You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Geosciences
  • Article
  • Open Access

7 March 2022

Commentary and Review of Modern Environmental Problems Linked to Historic Flow Capacity in Arid Groundwater Basins

Department of Geosciences, California State University-Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA
This article belongs to the Special Issue Groundwater in Arid and Semiarid Areas II

Abstract

Environmental problems may develop in groundwater basins when water levels change due to long-term wetter or drier climate or land development. A term related to water-level elevation is flow capacity, which develops in aquifers when the water table is at or very close to land surface. Non-capacity develops in systems where the water table is too deep for capillary water to reach the land surface. Flow capacity is the maximum amount of water that an aquifer can transmit. Sufficient moisture is not available for flow capacity to be established in most aquifers in arid zones and these aquifers are at non-capacity, but many aquifers in today’s deserts were at flow capacity when paleoclimates were cooler and moister during the late Pleistocene. Climate change and anthropogenic activities can cause aquifers to move toward flow capacity but in the last 15,000 years, almost always toward non-capacity. This paper reviews environmental and geotechnical problems associated with the transition of groundwater basins from flow capacity to non-capacity, and vice versa. Five relevant topics are discussed and evaluated: (1) The effects of flow capacity and non-capacity on groundwater basins targeted for waste repositories; (2) The salt contamination of groundwater where flow capacity was present in the Late Pleistocene and is no longer present; (3) Trace element enrichment in salt crusts in playa sediments and environmental risks to groundwater when the flow systems transition from flow capacity to non-capacity; (4) The development and retention of environmental tracers in arid groundwater flow systems at flow capacity that cannot be explained under conditions of non-capacity; and (5) The relationship of flow capacity to fossil hydraulic gradients and non-equilibrium conditions where there is little groundwater extraction. A case example is provided with each of these topics to demonstrate relevance and to provide an understanding of topics as they relate to land management.

1. Introduction

Flow capacity occurs when the water table is at land surface where there is maximum recharge available at a terrain (Figure 1) [1,2]. Flow capacity may be more formally defined as the maximum amount of groundwater recharge that an aquifer system can receive and transmit [3]. Aquifers are not at flow capacity and capillary water will not reach land surface when a water table is at least tens of meters beneath land surface at a desert floor. Paleohydrologic evidence of flow capacity in arid aquifers that are not presently at flow capacity is found in the southwestern Basin and Range province, Africa, Middle East, South America, and in other arid regions in the world. Flow capacity was established in some of these aquifers during the pluvial periods of the late Pleistocene Epoch when precipitation was higher.
Figure 1. Conceptual hydrogeologic models showing a topographically closed and fully drained basin and a topographically closed and partly drained basin. The basin floor in the topographically closed, partly drained basin is at or nearly at flow capacity (modified from [4]).
This paper is a commentary and review of flow capacity and hydrological problems associated with flow capacity, topics that have received little attention in the peer-reviewed literature except as they relate to paleoenvironments and paleoclimates. As aquifers transition from flow capacity to flow systems below flow capacity, or non-capacity, and vice versa, several practical environmental issues may develop that are of concern and that should be recognized by groundwater scientists and policy makers. Data may be difficult to interpret if a flow system was at flow capacity several thousand years ago, and is in a state of non-capacity today. Examples are shown in this paper where distribution and concentration of hydrochemical and isotopic parameters may be difficult to explain in a flow system that is no longer at flow capacity.
This commentary uses existing data and technical studies that are relevant to aquifers departing from or returning to flow capacity, in both real and hypothetical cases. The paper explores issues of aquifer flow capacity in arid zones, primarily from the perspective of aquifers achieving or losing flow capacity as climate changes or as land-use modification causes water levels to change, leading from flow capacity to non-capacity, and vice versa. The topics are approached in a way that is pertinent to policy and land management.
Flow capacity may occur in mountain blocks, on mountain fronts, and on basin floors (Figure 1). The paper focuses mostly on flow capacity on desert floors (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3) with a supplemental discussion of flow capacity in flanking highlands (Figure 4). A desert floor at flow capacity will have regional saturation up to land surface, usually at the point of lowest topography in a basin or area. Flow capacity in mountain areas occurs more regionally when the highlands have moderately gentle topography, such as is found in mesas and plateaus (Figure 4).
Figure 2. Representation of mountain ranges and basin-fill aquifers at flow capacity and non-capacity. Water tables are at or near land surface in aquifers at flow capacity. Salt deposits form at phreatic playas, which present a salinity threat to aquifers when the basin floor is no longer at flow capacity due to climate change. Partially evaporated water isotopes (also known as enriched) are formed at phreatic playas and as the aquifer transitions from flow capacity to non-capacity the partially evaporated water may move to water wells down the hydraulic gradient.
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram showing interconnected basins at flow capacity and non-capacity. Topographically closed and partly drained basins (A) and topographically closed and fully drained basins (B) are shown. Flow systems with basin floors at flow capacity usually have a phreatic (wet) playa at the basin floor. Regional flow paths may change as basin aquifer systems transition from flow capacity to non-capacity. The surface elevation of the phreatic playas in model (A) regulates hydraulic head and regional groundwater flow.
Figure 4. Flow capacity in mountain areas occurs more regionally when the highlands have moderately gentle topography, such as is found in mesas and plateaus. (A,B) show processes when gently sloping highlands are at flow capacity. (C) shows salt accumulation in interchannel areas and percolation of salts with downward moving wetting fronts in channel areas. (D) shows full model perspective in mountain/plateau and basin floor areas ((A,B) modified from [5]).

