# Presentation: 312627

## PROPOSED NATIONAL 

**GROUND WATER **
**MONITORING PROGRAM**
**Beverly Herzog, Christine Reimer, Cartier Esham**
**National Monitoring Conference**
***May 8, 2006***

## Acknowledgment

-    **Dr. David Wunsch**
**New Hampshire  State Geologist**

**Notes:**
Thank Dave as moderator and as help to surveys

## Why  & How We Designed a Plan

**Why?**
**Importance of ground water**
**Previous surveys**
**Request by OSTP**
**How**
**Meeting at Summit 2005**
**Input from Government Affairs and its subcommittee/task force**

## Importance of Ground Water

**47.9% of America’s population uses ground water as drinking water source**
**75% of community water systems**
**Nearly all of rural America**
**42.4% of country’s irrigation water is ground water**
**25% of total fresh water is ground water; 1% is surface water and rest is locked in polar ice and glaciers**

## The Survey:  What We Asked

**Type of organization**
**Expected groundwater supply shortage?**
**Why?**
**How good is your information?**
**Supply estimates and various types of data**
**What types of additional information are most important?**
**What should the federal government do to help meet information gaps? **

**Notes:**
The surveys asked
The Type of Organization
Whether the respondent expected ground water supply shortages in the next 20 years?
The respondent’s views on the reasons for the expected or current shortages
How good is the ground water information and data currently available
What types of additional information are most important to gather
What the federal should do to help meet the information gaps, if any, identified

So what was the response?

## Groundwater Shortage Forecasts:  Combined Survey Responses

**Notes:**
This slide represents the combined responses of both the state geologists and the NGWA members to the question of “Do you anticipate your state will experience a ground water supply shortage within the next 20 years?” 

If there were multiple responses from a state and they differed, the “worst” response is portrayed in this slide

The following are notes from Bev’s talk – don’t know if you need to cover
AZ: 3 of 5 (a consulting eng, acad, public provider) rated this; 
Ark other: Excessive drawdowns in urban and rural areas.
CA: 1/3, all 3 are consultants; 
CO: 1 cons says urban now, 1 rural now, 1 urban later, all consultants
FL: 3/3 say this; GA: 2 of 4, consultants say rural now, water bottler says urban now; 
IL: driller says urban now, acad & state gov’t say urban later
ID: 1/3, a drilling contractor; LA: 1⁄2, retired fed; 
ME: 1⁄2, equipment supplier MA: 1⁄2, public water suppliers; 
MT: acad say urban now, contr says rural now, cons. Says local now, another acad says urban & rural future
NV: public int group says statewide now, cons & acad say urban now
NY 1⁄2 drillers says statewide now, the other says urban now
OH: 1⁄2, from local government says local urban & rural now; 
PA: 2/4, both consultants say urban future, 1 supplier says rural future
RI: stream depletion, but no gw shortage
TN: 1/3 said urban now, all say rural or urban later 
WA: 3/4 ,; WY: both, contractor & consultant
TX 3/6, consultant, local gov’t & acad 
5 total respondents saw no shortage

## Reasons for Shortages

**Quantity **
**Quality**
**Legal**
**Quantity & Quality**
**Quant. & Legal****  **
**All 3 reasons**
**No Shortage**

**Notes:**
The surveys showed that there is no one cause for ground water shortages nationwide but rather a combination of reasons. The gray indicates a combination of ground water quality, quantity and legal issues leads the way based on the combined results.

Bev’s notes:  
IL: 1 says quant & qual, 1 says quant & legal, one say quant
NM: 1 says all 3, one says quantity
TN: 3 different answers, none said all 3 but all three covered

## State Survey Knowledge Summary

**Most information**
**Water level monitoring network (3.36)**
**Statewide aquifer maps **
**Hydraulic properties **
**Water quality**
**Water use data **
**Consumptive use data (2.96)**

**Least information**
**Quality monitoring network (2.78)**
**Groundwater Flow models**
**On-line data**
**Recharge rates**
**3-D aquifer maps/models**
**Artificial recharge opportunities (1.96)**

**5=met goal ****	**** ****	****1=no information**** **

**Notes:**
This slides shows how state geological survey respondents ranked the availability of various types of information. 

The ranking scale used is from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning no information is available and 5 meaning the state has this type of information readily available.  

## Knowledge of Groundwater Availability  

**Notes:**
This slide summarizes the response to the question “At what level of detail is there information in your state about how much ground water is available?

Survey choices ranged “know the potential yield from all major and minor aquifers”  to “having only very limited aquifer information.”

The response which the highest percentage of state geologist selected was “have reasonable estimate about the potential yield from all major aquifers.”

