Groundwater Resource Assessmentof Jordan (2017)

Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI)
Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR)

Groundwater Resource
Assessment of Jordan (2017)

2

Imprint

Copyright © 2019 by the Ministry for Water and Irrigation (MWI) and theFederal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR).
CONTACT
Ministry of Water and Irrigation
Polices & Strategic Planning Directorate
45 Salem Al-Hendawi Street, Amman, Jordan
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR)
Referat für Schriftenpublikationen,
Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany
All rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage andretrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN 978-9923-9769-0-6
HOW TO CITE
MWI and BGR (Ministry of Water and Irrigation; Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe). 2019. Groundwater
Resource Assessment of Jordan 2017. Amman, Jordan.
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation or the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural
Resources concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
This document was mainly elaborated based on information currently available in the database of the MWI or provided
by third parties. Additionally, new data were gathered during field work in 2017. The findings of this study result from theanalysis of available information in combination with newly gathered field data. Because it is not possible to validate thehistorical information, no warranty can be given for the accuracy or veracity of the results of this study.
LAYOUT
BlockDesign Kommunikation & Medien (Germany)
COVER PHOTO
Wadi Mujib in the Madaba Governorate, 2018. In the center, the Mujib dam and in the background the A7/B2 hydro­
geological unit overlaying the A1/6 layers. Source: Bashar Tabbah, www.mapandlens.com

3

Contributors

LEAD AUTHORS
Florian Brückner (Update of Structure Contour Map and Vulnerability Map)
Mohammad Alhyari (Hydrogeology)
Rebecca Bahls (Assessment of Groundwater Resources and Springs)
Mark Gropius (Groundwater Model of Jordan)
Mark Gropius and Markus Huber (Decision Support ­System for Groundwater Management [WEAP-­MODFLOW])PROJECT COORDINATION AND CONCEPTHE Ali Subah (MWI Secretary General)
Klaus Holzner (BGR Head of Project)
Mathias Toll (BGR Head of Project)
Falk Lindenmaier (BGR Geoscientific Backstopping)Alexander Jokisch (BGR Country Coordinator Jordan)
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
Mona Dahabiyeh, Ronahi Al-Kordi, Ibrahim Hamdan, Ali Breazat
DATA RECOLLECTION, PROCESSING AND VALIDATION
Mohammad Al-Atrash, Adel Obayat, Safa’a Shraydeh, Ali Ghanem, Mohammad Almasri, Razan Alroud, R­ efaat Bani Khalaf,
Rania Shaban, Ala’a Atieh, Hilda Sakhatreh
CARTOGRAPHY
Mohammad Alhyari, Sandra Seeger, Stephanie Bellenberg, Gabriele Hartmann
QGIS Development Team (2018), QGIS Geographic Information System, Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project(http://qgis.osgeo.org)
Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from https://www.openstreetmap.org
Royal Jordanian Geographic Center for DEM and Hills­hade: Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Data/DEM, grid
resolution is approximately 90m by 90m
EDITORIAL TEAM
Klaus Holzner, Sara Vassolo, Falk Lindenmaier, ­Mohammad Aldwairi, Thaer Almomani
SPECIAL THANKS TO
The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) of Germany for funding the project within theframe of Technical Cooperation between the two Governments.
H.E. Eng. Ali Subah, Secretary General of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, for his continuous support of this projectand Dr. Armin Margane for always sharing his broad knowledge of the Jordanian water sector.
We wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ). We sincerely appreciate the support ofCol. Youssef Al-Aitan of the Well Maintenance Department.
Special thanks also go to the entire fieldwork team: Mohammad Alhyari, Omed Al Kurdi, Mohanned Hani, Kahled Sawryeh,
Ayman Faris, Ayoub Saleh, ­Mohammad Almasri and Hamza Awedi. Without their hard work in the field in the burning sun
and freezing wind, completion of this report would not have been possible.