1.1. Previous Research on Aquifer Flow Capacity

Flow capacity as a formal hydrogeological term was first coined by Mifflin [1] in his seminal report “delineating groundwater flow systems of the Great Basin, USA”. There is almost no other groundwater literature that was found in the references cited in this paper using the terms “flow capacity” or “terrain capacity.” Sigstadt et al. [6] used the term “underfit aquifer” for an aquifer that is well-below flow capacity, but other terms do not appear in the literature except for summary descriptions, such as “the aquifer is full” or “is at full storage capacity’ quote symbol wrong? In a closely related topic, there is abundant literature on fossil spring deposits and fossil wetlands that developed in flow systems that were once at flow capacity [1,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Studies of fossil springs are often related to groundwater discharge points at the end of regional flow paths, and tied to paleo-environments and long-term climate change, but not necessarily to flow capacity. Fossil springs that developed at the end of local flow paths provide evidence of possible paleo flow capacity. Mifflin described spring-formed mineral deposits such as travertine mounds at land surface, where modern groundwater depths are at least 25 m, too deep for capillary water to reach land surface [1]. These travertine deposits dated from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition and indicated that aquifers that are far from flow capacity today had reached flow capacity several thousand years ago.
Mifflin and Wheat reinterpreted areas described as pluvial lakes of Wisconsin age to have formed from groundwater discharge deposits at fossil springs and fossil wetlands [8]. Quade examined stratigraphic units and soils of late Pleistocene to Holocene age at Corn Creek Flat and Tule Springs, Nevada, USA to evaluate transitioning from marsh-forming sediments to dry desert soils when groundwater table fell at least 25 m due to climate change [9]. Changes were accompanied by major vegetation shifts from marsh varieties to sagebrush and desert scrub along with the decreased activity of biota. Quade and Pratt examined desert landscapes in Indian Springs Valley, Nevada USA for evidence of shallow groundwater during the late Pleistocene and reinterpreted extensive green mudstone deposits as groundwater discharge deposits that were not of lacustrine origin as had been previously thought [11]. Quade et al. indicated that water level changes of 10 m are common in the Great Basin since the last full glacial period, and as much as 95 m of change took place in Coyote Springs Valley, Nevada, USA [12].
Hibbs et al. developed a numerical groundwater flow model and pathline simulator to estimate recharge rates needed to bring a simulated region in a Chihuahuan Desert basin-fill aquifer to flow capacity [2]. The model was first calibrated under the present conditions of quasi-steady-state and negligible groundwater pumping than used to compute the recharge rate needed to bring the water table to land surface. In another modeling study, Matsubara and Howard developed a spatially explicit hydrological model for the Great Basin to predict runoff and mega lake formation when the model was parameterized with temperature and precipitation values for late Pleistocene conditions [14]. Pigati et al., studied the paleo record for long-term wetlands formed by groundwater discharge at Valley Wells, California, USA during the late Pleistocene and evaluated the wetland/vegetation transition as water tables fell [15]. By the Holocene, no evidence of wet conditions was found in the sediment record at Valley Wells.
Previous studies focused primarily on paleohydrology and palaeoclimatological issues related to late Pleistocene to Holocene climate change. Some investigations looked at how animal and plant life adapted or transitioned to other types as the climate dried during the Holocene. Studies on the environmental effects of flow systems transitioning from flow capacity to non-capacity, such as contamination of groundwater, have been much more limited [2,3,12].

1.2. Relationship of Flow Capacity to Internal Playas in Groundwater Basins

Hydrogeologic controls and meteorological conditions determine if flow capacity can occur in groundwater basins. In developing basins, groundwater pumping and other engineering works add other controls (Figure 5). The principal natural factors influencing flow capacity and non-capacity include moisture availability, topography, hydraulic head relationships in adjacent groundwater basins, and permeability of rock and basin fill, particularly in the intervening strata between basins (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Fault controls are also important and act as either barriers or conduits to groundwater flow in valley-fill aquifers [12]. Moisture is insufficient for flow capacity to be established in most groundwater systems in modern arid zones.
Figure 5. Upper figure, aquifer development can convert a groundwater basin and highlands from flow capacity to non-capacity. Lower figure, buried wastes may be a threat to aquifers used for waste disposal if the aquifer achieves flow capacity due to climate change.
To understand flow capacity in desert basins, it is necessary to discuss playa types and how they relate to intra-and-inter basin groundwater flow (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Much of the remaining text focuses on desert playas at flow capacity and non-capacity. Aquifers formed by filling of sediments between intervening mountain ranges may be at or below flow capacity and are often defined by the presence of phreatic or vadose playas. Within these “basin fill” or “bolson” aquifers, inland lakes or playas usually exist where basin floors are at flow capacity. Although the terms are often used interchangeably for surface water and groundwater movement, the terms “closed basin” and “open basin” should refer to surface drainage and not to groundwater flow. For groundwater flow conditions within and between basins, the terms “undrained, partly drained, and drained basins” are better used to describe intrabasin or interbasin groundwater movement [1,16,17,18,19,20,21]. This classification scheme avoids the common confusion between discussion of surface water and groundwater movement in and between basins and is the working vocabulary of this paper.
Hydrologic processes of open and closed basins and drained and undrained basins and how these flow systems operate are often related to playa types and at what particular times they act as surface-water and groundwater discharge areas. Playas include (1) phreatic, or wet playas; and (2) vadose, or dry playas (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Phreatic playas are groundwater discharge areas that are moist near the playa surface and have a regional water table no more than a few feet beneath groundwater-surface for the entire year [1,22]. Vadose playas are usually dry because capillary water does not reach land surface (Figure 2). Vadose playas are temporarily filled with water from surface drainage, but the depth to groundwater is too great for groundwater to play a role in the water budget of the dry playa except to sometimes receive recharge when the playa holds surface runoff. Aquifer systems with a phreatic playa along the basin floor are at or are near flow capacity while systems that do not have a phreatic playa are not at flow capacity (Figure 1 and Figure 2). If there is no phreatic playa in the basin and no pumping, groundwater usually discharges by interbasin flow (Figure 2). When there is a perennial lake stand, the water table is usually directly connected to the lake at land surface.
A basin-fill aquifer at flow capacity often has a phreatic playa and sometimes a perennial lake on the basin floor due to a high water table and surface runoff that is appreciable due to melting snow and periods of heavy precipitation. The convention that is used in this paper is a groundwater basin that minimally contains a phreatic playa from regional groundwater flow is effectively at flow capacity (Figure 2). The size and shape of the phreatic playa may vary with climate and basin floor topography. Lakes may come and go seasonally, but effectively the water table is near land surface where a phreatic playa exists in the low part of the basin (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Stephens reports that there are probably hundreds of vadose playas in the arid southwestern United States, and considerably more worldwide [23]. A significant percentage of today’s vadose playas were phreatic playas when the climate was cooler and wetter. The modern environmental problems that may result from the transition of basins to non-capacity have been discussed little in the published literature.

