Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · ofr20131171

Evaluation of the groundwater flow model for southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah, updated to conditions through 2011, with new projections and groundwater management simulations

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Southern Utah Valley Municipal Water Association, updated an existing USGS model of southern Utah and Goshen Valleys for hydrologic and climatic conditions from 1991 to 2011 and used the model for projection and groundwater management simulations. All model files used in the transient model were updated to be compatible with MODFLOW-2005 and with the additional stress periods. The well and recharge files had the most extensive changes. Discharge to pumping wells in southern Utah and Goshen Valleys was estimated and simulated on an annual basis from 1991 to 2011. Recharge estimates for 1991 to 2011 were included in the updated model by using precipitation, streamflow, canal diversions, and irrigation groundwater withdrawals for each year. The model was evaluated to determine how well it simulates groundwater conditions during recent increased withdrawals and drought, and to determine if the model is adequate for use in future planning. In southern Utah Valley, the magnitude and direction of annual water-level fluctuation simulated by the updated model reasonably match measured water-level changes, but they do not simulate as much decline as was measured in some locations from 2000 to 2002. Both the rapid increase in groundwater withdrawals and the total groundwater withdrawals in southern Utah Valley during this period exceed the variations and magnitudes simulated during the 1949 to 1990 calibration period. It is possible that hydraulic properties may be locally incorrect or that changes, such as land use or irrigation diversions, occurred that are not simulated. In the northern part of Goshen Valley, simulated water-level changes reasonably match measured changes. Farther south, however, simulated declines are much less than measured declines. Land-use changes indicate that groundwater withdrawals in Goshen Valley are possibly greater than estimated and simulated. It is also possible that irrigation methods, amount of diversions, or other factors have changed that are not simulated or that aquifer properties are incorrectly simulated. The model can be used for projections about the effects of future groundwater withdrawals and managed aquifer recharge in southern Utah Valley, but rapid changes in withdrawals and increasing withdrawals dramatically may reduce the accuracy of the predicted water-level and groundwater-budget changes. The model should not be used for projections in Goshen Valley until additional withdrawal and discharge data are collected and the model is recalibrated if necessary. Model projections indicate large drawdowns of up to 400 feet and complete cessation of natural discharge in some areas with potential future increases in water use. Simulated managed aquifer recharge counteracts those effects. Groundwater management examples indicate that drawdown could be less, and discharge at selected springs could be greater, with optimized groundwater withdrawals and managed aquifer recharge than without optimization. Recalibration to more recent stresses and seasonal stress periods, and collection of new withdrawal, stream, land-use, and discharge data could improve the model fit to water-level changes and the accuracy of predictions.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.5° to 40.6° latitude; -112° to -111.16° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lynette E. Brooks. 2013. Evaluation of the groundwater flow model for southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah, updated to conditions through 2011, with new projections and groundwater management simulations. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131171

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