warranty of any kind, implied or expressed, or statutory, is given with respect to the contents of this publication or its references to other resources. Reference in this publication to any specific th commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any ANNIVERSARY trade, firm, or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members.

2022 Fall Issue

2022 Fall Issue

V.31 2

2022 Fall Issue

TABLE OF CONTENTS

President’s Note

Wells and Words

Page 4

Page 6

GRA at the CIE AAEOY Technical Forum

GeoH2OMysteryPix

Page 16

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Drought Conditions

Page 9

Page 12

PFAS - Emerging Treatment Technologies

2022 GSA Summit

Page 20

Page 18

Page 24

western ground water congress 2022

BUILT FOR CHANGE

3

Toxic Terra: Part 8

WGC 2022

Parting Shot

Page 28

Page 32

Page 36

2022 Fall Issue

President’s Note Since I began with GRA 12 years ago, I have been amazed by all that this organization has been able to accomplish. Thirty years ago, the GRA organization was small and focused on California groundwater, and today we are discussing SGMA with key legislators, hosting international symposiums and events, expanding our presence in our western states, and working toward our vision of sustainable groundwater for all.

Twelve years later, I continue to be impressed and inspired by this organization and all of those who interact with it.

As Covid-19 restrictions began to loosen, I was eager to see how the Western Groundwater Congress would improve, and ultimately how it would be attended. With the hard work and devotion from Erik Cadaret and his WGC team, I was impressed to see record breaking numbers for this event. This quarter’s HydroVisions will have articles from both our Chair and Technical Committee with more details about the event itself. My favorite part (besides the 90’s themed party with Karaoke) was the opening panel with three past GRA Presidents, moderated by Immediate Past President, Abigail Madrone. While this panel was different from any opening Keynote we have ever had, the stories told

by Vikki Kretsinger, Brian Lewis, and Thomas Mohr about the creation of GRA and the ups and downs they faced was truly inspirational. I believe it was beneficial for everyone to hear all that has gone into carrying GRA forward for so long.

I was also inspired by how many attendees and companies at the event were joining us for the first time. I hope you all enjoyed yourselves and will continue participating in o the WGC and other GRA events in the future. Without our members and our sponsors, we couldn’t press forward fulfilling our mission of providing resource management that protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership.

Two weeks after the WGC, I was honored to attend my first Contemporary Groundwater Issues Council (CGIC) meeting. To say that I was both impressed and inspired being in a room with some of the best and brightest minds in California groundwater would be an understatement.

While I am sure you will want to read the article written in the following pages by our Co-Chairs Vicki Kretsinger, Tim Parker, and Thomas Harter, let me just say the opening panel moderated by Dave Ceppos was outstanding. The panelists were informed, thoughtful, and well-spoken which made for a very in-depth and candid discussion that I believe all of the attendees appreciated very much.

2022 Fall Issue

4

Another bright spot that has impressed me in these last few months is the great work our branches are doing to re- engage members in their areas. Many of our branches have held in-person meetings and some have even worked to create hybrid meetings so attendees can interact from all over the state and beyond. Since the beginning, GRAs branches have been a key to our overall success by giving our members a local opportunity to engage branch leadership, state executives, and contributing members of the groundwater industry. If you have not participated with these branches before, or since the pandemic, they are eager to welcome you all back to their meetings and networking events.

Looking into the fourth quarter, my inspiration comes from the opportunities GRA faces in the coming months.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, “California’s drought has become the state’s driest three-year period on record, surpassing that of 2013-15.” While these times are very uncertain and challenging, the GRA Board of Directors is currently in discussions on how we can best place ourselves to help and educate the groundwater community. The CGIC meeting was a great kickoff to these discussions, and we will be focusing on the drought and other topics at our upcoming Board of Directors meeting, as well as during our Strategic Planning Session. As a former basketball player, it almost feels like preparing for a big game. We have a huge challenge ahead of us, but we have a fantastic team who is willing to work hard and do whatever it takes to achieve our goals. I am confident in this group and I hope we will

be able to provide much insight to our membership in the coming months. In the interim, if you are interested in joining our strong leadership team and providing future guidance from the board level, you can submit a GRA Director Nomination Form.

Finally, as we approach the holiday season, I want to take this opportunity and use this platform to say “Thank you” to every single one of you who has made GRA the absolutely amazing organization it has truly become over the past 30 years. If you have ever been on the board, sat on a committee, helped plan an event, or attended one of our conferences, we appreciate you! Your hard work and dedication to this organization is unparalleled and you keep driving us forward like a force of nature. I hope you and your families all have a fun and safe holiday season, and I look forward to seeing many of you in San Diego in February!

Best,

R.T. Van Valer

R.T. Van Valer has worked for Roscoe Moss Company, a leading manufacturer of water well casing, screen and water transmission pipe, since 2001. R.T. currently serves as the Product Manager and Director of Human Resources for the company. In his 11th year with GRA, R.T. has previously served in multiple executive offices, chaired committees and twice chaired the Western Groundwater Congress.

th ANNIVERSARY

5

2022 Fall Issue

Wells and Words

Selection of the Length of a Screen (or perforations) for a Water Well - Do the Math!

by David W. Abbott, P.G., C.Hg. Consulting Geologist The previous article (Summer 2022) of Wells and Words referred to older Well Completion Reports (WCR) which had a section for describing the Perforations for slotted metal/PVC screens; newer WCR do not have this section.

The older WCR included: (a) length of perforated pipe installed, (b) perforations/row, (c) rows/foot, and (d) the dimensions of the perforations (i.e., inch wide × inch long).

The actual (or percent) open area can be estimated using this information and then used to design/engineer water wells (supply, test, or monitoring wells). In addition, the WCR should include a section to identify the manufacturer of the continuous-slot (i.e., wire-wrap) well screen, louvers, pre-perforated pipe, the slot size, the material, and, if available, provide the Transmitting Capacity (TC) of the perforations or screen. Oftentimes, this information is on the manufacturers’ website. The significance of these parameters will be addressed through an example.

A Client requires a water supply well for irrigation with a yield of ≈100 gallons/minute (gpm) on a parcel of land that overlies alluvial materials to a depth of ≈150 feet (ft), based on a preliminary review of the local geology. The recommended and optimum inside diameter (ID) of the pump chamber for a 100 gpm well is 8-inch (in) (see Table 13.1, page 415 in Driscoll1).

2022 Fall Issue

If the client plans to use perforated (slotted) pipe (an inexpensive design that is generally not preferred), then information of the actual (or percent) open area of the pipe will help to determine the length of the submerged perforations (perfs) needed to obtain a “relatively efficient” 100 gpm well if the aquifer is fully saturated. For example: 1. Area of one perforation may be 0.125-in wide × 3-in long = 0.375-in2; 2. Three perfs/row = 1.125-in2 perfs/row; 3. Ten rows of perfs/ft of pipe = 11.25-in2 area of perfs/ lineal ft of pipe; 4. Surface area of one ft (h) of pipe = (π × d) × h = (3.142 × 8-in) × 12-in = 301.6-in2; and 5. The percent open area is (11.25 ÷ 301.6) × 100 = 3.73%.

This open area is relatively low in contrast to wire-wrap screens which are usually at least an order of magnitude greater.

How much water can pass through one foot of perfs efficiently with an entrance velocity of 0.1 ft/second (sec)?

Higher entrance velocities can result in turbulent flow which can significantly reduce the efficiency and shorten the life-span of the well2.