2. Methods

Topics reviewed and developed for this paper include flow capacity related to water level change, water quality degradation by salts and toxic trace elements, and shallow geologic sources of salinity. These factors are evaluated in the context of current policy and management implications of paleo-flow capacity and non-capacity today. Several of the case studies and issues discussed in this paper came from field studies carried out by the author, supplemented by research and data from other studies that are pertinent to flow capacity and non-capacity in groundwater basins. Where appropriate, combinations of existing raw data are presented along with discussion topics (Table 1). Case examples 3 and 4 uses data collected mainly by the author and a few water isotope samples from Newton and Allen [24]. Case example 2 uses raw data collected by Waring and Sims and Spaulding and reinterpreted in relation to modern flow capacity [25,26]. Case examples 1 and 5 uses information developed in studies by Miner et al., Duffy and Al Hassan [27], and Hamann et al. [13,17,28].
A variety of methods were used to collect groundwater samples from the sites investigated in case studies 3 and 4. Field water samples were collected via grab sampling in new HDPE bottles. Sample bottles were soaked and triple rinsed in deionized water and inspected prior to field usage. All bottles were triple rinsed with the water being sampled in the field prior to filling. Groundwater sampling included field-filtered and unfiltered samples. Filtered samples were obtained using 0.45 micrometer filters. Samples were stored on ice until returned to the lab. Sample preservation with acid or other preservatives was performed in the field for those samples requiring it.
Before sampling groundwater from monitoring wells, the wells were purged and stabilized. Well purging removed a sufficient volume of groundwater in the well casing so stagnant water is removed and a representative water sample from the aquifer can be obtained. Representative aquifer water was obtained when temperature, specific conductance, and pH readings taken at two-minute intervals were stable, and the wells were sampled. Checks for stabilization of index parameters were performed after wells had been pumped long enough to purge at least three casing volumes of water from the well bore. After wells were pumped, samples were collected and preserved in accordance with methods required for groundwater. Springs issue continuously and groundwater was sampled at the spring orifice.
All samples for isotopic and hydrochemical analyses were collected in HDPE bottles and sealed with tight-fitting caps, usually leaving no bubbles or headspace if required. Sample containers were clearly labeled with the well or spring identification number, date of collection, type of parameters to be analyzed, and preservation used. The sample was sealed so that opening the sample container without breaking the seal is impossible. The seal adhered to both the cap and the sample container and encompassed the entire perimeter of the mouth of the container.
Groundwater samples were collected for a variety of parameters, but only standard anions, halides, arsenic and arsenic species, O-H stable water isotopes, carbon-14, and tritium are discussed in the abbreviated case examples (Table 1). Stable water isotope measurements were made at the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Arizona, USA. The hydrogen and oxygen isotopic composition of water was determined using a Finnigan Delta-S Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (IRMS) following reduction with Cr [29] or CO2 equilibration [30,31], respectively. Results were expressed as δ2H and δ18O in per mil (‰) relative to the standard VSMOW [32] with analytical precisions of 0.9‰ and 0.08‰, respectively.
Tritium samples were enriched nine-fold through electrolytic enrichment to concentrate the sample and then analyzed by liquid scintillation counting with an LBK Wallac Quantulus 1220. Results are reported in tritium units (1 TU = ~3.2 pCi/L) with the detection limit ranging from 0.6 to 0.9 TU. Tritium was analyzed at the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Arizona. To analyze carbon-14, approximately 2 cm3 of gaseous CO2 from the water sample dissolved inorganic carbon was extracted by acid hydrolysis on a vacuum line. The CO2 was then analyzed by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) at the University of Arizona AMS Lab. Results are reported in percent modern carbon (PMC) relative to the NBS oxalic acid I and II standards.
The Anion analysis and halide analysis were performed by ion chromatography in the Hydrogeology Laboratory at California State University-Los Angeles following guidelines in EPA Method 300.0 [33]. Arsenic speciation was performed by ion chromatography inductively coupled plasma dynamic reaction cell mass spectrometry (IC-ICP-DRC-MS) by Applied Speciation of Tukwila, Washington, USA. Where raw data from other sources are used, the methods were reviewed to determine as much as possible if standard methods and procedures were used.
Table 1. Topics and Case Examples Related to Aquifer Flow Capacity and Paleoclimate and Anthropogenic Change.
Table 1. Topics and Case Examples Related to Aquifer Flow Capacity and Paleoclimate and Anthropogenic Change.
TopicCase ExampleCase Example:
Source, Data, or Findings
3.1. Flow Capacity and Aquifer Water LevelsExample 1. Paleo Spring Discharge in Death Valley, USAMiner et al. [13]
3.2. Flow Capacity and Groundwater Salinity Example 2. Paleoclimate and Salinity of Ivanpah Valley, USAWaring, [25];
Sims and Spaulding, [26];
This Paper
3.3. Flow Capacity and Toxic Trace ElementsExample 3. Arsenic Loading to Ground- water from a Drained Phreatic Playa—
San Diego Creek Watershed, USA
Hibbs and Andrus, [34]
3.4. Isotope Hydrology and Flow CapacityExample 4. Isotopically Evaporated Water in Eastern Hueco Bolson, USAHibbs and Ortiz, in press
Newton and Allen, [35]
3.5. Flow Capacity, Fossil Hydraulic Gradients, and Groundwater ModelingExample 5. Variable Density Modeling of Groundwater Flow near a Phreatic Playa Duffy and Al-Hassan, 1988 Hamann et al. [27,28]