4

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Foreword

Being one of the German implementing agencies for technical cooperation on behalf of theGerman Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) conducts currently more than 25 projects
Prof. Dr. Ralph Watzel

in countries throughout the world. Of these, there is no other country in which BGR has
been longer active as in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Over the years, BGR has built

President, Federal Institutevery fruitful and trustful partnerships with our Jordanian partners.

for Geosciences and Natural
Resources

It is a great pleasure for me to commemorate 60 years of successful international cooperation between BGR and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Areas and partners of cooper-(Source: BGR)

ation have changed over the years. Activities in the early years concentrated on geologicalsurveys and the exploration of oil shales. For the last thirty years, the focus has shifted more
and more towards groundwater management and protection.
Jordan is one of the most arid countries in the world. Due to very limited surface water
resources, it is heavily dependent on groundwater. BGR has and will assist the Jordanian
Government – especially through our main cooperation partner, the Ministry of Water andIrrigation (MWI) – in building knowledge and awareness about Jordan’s precious but limited groundwater resources, as well as strengthening the management skills for the best useof this resource of great strategic importance for the countries water security.
This publication assesses the current groundwater status in Jordan and compares it to thesituation in 1995. I am convinced that this updated baseline on groundwater resources is avaluable source of information for everybody active in the water sector of Jordan and that
it will support informed decisions in response to the challenges in Jordan’s water supply.
On behalf of BGR, I would like to thank all our Jordanian partners for the long and trustfulcooperation and look forward to keeping up our good and fruitful relationship with theHashemite Kingdom of Jordan also in the future.

Prof. Dr. Ralph Watzel
President, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

Foreword5

It is highly evident and well known that water resources in Jordan are very scarce. All previous strategic studies and official documents have identified that scarcity of water resources
is one of the major barriers facing sustainable development in Jordan that will be further
H.E. Eng. Raed Abu Soud

magnified by the impacts of climate change, drought and other socioeconomic circumstances.

Minister of Water andIrrigation

The availability of information regarding water resources is one of the most important
determinants when dealing with this situation and the development of strategies, policies(Source: MWI)and plans. Information availability contributes to making the right decisions and helps allconcerned sectors to understand and accept the decisions that will impact development
and growth of this sector.
Consequently, considering the water scarcity challenges and to achieve our goal of the successful integration of Jordan’s water resource development and management practices, theMinistry of Water and Irrigation has been active in issuing reports and studies that improvethe understanding of our existing water resources and provide information to all stakeholders.
In the light of 60 years German-Jordanian Cooperation, the MWI would like to thank theGerman people and the German Government for their continues support and especiallythe BGR for their longlasting and highly valuable assistance. Personally, I am thankful tothe whole team of BGR and MWI for putting great efforts to enhance the availability of information about Jordanian water resources.
We hope that the published information will assist the stakeholders in the water, public
and private sectors and the public that may have an interest in the water sector.

H.E. Eng. Raed Abu Soud
Minister of Water and Irrigation

6

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Table of contents

Imprint, Disclaimer

2

Contributors

3

Foreword

4

Table of contents

6

1

EXTENDED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

92

INTRODUCTION

313

HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING AND UPDATES TO THE STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP

