Estimating spatially and temporally varying recharge and runoff from precipitation and urban irrigation in the Los Angeles Basin, California

Joseph A. Hevesi; Tyler D. Johnson

doi:10.3133/sir20165068

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20165068

Estimating spatially and temporally varying recharge and runoff from precipitation and urban irrigation in the Los Angeles Basin, California

Joseph A. Hevesi·Tyler D. Johnson

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A daily precipitation-runoff model, referred to as the Los Angeles Basin watershed model (LABWM), was used to estimate recharge and runoff for a 5,047 square kilometer study area that included the greater Los Angeles area and all surface-water drainages potentially contributing recharge to a 1,450 square kilometer groundwater-study area underlying the greater Los Angeles area, referred to as the Los Angeles groundwater-study area. The recharge estimates for the Los Angeles groundwater-study area included spatially distributed recharge in response to the infiltration of precipitation, runoff, and urban irrigation, as well as mountain-front recharge from surface-water drainages bordering the groundwater-study area. The recharge and runoff estimates incorporated a new method for estimating urban irrigation, consisting of residential and commercial landscape watering, based on land use and the percentage of pervious land area. The LABWM used a 201.17-meter gridded discretization of the study area to represent spatially distributed climate and watershed characteristics affecting the surface and shallow sub-surface hydrology for the Los Angeles groundwater study area. Climate data from a local network of 201 monitoring sites and published maps of 30-year-average monthly precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperature were used to develop the climate inputs for the LABWM. Published maps of land use, land cover, soils, vegetation, and surficial geology were used to represent the physical characteristics of the LABWM area. The LABWM was calibrated to available streamflow records at six streamflow-gaging stations. Model results for a 100-year target-simulation period, from water years 1915 through 2014, were used to quantify and evaluate the spatial and temporal variability of water-budget components, including evapotranspiration (ET), recharge, and runoff. The largest outflow of water from the LABWM was ET; the 100-year average ET rate of 362 millimeters per year (mm/yr) accounted for 66 percent of the combined water inflow of 551 mm/yr, including 488 mm/yr from precipitation and 63 mm/yr from urban irrigation. The simulated ET rate varied from a minimum of 0 mm/yr for impervious areas to high values of more than 1,000 mm/yr for many areas, including the south-facing slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains, stream channels underlain by permeable soils and thick root zones, and pervious locations receiving inflows both from urban irrigation and surface water. Runoff was the next largest outflow, averaging 145 mm/yr for the 100-year period, or 26 percent of the combined precipitation and urban-irrigation inflow. Recharge averaged 45 mm/yr, or about 8 percent of the combined inflow from precipitation and urban irrigation. Simulation results indicated that recharge in response to urban irrigation was an important component of spatially distributed recharge, contributing an average of 56 percent of the total recharge to the eight LABWM subdomains containing the Los Angeles groundwater study area. The 100‑year average recharge rate for the eight subdomains was 41 mm/yr, or 8,473 hectare-meters per year (ha-m/yr), with urban irrigation included in the simulation compared to a recharge rate of 18 mm/yr, or 3,741 ha-m/yr, with urban irrigation excluded. In contrast to recharge, the effect of urban irrigation on runoff was slight; runoff was 72,667 ha-m/yr with urban irrigation included compared to 72,618 ha-m/yr with urban irrigation excluded, an increase of only 48 ha-m/yr (about 0.1 percent). Simulation results also indicated that potential recharge from hilly drainages outside of, but bordering and tributary to, the lower-lying area of the Los Angeles groundwater study area, in this study referred to as mountain-front recharge, could provide an important contribution to the total recharge for the groundwater basins. The time-averaged recharge rate was similar to the combined direct and mountain-front recharge components estimated in a previous study and used as input for a calibrated groundwater model. The annual (water year) recharge estimates simulated in this study, however, indicated much greater year-to-year variability, which was dependent on year-to-year variability in the magnitude and distribution of daily precipitation, compared to the previous estimates.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 33.631772324639655° to 34.426168904360736° latitude; -118.67706298828125° to -117.59078979492186° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Joseph A. Hevesi, Tyler D. Johnson. 2016-10-17. Estimating spatially and temporally varying recharge and runoff from precipitation and urban irrigation in the Los Angeles Basin, California. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165068

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↗