4. Conclusions

Flow capacity developing in arid zones due to climate change should be one of the variables considered where waste disposal sites are proposed. Arid zones are targeted for waste disposal due to spatially restricted recharge and considerable depth to groundwater. Assessments should focus particularly on wastes that remain toxic for thousands of years. Arid basins that were at flow capacity a few thousand years ago and that now have deep groundwater tables may have continuing salinity and trace element contamination problems due to leaching from surface salts and other elements remaining from historic phreatic playas. Surface salts and trace elements may remain from the time when the basin floor was formerly at flow capacity.
To assess risks when evaluating basins for paleo-flow capacity, the recent paleohydrology work should be inventoried and new work should be performed to detect remnant features formed at and near playas and other low-lying areas. The existence of historic phreatic playas in areas that now see groundwater depths of at least 20 m BGS might also explain the isotopic content of aquifers where groundwater is very evaporated. Fossil hydraulic gradients may remain where low-permeability aquifers were at flow capacity several thousand years ago. These flow systems are not in quasi-steady-state which makes contemporary groundwater flow models questionable when steady-state simulations are performed.
Several environmental problems related to flow capacity and non-capacity have been described in this paper. Lines of evidence of flow capacity in groundwater basins during the pluvial period include the presence of evaporated water in basins, the occurrence of unexplained evaporative salts, the identification of unique isotopes and hydrochemical species related to provenance, the presence of fossil spring deposits at paleo-spring orifices at land surface, and the evidence for paleo wetlands and associated biological communities associated with the recent fossil record. In some arid regions, there has been little change of land surface in the last 15,000 years, but in other arid regions, sedimentation has buried paleo features and erosion has obliterated others. Additional study of the evidence for flow capacity, as well as an understanding of the possible consequences of conversion of flow systems from flow capacity to non-capacity, will be useful for managing and sustaining groundwater in arid regions.