35

3.1 Methods and Data37

3.1.1 Updated Structure Contour Maps

37

3.1.2 Hydrogeological Map

38

3.1.3 Hydrogeological Cross-Sections

40

3.2 Results

440

3.2.1 Ram Hydrogeological Unit

43

3.2.2 Khreim Hydrogeological Unit

43

3.2.3 Zarqa

43

3.2.4 Kurnub

43

3.2.5 A1/A6 Hydrogeological Unit

43

3.2.6 A7/B2 Aquifer

48

3.2.7 B3 Aquitard49

3.2.8 B4/B5 Aquifer50

3.2.9 Basalt

51

3.3 Recommendations

52

GROUNDWATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

53

4.1 Methods and Data55

4.1.1 Groundwater Contour Map - October 201755

4.1.2 Depth to Groundwater Map

55

4.1.3 Saturated Thickness Map

55

4.1.4 Difference Map for 1995-2017

55

4.2 Results

55

4.2.1 Deep Sandstone Aquifer System

56

4.2.2 A1/A2 and A4 Aquifers

61

4.2.3 A7/B2 Aquifer

70

4.2.4 B4/B5 Aquifer

81

4.3 Recommendations

84

Table of contents

5

6

ASSESSMENT OF SPRINGS

87

5.1 Methods and Data89

5.2 Results

90

5.3 Recommendations

94

GROUNDWATER MODEL OF JORDAN

95

6.1 Methods and Data

97

6.1.1 Groundwater Modeling97

6.1.2 Hydrological Data

97

6.1.3 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model

100

6.1.4 Numerical Groundwater Flow Model101

6.2 Results

7

8

9

107

6.2.1 Calibration

107

6.2.2 Transient Modeling108

6.2.3 Predictive Modeling

116

6.3 Recommendations

124

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT (WEAP-MODFLOW)

127

7.1 Methods and Data

129

7.1.1 Water Evaluation and Planning System (WEAP)

129

7.1.2 WEAP-MODFLOW Linkage

130

7.2 Results

130

7.3 Recommendations

134

GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY MAP

135

8.1 Methods and Data

137

8.1.1 O Factor (Overlying Factor)

137

8.1.2 C Factor (Concentration of Flow)139

8.1.3 P Factor (Precipitation)

140

8.2 Results

141

8.3 Recommendations

141

APPENDIX

143

Reference list

145

List of Figures

148

List of Tables

150

List of acronyms and units of measurement

151

List of Annexes

1517Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Source: BGR

8

E X TENDEDE XECUT I VE
SUMMARY

1

1
Extended Executive Summary
Jordan is one of the most water-scarcecountries in the world, and groundwater
is the main source to meet domestic,
industrial and agricultural water
demands. Significant groundwater
abstractions have resulted in declining
groundwater levels within nearly all
aquifers, which is evidence that theabstraction rates exceed the natural
recharge. The observed substantial
decline in groundwater levels began in
the 1980s and has been exacerbatedby increased abstraction to address thewater demands of a growing populationand intensified agricultural development
in recent decades.

Extended Executive Summary

11

Source: BGR

The last comprehensive nationwide study of groundwater

information. Nationwide SCMs were first produced in 1995,

resources was conducted in the 1990s by the BGR (Margane

combining the findings for southern (Hobler et al., 1991)& Hobler, 1994, Hobler et al., 1991). Since then, only local

and northern (Margane & Hobler, 1994) Jordan. Many newstudies of different topics have been performed. In 2016, thewells have been drilled since then, and the SCMs urgently

BGR and MWI made efforts towards updating groundwater

needed to be updated. The new maps show the estimatedinformation for the entire country, involving all of the as-bases of the major hydrogeological units and serve as anpects needed to assess the current groundwater conditions.

important tool for new borehole planning, resource estima-

These activities focused on groundwater quantity rather

tions (Chapter 4) and groundwater vulnerability mapping

than quality. This book comprises the main outcomes of the(Chapter 8). In addition, separate maps for the A3, A4 andmany tasks involved in this comprehensive study, including

A5/A6 formations were developed for the first time.

structure contour maps (SCM) and cross-sections of thesubsurface aquifer systems, groundwater contour maps,

All available geological and hydrogeological drilling data

several thematic maps, such as the depth to groundwater

were collected and analyzed to update the SCMs (Chap-and saturated thickness, and an evaluation of all springs inter 3.2) and draw new subsurface cross-sections (Chap-

Jordan. Various decision support tools were developed, in-ter 3.1.3). Unfortunately, the WIS data quality is often

cluding a nationwide groundwater model that was coupledlimited. There is no system in place for quality control towith a nationwide WEAP model to predict the outcomes

prevent data entry errors. The coordinates and elevationsof different groundwater resource management decisions

are frequently incorrect or inaccurate, and systematic errors

as well as a vulnerability map that highlights areas where

derived from coordinate conversions occur. Additionally,groundwater resources require a high level of protection.

neighboring boreholes often have conflicting lithologicalinformation. Therefore, other data sources were used when