6

TRANSMITTING CAPACITY AND PERCENT OPEN AREA OF STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SCREENS 5 PS*

NOMINAL DIAMETER (INCHES) 6 TELE

6 PS

8 TELE

8 PS

10 TELE

10 PS

12 TELE

14 TELE

12 PS

14 PS

5.625

5.625

SLOT 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200 250

5.2 9.6 13.4 16.7 19.6 22.2 20.6 23.8 26.7 31.5 35.1 41.8 46.1 49.1

5.2 9.6 13.4 16.7 19.6 22.2 20.6 23.8 26.7 31.5 35.1 41.8 46.1 49.1

5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200

7.7 14.3 20.0 25.0 29.4 33.3 30.8 35.7 40.0 47.1 52.6 62.5 69.0

7.7 14.3 20.0 25.0 29.4 33.3 30.8 35.7 40.0 47.1 52.6 62.5 69.0

ACTUAL DIAMETER (INCHES) 6.625 7.5 8.625 9.5 10.75 11.25 12.5 12.75 14 TRANSMITTING CAPACITY (gpm/ft) (ENTRANCE VELOCITY 0.1 fps) 4.2 4.7 5.4 6.0 6.8 7.1 6.1 6.2 6.8 7.9 8.9 10.2 11.3 12.8 13.4 11.6 11.8 13.0 11.2 12.7 14.7 16.1 18.3 19.1 16.8 17.1 18.8 14.3 16.2 18.6 20.5 23.2 24.3 21.5 22.0 24.1 17.1 19.3 22.2 24.5 27.7 29.0 26.0 26.5 29.1 19.7 22.3 25.6 28.2 31.9 33.4 23.8 24.2 26.6 24.2 27.4 31.6 34.7 39.3 41.1 30.0 30.6 33.6 28.1 31.8 36.6 40.3 45.6 47.7 35.6 36.3 39.9 31.5 35.6 41.0 45.1 43.0 45.0 40.8 41.6 45.7 37.1 41.9 48.2 53.1 51.6 54.0 49.9 50.9 55.9 41.4 46.8 53.9 59.3 58.6 61.3 57.6 38.8 66.5 44.1 49.9 57.4 63.2 71.5 74.8 72.3 73.7 81.0 49.6 56.1 64.5 71.1 71.4 74.7 83.0 84.6 92.9 53.4 60.5 69.6 76.6 78.2 81.9 91.0 92.8 101.9 PERCENT OPEN AREA 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 14.5 14.5 14.5 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 17.5 17.5 17.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 20.2 20.2 20.2 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 24.0 24.0 24.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 33.7 33.7 27.5 27.5 27.5 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 40.4 40.4 33.6 33.6 33.6 52.6 52.6 52.6 52.6 45.9 45.9 38.8 38.8 38.8 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 48.7 48.7 48.7 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 55.9 55.9 55.9 55.9 55.9

250

73.5

73.5

67.9

67.9

67.9

67.9

61.3

61.3

61.3

61.3

61.3

16 TELE

16 PS

14.25

16

6.9 13.2 19.1 24.5 29.6 27.1 34.2 40.6 46.5 56.8 65.6 82.4 94.6 103.2

5.9 11.5 16.5 24.3 26.0 30.2 38.4 45.6 52.3 63.8 73.4 92.5 106.2 116.5

4.1 7.8 11.3 14.5 17.5 16.0 20.2 24.0 27.5 33.6 38.8 48.7 55.9

3.1 6.0 8.7 11.2 13.7 16.0 20.2 24.0 27.5 33.6 38.8 48.7 55.9

61.3

61.3

Figure 1 – Example table of wire-wrap Well Screen Transmitting Capacities and percent open area. A second page, which includes other pipe/telescope sizes from 18- to 36-inch nominal diameters, is not included with this figure. *Notes: Data from personal records Circa 1970s. [PS (pipe size); TELE (telescope size); gpm/ft (gallons per minute per foot of screen); fps (entrance velocity in feet per second); and SLOT (thousandth of an inch aperture size, i.e., 5 slot = 0.005 inch)].

1. 11.25-in2 of perfs ÷ 144-in2/ft2 = 0.078 ft2/lineal ft of perfs; 2. 0.1 ft/sec as the recommended entrance velocity = 0.0078 ft3/sec; 3. 0.0078 ft3/sec × 60 sec/min × 7.4805 gallon/ft3 = 3.51 gpm/ft of perfs; and 4. To “efficiently” produce 100 gpm with this design; the perforated section would need to be ≈29 ft or 30 ft to accommodate the manufacturing and construction requirements.

Note that I generally round-up (in multiples of 5 ft) and, in some cases, may double the perforation length (60 ft) to ensure an adequate production of water.

To complete the calculations for this design and well: 1. Static (non-pumping) water level (SWL) for this well is ≈17 ft below the ground surface; 2. If appropriate from the geologic log, use 30 ft of perfs from 120 to 150 ft; 3. The available dd (ddavail) = 103 ft (depth to top of screen – SWL or 120 ft – 17 ft);

7

4. To accommodate any unknown water level changes (i.e., seasonal, other pumping well interferences, and decrease in well efficiency), 2/3-ddavail ≈103 ft × 2/3 or ≈69 ft for a planned yield of 100 gpm; 5. Therefore, a target Specific Capacity (SC) of ≈1.45 gpm/ft of dd (100 gpm ÷ 69 ft); 6. For a water table aquifer, the SC yields a Transmissivity (T) of ≈2,200 gpd/ft (Meinzer Units) (T = SC × 1,500 in Appendix 16.D, Page 1021 in Driscoll1).

7. T = hydraulic conductivity (K) times the aquifer thickness (b) which means that K would have to be at least ≈16.5 gpd/ft2 or greater to meet the planned well yield (using the full 133-ft thickness of the aquifer); 8. This K-value corresponds with a silty to clean sand (see Table 2.2, page 29 in Freeze and Cherry3).

If geologic samples are collected during the drilling of the well, then an estimate of the SC can be calculated by reversing the steps. The sieved geologic samples can be used to evaluate the appropriate aperture size of a wirewrap screen4,5.

Continues on next page 2022 Fall Issue

If the Client is planning to use wire-wrap screen (preferred), then the calculations are usually much simpler since the actual (and percent) open area of the screen and recommended yield/ft of screen are usually provided by the manufacturer in convenient tables (see Figure 1 from a 1970s data sheet). The wire-wrap screen can be constructed of steel, galvanized iron, stainless steel, and even PVC (structurally very weak). In addition, the manufacturer of wire-wrap screens can vary the dimensions of some of the construction parts (and materials) to accommodate various column and collapse stresses that may occur in shallow settings versus deep settings of the well screen.

These various construction materials include the surface profiles of the wire-wrap itself and support rods which can change the percent open area of the screen. For example, using a 40-slot (i.e., 0.040-in aperture size) screen with 8-in diameter stainless pipe size, the transmitting capacity (TC) can be read from tables provided by the manufacturer: 1. Screen settings ≤ 100 ft Standard Design, TC is 26.5 gpm/ft of screen; 2. Screen settings ≤ 100 ft High-flow Design, TC is 40.3 gpm/ft of screen; 3. Screen settings ≤ 1,000 ft Standard Design, TC is 22.2 gpm/ft of screen; and 4. Screen settings ≤ 1,000 ft High-Flow Design, TC is 36.8 gpm/ft of screen.

The TC can vary for this example from 26.5 to 40.3 gpm/ ft of screen depending upon specific well screen-design criteria and planned depth setting. Note again, that this TC is about one-order of magnitude larger than a perforation/ slot design (3.5 gpm/ft above), which means that the length of a wire-wrap screen for a comparable well design is significantly less than the length of the perforation design and allows for greater ddavail. In this example, at least in theory, one would only need ≈5 ft of wire-wrap screen, which is in contrast to 30 ft of perforations, to meet a 0.1 ft/ sec entrance velocity! More current manufacturers’ tables provide the actual open area of the screen in in2/ft; the TC is estimated by grouping the conversion factors together and multiplying the open or intake area (in in2/ft of screen) provided in the tables to arrive at the TC. (0.1 ft/sec × 60 sec/min × 7.4805 gal/ft3) ÷ 144 in2/ft2 = 0.31 gpm/in2

From the example of the perforation calculations: 11.25 in2/ ft of perfs × 0.31gpm/in2 = 3.49 gpm/ft of perfs = TC, which is comparable to the 3.51 gpm/ft from the actual calculation above. Installing too much screen can reduce the ddavail and reduce well yields, increase construction costs, and result in poor water quality from finer-grained stratigraphic layers included in the screened interval. Also, remember that for every foot of perforation or screen installed in a well; it should be thoroughly developed which is labor intensive and can be expensive.