The response which the highest percentage of NGWA members  selected was “have a reasonable estimate of the potential yield from all aquifers”

It would seem from this that NGWA members believe there is more information available than the state geologist. 

## Most Important Types of Data to Expand

**State Surveys**
**Hydraulic properties of major aquifers**
**Groundwater level monitoring network**
**Statewide aquifer maps**
**Accurate water use data**
**Water quality for all aquifers**
**Groundwater recharge rates**

**NGWA Members**
**Accurate water use data**
**Water quality for all aquifers**
**Hydraulic properties of major aquifers**
**Groundwater level monitoring network**
**On-line aquifer data**
**Groundwater recharge rates**

**Notes:**
Both the State Geological Surveys and the NGWA Member Survey respondents identified the following as the most important types of data to expand and continue:

Accurate Water Use Data
Water Quality for All Aquifers
Hydraulic Properties of Major Aquifers
Ground Water Level Monitoring Networks
Ground Water Recharge Rates

## Top 5 Desired Federal Actions

**Increase funding for cooperative ground water quantity data collection**** **
**Increase funding for cooperative ground water quality data collection**** **
**Increase funding for aquifer mapping**** **
**Increase ground water availability research**

**Notes:**
Respondents to both the surveys agreed that the most useful federal actions to help meet information gaps in their states are:

Increase funding for cooperative ground water quantity data collection
Increase funding for cooperative ground water quality data collection
Increase funding for aquifer mapping
Increase ground water availability research.  Examples of such research include that related to desalination, aquifer storage and recovery or models to inform local policy decisions)

 Bullet three and four were switched for the two groups, with the state geologists ranking funding for aquifer mapping ahead of ground water availability research and the NGWA members results in opposite order.

## Top 5 Desired Federal Actions (cont.) 

**State geologists’ #5: Fund public education and outreach on water conservation**** **
**NGWA members’ #5: Develop a national ground water clearinghouse**

**Notes:**
State geological survey and NGWA member respondents differed on their number five choice.  

State geological survey respondents selected “fund public education and outreach on water conservation” as their number 5 desired federal action.

NGWA members instead selected development of a national clearinghouse for ground water quality and quantity information as their #5 priority

## Survey Conclusions

**Most states are experiencing at least local shortages now.**
**Most states have at least a reasonable estimate of the potential yield of major aquifers.**
**Few states have met any goals in collecting any type of ground water data.**
**Priorities for collecting more data parallel types of data already being collected, perhaps because goals are not met.**
**Cooperative federal and state programs for ground water data collection favored**

**Notes:**
Most states are experiencing at least local shortages now.
Respondents from 41 of 43 states reporting expect at least localized ground water shortages within 20 years.
29 of these currently indicate there are at least localized shortages now.  
This is far more than a July 2003 GAO report that surveyed state water managers found.  GAO included surface water, only looked at next ten years, and ignored potential droughts.
Most states have at least a “reasonable” estimate of the potential yield of major aquifers.
Few states have met any goals in collecting any type of ground water data.

## OSTP Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality

**Report released early 2005 **** **
**Questions posed to NGWA by OSTP**

**Notes:**

We completed the surveys we just discussed, and provided summaries  to staff at the White House at their request.  Then in early 2005 about the time the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality under the National Science and Technology Council out of the Executive Office of the President released a report titled  Science and Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the United States and was working on action plans, we were asked to respond to a series of questions related to ground water quality and quantity monitoring

The rest of my talk I will focus on NGWA’s response to those questions.

The report is a “state of the science” assessment

The Subcommittee  then began work on an action plan to implement the reports findings

Aware of NGWA’s survey and activities related to ground water, ground water availability and monitoring data, the Association was asked to respond to a series of questions related to ground water monitoring

Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality under the National Science and Technology Council out of the Executive Office of the President released in February 2005 a report titled

“Science and Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the United States”

State of the science report on fresh water availability

Subcommittee is working on an action plan.

Some of you around the table may know more about and be actively involved in this process.  

From the NGWA perspective, given the previously discussed surveys and our role as a ground water professional organization, NGWA was asked to respond to a series of questions providing further detail on what a national approach to ground water level and quality monitoring may look like.     

## Questions Posed to NGWA

**What information needs does long-term ground water quality and quantity monitoring address?**
**What are the long-term ground water monitoring needs?**
**What should the federal role be as regards long-term quality and quantity ground water monitoring?**
**How does the federal government integrate its role with private sector, local and state government monitoring efforts?**
**What are the priority actions that the federal government should take relative to long-term quality and quantity ground water monitoring**?