To assess the overall groundwater conditions, it is necessary

available, including drilling reports from water suppliers,

to understand the aquifer geometry. Subsurface informa-

drilling companies and oil, oil shale and uranium explora-tion is needed to estimate the probability of encounteringtion boreholes. These are generally well documented andwater as well as the costs of well construction when siting

often include geophysical logs that allow cross-checking ofa new borehole. Therefore, updating the SCMs was among

geological descriptions. Drilling records for the numerous

the first project activities undertaken (Chapter 3). SCMs are

private water wells from the WAJ database were not used

two-dimensional representations of the surface elevation

because of their low data quality.

of each geological unit and are based on available borehole

Figu
re

12

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

1

Structure contour map of the A7/B2 aquifer

In summary, the hydrogeological units with updated struc-Group. In western Jordan, the Kurnub aquifer (Chapter

tures (A1/A2 and younger) are as follows:

3.2.4), which increases in thickness to the northeast(Barthelemy et al., 2010), directly overlies the Ram/Disi→→ The deep sandstone aquifer system consists of several

aquifer and forms a combined aquifer complex (Margane

units: Ram, Khreim, Zarqa and Kurnub. The Ram Groupet al., 2002). However, in eastern Jordan, the low-perme-

is an important porous aquifer that extends across allability Silurian Khreim Group (Chapter 3.2.2) separatesof Jordan and dewaters towards the Dead Sea (Chapter

the two sandstone aquifers. The Permian to Triassic

3.2.1). The name “Disi Sandstone” is sometimes used in

Zarqa Group (Chapter 3.2.3) forms a minor aquifer thatreference to this group, although it is simply one of theis hydraulically connected to the Kurnub sandstone informations in the Ram Group. In this book, the namesome areas.

Ram/Disi aquifer is used when referring to the Ram

Extended Executive Summary→→ At the country scale, several formations in the Upper
Cretaceous Ajlun Group are usually grouped together as

13

Ajloun Dome (Figure 1), which is a prominent structural
high in northern Jordan.

the “A1/A6 aquitard”. However, the A1/A2 and A4 aquifers are important for local water supply, especially in→→ The Paleogene B3 (Muwaqqar) aquitard is the most im-

areas where the overlying A7/B2 aquifer has nearly dried

portant aquitard in Jordan. Most of the proven oil shale

up. The A3, A4 and A5/A6 units cannot be distinguishedreserves in Jordan are located in the lower part of thisfrom each other south of the Siwaqa Fault. The Naurformation due to locally elevated contents of bitumen

Limestone aquifer (A1/A2) thins from nearly 300 m thick(Ziegler, 2001). Because the majority of the water wells inin the north to approximately 150 m thick in Wadi Mujib

Jordan tap the underlying A7/B2 aquifer, the base of thisand only 25 m thick at the Ras en Naqb escarpment information is generally well documented (Chapter 3.2.7).

the south (Chapter 3.2.5). In general, the A1/A2 and overlying formations dip gently to the east due to the uplift→→ The Paleogene B4 (Umm Rijjam) and B5 (Wadi Shallala)of the Dead Sea Rift graben shoulders. The A3 aquitard

formations form a combined aquifer at the regional lev-

(Fuhais Formation) has an average thickness of approxi-el, although the marls in B4 can act as aquitards in somemately 50 m and thins to the south (Chapter 3.2.5.2), andareas (Margane & Hobler, 1994). The average thickness

it structurally follows the underlying A1/A2 Formation.

of the B4/B5 is approximately 230 m, and the maximum

There are no indications of the A3 aquitard in the lower

thickness of 970 m, including the overlying alluvium, is

Zarqa River, the Baqa’a Valley northwest of Amman or

located in the Sirhan Graben (Chapter 3.2.8).

between Amman and the northern Dead Sea. East of theFuluq Fault, there are no data about the presence of the→→ The Harrat Ash Shams basalt (Tertiary to Quaternary) is

A3 aquitard. Due to facies changes, the borders between

the Jordanian part of the North Arabic Volcanic Prov-

A3, A4 and A5/A6 are unclear south of the Siwaqa Fault,ince. The greatest thickness of approximately 1500 m isand these units are mapped as one unit. The thickness

located at the Jebel al Arab volcano (1803 m asl) in Syria,of the A4 aquifer (Hummar Formation) is comparable toand the thickness decreases to the south (Chapter 3.2.9),that of the A3 aquitard (Chapter 3.2.5.3), and it discharges

with a maximum estimated thickness of 500 m in Jordan

though several springs. This aquifer is hydraulically con-(Margane et al. 2002), as shown in Figure 2. Jebel Moun-nected to the underlying A1/A2 aquifer or the overlying

tain is the main recharge area for the basaltic aquifer.

