Diffuse-flow conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio region, Texas

R. J. Lindgren

doi:10.3133/sir20065319

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20065319

Diffuse-flow conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio region, Texas

R. J. Lindgren

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A numerical ground-water-flow model (hereinafter, the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model) of the karstic Edwards aquifer in south-central Texas was developed for a previous study on the basis of a conceptualization emphasizing conduit development and conduit flow, and included simulating conduits as one-cell-wide, continuously connected features. Uncertainties regarding the degree to which conduits pervade the Edwards aquifer and influence ground-water flow, as well as other uncertainties inherent in simulating conduits, raised the question of whether a model based on the conduit-flow conceptualization was the optimum model for the Edwards aquifer. Accordingly, a model with an alternative hydraulic conductivity distribution without conduits was developed in a study conducted during 2004-05 by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System. The hydraulic conductivity distribution for the modified Edwards aquifer model (hereinafter, the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model), based primarily on a conceptualization in which flow in the aquifer predominantly is through a network of numerous small fractures and openings, includes 38 zones, with hydraulic conductivities ranging from 3 to 50,000 feet per day. Revision of model input data for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model was limited to changes in the simulated hydraulic conductivity distribution. The root-mean-square error for 144 target wells for the calibrated steady-state simulation for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model is 20.9 feet. This error represents about 3 percent of the total head difference across the model area. The simulated springflows for Comal and San Marcos Springs for the calibrated steady-state simulation were within 2.4 and 15 percent of the median springflows for the two springs, respectively. The transient calibration period for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model was 1947-2000, with 648 monthly stress periods, the same as for the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model. The root-mean-square error for a period of drought (May-November 1956) for the calibrated transient simulation for 171 target wells is 33.4 feet, which represents about 5 percent of the total head difference across the model area. The root-mean-square error for a period of above-normal rainfall (November 1974-July 1975) for the calibrated transient simulation for 169 target wells is 25.8 feet, which represents about 4 percent of the total head difference across the model area. The root-mean-square error ranged from 6.3 to 30.4 feet in 12 target wells with long-term water-level measurements for varying periods during 1947-2000 for the calibrated transient simulation for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model, and these errors represent 5.0 to 31.3 percent of the range in water-level fluctuations of each of those wells. The root-mean-square errors for the five major springs in the San Antonio segment of the aquifer for the calibrated transient simulation, as a percentage of the range of discharge fluctuations measured at the springs, varied from 7.2 percent for San Marcos Springs and 8.1 percent for Comal Springs to 28.8 percent for Leona Springs. The root-mean-square errors for hydraulic heads for the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model are 27, 76, and 30 percent greater than those for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model for the steady-state, drought, and above-normal rainfall synoptic time periods, respectively. The goodness-of-fit between measured and simulated springflows is similar for Comal, San Marcos, and Leona Springs for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model and the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model. The root-mean-square errors for Comal and Leona Springs were 15.6 and 21.3 percent less, respectively, whereas the root-mean-square error for San Marcos Springs was 3.3 percent greater for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model compared to the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model. The root-mean-square errors for San Antonio and San Pedro Springs were appreciably greater, 80.2 and 51.0 percent, respectively, for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model. The simulated water budgets for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model are similar to those for the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model. Differences in percentage of total sources or discharges for a budget component are 2.0 percent or less for all budget components for the steady-state and transient simulations. The largest difference in terms of the magnitude of water budget components for the transient simulation for 1956 was a decrease of about 10,730 acre-feet per year (about 2 per-cent) in springflow for the diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer model compared to the conduit-flow Edwards aquifer model. This decrease in springflow (a water budget discharge) was largely offset by the decreased net loss of water from storage (a water budget source) of about 10,500 acre-feet per year.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 28.5° to 30.5° latitude; -100.5° to -97.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

R. J. Lindgren. 2006. Diffuse-flow conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio region, Texas. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20065319

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