Funding

Support for data collected by the author provided by United States National Science Foundation under Proposal No. 0407516 and by California State Water Resources Control Board under Interagency Contract No. 03-117-558-0.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Helpful reviews of this discussion paper were provided by Bruce Darling, John Hawley, and John Sharp and by two anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mifflin, M. Delineation of Groundwater Flow Systems in Nevada; Technical Report Series H-W, Hydrology and Water Resources Publication; University of Nevada-Reno, Desert Research Institute: Reno, NV, USA, 1968; Volume 4, p. 109. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hibbs, B.J.; Boghici, R.N.; Hayes, M.E.; Ashworth, J.B.; Hanson, A.T.; Samani, Z.A.; Kennedy, J.F.; Creel, B.J. Transboundary Aquifers of the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez/Las Cruces Region: Texas Water Development Board and New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute; Technical Contract Report; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Austin, TX, USA, 1997; p. 148.
  3. Hibbs, B. Long term climate change and environmental implications of aquifer flow capacity in arid groundwater basins. In Groundwater Sustainability, Hydro-Climate/Climate Change, and Environmental Engineering; Ahmad, S., Murray, R., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2020; pp. 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, T.W.; Welder, G.E.; Lesser, G.; Trujillo, A. Region 7, Central Alluvial Basins. In Hydrogeology—The Geology of North America; Back, W., Rosenshein, J.S., Seaber, P.R., Eds.; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1988; Volume O-2, pp. 81–86. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gat, J.R. The relationship between surface and subsurface waters, water quality aspects in areas of low precipitation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1980, 25, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Sigstedt, S.; Phillips, F.; Ritchie, A. Groundwater flow in an ‘underfit’ carbonate aquifer in a semiarid climate: Application of environmental tracers to the Salt Basin, New Mexico (USA). Hydrogeol. J. 2016, 24, 841–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Haynes, C.V., Jr. Quaternary geology of the Tule Springs area, Clark County, Nevada. In Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada; Wormington, H.M., Ellis, D., Eds.; Nevada State Museum of Anthropology: Carson City, NV, USA, 1967; pp. 1–104. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mifflin, M.D.; Wheat, M.M. Pluvial lakes and estimated pluvial climates of Nevada. Nev. Bur. Mines Geol. Bull. 1979, 94, 57. [Google Scholar]
  9. Quade, J. Late Quaternary environmental changes in the upper Las Vegas Valley, Nevada. Quat. Res. 1986, 26, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hay, R.L.; Pexton, R.E.; Teague, T.T.; Kyser, T.K. Spring-related carbonate rocks, Mg clays and associated minerals in Pliocene deposits of the Amargosa Desert, Nevada and California. GSA Bull. 1986, 97, 1488–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Quade, J.; Pratt, W.L. Late Wisconsin groundwater discharge environments of the Southwestern Indian Springs Valley, southern Nevada. Quat. Res. 1989, 31, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Quade, J.; Mifflin, M.D.; Pratt, W.L.; McCoy, W.D.; Burckle, L. Fossil spring deposits in the southern Great Basin and their implications for changes in water-table levels near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, during Quaternary time. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1995, 107, 213–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Miner, R.; Nelson, S.; Tingey, D.; Murrell, M. Using fossil spring deposits in the Death Valley region, USA to evaluate paleo flowpaths. J. Quat. Sci. 2007, 22, 373–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Matsubara, Y.; Howard, A.D. A spatially explicit model of runoff, evaporation, and lake extent; application to modern and late Pleistocene lakes in the Great Basin region, Western United States. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W06425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pigati, J.S.; Miller, D.M.; Bright, J.; Mahan, S.A.; Nekola, J.C.; Paces, J.B. Chronology, sedimentology, and microfauna of ground-water discharge deposits in the central Mojave Desert, Valley Wells, California. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2011, 123, 2224–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maxey, G. Hydrogeology of desert basins. Ground Water J. 1968, 6, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mifflin, M. Region 5, Great Basin. In Hydrogeology—The Geology of North America; Back, W., Rosenshein, J.S., Seaber, P.R., Eds.; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1988; Volume O-2, pp. 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  18. Winograd, I.; Thordarson, W. Hydrogeologic and Hydrogeochemical Framework, South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Sites; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1975; p. 126. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eakin, T.; Price, D.; Harrill, J.R. Summary Appraisals of the Nation’s Ground-Water Resources—Great Basin Region; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-G; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1976; p. 37. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hibbs, B.; Darling, B. Revisiting a classification scheme for USA-Mexico alluvial basin-fill aquifers. Ground Water J. 2005, 43, 750–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hawley, J.; Kennedy, J.; Granados-Olivas, A.; Ortiz, M. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Binational Western Hueco Bolson-Paso del Norte Area, Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua; Technical Completion Report 349; New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Boyd, F.; Kreitler, C. Hydrogeology of a Gypsum Playa, Northern Salt Basin, Texas; Report of Investigations No. 158; The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology: Austin, TX, USA, 1986; p. 37. [Google Scholar]
  23. Stephens, D.B. Vadose Zone Hydrology; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996; 347p. [Google Scholar]
  24. Newton, B.T.; Allen, B. Hydrologic Investigation at White Sands National Monument; Open-File Report; New Mexico Bureau Geology Mineral Resources: Socorro, NM, USA, 2014; Volume 0559, pp. 1–51. [Google Scholar]
  25. Waring, G.A. Ground Water in Pahrump, Mesquite, and Ivanpah Valleys Nevada and California; USGS Water Supply Paper, 450-C; USGS: Washington, DC, USA, 1920; pp. 51–85.
  26. Sims, D.B.; Spaulding, W.G. Shallow subsurface evidence for postglacial Holocene lakes at Ivanpah Dry Lake: An alternative energy development site in the Central Mojave Desert, California, USA. J. Geogr. Geol. 2017, 9, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Duffy, C.; Al-Hassan, S. Groundwater circulation in a closed desert basin, topographic scaling and climatic forcing. Water Resour. Res. 1988, 24, 1675–1688. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamann, E.; Post, V.; Kohfahl, C.; Prommer, H.; Simmons, C. Numerical investigation of coupled density-driven flow and hydrogeochemical processes below playas. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 9338–9352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gehre, M.; Hoefling, R.; Lowski, P.; Strauch, G. Sample preparation device for quantitative hydrogen isotope analysis using chromium metal. Anal. Chem. 1996, 68, 4414–4417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Craig, H. Isotopic variations in meteoric waters. Science 1961, 133, 1702–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Craig, H. Standard for reporting concentrations of deuterium and oxygen-18 in natural waters. Science 1961, 133, 1833–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gonfiantini, R. Standards for stable isotope measurements in natural compounds. Nature 1978, 271, 534–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pfaff, J.D. Method 300.0, Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography; Revision 2.1; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