A7/B2 aquifer due to faulting and karstification (Brück-

The groundwater flow is highly anisotropic with higher

ner et al., 2015; Margane et al., 2009; Subah & Hobler,

horizontal conductivities between the individual 3-m- to2004). The A5/A6 aquitard, or Shueyb Formation (Chap-

25-m-thick lava flows (BGR/ESCWA, 1996) that host lo-

ter 3.2.5.4), separates the A4 aquifer from the overlying

cal perched aquifers. The basalt is hydraulically connect-

A7/B2 aquifer, although there is some evidence that thised to the underlying formations in some areas throughseparation does not always exist, likely due to karstifica-

faults and cooling cracks that allow downward leakage.

tion (Brückner et al., 2015).

Several important wellfields for the water supply of Amman are located in this basalt, including the Aqeb and→→ The A7/B2 aquifer consists of three formations from theUpper Cretaceous Ajloun (Wadi as Sir) and Balqa (Wadi
Umm Ghudran and Amman-Al Hisa) Groups. Mostof the wells that fully penetrate the A7/B2 aquifer are
located in northern Jordan between Amman, Mafraq,
and Ajloun. The thickness increases towards the Sirhan
Graben, where it can reach 2200 m (Chapter 3.2.6). The
units generally dip towards Wadi Sirhan and away from

Corridor wellfields (Borgstedt et al., 2007).

Figu
re

14

2

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Structure contour map of the Basalt aquifer

Based on the updated digital SCMs, new cross-sections (An-After updating the structural subsurface information, thenex 2, Figure 3) of the subsurface were drawn at a horizon-

BGR supported the MWI to assess the current groundwa-

tal scale of 1:322000 and a vertical exaggeration of 1:25. Due

ter resources of Jordan. Furthermore, the changes in theto data gaps, only the upper part of the aquifers and major

groundwater conditions were evaluated using the last

faults are displayed. Depressions and bulging areas in thecomprehensive study from the 1990s as a baseline reference

SCMs are indicated, which could potentially be the result of(Chapter 4). One of the main outputs is the 2017 groundwa-

tectonic shifting; however, faults are not plotted. When us-

ter level contour map for the A7/B2 aquifer in addition to

ing SCMs or cross-sections for hydrogeological exploration,

the first groundwater level contour map of the A1/A2 andthe shortcomings of the data and tools must be considered.

A4 aquifers. A groundwater contour map was also developed
for the deep sandstone aquifer system. Additional thematicmaps, such as a depth to groundwater map, saturated thickness map, and map of the difference in groundwater levels
from the 1990s to 2017, were derived from these main maps.

Figu
re

Extended Executive Summary

3

15

Locations of cross-sections

Before preparation of the groundwater level contour map,

northern Jordan, where a regional groundwater depression

historical data were retrieved, plotted, validated and cate-has developed north of Mafraq. A comparison of the flow

gorized as a function of the information source reliability.

directions observed in the 1990s and 2017 indicates that

In addition, extensive fieldwork was carried out to collect

the regional flow patterns have changed significantly. The

actual water level data in monitoring and nonoperating

groundwater flow direction between Mafraq and Azraq has

production wells as well as to determine the exact coordi-

become inverted: groundwater originating from the northnates and elevations of all wells and springs used for the(Jebel al Arab in Syria) flowed to the endorheic basin of theinterpolation of the groundwater level contours.

Azraq Oasis in the 1990s, whereas in 2017, the groundwater
turned to the west and now flows towards the regional de-

The A7/B2 aquifer is one of the most important aquifers in
Jordan (Chapter 4.2.3). The 2017 water level contour map(Figure 4, Annex 8) shows that the natural groundwaterflow conditions are rarely observable anymore, especially inpression cone at Mafraq.