References 1 Driscoll, Fletcher G. (editor), 1986, Groundwater and Wells (second edition), published by Johnson Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1,098 p.

2 Abbott, David W., Summer 2009, A missing link in the groundwater industry on well screen entrance velocities, published by the GRA of CA in HydroVisions as Wells and Words, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 12 and 13.

3 Freeze, R. Allan and John A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater, published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 p.

4 Abbott, David W., Fall 2008, Well screen aperture size selection for a naturally developed well, 40% (D40) retained or 60% passing rule, published by GRA of CA in HydroVisions, Vol. 17, no 3, pages 8 and 21.

5 Abbott, David W., Winter 2008, Well screen aperture size selection for an artificial filter packed well, 90% (D90) retained or 10% passing rule, published by the GRA of CA in HydroVisions, Vol. 17, no 4, pages 6 and 23.

David W. Abbott, P.G., C.Hg., Consulting Geologist, is a Geologist with 45+ years of applied experience in the exploration and development of groundwater supplies; well location services; installation and design of water supply wells; watershed studies; contamination investigations; geotechnical and groundwater problem solving; and protection of groundwater resources.

2022 Fall Issue

8

Demonstrating Effective Outreach in Action: GSA Summit Stakeholder Award

by Matt Pendleton, PG, CHg

G

RA recognizes the need for stakeholder engagement and the value built in partnership with local communities, which promotes the widest diversity of input and outreach. Building on GRA’s ongoing DE&I advancement efforts, the 2022 GSA Summit included a brand-new special awards event to highlight GSAs who prioritized and excelled in effective stakeholder outreach.

A call for nominations was issued for submissions to recognize GSAs who produced creative Stakeholder Outreach Plans with guiding criteria that included: • Stakeholder diversity / size of stakeholder groups targeted • Integration into SGMA decision-making process • Significance of issues addressed • Demonstrable impact from outreach • Creativity of outreach methods • Innovative approaches • Integration of technical, socio-economic factors Five GSAs were selected and invited by GRA to submit short videos highlighting their accomplishments in effective stakeholder outreach. The videos were shown during the lunch-time awards event and GSA Summit attendees were given an opportunity to vote for their top nomination, using the guiding criteria above. All five nominees are listed

9

below, and their submission videos can be watched here.

• Greater Kaweah GSA • East Turlock Subbasin GSA & West Turlock Subbasin GSA • North Kings GSA • Salinas Valley Basin GSA • Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency GSA Stakeholder Award Winner: Key Stakeholder Plan Components The winner of the GSA Summit Stakeholder Award was the East Turlock Subbasin & West Turlock Subbasin GSAs! The Turlock Subbasin GSA’s Stakeholder Outreach Plan featured a multitude of creative components, including virtual office hours for easy information access, graphicsheavy videos in multiple languages, live translation services for select events, and diverse meeting locations with a focus on disadvantaged communities. Their plan also included direct input from the environmental justice community, disadvantaged communities, adjacent subbasins, and tribal interests. Most importantly, this input was described

by Michael Cooke, the Director of Water Resources and Regulatory Affairs for Turlock Irrigation District, as having “weighed heavily into the process to develop the GSP.” Continues on next page

2022 Fall Issue

Throughout implementation of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, the Turlock Subbasin GSAs continued to review the plan’s effectiveness and update their outreach approach asneeded with expanded engagement, expanded translations, staggering the release of GSP chapters, and providing informational PowerPoints prior to meetings to allow sufficient time for review and understanding. The GSAs also designed and participated in a 16-week Water Leadership Institute for local stakeholders, in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation.

Although the scoring was tight, and all nominees demonstrated impressive stakeholder engagement, it is clear why the GSA attendees chose to recognize the Turlock Subbasin GSAs as the 2022 Stakeholder Award Winners. The example set by the Turlock Subbasin GSAs goes above and beyond the requirements for GSP completion and clearly demonstrates a high value placed on effective engagement.

2022 Fall Issue

10

Greater Kaweah GSA & Kings River Conservation District Collaboration with a local NGO, Self-Help Enterprises, for expertise in reaching Spanish speaking landowners

North Kings GSA Worked directly with local residents and growers during implementation of SGMA

Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency GSA Held 23 teleconference meetings over 12 months with translation services and utilizing multi-media, such as video resources

Salinas Valley Basin GSA Developed a directed singular effort to engage with disadvantaged and underrepresented communities and determined that education about groundwater is a major next step

Mr. Matt Pendleton, PG, CHg, is a PhD student in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Waterloo and was recently an environmental consultant at EKI Environment & Water, Inc. As a consultant, Matt specialized in environmental site investigation and construction stormwater compliance.

He has supported development of corrective actions and regulatory negotiation for developers facing enforcement proceedings and penalties. Matt is a committee member of GRA’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee and is the Vice President of GRA’s Southern California Branch.

11

2022 Fall Issue

Drought Conditions and Impacts in the Western United States – Part IV

by Azita Asadi, Pete Dennehy, Juliet McKenna, Abhishek Singh

T

he summer of 2022 brought dryer than average conditions to much of the United States, with more than 50% of the country experiencing abnormally dry to exceptional drought conditions at the time of publication. A second year of La Niña brought heavy precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, leading to flooding in several areas including the Yellowstone National Park, while simultaneously exacerbating dry conditions in the southwest. As such, drought conditions were alleviated in the northwest from Washington to Montana, but continued to be particularly dire from Oregon southwest to Texas. As of August 2022, more than 50% of the Western United States was experiencing severe to exceptional drought conditions, with almost 30% in extreme to exceptional drought (Figure 1). Much of Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico remained in severe to exceptional drought.

The Colorado River flows continued declining towards critical levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead (Figure 2) – the nation’s largest water supply reservoirs. The levels are now perilously close to “dead pool status”, at which point

2022 Fall Issue

downstream flows for hydroelectric generation could be disrupted, posing a risk to power sources for millions of people as well as water supply. In California, as we head into the hottest, driest months of year, Lake Shasta and Lake Oroville reservoirs were approximately 40% of capacity, prompting increased supply cutbacks and conservation measures. As of June, urban water usage was down by 7.6%, but that was only half of the 15% conservation target set by Governor Newsom. The La Niña conditions seem likely to continue through the remainder of 20221 and if the winter of 2022/2023 is dry, then the drought could pose unprecedented water supply challenges across the southwest.

The previous three articles in this series on the Western Drought reported on evolving drought conditions in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. This fourth article discusses the state of the drought in New Mexico and Arizona.

12

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1 - Comparison of Drought Conditions in the Western United States between May 17, 2022, and August 2, 2022 (taken from https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/CompareTwoWeeks.aspx ) Figure 2 - Figure 2: Water Levels from 2000 to 2022 in Lake Mead (NASA Earth Observatory)

Continues on next page

13

2022 Fall Issue

Figure 3: Drought Conditions in New Mexico

New Mexico Drought is no stranger to New Mexico (NM). According to the US Drought Monitor report released on July 19, 2022, about 33% of the state was in extreme drought and 11% in exceptional drought (Figure 3).

According to the NM Environment Department, about 78% of NM’s water usage is from groundwater sources. The Rio Grande River is the major watershed traversing the length of NM with headwaters in the San Juan mountains of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains and passing through Texas, flowing to the US-Mexico border. The river supplies water to 6 million people and over 2 million acres of land. After three consecutive years of extreme drought conditions, snowpack decreased significantly by 58 percent of normal last year. During 2022, multiple dangerous heat records above 100-degrees shocked southwest NM. The recent rising temperatures and continuing megadrought has significantly affected the Rio Grande river and dependent ecosystems, lowering flows to critical levels. According to a Washington Post article, a portion of the river ran dry in Albuquerque in 2022 for the first time in 40 years. The lack of rain and snowpack has led to a higher reliance on groundwater during the drought. Due to the intrinsic linkage between surface water and groundwater and the importance of groundwater as a “drought reserve”, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) recently adopted a 100-year Water Plan to manage both resources sustainably.