**Notes:**
This slide and the next identifies the questions posed to us.

Read from slide or discuss general idea that it is the why, what, who, for a ground water monitoring and the federal role in it as well as ideas to help ensure effectiveness and efficiency of effort. 

## Summit 2005 Committee

- William M. Alley, USGS, San Diego, CA
- Raymond Brady. Panhandle Ground Water Conservation District, White Deer, TX
- John Bredehoeft, PhD, The HydroDynamics Group
- Michael E. Campana, PhD, University of NM
- Lee Clapp, PhD, Texas A & M University
- Elizabeth Corr, U.S. EPA, Washington DC
- John A. Daniel, PhD, U.S. Department of Agriculture, El Reno, OK
- Amy Hardberger, Lubbock, TX
- Beverly Herzog, Illinois State Geological Survey

- Larry A. Lyons, Lyons Well Drilling Co. Inc.
- Robert E. Mace, PhD, TX Water Development Bd
- Dave Mercer, Westbay Instruments Inc.
- Michael Paque, Ground Water Protection Council,
- Oklahoma City, OK
- Timothy K. Parker, CA Department of Water Resources
- Glenn G. Patterson, USGS, Reston, VA
- Craig Pederson, URS Corp
- Kenneth M. Tyrrell, URS Corp.
- Venki Uddameri, PhD, Texas A & M University
- David Wunsch, PhD, NH Geological Survey

**Notes:**
This slide and the next identifies the questions posed to us.

Read from slide or discuss general idea that it is the why, what, who, for a ground water monitoring and the federal role in it as well as ideas to help ensure effectiveness and efficiency of effort. 

## Why Undertake Long Term Ground Water Monitoring?

**Assess the resource’s ability to support  population growth and development**
**Help design and assess effectiveness of mgmt and protection programs**
**Identify short and long-term changes to ground water **
**Identify artificial ground water recharge opportunities**
**Assess ground water and surface water interactions **
**Provide data for modeling **
**Provide a more accurate estimate of actual ground water withdrawals **

**Notes:**
The first question – why undertake long-term ground water monitoring.   We’ve identified in this slide and the next some of the reasons, including: 

Assess the resource’s ability to support population growth and development – especially important with overall population growth, movement toward arid and semi-arid states and also changing distribution patterns with more concentration in urban areas.

Help in designing and assessing the effectiveness of management and protection programs – may want to stress this as efficient and effective way for spending and allocating not only monitoring resources but overall environmental protection and management resources.

Identify short and long-term changes to ground water.

NEXT SLIDE

## What Are the Long-Term Monitoring Needs?

**National ground water **_**quality **_**monitoring network**
**National ground water**_** level**_** monitoring network**

**Notes:**
What are the long term monitoring needs?

Generally it was believed that : 
An integrated approach should be taken to ground water quality and quantity monitoring
Networks should also include:
Ambient ground water monitoring
Impacted areas monitoring
Targeted monitoring

Supporting ambient networks was especially noted as one that may not take as many resources but which is often overlooked. 

## What Are the Long-Term Monitoring Needs?

**Ambient ground water monitoring**
**long-term response of aquifers in “natural conditions”**
**Impacted areas monitoring**
**impacted by withdrawals**
**various land uses **
**Targeted monitoring**
**answer specific management questions **

**Notes:**
Ambient Ground Water Monitoring:  National monitoring networks should include monitoring to determine ambient ground water quality or ambient ground water levels, dependent on network purpose. Monitoring in the non-pumping sectors of aquifer systems is much less likely to occur as part of the normal management effort by water users. Major and minor water table and confined aquifers should be monitored across hydrogeologic settings and climate zones. The number of monitoring sites required to obtain the necessary ambient data may be more limited than required to achieve other data collection goals. The goal for the ambient monitoring component would be to have several hydrographs that reflect the overall long-term response of aquifers in areas as close to natural conditions as possible. Securing and maintaining funding for ambient ground water monitoring over time is especially challenging.
Impacted Areas Monitoring:  National networks should monitor ground water quality or ground water levels in aquifers impacted by withdrawals or anticipated future withdrawals, and overlain by various land uses including areas undergoing transition.  
Targeted Monitoring:  National monitoring networks should include monitoring to address specific questions of state, regional or national significance. Monitoring to determine the effectiveness of specific water conservation practices on ground water levels is one example. Another example is ground water sampling in drinking water source protection zones to identify the impacts over time of protection programs on source water quality. In areas at risk for land subsidence, targeted ground water monitoring would provide valuable information for decision-makers. Monitoring of the quality and quantity of surface water bodies may be needed in order to address ground water quality and quantity questions. 