Figu
re

16

4

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Groundwater level contour lines for the A7/B2 aquifer, October 2017

The saturated thickness map (Figure 54, Annex 10), which

Unsaturated areas were already mapped in 1995 west of

was derived from the groundwater contour map and up-

Mafraq, but these areas have strongly expanded towards

dated geological structure map (Chapter 3.2), shows that thethe west since 1995. The saturated thickness appears to be

A7/B2 aquifer is partly dry, especially in the outcrop areas

greater than 300 meters only in small parts of the coun-near the escarpment. The map of the groundwater leveltry, such as the very northern part around Irbid, east ofdifference from the 1990s to 2017 (Chapter 4.1.4, Annex

the Fuluq Fault, and south of the Salawan Fault. However,11) indicates that the drawdown over the past 20 years isgroundwater exploitation in these areas should be carefully

alarmingly high; in general, the decrease in saturated thick-considered because the base of the A7/B2 aquifer is moreness varies between 20 and 50 meters (Figure 5). Locally,

than 2500 meters below the ground surface.

such as east of Petra, south of Amman and north of Mafraq, the drawdown reaches more than 100 meters. In the

In areas where the A7/B2 aquifer is no longer saturated,areas where the aquifer is still under confined conditions

especially in northern Jordan, wells have been deepened(western Wadi Al Arab and southern Yarmouk Valley), theinto the deeper A4 or A1/A2 aquifers, enhancing the local

groundwater equipotential surface has decreased by more

importance of these aquifers. For this reason, the BGR andthan 150 meters.

MWI produced the first groundwater contour map for theA1/A2 and A4 aquifers, reflecting the conditions as of 2017
(Chapter 4.2.2).

Figu
re

Extended Executive Summary517

Difference in groundwater levels of the A7/B2 aquifer between 1995 and 2017

The groundwater contour map of the A1/A2 and A4 aqui-mainly mirrors the thickness of the A1/A6 aquifer underfers (Figure 6, Annex 5) indicates recharge in the northern

confined conditions with values between 200 meters andoutcrop areas, from which the groundwater flows mainly

more than 400 meters. However, not all of the thickness

towards the Jordan Valley, north, and east. Recharge also

is considered to be economically usable because less per-likely occurs at Jabel al Arab in Syria and flows into themeable layers are included in the thickness. Most of thecountry towards the south/southwest. The data density

still-saturated area north of the Siwaqa Fault is underdecreases substantially to the south, but the groundwater

confined conditions. Around Amman, the thickness varies

flows from outcrop areas around Karak are assumed to be

between 100 meters and 300 meters. However, in this area,

dominantly towards the east.

the thickness is for the A4 and A1/A2 aquifers because theA5/A6 and A3 aquitards are not included. The area be-

Based on the saturated thickness map (Chapter 4.2.2.3,

tween Mafraq and Irbid has saturated thicknesses of 300

Annex 7), which was derived from the groundwater con-meters to 400 meters and more. However, the A4 and A1/

tour map and the updated geological structure map, theA2 aquifers are very deep (more than 400 meters) and are

A4 and A1/A2 aquifers appear to no longer be saturated,

not likely economically feasible. The ongoing exploitation

especially in the outcrop near the escarpment in northernof the A7/B2 aquifer will increase the exploitation of the

Jordan, although verification through measurements is

A1/A2 and A4 aquifers, especially in areas where it is al-needed. The saturated thickness south of the Siwaqa Fault

ready exhausted.

Figu
re

18

6

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Groundwater level contour lines for the A1/A6 aquifer complex, October 2017

In addition to the A7/B2 aquifer, the deep Sandstone aqui-Salt and Ajloun, where the Kurnub aquifer outcrops, ap-

fer system is another large reservoir of fossil groundwater

pears to be a recharge area for the Kurnub aquifer. Fromand is very important for the water supply of Jordan (Chap-

there, groundwater flows in all directions but dominantly

ter 4.2.1). In particular, the Ram/Disi and Kurnub aquifers

towards the Jordan Valley.

are locally important. In the central and southern parts of
Jordan, the Kurnub and Ram/Disi aquifers are considered