According to the Office of the State Engineer, the NM Drought Plan provides for a drought response system to

2022 Fall Issue

mitigate the impacts and adapt to the changing conditions as drought progresses. As part of the recent efforts, NM has focused on reducing groundwater overdraft by incentivizing farmers to voluntarily fallow their lands to facilitate recharge to the aquifer connected to the Rio Grande River. The state’s long-term efforts also include groundwater discharge permits and the reuse of treated wastewater to supplement groundwater supply. Finally, the state is drafting a 50-year water plan to define strategies for making New Mexico’s limited water supplies sustainable and resilient in the face of climate change.

Arizona Arizona’s water supplies are in perilous condition due to the worst drought in the Colorado River watershed in the last 1,200 years. As of August 2022, 20% of the state, primarily in the northwest, is in extreme or exceptional drought with the rest in moderate to severe drought. Conditions have improved since this time last year when 90% of the state was in extreme drought and nearly 60% was in exceptional drought3, though conditions were still warmer and drier than “normal” in 2022.

Arizona’s water supply is currently comprised of approximately 54% surface water, 41% groundwater, and 5% reclaimed water. Most of the surface water is from the Colorado River, but other in-state rivers also provide supply (Figure 4). With Colorado River water availability declining in this period of prolonged drought, an increased dependence on groundwater supplies is expected.

14

Figure 4. Arizona 2019 Water Supply by Source

Water providers have responded to prolonged drought and declining Colorado River supplies by focusing on improved water management. Since 2007 when the Arizona governor first declared a statewide drought, all community water systems are required to prepare Drought Preparedness Plans, which must be updated every 5 years. Triggers are established in plans to define when action is required. While each plan is unique, Stage 1 responses are typically increased public awareness campaigns and voluntary water conservation actions.

Water providers typically align their plan’s triggers with their individualized water portfolio. In recent years, cities with access to Colorado River water, through the Central Arizona Project, are updating their drought stages to reflect the shortage tiers on the Colorado River. The Colorado River is in a Tier 1 shortage for the first time in 2022 and many municipalities in the Phoenix area and Tucson have responded by declaring Stage 1 droughts.,, Communities that are more heavily dependent on pumping local groundwater also typically incorporate groundwater levels as a drought trigger. For example, a Stage 1 drought is triggered in the City of Surprise, located northwest of Phoenix, when groundwater levels in a production zone monitoring well decline by more than 4 feet from the prior water year.

Increasingly, Arizona continues to focus on protecting its supplies and looking to develop alternative resources to support communities and agriculture. In July 2022, in response to prolonged and worsening drought conditions, Arizona passed a law that will provide up to $1.2 billion to develop new water supplies, implement groundwater recharge projects, improve agricultural efficiency, and increase urban conservation. The law also requires the state Department of Water Resources to complete a water supply and demand assessment for each of the 46 basins every 5 years.

References: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml#:~:text=Synopsis%3A%20La%20 Ni%C3%B1a%20is%20favored,62%2D66%25%20chance). https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?NM https://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=1112116224&mc_ cid=9d1abf5d57&mc_eid=3ad66b4bd0 https://new.azwater.gov/drought/drought-status https://new.azwater.gov/news/articles/2022-02-06 https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

Azita Assadi, P. Geo. (Canada) is a technical committee member at the GRAC. She is a Hydrogeologist with over 20 years of consulting experience in water resources and soil/groundwater management in the US, Canada, and internationally. She is currently working as a Geologist at ATLAS, Los Angeles in the field of subsurface investigation and water resources management.

Pete Dennehy, PG, CHg, is a hydrogeologist at Montgomery and Associates in Sacramento. He specializes in hydrogeologic investigations for sustainable groundwater resources management and water supply.

15

https://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/drought-preparedness https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/news/scottsdale-declares-stage-1-of-itsdrought-management-plan https://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/drought-preparedness https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/arizonacities-may-get-less-colorado-river-water/75-e820be42-078c-486d-a70f5f29b9b14587 https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/local/water-wars/duceysigns-12b-water-plan-as-arizona-faces-cutbacks/75-2ba09f18-57f8-46559e70-07c069bbe2f6

Dr. Abhishek Singh is a Principal Engineer with more than 20 years of experience and is President of INTERA’s Water Resources & Supply Line of Business (LoB), where he leads and manages operations, business development, strategic planning for the lob across the United States. He has authored several technical publications and journal articles on groundwater modeling and calibration, stochastic optimization techniques, uncertainty and risk analysis, climate change, and emerging contaminants. Dr. Singh is also the chair of the GRA technical committee and serves on the GRA board of directors.

Juliet McKenna, PG is a hydrogeologist and water planning consultant with Montgomery & Associates, a water resources consulting firm headquartered in Tucson with offices throughout California.

2022 Fall Issue

GRA at the 2022 CIE AAEOY Technical Forum

by Moises Santillan, MPA, President of the Southern California Branch

G

RA was invited to speak and promote our mission at the 2022 Asian American Engineer of the Year Award (AAEOY ) Technical Forum, hosted by the Chinese Institute of Engineers (CIE) in Los Angeles on August 6, 2022. Founded in 1917, CIE is a non-profit professional organization of Chinese-American engineers, scientists and other professionals. The objectives of CIE are to promote Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics (STEM) in all communities and provide recognitions to the Asian American professionals at the national level through flagship platforms such as AAEOY. AAEOY is an annual event that recognizes and honors outstanding Asian American professionals in Science and Engineering for their technical achievements, leadership, and public services.

GRA Southern California Branch President Moises Santillan and Technical Advisor Dr. Hiroko Hort represented GRA by speaking at the forum’s Environmental Resources technical symposium.

Mr. Santillan spoke about GRA’s role in promoting groundwater awareness and enhancing resource sustainability within the technical community and the public at large. He also spoke about the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and its Water Independence Now (WIN) program, which recently resulted in a locally sustainable water supply for groundwater replenishment. Dr. Hort spoke on GSI Environmental Inc.’s interactive data visualization tool for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a web application that assists professionals with PFAS data analysis.

GRA would like to thank CIE and the AAEOY committee for the opportunity to participate at the forum. We look forward to future events where groundwater sustainability awareness can be promoted to a diverse audience of technical professionals.

2022 Fall Issue

16

“

We look forward to future events where groundwater sustainability awareness can be promoted to a diverse audience of technical professionals.

17

2022 Fall Issue

GeoH2OMysteryPix

by Chris Bonds, Secretary of the Sacramento Branch

GeoH2OMysteryPix is a fun, new addition to HydroVisions. The idea is simple; I share a question or two, some cool supporting geology and/or water resources photo(s) along with a hint, and readers email their guesses to me.

In a future issue of HydroVisions, I will share the correct answers along with some background / historical information about the photos and acknowledge the first person(s) to email in the correct answer(s).

GRA looks forward to your participation with this new, interactive section called GeoH2OMysteryPix. What is This? Where is it Located?

Hint: It is not a Cold War military facility.

Think you know what this is and where it is located? Email your guesses to Chris Bonds at goldbondwater@gmail.com

2022 Fall Issue

18

WAT E R B A N K I N G

D

uring times of emergency, leading to water supply disruptions, water banking projects provide important tools to augment supplies and safeguard customers from water shortages.

th ANNIVERSARY

This is accomplished by capturing low-cost water for recharge and underground storage during wet periods and recovering this water for later use during dry periods or emergencies.

Irvine Ranch Water District’s water banking project, located in Kern County California, was established in partnership with the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. This project is engineered to provide enough water to replace IRWD’s imported water supplies during an emergency lasting up to 3 years.

For more information visit IRWD.com/water-banking

19

2022 Fall Issue

PFAS - Emerging Treatment Technologies

by Meeta Pannu, Robert Wilhelm, Roohi Toosi, Raghavendra Suribhatla, Jim Strandberg

Introduction

I

n previous issues of HydroVisions, GRA’s voluntary technical experts introduced PFAS and its growing concern due to links to cancer and other health issues and provided drinking water regulatory updates to address these “forever chemicals.” We also evaluated commercially available treatment technologies for PFAS removal from water, such as Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), Ion-Exchange (IX) resins, and Reverse Osmosis (RO), and provided case studies of pilot programs that utilized GAC and IX as remediation tools. Since 2016, regulatory agencies have established several limits, but none are currently enforceable, including notification levels, response levels, public health goals (PHG), and health advisories. On June 15, 2022, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) decreased the Interim Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS (two of the most studied PFAS) from 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) (combined PFOA+PFOS), to 0.004 ng/L for PFOA and 0.02 ng/L for PFOS. USEPA also established new limits for PFBS at 2,000 ng/L and 10 ng/L for “GenX Chemicals.” USEPA plans to publish a Proposed Rule to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS in late 2022 and the Final Rule in late 2023.