  34. Hibbs, B.; Merino, M.; Andrus, R. Sources and Distribution of Selenium and Arsenic in Shallow Groundwater, San Diego Creek Watershed. In Selenium, Nitrate, and Other Constituents in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Watersheds, 2004—2008; Technical Contract Report Prepared for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; California State University: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hibbs, B.; Ortiz, M. New conceptual models of groundwater flow and salinity in the eastern Hueco Bolson aquifer. In Hydrological Resources in Transboundary Basins between Mexico and the United States; Granados, A., Ed.; University of Ciudad Press: Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in press.
  36. Bedinger, M.S.; Sargent, K.A.; Langer, W.H. (Eds.) Studies of Geology and Hydrology in the Basin and Range Province, Southwestern United States, for Isolation of High-Level Radioactive Waste—Characterization of the Trans-Pecos region, Texas; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1370-B; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1989; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bedinger, M.S.; Sargent, K.A.; Langer, W.H. (Eds.) Studies of Geology and Hydrology in the Basin and Range Province, Southwestern United States, for Isolation of High-Level Radioactive Waste—Characterization of the Rio Grande Region, New Mexico and Texas; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1370-C; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1989; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  38. Montazer, P.; Wilson, W. Conceptual Hydrologic Model of Flow in the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada; USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4345; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  39. Montazer, P. Monitoring hydrologic conditions in the vadose zone in fractured rocks, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In Flow and Transport through Unsaturated Fractured Rock; Geophysical Monograph; Evans, D.D., Nicholson, T.J., Eds.; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 1987; Volume 42. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nativ, R.; Adar, E.; Dahan, O.; Geyh, M. Water recharge and solute transport through the vadose zone of fractured chalk under desert conditions. Water Resour. Res. 1995, 31, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, I.; Rattray, G.; Yu, P. Interpretation of Chemical and Isotopic Data from Boreholes in the Unsaturated-Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; 96-4058; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  42. Scanlon, B.; Langford, R.; Goldsmith, R. Relationship between geomorphic settings and unsaturated flow in an arid setting. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35, 983–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scanlon, B.; Keese, K.; Flint, A.; Flint, L.; Gaye, C.; Edmunds, W.; Simmers, I. Global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions. Hydrol. Processes 2006, 20, 3335–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Flint, A.; Flint, L.; Bodvarsson, G.; Kwickless, E.; Fabryka-Martin, J. Evolution of the conceptual model of the unsaturated zone hydrology at Yucca Mountain. J. Hydrol. 2001, 247, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stuckless, J.; Levich, R. Characterizing the proposed geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mt. Nevada-Hydrology and Geochemistry. In Hydrology and Geochemistry of Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada and California; Stuckless, J.S., Ed.; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 2012; p. 393. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stofhoff, S.; Walter, G. Average infiltration at Yucca Mountain over the next million years. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 7528–7545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sheng, Z.; Devere, J. Systematic management for a stressed transboundary aquifer, the Hueco Bolson in the Paso del Norte region. J. Hydrogeol. 2005, 13, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hutchison, W. Groundwater Management in El Paso, Texas. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas, El Paso, TX, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sneed, M.; Brandt, J.; Solt, M. Land Subsidence along the Delta–Mendota Canal in the Northern Part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, 2003–10; U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5142; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2013; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  50. Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster. Watermaster Service in the Upper Los Angeles River Area, Los Angeles County, 2012–2013; Watermaster Report for Water Year; Watermaster Service: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. McGuire, V.L. Water-Level and Recoverable Water in Storage Changes, High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 2015 and 2013–15; U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5040; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2017; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  52. James, M.; Montgomery, Inc. Remedial Investigation of Groundwater Contamination in San Fernando Valley, Remedial Investigation Report; Contract Report; City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tetra Tech. Final Report, a Study on Seepage and Subsurface Inflows to Salton Sea and Adjacent Wetlands; Contract Report; Salton Sea Authority: La Quinta, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hibbs, B.; Sharp, J. Hydrogeological impacts of urbanization. Environ. Eng. Geosci. J. 2012, 18, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Darling, B.K. Delineation of the ground-water flow systems of the Eagle Flat and Red Light Basins of Trans-Pecos Texas. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 1997; p. 179. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosen, M.R.; Warren, J.K. The origin of groundwater-seepage gypsum from Bristol Dry Lake, California, U.S.A. Sedimentology 1990, 37, 983–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rosen, M. Sedimentologic and geochemical constraints on the hydrologic evolution of Bristol Dry Lake, California, U.S.A. Paleogeography Palaeoclimatol. Paleoecol. 1991, 84, 229–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rosen, M. The importance of groundwater in playas, a review of playa classifications and the sedimentology and hydrology of playas. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Publ. 1994, 289, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hibbs, B.; Merino, M. A geologic source of salinity in the Rio Grande Aquifer. New Mex. J. Sci. 2006, 44, 165–181. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kreitler, C.W.; Mullican, W.F., III; Nativ, R. Hydrogeology of the Diablo Plateau, Trans-Pecos Texas. In Hydrogeology of Trans-Pecos Texas; Kreitler, C.W., Sharp, J.M., Jr., Eds.; The University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook: Austin, TX, USA, 1990; Volume 25, pp. 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  61. Izbicki, J.A.; Radyk, J.; Michel, R.L. Movement of water through the thick unsaturated zone underlying Oro Grande and Sheep Creek washes in the western Mojave Desert, USA. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 409–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Walvoord, M.A.; Scanlon, B.R. Hydrologic processes in deep vadose zones in interdrainage arid environments. In Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States; Water Science and Applications Series; Hogan, J.F., Phillips, F.M., Scanlon, B.R., Eds.; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 9, pp. 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  63. Dettinger, M.D. Reconnaissance estimates of natural recharge to desert basins in Nevada, U.S.A.; by using chloride balance calculations. J. Hydrol. 1989, 106, 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hawley, J.W.; Hibbs, B.J.; Kennedy, J.F.; Creel, B.; Johnson, M.; Remmenga, M.; Lee, M.; Dinterman, P. Trans-International Boundary Aquifers in Southwestern New Mexico; Technical Contract Report Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2000; p. 190. [Google Scholar]