Since 2013, the Disi wellfield in southern Jordan has had ato be one hydraulic unit. Around Amman, the Zarqa Groupmajor impact on the general domestic water supply, withseparates the Kurnub and Ram/Disi aquifers, which cana contribution of approximately 100 MCM per year. The

be recognized by a difference of more than 100 meters in

effects of the Disi wellfield on the groundwater conditions

the hydraulic heads of the aquifers. Due to the inadequate

in the Ram/Disi aquifer are indicated in the groundwater

data distribution, not all parts of the aquifer can be repre-

level difference map between the 1990s and 2017 (Chapter

sented (Chapter 4.2.1.1). In southern Jordan, groundwater

4.2.1.4). Here, the overall drawdown in the region is lessflows from Saudi Arabia towards the northeast, turns tothan 25 meters, but the drawdown in the wellfield area isthe northwest around the Ras en Naqb escarpment andhigher.

continues farther towards the Dead Sea, where it discharges(Figure 7). In the far southeast, the water inflow from Saudi

The Basalt and B4/B5 aquifers are only of regional impor-

Arabia is oriented towards the northwest. The area aroundtance in the area around Azraq. The AWSA wellfield located

Figu
re

Extended Executive Summary

7

19

Groundwater level contour lines for the deep Sandstone aquifer system and the Kurnub aquifer, October 2017

north-northwest of Azraq produces a cone of depression

springs are perennial, 23 are intermittent, and 195 are dry.

that affects the regional groundwater flow. In this area, be-

The flow conditions for an additional 12 springs are un-cause the hydraulic heads of the A7/B2 aquifer are similar

known because it was impossible to identify these springs

to those of the B4/B5 and Basalt aquifers (Figure 61), a hy-

in the field. The number of dry springs varies yearly with an

draulic connection is assumed (Chapter 4.2.4.1).

overall increasing trend since 1987, but an large number ofthese springs were dry in 1988, 1995, 1999, and 2014, which

All of the information presented above indicates that theconsequently affected the water supply. In 2016/ 2017, only

available groundwater resources are very limited in Jordan,

23 springs were used for the drinking water supply. Many

which makes the proper use of the available surface waterof the running springs cannot be used because of bacterial

resources more important. For comprehensive water re-pollution, despite a large amount of discharge. The water

source management, springs should be considered, espe-

from the important springs is treated to remove the bacteri-cially in Jordan, which has many springs in the highlands. A

al contamination. In 2017, approximately 20 MCM of water

total of 861 springs are recorded in the WIS database of thewas provided by springs for the drinking water supply.

MWI for the different aquifers, although there are no recent
data for many of these springs. During the project, a nationwide assessment of the springs was conducted to identify
their current status (Chapter 5). The results showed that 361

Figu
re

20

8

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Five-year average discharges of the perennial springs in MCM

The distribution of the 5-year average spring discharge (Fig-

These analyses illustrate the historical groundwater re-ure 8) identified high discharge areas, which could possibly

source development until 2017. All of these factors are

be used for water supply after further investigations. In theimportant in deciding future groundwater management

high recharge areas in Ajloun, north and west of Amman,

measures. However, decision makers also need to know

areas of large spring discharge (approximately 10 MCM/yr)

how various possible measures would affect the resources

are located south-southwest of Madaba and around Karakin the future.

and Tafelah as well as south of Petra.
With this aim, a nationwide groundwater flow model was
The maximum total yearly spring discharge was 249 MCM/

established, which adequately represents the groundwater

yr in the early 1970s, and the discharge has decreased con-development in the past and forecasts future developments

stantly since that time except during in the early 1990s,

under different circumstances (Chapter 6). Coupled with thewhen a sudden increase was observed. The total spring dis-nationwide WEAP model (Chapter 7), the effects of various

charge decreased by more than 115 MCM/yr to 136 MCM/

water planning options can be evaluated to support deci-yr by the early 2010s. Springs from individual aquifers fol-sion-making processes. The groundwater model comprises

low the same trend.

all relevant hydrogeological units from Ram/Disi to Alluvium. The model is based on structural models from BRGM(2010) and Margane et al. (2002), as shown in Figure 9.