Source: CA/NV AWWA Regulatory Committee, July 2022.

2022 Fall Issue

20

These extremely low values reflect the growing concern about these chemicals and echoes the need for advanced and novel technologies that could effectively and economically remove PFAS from drinking water sources. In this article, we will discuss emerging technologies for PFAS remediation and destruction.

In a recent SERDP-funded research study conducted by Texas A&M University (3), PFOS and PFOA concentrations in soils from a USDOD site decreased by >99.99% and >98.6%, respectively. At the same treatment dose, the PFOS and PFOA concentrations in groundwater from another DOD site decreased by 88% and 53.7%, respectively.

Shorter chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) Emerging Technologies and shorter and longer chain perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids Emerging PFAS treatment technologies are largely targeted (PFSAs) also decreased significantly with increasing eBeam at the destruction of the PFAS bonds as compared to just reenergy or dose. Researchers are continuing to optimize moval via adsorption (e.g., GAC, IX, and foam-fractionation). treatment conditions, demonstrate scalability, and refine the treatability economics.

Destructive technologies require higher energy and capital costs to implement but provide a means to mitigate more Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment concentrated waste streams such as those typically found in groundwater impacted by Aqueous Film Forming Foam The Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT) process in(AFFF), landfill leachate, and point PFAS source areas. Many volves heating and the compression of water at near-critical of these technologies are still being assessed for technology temperature and pressure (350 °C, 165 bar) and amending with sodium hydroxide. The reaction involves nucleophilic readiness, but a few promising ones are described below. substitution of OH− for F− (or Cl−) in hydrothermal waSonolysis ter and the instability of the resulting highly hydroxylated Sonolysis or sonochemical degradation of PFAS is driven by compounds leads to C−C bond cleavage within the resulting ultrasonic cavitation in liquids that results in pyrolysis and compounds to form CO2. Greater than 99% reduction in mineralization of reactive species. Sonolysis consists of ap- total measured PFAS after two hours of residence time has plying very high temperatures been reported and the technology appears well suited for (4727 oC) and very high pressures (~1,000 bar) over short AFFF-impacted sites (4). Aquagga Inc., a for-profit public bendurations (nanoseconds). These extreme conditions conefit corporation, has developed and deployed HALT system tribute to the formation of reactive species such as hydroxyl units at AFFF training areas and has demonstrated effective destruction of all short- and long-chain PFAS compounds (5). radicals, hydroperoxyl radicals, and solvated electrons that can mineralize PFAS. When compared to other destrucSupercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) tive technologies, sonolysis is the only treatment that fully mineralizes PFAS, degrades different PFAS in order of SCWO is a process that occurs in water at temperatures above 373°C and pressures above 221 bar, creating a decreasing hydrophobicity, and has low-moderate energy (1) supercritical fluid that exists as neither a liquid nor a gas. requirements . Sonolysis of PFAS has been demonstrated This condition can be used to effectively destroy PFAS to be effective (~99% degradation of PFOA) across a wide at reaction speeds within seconds. As a bonus, the excess concentration range, can be used with chemical additives heat produced by the exothermic reaction can be used to enhance the destruction process, and can be applied in (2) to generate electricity, and the process produces clean combination with conventional treatment methods . emissions, free of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and Electron Beam (eBeam) nitrogen dioxide. Research and implementation of SCWO eBeam is a technology that uses compact accelerators capa- is ongoing, and the technology is being commercialized by Battelle with their PFAS ANNIHILATOR™ technology to ble of generating extremely large numbers of high energy electrons to destroy PFAS. The electrons interact with water, destroy PFAS in contaminated wastewater, landfill leachate, and AFFF (6). producing free radicals, hydrogen atoms, and highly reactive aqueous electrons. High-energy eBeam technology has Continues on next page been successfully used for water treatment (e.g., pathogen removal from municipal wastes) and can also treat PFAS in aqueous solutions and solid matrices.

21

2022 Fall Issue

Electrochemical Oxidation (EO) Electrochemical oxidation (EO) is another promising treatment technology to destroy PFAS in concentrated waste streams. EO uses high current densities (electricity applied across an anode and cathode) to oxidize the highly stable carbon-fluorine bonds of PFAS chains, producing carbon dioxide and fluoride. Limitations of EO include the potential generation of toxic byproducts, incomplete destruction of some PFAS, efficiency losses due to mineral build up on the anode, high cost of electrodes, and potential volatilization of contaminants (7). Aclarity, a venture-backed company, has developed and commercialized a proprietary EO water treatment technology for the destruction of PFAS in landfill leachate, AFFF, IX brine, and RO concentrate (8).

Low-temperature Mineralization Low-temperature mineralization was discovered to be highly effective in recent research. The process uses sodiumhydroxide-mediated decarboxylation and defluorination pathway to degrade PFCAs. Researchers showed that a combination of sodium hydroxide, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at a temperature of ~100 0C for 24 hours mineralized PFOA (9). They hypothesize that DMSO makes the head fragile by altering the electric field around the PFAS molecule, and without the head, the C-F bond becomes weak and can be easily broken without using very high temperatures.

Adsorption-based Products In contrast to the destructive technologies described above, some adsorption-based products may be commercially available but can be called emerging in the drinking water market. Colloidal activated carbon (CAC) consists of 2-micron particles (colloidal) in aqueous suspension. CAC is an adsorption-based in-situ technology for removing PFAS. CAC particles are released directly into the aquifer via gravity feed or low-pressure injection, where they attach to the aquifer matrix and act as passive sorbents. The small size of CAC has been shown to sorb PFAS faster than GAC (10) . CAC has been commercially available as PlumeStop® (REGENESIS®) and has been deployed at several sites.

2022 Fall Issue

Non-carbon and non-IX sorbents have also shown promise for the removal of PFAS in groundwater and continue to be tested for field performance. Examples include CETCO’s FLUOROSORB® (Bentonite clay based), Cyclopure’s DEXSORB+® (Cyclodextrin polymer based), ABS Material’s PolyQA-Osorb® and AquaBlok’s AquaGate+Rembind® (Kaolinite clay, activated carbon and aluminum hydroxide

Conclusions Rapidly evolving regulatory cleanup criteria is driving innovative research and commercialization efforts to treat and destroy PFAS. Although some products/technologies are commercially available and some are only successful in research settings, the application and performance of these technologies is expected to be site-specific and tailored to the nature of the PFAS waste stream. Additionally, not every technology is suitable for every application (e.g., drinking water, municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater, contaminated groundwater, etc.). Ultimately, advancements will continue to provide scalable, workable, and economical solutions for the various waste-streams and environmental media contaminated with PFAS. References: Sonolysis of per- and poly fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A metaanalysis - PubMed (nih.gov) Kinetics and Mechanism of the Sonolytic Conversion of the Aqueous Perfluorinated Surfactants, Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) into Inorganic Products | The Journal of Physical Chemistry A (acs.org) 2021 Annual Report | Electron Beam Technology for Destruction of Short-Chain and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater, Wastewater, Sewage Sludges, and Soils | Research Project Database | Grantee Research Project | ORD | US EPA Application of Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment for Destruction of Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Contaminated Groundwater and Soil | Environmental Science & Technology (acs.org) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001974 PFAS ANNIHILATOR™ Destruction Technology | Battelle Product Solution Research Brief on Potential PFAS Destruction Technology: Electrochemical Oxidation | US EPA Aclarity Inc. (aclaritywater.com) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8868 https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/

22

Manmeet “Meeta” Pannu, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist in the Research and Development (R&D) Department of Orange County Water District (OCWD) at Anaheim, CA. Meeta is currently completing research at OCWD related to PFAS. These projects include evaluation of GAC, IX, and alternative adsorbents to remove PFAS from groundwater during wellhead treatment and managed aquifer recharge via insitu adsorption and alternative methods to measure total PFAS in water samples.