  65. Anderholm, S.K. Mountain-Front Recharge Along the Eastern Side of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, Central New Mexico; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4010; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  66. House, P.K.; Ramelli, A.R.; Buck, B.J. Surficial Geologic Map of the Ivanpah Valley Area, Clark County, Nevada; Map 156, Scale 1:50,000; Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology: Reno, NV, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  67. Malmberg, G.T. Hydrology of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate-Rock Reservoirs, Pahrump Valley, Nevada-California; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1032; United States Government Publishing Office: Washington, SC, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  68. ENSR Corporation. Final Report, Molycorp Supplemental Environmental Project Numerical Groundwater Flow Model Ivanpah Valley, San Bernardino County California and County, Nevada; Document No. 12044-001-300; California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Victorville, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  69. Glancy, P. Water-Resources Appraisal of Mesquite-Ivanpah Valley Area, Nevada and California; Reconnaissance Series Report 46; Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources: Carson City, NV, USA, 1968; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
  70. Moyle, W. Water Wells and Springs in Ivanpah Valley, San Bernardino County, California; California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 91-21; Forgotten Books: London, UK, 1972; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  71. TRC. New Ivanpah Evaporative Ponds RWCQB Cleanup and Abatement Order 6-98-20; Molycorp and California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Victorville, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  72. Antinao, J.L.; McDonald, E.V. An enhanced role for the Tropical Pacific on the humid Pleistocene-Holocene transition in southwestern North America. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2013, 78, 319–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gill, T.E.; Gillette, D.A.; Niemeyer, T.; Winn, R.T. Elemental geochemistry of wind-erodible playa sediments, Owens Lake, California. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B 2002, 189, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gao, S.; Fujii, R.; Chalmers, A.T.; Tanji, K.K. Evaluation of adsorbed arsenic and potential contribution to shallow groundwater in Tulare Lake bed area, Tulare Basin, California. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2004, 68, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gao, S.; Goldberg, S.R.; Chalmers, A.T.; Herbel, M.J.; Fujii, R.; Tanji, K.K. Sorption processes affecting arsenic solubility in Tulare lake bed sediments, California. Chem. Geol. 2006, 228, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kleinfelder. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Select Dust Control Measures Being Applied at Owens Lake, Keeler and Inyo County, California; Sapphos Environmental, Inc.: Pasadena, CA, USA, 2007; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
  77. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Tulare Lake Basin Hydrology and Hydrography, a Summary of the Movement of Water and Aquatic Species; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Austin, TX, USA, 2007; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  78. US Bureau of Reclamation. A Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Test Case on Acreage Limitation in Tulare Lake, Sacramento, California; US Bureau of Reclamation: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  79. Summers Engineering. Tulare Lake Bed Coordinated Groundwater Management Plan. Prepared for Joint Powers Agreement. 2012, p. 26. Available online: http://kingsgroundwater.info/_documents/GWMPs/TLB-Coordinated-GWMP-lowres.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2021).
  80. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. Proposed MUN Delisting Boundary Description; Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District: Corcoran, CA, USA, 2012; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  81. Swain, W.C.; Duell, L.F., Jr. Water Quality Data for Shallow Wells in the Western and Southern Tulare Basin, San Joaquin Valley, California, March to August, 1989; USGS Open-File Report 92-655; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1993; p. 30. [Google Scholar]
  82. Fujii, R.; Swain, W.C. Areal Distribution of Selected Trace Elements, Salinity, and Major Ions in Shallow Ground Water, Tulare Basin, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 9504048; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  83. Liebeck, J. Irvine—A History of Innovation and Growth; Malone, M., Ed.; Pioneer Publications: Houston, TX, USA, 1990; p. 156. [Google Scholar]
  84. Hibbs, B.; Lee, M. Sources of Selenium in the San Diego Creek Watershed, Orange County, California; Defend the Bay & California Urban Environmental Research and Education Center: Irvine, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  85. CRWQCB (California Regional Water Quality Control Board). Santa Ana Region. Draft Selenium (Se) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); Newport Bay and San Diego Creek Watershed: Riverside, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  86. Meixner, T.; Hibbs, B.; Sjolin, J.; Walker, J. Sources of Selenium, Arsenic, and Nutrients in the Newport Bay Watershed; Contract Report Prepared for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/Meixner_etal_2004.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  87. Holmes, J.G. Soil survey around Santa Ana, Cal. In Field Operations of the Division of Soils; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1901. [Google Scholar]
  88. Eckmann, E.C.; Strahorn, A.T.; Holmes, L.C.; Guernsey, J.E. Soil Survey of the Anaheim Area, California; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Advance Sheets-Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils; Nabu Press: Charleston, SC, USA, 1919; p. 79. [Google Scholar]
  89. Phillips, F.M.; Peeters, L.A.; Tansey, M.K.; Davis, S.N. Paleoclimatic inferences from an isotopic investigation of groundwater in the Central San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Quat. Res. 1986, 26, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dutton, A.R. Groundwater isotopic evidence for paleorecharge in US High Plains aquifers. Quat. Res. 1995, 43, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Darling, B.K.; Hibbs, B.J.; Sharp, J.M. Integration of Carbon-14 and Oxygen-18 as a Basis for Differentiating Between Late Pleistocene and Post-Pleistocene Groundwater Ages Along Flow Paths of Two West Texas Bolson Aquifers; Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs: Reston, VA, USA, 2017; Volume 49. [Google Scholar]
  92. Clark, I.; Fritz, P. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; p. 328. [Google Scholar]
  93. Mazor, I.E. Chemical and Isotopic Groundwater Hydrology, the Applied Approach, 3rd ed.; Dekker, M., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; p. 472. [Google Scholar]