## What Should the Federal Role be?

**Support a collaborative framework **** **
**Develop guidelines for data collection, quality control, storage and retrieval**** **
**Provide federal funding for cooperative monitoring network development and operation **** **
**Establish a national clearinghouse**

**Notes:**

What is the federal role 

We’ve identified four areas that are covered on this slide and the next:

Support a collaborative framework among federal, state, local and non-government entities to assess available data, identify ground water monitoring level and quality data gaps, and ground water level and quality data needs (NGWA, 2004). A Ground Water Monitoring Subcommittee under the Advisory Committee for Water Information (ACWI) should be explored as a possible framework for federal agency, inter-governmental and non-governmental collaboration. Because of potential differences in the issues and entities involved in ground water quality versus ground water quantity monitoring, additional discussion of Subcommittee structure would be valuable. 

Develop guidelines for ground water use, quantity, and quality data collection, quality control, storage, and retrieval. A control step is needed prior to data storage to assure data quality. However, developing a complicated oversight function that unnecessarily impedes data flow should be avoided. Development and adherence to the guidelines should lessen, although not eliminate, the extent of quality control oversight needed prior to data storage. 
Provide federal funding, along the lines of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, for the cooperative development and operation of (1) a national ground water quality monitoring network and (2) a national ground water level monitoring network that addresses the needs identified in Question 2 above. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program is suggested as a model because it includes federal, state, and educational components with federal money requiring a match. Additional programs that provide grants or which feature federal-state cooperative funding are the Water Resources Research Institutes Program and the Cooperative Water Program, respectively.  
 Federal funding to support the cooperative development and operation of the national networks should be distributed as follows. 

## How to Integrate Various Roles?

**Federal government is “glue” to hold collective efforts together**** **
**States should develop state ground water availability and quality picture**** **
**Private sector firms should perform exploratory drilling and install monitoring wells  **

**Notes:**
Together local, state and federal government are part of a mosaic with each level playing an integral role in the long-term monitoring of the nation’s ground water.
Federal Government: The federal government can and should serve as the “glue” that holds data collection efforts together. Federal leadership is needed to promote better coordination among federal agencies as well as among federal, state and local agencies. Promoting greater coordination and cooperation would help avoid duplication, make greater use of existing data, and pinpoint data gaps and future needs 

State and Local Government:  The state and local government role should be to develop and operate state or sub-state ground water quality and ground water level monitoring networks, unless the state or local government lacks the capability. 

To the extent possible, federal, state and local governments should contract with private-sector firms for the performance of exploratory drilling, and the installation of wells for monitoring ground-water quality and elevation 

## What Should Federal Priorities Be? 

**Federal funding of cooperative ground water quantity monitoring**
**Federal funding of cooperative ground water quality monitoring**
**Additional priorities**
**Demonstrating a commitment to collaborative ground water quality and quantity data collection **
**Ensuring the availability of quality data at appropriate scale**
**Supporting research and development**
**Promoting public education and outreach**

**Notes:**
What should federal priorities be relative to long-term ground water quality and quantity monitoring?

As noted when going over the state geologist and NGWA member surveys, federal funding for cooperative ground water quantity data collection was identified as the most useful action for the federal government followed by federal support of cooperative data collection of ground water quality (NGWA 2004).  

Demonstrating leadership and commitment to collaborative ground water quality and quantity data collection including: 
Publicly acknowledging the importance of and committing to provide long-term sustained support and funding for ground water quality and quantity data collection, analysis and information dissemination 
Matching declarations of federal interest with federal funding
Ensuring the availability of quality data at appropriate scale in order to make sound ground water planning, management and development decisions including:
Synthesizing, in coordination with state and local government, existing data and identifying data gaps. 
Developing guidelines setting out a consistent methodology for data collection 
Establishing milestones to measure progress in reaching data collection goals and committing to provide adequate funding to reach those milestones. 
Promoting the use of more robust data sets to better inform and reduce the uncertainty of incorporating federal requirements into state and local ground water decision-making, such as decisions regarding the application of the Endangered Species Act
Supporting research and development related to ground water availability and quality including
Providing  a forum to integrate and bring together a multi-disciplinary (e.g. economic) approach to ground water availability
Supporting research and development into improved sensor technology so as to lower monitoring costs
Promoting public education and outreach so individuals have the background to interpret monitoring results, and provide informed input into decision-making.

## What’s Next?

**OSTP Subcomm. on Water Avail. and Quantity is considering this paper in their water strategy papers**
**Their Priorities:  ****	**
**Knowing water supply and use**
**Increasing water supply**
**Draft long-term strategy for water R&D due out this summer **
**National Ground Water Monitoring Ad Hoc Task Force Tuesday at 5:15**

*Thank You!*
*Questions?*