Rob Wilhelm, PG Senior Hydrogeologist and Key-Client Manager with Tetra Tech has specialized in the investigation and remediation of complex contaminated sites, including PFAS contamination, throughout the US for 30+ years.

He understands the intricacies and implications of the remediation life cycle and has supported numerous groundwater remediation projects involving a myriad of treatment technologies for both water supply and wastewater disposal, including extensive operation, maintenance, and monitoring programs.

Roohi Toosi, PE is the Director of Engineering at A-Tech Consulting and provides high-level consulting for his clients’ environmental and hydrogeological issues. His background in petroleum engineering has equipped him with a broader knowledge of porous media and tools to solve subsurface complex issues. Over the course of his career, Mr. Toosi has conducted and managed projects for large utilities, school districts, municipalities, private developers, farmers, water districts, and large consulting firms. As an active member of California’s Groundwater Resources Association, he stays up to date on industry’s ongoing challenges such as SGMA and PFAS and follows closely ongoing regulatory efforts in addressing these issues.

Raghavendra (Raghu) Suribhatla, PhD, PE is a Senior Engineer and Technical Services Manager for INTERA’s California projects. He serves as modeling manager for water resources and recycled water projects in Southern California, and is the lead engineer for preparation of regulatory reports for seawater barrier projects in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Jim Strandberg is a Senior Hydrogeologist/ Project Manager at Woodard & Curran in Walnut Creek, CA. Jim is a member of the firm’s national emerging contaminants team and leads PFAS projects across the state.

23

2022 Fall Issue

The Fifth Annual GSA Summit:

A Celebration and Look Ahead at Groundwater Sustainability in California

by Abhishek Singh, PhD, PE, Samantha Adams, Anona Dutton, PG, CHg, Abby Ostovar, PhD, Marina Deligiannis, Marcus Trotta, PG, CHg, John Woodling, PG, CHg, CEG

2022 represents a milestone year for the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) completed its evaluations of the 2020 groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), with several GSPs being approved but many more (most in the Central Valley) being found “incomplete”. Moreover, the remaining 73 High and Medium Priority Basins submitted their GSPs to DWR. All this occurred in the midst of yet another historic drought, with unprecedented shortages in surface water supplies, leading to more reliance on groundwater and increasing impacts on groundwater basins. Given 2022’s significance in SGMA implementation, GRA’s fifth annual Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Summit was as much a celebration for all the achievements under SGMA as a sobering “reckoning with the road ahead” in SGMA implementation.

This year, the GSA Summit was held back-to-back with GRA’s Groundwater Law and Legislation Forum. The two events were held at the elegant Sterling Hotel on June 8th and 9th, and brought together nearly 100 participants, panelists, speakers, and organizers in Downtown Sacramento.

2022 Summer Issue

24

The GRA Law and Legislative Forum was kickstarted

by Adel Hagekhalil, the General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, who gave a rousing keynote on the importance of the “One Water” concept to achieving sustainability in California.

He emphasized regional and collaborative solutions, which provide multiple benefits to stakeholders and the environment. The rest of the Law and Legislation Forum included panels, talks, and discussions on the most current legal and legislative issues affecting California groundwater. These included an “Insiders” Panel on upcoming state and federal PFAS legislation and regulations; an overview of pending groundwater legislation of interest, especially AB 2201 that would require GSAs to establish a permitting process for groundwater extraction facilities; state funding update with a focus on the $68-billion State Surplus; and an engaging lunch talk by Joaquin Esquivel, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.

The GSA Summit opened with a keynote given by Nancy Vogel, Deputy Secretary for Water. Ms. Vogel, who joined the event virtually, spoke about the implementation of the Water Resilience Portfolio, the state’s drought response, and the intersection of these efforts with SGMA implementation. She provided an update on the billions of dollars the state is spending and plans to spend on drought and conservation measures, water resilience initiatives, and the water storage projects, among others.

Ms. Vogel talked about how the drought felt different this year, with climate change making things hotter and dryer.

However, she emphasized the progress the State has made, especially in terms of SGMA implementation, and importance of GSAs and GRA leading the transformation towards a more resilient and sustainable future for the State.

The first session asked the question, “Where is the Bar?”, presenting a variety of perspectives on the DWR determinations for GSPs from the Critically Overdrafted Basins. Moderator Anona Dutton (EKI Environment & Water, Inc) presented an overview of the GSP determinations to date, emphasizing the fact that no basins with multiple GSPs have been approved. Valerie Kincaid (O'Laughlin and Paris) similarly remarked on this issue and raised the interesting question as to what the role of GSAs would be if basins move into probationary status.

Samantha Arthur (National Audubon Society) provided an overview on the Groundwater Leadership Forum’s review of the DWR determinations, particularly with respect to issues related to climate change, disadvantaged communities, and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Matt Hurley and Eric Osterling (McCullin Area GSA and Greater Kaweah GSA, respectively) presented the perspectives of their GSAs that were working hard to revise their GSPs in response to DWR’s determinations and achieve sustainability through the implementation of projects and management actions. Trevor Joseph (City of Roseville) offered the perspective of a GSA who had just submitted their GSP, having tried to proactively address issues based on DWR’s review of the 2020 GSPs.

Continues on next page

25

2022 Summer Issue

The second session, “Turning Vision into Action”, brought together panelists to share their differing approaches in implementing projects and management actions to move toward groundwater sustainability. Panelists included Kassy Chauhan (North Kings GSA), Aaron Fukuda (Tulare Irrigation District, Mid-Kaweah GSA), Bryce McAteer (WestWater Research, LLC), and Donna Meyers (Salinas Valley Basin GSA), who discussed their different approaches to tackling funding challenges. Kelley List (DWR) shared DWR’s role in funding many SGMA projects and data collection efforts. The panel also discussed challenges – navigating funding requirements and their goals, tackling new regulatory and management issues, working with very diverse stakeholders, coordinating with other GSAs, and inability to advocate for more funding from the legislature.

Stakeholder engagement was a theme throughout the panel, not just with regard to the challenge of local politics, but also in fostering proactive movement toward implementation. As such, it was fitting that the panel was followed by a luncheon and the first GSA Summit Stakeholder Outreach Award. The Award featured short videos submitted by GSAs on their Stakeholder Engagement Plans, which were scored and voted on live by conference attendees. A total of five GSAs – Greater Kaweah GSA, East and West Turlock GSAs, North Kings GSA, Salinas Valley GSA, and Pajaro Valley GSA – submitted engaging and entertaining video clips, focusing on stakeholder diversity, integration into the SGMA process, sustainability impacts from outreach, and innovative and creative approaches to outreach and engagement. In a close vote, the East and West Turlock GSAs were elected as the first recipient of the GSA Summit Stakeholder Award.

The afternoon panel, moderated by Marcus Trotta (Sonoma Water), focused on steps being taken in different basins to “Fill Those Data Gaps”. The panel included Lee Bergfeld (MBK Engineers) who discussed data gaps and approaches for addressing the depletion of interconnected surface water, Sierra Ryan (Santa Cruz County) who discussed planning for development of a non-de minimis metering program to better quantify groundwater extractions, James Fisher (Tulare Irrigation District, Mid-Kaweah GSA) who discussed the use of remote sensing to estimate groundwater extraction, and Trey Driscoll (INTERA Incorporated) who discussed approaches to address data gaps in an adjudicated basin. Their presentations fostered robust discussion around considerations and implementation details around various methods for quantifying groundwater extraction.