  94. Aggarwal, P.K. Isotope methods for dating old groundwater. In Isotope Methods for Dating Old Groundwater; Suckow, A., Aggarwal, P.K., Araguas-Araguas, L.J., Eds.; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2013; pp. 16–19. [Google Scholar]
  95. Deverel, S.; Thomas, J.; Decker, D.; Earman, S.; Mihevc, T.; Acheampong, S. Groundwater Evaporation Estimates Using Stable Isotope and Chloride Data, Yelland Playa, Spring Valley, Nevada; Publication No. 41219; Desert Research Institute: Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2005; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  96. Dincer, T.; Al-Mugrin, A.; Zimmermann, U. Study of the infiltration and recharge through the sand dunes in arid zones with special reference to the stable isotopes and thermonuclear tritium. J. Hydrol. 1974, 23, 79–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. US National Park Service. Geology of White Sands. Available online: https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/geology-of-white-sands.htm (accessed on 14 September 2021).
  98. Seager, W.R. Quaternary fault system in the Tularosa and Hueco Basins, southern New Mexico and West Texas. In New Mexico Geological Society, 31st Field Conference; New Mexico Geological Society: Socorro, NM, USA, 1980; pp. 131–135. [Google Scholar]
  99. Henry, C.D.; Gluck, J.K. A Preliminary Assessment of the Geologic Setting, Hydrology, and Geochemistry of the Hueco Tanks Geothermal Area, Texas and New Mexico; The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 81-1: Austin, NV, USA, 1981; p. 48. [Google Scholar]
  100. Eastoe, C.; Hibbs, B.; Granados, A.; Hogan, J.; Hawley, J.; Hutchison, W. Isotopes in the Hueco Bolson aquifer, Texas (USA) and Chihuahua (Mexico)—Local and general implications for recharge sources in alluvial basins. Hydrogeol. J. 2009, 16, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bourdon, D.J. Flow of fossil groundwater. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 1977, 10, 97–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lloyd, J.W.; Farag, M.H. Fossil ground-water gradients in arid regional sedimentary basins. Ground Water 1978, 16, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lloyd, J.; Miles, J. An examination of the mechanisms controlling groundwater gradients in hyper-arid regional sedimentary basins. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1986, 22, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Heinl, M.; Brinkmann, P.J. A groundwater model of the Nubian aquifer system. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1989, 34, 425–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Schulz, S.; Walther, M.; Michelsen, N.; Rausch, R.; Dirks, H.; Al-Saud, M.; Merz, R.; Kolditz, O.; Schüth, C. Improving large-scale groundwater models by considering fossil gradients. Adv. Water Resour. 2017, 103, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Bakiewicz, W.; Milne, D.; Noori, M. Hydrogeology of the Umm Er Radhuma aquifer, Saudi Arabia, with reference to fossil gradients. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 1982, 15, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Howard, K.; Griffith, A. Can the impacts of climate change on groundwater resources be studied without the use of transient models? Hydrol. Sci. J. 2009, 54, 754–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Faulkner, R. Fossil water or renewable resource, The case for one Arabian aquifer: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Water Marit. Energy 1994, 106, 325–331. [Google Scholar]
  109. Tsur, Y.; Park, H.; Issar, A. Fossil groundwater resources as a basis for arid zone development? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1989, 5, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ram, R.; Burg, A.; Zappala, J.; Yokochi, R.; Yechieli, Y.; Purtschert, R.; Jiang, W.; Lu, Z.; Mueller, P.; Bernier, R.; et al. Identifying recharge processes into a vast “fossil” aquifer based on dynamic groundwater 81Kr age evolution. J. Hydrol. 2020, 587, 124946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. De Vries, J.J.; Selaolo, E.T.; Beekman, H.E. Groundwater recharge in the Kalahari, with reference to paleo-hydrologic conditions. J. Hydrol. 2000, 238, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wulff, H.E. The Qanats of Iran. Sci. Am. 1968, 218, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Garbrecht, G. Ancient Water Works—Lessons from History; Impact of Science on Society, UNESCO No.1; Science on Society: Paris, France, 1983; p. 10. [Google Scholar]
  114. English, P. Qanats and lifeworlds in Iranian plateau villages. In Transformation of Middle Eastern Natural Environment, Bulletin Series 103, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies; Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  115. Wilson, J.L.; Guan, H. Mountain-block hydrology and mountain-front recharge. In Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States; Phillips, F., Hogan, J., Scanlon, B., Eds.; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  116. Gleeson, T.; Manning, A.H. Regional groundwater flow in mountainous terrain: Three-dimensional simulations of topographic and hydrogeologic controls. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, W10403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gilbert, J.M.; Maxwell, R.M. Examining regional groundwater-surface water dynamics using an integrated hydrologic model of the San Joaquin River basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 923–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Markovich, K.H.; Manning, A.H.; Condon, L.E.; McIntosh, J.C. Mountain-block recharge—A review of current understanding. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 8278–8304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Wright, E.P.; Benfield, A.C.; Edmunds, W.M.; Kitching, R. Hydrogeology of the Kufra and Sirte basins, eastern Libya. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 1982, 15, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Houston, J.; Hart, D. Theoretical head decay in closed basin aquifers, an insight into fossil groundwater and recharge events in the Andes of northern Chile. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2004, 37, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Muller, T. Recharge and residence times in an arid area aquifer. Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany, 2012; p. 157. [Google Scholar]
  122. Simmons, C.; Fenstemaker, T.; Sharp, J. Variable-density groundwater flow and solute transport in heterogeneous porous media: Approaches, resolutions and future challenges. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2001, 52, 245–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Brookings, D.G.; Thomson, B.M. Geochemical considerations for disposal facilities—Waste disposal in desert playas: In Deserts and Dumps? In The Disposal of Hazardous Materials in Desert Ecosystems; Reith, C.C., Thomson, B.M., Eds.; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1992; p. 330. [Google Scholar]
  124. Whittemore, D.O. Geochemical differentiation of oil and gas brine from other saltwater sources contaminating water resources—Case studies from Kansas and Oklahoma. Environ. Geosci. 1995, 2, 15–31. [Google Scholar]
  125. Davis, S.N.; Whittemore, D.O.; Martin, J.F. Use of chloride/bromide ratios in studies of potable water. Groundwater 1998, 36, 338–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Cartwright, I.; Weaver, T.R.; Fifield, L.K. Cl/Br ratios and environmental isotopes as indicators of recharge variability and groundwater flows, an example from the southeast Murray Basin, Australia. Chem. Geol. 2006, 231, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Freeman, J.T. The use of bromide and chloride mass ratios to differentiate salt-dissolution and formation brines in shallow groundwaters of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Hydrogeol. J. 2007, 15, 1377–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.