The Summit’s final panel was an open Question & Answer session with DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and was moderated by John Wooding (GEI Consultants). The panel featured Paul Gosselin, DWR Deputy Director and Anthony Wohletz, SWRCB Senior Engineering Geologist, who shared their candid insights into the status of SGMA implementation. Deputy Director Gosselin stated that the GSAs are getting close to “the end of the beginning” and should not get too caught up in the finality of the plans and review comments, instead focusing on closing data gaps and moving towards implementing sustainability. Mr. Wohletz concurred with this advice, saying that relative to where we are supposed to be, we are in pretty good shape. That said, their insights made apparent there is still much work to do. A keen observation was that amidst the current drought, it is clear that “reality is unfolding faster than SGMA imagined”. Moreover, they warned that, while transitioning to sustainability over the 20-year implementation period (socalled “glide path to sustainability”) is an acceptable approach, it is prudent to look hard at the current drought conditions and consider advancing demand management and contingency planning. Ultimately, both panelists expressed optimism that many, if not most, of the issues leading to the incomplete determination of GSPs will be cleared in the resubmission (due in late July 2022) and emphasized the goal to return management to Basin stakeholders once the deficiencies in the GSPs have been addressed.

The GRA Law and Legislation Forum and the GSA Summit wrapped up two exciting and interactive days packed with legal, policy, and implementation insights on all things Groundwater in California. The organizers wish to thank all attendees, organizers, and sponsors. Through these timely, well-attended, informative, and engaging events, GRA continued to further its mission of “Sustainable Groundwater for All”.

2022 Summer Issue

26

LA W

ISLATION

FO

M RU

2022

&

LEG

JUNE 8

ru

m

la tiv

e a n d P olic y

sda

Fo

, y, J u n e 8

•

gis

ne

2

2

Le

ed

W

M

A

SU HA NNUAL GSA

•

E

FT

M

IT

TH

FI

2022

20

THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS & EXHIBITORS!

GHAWATER

Gordon Hess & Associates, Inc. Ghess@GHAWater.com

Roscoe Moss Company

27

2022 Summer Issue

Toxic Terra Part 8*

by William E. (Bill) Motzer

Introduction

Fluoride Mineral Sources & Solubility

n Part 7 (Summer 2022 HydroVisions), I discussed the toxic effects of environmental fluoride (F–), particularly fluoride in groundwater. Worldwide, perhaps more than 200 million people rely on drinking water containing fluoride concentrations exceeding the present World Health Organization (WHO) guideline of 1.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), or parts per million (ppm) (Fawell, et al., 2006).

Most fluoride-contaminated groundwater originates from natural (geogenic) sources, generally from weathering of rocks rich in fluoride minerals such as fluorite (see below).

Groundwater with high fluoride concentrations occurs in marine sediments and rocks but also in mountainous terrains containing volcanics, granite, similar intrusive rocks, and their derived alluvium. Geothermal areas also have groundwater with high fluoride concentrations because fluoride-containing mineral dissolution generally increases in groundwater temperature and decreases in pH.

Most of the Earth’s elemental fluorine (Fo) is concentrated in its mantle (67%), and 30% in its crust; where it substitutes for hydroxy (OH–) molecules hydroxyl minerals such as amphibole, apatite, biotite, and muscovite. The remaining 3% is concentrated in marine sediments and sedimentary rocks (Clay and Sumino, 2022).

I

Worldwide known fluoride belts (Figure 1) include those in the Mideast – westward from Jordan, Syria through Egypt, Libya, and Algeria, and eastward into Turkey through Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan; in eastern Africa: Sudan and Kenya, and in the far east: India, northern Thailand and China.

Similar fluoride-rich belts are also found in the western U.S and Japan.

2022 Fall Issue

Volcanic rocks and ash may be enriched in fluoride because gaseous hydrogen fluoride (HF) is emitted during eruptions. HF is very soluble in magma, reaching the surface during an eruption as particulate fluoride that is solubilized during rainfall. Therefore, it’s easily leached to groundwater. In 2010, ash from the Hekla, Iceland volcanic eruption contained 23 mg/kg to 35 mg/kg fluoride. Volcanic areas in Kenya have also contributed to groundwater fluoride contamination (Brindha and Elango, 2011).

Granitic rocks contain a relative abundance of fluoride-rich minerals such as amphiboles, apatite, and micas. Fluorite (CaF2) is the principal fluoride mineral, mostly present as an accessory mineral in low temperature (hydrothermal) vein deposits, sedimentary rocks, and as a primary trace mineral in granite. Dissolution of such minerals in granite constitutes a major fluoride source in groundwater, and granite has the highest fluoride concentrations of any rock type, ranging between 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg or ppm) and 1,400 mg/kg, averaging 810 mg/kg.

28

Figure 1: Known fluoride belts with groundwater fluoride concentrations exceeding 1.5 mg/L.

Granite weathering typically results in increased groundwater fluoride concentrations, particularly in derived alluvial sediments. Longer residence times in aquifers with fractured fluoride-rich rocks may also increase groundwater fluoride levels. For example, Pakistan granite and clays derived from granite terrain have average fluoride concentrations of 1,939 mg/kg and 710 mg/kg, respectively. In Nalgonda, India, granite and granitic gneiss contain fluorite (ranging to 3.3%), biotite (0.1% to 1.7%) and hornblende (0.1% to 1.1%). Additional studies from the same area reported that the rocks contain 460 mg/kg to 1,706 mg/kg fluorite. Laboratory studies show that leaching of fluoride from such granites contributed 6 mg/L to 10 mg/L of fluoride to water. Elevated groundwater fluoride concentrations also result from evapotranspiration, which can trigger calcite precipitation resulting in a reduction in calcium ion activity. Relatively high fluoride concentrations have been found in some deeply circulating groundwater along fault lines. Geothermal and volcanic areas also contain high fluoride in groundwater because CaF2 solubility is also pH and temperature dependent.

I’ll address those particular geochemical issues in my next article on this topic.

There are currently 441 known fluoride-containing minerals (Webminerals, 2022), including common rock-forming or accessory minerals such as apatite, fluorite or fluorspar (the principal fluoride mineral), phlogopite or fluormica, and biotite (Table 1). Under normal or standard pressure and temperature (~1 bar and 25 oC), cryolite and fluorite are considered to be insoluble in water. But even with a solubility product (Ksp) of 4.0 x 10–11, fluorite will have a calculated solubility of about 17 mg/L. However, under alkaline conditions and specific or electrical conductivities (EC) ranging between 750 and 1,750 microSiemans per centimeter (μS/cm), fluoride mineral dissolution rates significantly increase. On a standard Eh – pH (redox) diagram, fluoride occurs as a single monovalent anion (F–) at all Eh – pH ranges.

Continues on next page

* Note: This article is an update of an earlier version by Motzer (2016).

29

2022 Fall Issue

Table 1: Some Fluoride-containing Minerals

Mineral Name

Formula

Found in

% F

Apatite

Ca5(PO4)3(OH,F,Cl)

Granite, gneiss

1.2

Biotite

K(MgFe2+3AlSi3O10OH,F)2

Granite, gneiss

1.1

Cryolite

Na3AlF6

Igneous rocks; aluminum ore deposits

54

Fluorite

CaF2

Low temperature vein deposits, sedimentary rocks, granite

49

Phlogopite

KMg3Si3AlO10(F,OH)2

Metamorphic limestones and dolomites, ultramafic igneous rocks

4.5

Sellaite

MgF2

Sedimentary rocks; dolomite

61

Source: Webminerals (2022).

References: Brindha, K. and Elango, L., 2011, Fluoride in Groundwater, Causes, Implications and Mitigation Measures, in S.D. Monroy (editor), Fluoride Properties, Applications and Environmental Management: Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, pp. 111-136 British Geological Survey, 2022, Fluoride in Groundwater: https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/groundwater/health/fluoride.html Clay, P.L. and Sumino, H., 2022, Halogens: Salts of the Earth: Elements magazine, v. 18, n. 1, pp.9-14.

Educating Online, 2022, Solubilityof Things – A Website on Chemistry: https://www.solubilityofthings.com/ Fawell, J., Bailey, K., Chilton, J., Fewtrell, D.L., and Magara, Y., 2006, Fluoride in Drinking-water: World Health Organization (WHO): IWA Publishing, London, UK, 144 p.

Motzer, W.E., 2016, Toxic Terra – Part 6 (Fluorine): The Vortex, v. LXXVII, n. 6, pp.6-87 www.calacs.org.

Web Minerals, 2022, Mineral Species sorted by the element F (Fluorine): https://www.webmineral.com/chem/Chem-F.shtml.

Figure 1: Known fluoride belts with groundwater fluoride concentrations exceeding 1.5 mg/L. Source: British Geological Survey: http://www.bgs. ac.uk/research/groundwater/health/fluoride.html

William E. (Bill) Motzer, PhD, PG, CHG, CPG is a somewhat semi-retired forensic geochemist. Formerly with Todd Groundwater, he has more than 40 years of experience as a Professional Geologist and more than 35 years of experience in conducting surface, subsurface, and environmental forensic geochemical investigations. His particular expertise is in stable and other isotopic “fingerprinting” and age dating techniques and water quality/contaminant source identification geochemistry.

2022 Fall Issue

30

YOUR FULL SERVICE MAR EXPERTS. From planning through operations, LRE Water is unique in our ability to provide comprehensive services related to MAR.

Cortney Brand, PG

Gary Gin, RG

Jackie Tappan, GIT

Lauren Handley, RG

Allan Foster, EI

Gary Burchard, RG

ROCKY MOUNTAIN | MIDWEST | SOUTHWEST | TEXAS Continues on next page 31

LREwater.com

2022 Fall Issue

western ground water congress 2022

BUILT FOR CHANGE The 2022 WGC: Change is HERE

by Erik Cadaret

For the 2022 WGC, we pulled out all the stops to celebrate GRA’s 30th year anniversary. We selected an upscale venue in the heart of downtown Sacramento, hosted some pretty epic after hours events, and provided ample opportunities for interpersonal connection, dialogue, and learning. GRA’s second in-person WGC since the onset of the COVID pandemic was a major success and turned out to be our largest WGC to date with more than 340 attendees! Over 90% of our attendees came from ten states in the west with the remaining from the south (4), mid-west (5), east coast (4), and internationally (4). Of those that came from states in the west, over 85% came from California with the remaining from Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Nevada. All eight GRA branches were represented at the WGC, but most of the California attendees came from the Sacramento Branch, followed by the San Francisco Bay and Southern California branches. I was pleased to see a broad demographic range of attendance at the WGC! Throughout the conference, I was able to talk to many attendees about their experience and ask them if they had any feedback. Almost everyone resonated with the conference theme, Built for Change, and appreciated the effort the planning committee put forward to weave the theme into the WGC program. Many of them stated they enjoyed hearing about GRA’s history of being an innovator and being adaptable to change and were excited to personally be a part of the change and achieving sustainable groundwater for all. A lot of people noted that because the technical

2022 Fall Issue

content was so diverse, intriguing, and applicable, they had a hard time choosing which sessions to attend and found themselves often moving around from room to room to soak in as much as they could. I also had a lot of exciting conversations about what the future may hold for tools and modeling that leverage open-source computer programming languages like Python and R to bring cost efficiencies to the groundwater industry that could also bring more equitable tools and services to disadvantaged communities.

Not only did the technical content spur those discussions, but the closing panel session really got people thinking, inspired, and excited to think BIG! The DEI content was also another aspect that resonated with WGC attendees. Several women shared that because of the Women in Water workshop, they found a safe space for meaningful dialogue and that they have established a relationship with a mentor that they believe will be a key supporter in their journey. Many also appreciated the stakeholder engagement panel discussion that really brought to the forefront that technical work will only fall short if we don’t engage the community early in the technical process and communicate its importance and relevancy to the communities it impacts. I also had several attendees ask if they can be a part of next year’s DEI programming and want to take things a step further to expand GRAs DEI outreach to those of the groundwater LGBTQ+ community. Don’t stop sharing these ideas and volunteering to be a part of GRA! There’s NO LIMIT to what we can do to support each other and achieving sustainable groundwater for all!

32

We also got to see several awards being given to most deserving individuals and organizations that demonstrate leadership, dedication, and contribute in unique ways to the field of groundwater hydrology. This year we added a new award, the Emerging Groundwater Professional Award, and I had the honor to present that award to my good friend and one of my favorite people in groundwater, Lyndsey Bloxom. She navigated a scenario for the 2021 WGC that very few in the world had to: planning a virtual event and then pivoting less than four months before the event date to an in-person event and then figuring out how to make it as safe as possible during a global pandemic. Lyndsey demonstrated true leadership, successfully navigating and putting on a successful WGC in 2021 in a oneof-a-kind scenario. The Kevin J. Neese Award was awarded to Orange County Water District, recognizing their PFAS Treatment Program that is an example of proactive management identifying the need to treat a known, but not fully regulated contaminant that poses a significant risk to public health. The Lifetime Achievement Award was awarded to Dr. Sorab Panday, who has dedicated his career to advancing the groundwater industry though his expertise in groundwater modeling. Hearing his speech was inspiring to learn that through hard work, dedication, and generosity, you can make a positive impact and leave a legacy in groundwater, and you can do so with a smile and making people laugh!

In closing, GRA’s second in-person WGC since the onset of the COVID pandemic was a major success thanks to the significant efforts by GRA staff, volunteers, sponsors, exhibitors, and attendees. Without you, the 2022 WGC would not have turned into the largest WGC to date! Seeing such a strong turn-out at this year’s WGC was a clear sign to GRA that our membership craves in-person events that deliver exceptional value, opportunities for dialogue and brainstorming, and supporting one another in achieving sustainable groundwater for all. We ARE Built for Change and together, we can each play a part in bringing positive, meaningful change to our communities that we serve!

PS: Who’s excited about Karaoke at the 2023 WGC?! I know I am!

Erik Cadaret is an Associate Geologist with West Yost Associates and joined the GRA Board of Directors in 2021.

Erik’s role with West Yost is to support various groundwater technical projects for clients within the state of California, management of a GSA in northern California, and support business development efforts to engage new clients. What Erik loves the most about his job is the interpersonal interaction with clients to help find creative solutions to meet their needs. Erik loves being a part of GRA because it provides an outlet to collaborate with some of the greatest minds in groundwater. Erik also loves to geek out on techy, innovative ideas that may significantly benefit the water industry in achieving sustainable groundwater for all.

33

2022 Fall Issue

western ground water congress 2022

BUILT FOR CHANGE

2022 Fall Issue

34

35

2022 Fall Issue

2022 Fall Issue

36

Parting Shot

By John Karachewski

T

he Mecca Hills is an excellent locality for viewing the complex geology along the San Andreas Fault. The Mecca Hills are bounded by the San Andreas Fault along their southwest side.

The Miocene to Pliocene sedimentary rocks in this region also record changing depositional environments, uplift, folding, and faulting along the northeastern rim of the Salton Trough.

The Mecca Hills Wilderness is managed by the Bureau of Land Management’s Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office and contains 26,242 acres. In 1994, the California Desert Protection Act added the Mecca Hills to the 109-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System.

The Cahuilla tribe inhabited areas within the Mecca Hills, including a village near the mouth of Painted Canyon shown in this photograph.

Located in the Sonoran Desert, the Mecca Hills generally receive less than 1 inch of rain per year. The plants and animals are uniquely adapted to these arid conditions. Ironwood, smoke trees, and paloverde grow in the sandy washes, while ocotillo grows on gentler slopes and the tops of mesas. Desert bighorn sheep occasionally cross over from the Orocopia Mountains on the east, where they find more water. Spotted bats, desert tortoises, kangaroo rats, and prairie falcons also live in the region.

The Mecca Hills badlands include a natural maze of small, narrow, steep canyons that attract adventuresome hikers. The topography ranges from 1,800 feet at the ridgetops to sea level along the canyon bottoms.

Photograph by John Karachewski, PhD, on October 22, 2021. Photograph taken at 33.619025° and -115.998993°. Box Canyon Road which leads to several popular hiking trails was damaged by a flash flood on August 8, 2022, and has been closed by the Riverside County Department of Transportation until repairs can be implemented. Information for visiting the Mecca Hills Wilderness is available at: https://www.blm.gov/visit/mecca-hills-wilderness

37

2022 Fall Issue

2022 Fall Issue

38