Extended Executive Summary

21

Figu
re

Materials
BasaltDead Sea Sediments
B4B5
B3
A7B2
A1A6
Kurnub
Zarqa
KhreimRam

9Three-dimensional groundwater model

The numerical groundwater flow model can be applied asfers (A7/B2 and Ram/Disi) are consistent with the results ofa stand-alone tool for assessing the effects of management

BRGM (2010) and MWI (2005).

strategies on groundwater resources, such as to predict the
impacts of

The hydraulic heads and parameters of the steady state
calibration were used as initial conditions for the transient→→ decreasing groundwater levels in existing wellfields,modeling that simulates the 1960-2017 period. The data→→ new or currently unaccounted for groundwater abstrac-

applied to the transient model comprise the water level oftions, and→→ water use reductions in different sectors and/or locations.

the Dead Sea, groundwater recharge, and pumping rates ofmore than 5000 abstraction wells available in the WIS. The
results of the transient simulation were verified using the

The model was calibrated for steady state conditions andobserved historical groundwater levels in selected moni-validated under transient conditions using the results of thetoring wells, the discharge rate of the Azraq springs, and thegroundwater assessment (Chapter 4). The steady state cali-groundwater contour maps of the groundwater resource

bration provides results under predevelopment conditions.

assessment.

The hydraulic heads and flow directions of the modeled
groundwater contours for the most intensively used aqui-22

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]calculated
calculated[m[ma.s.l.]a.s.l.]

observed
observed[m[ma.s.l.]a.s.l.]

calculated [m a.s.l.]

570

560

560
660

560
690

560

560

550

550
650

550
680

550

550

540

540
640

540
670

540

540

530

530
630

530
660

530

530

520

520
620

520
650

520

520

510

510
610

510
640

510

510

500

500
600

500
630

500

500

490

490
590

490
620

490

490

480

480
580

480
610

480

480

470

470
570

470
600

470

470

460

460
560

460
590

460

19

60

19

70

19

80

90

20

00

20

10

119

0
966

0

00
977
119

00
988
119

AL3361
CD1132

AL3384 · Observed

Figu
re

AL3384

19

00
99
119

00
011
220

00
000
220

19

AL3361 · Observed
CD1132

calculated [m a.s.l.]

100

100

700

705

80

80

690

695

60

60

680

685

40

40

670

675

20

20

660

665

0

0

650

655

-20

-20

observed groundwater levels of the aquifers, such as in wellobserved [m a.s.l.]

For decision makers, it is always important to understand

640

645

what will occur in the future under different management-40-40
AL3384for A7/B2 (Figure 10, left), but the simulations fail630
measures. After transient validation, the model was used 635

to-60
reproduce the observed increased drawdown since 2000
-60

to forecast the drawdown for 2000-2050 based on different
620
625

caused by the increasing extraction rates, which are not
-80

-80

610

615

-100

600

605

recorded in the WIS, such as in well AL3361 for the Basalt-100
aquifer (Figure 10).
19

60

19

70

19

AE1003

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

AE1003 · Observed

assumptions. Two groundwater abstraction options wereconsidered:

1. Baseline
scenario:
abstraction
and10 indus90 for domestic
60
70
80
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
trial uses from the WIS. The groundwater abstractions
CD1106
CD1106· Observedfor irrigation
are from the WEAP
model,
which arebased on the mapped irrigated areas for 2015 and 2017using remote sensing data (Al-Bakri, 2016).
2. Enforcement of the groundwater bylaw scenario: abstraction for domestic and industrial uses from the WIS.
The groundwater abstraction volumes are based on thecurrent abstraction rates documented in the WIS.

19

70

F10

calculated[m a.s.l.]observed[m a.s.l.]
10Simulatedand observed hydraulic heads for selected
monitoringwells

In general, the simulated hydraulic heads reproduce the

60

480

470

590

635

460

450

570

615

440

430

550

410

530

420
19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

AL3384 · WIS

20

00

20

10

20

20

AL3384 · WEAP

20

30

20

40

20

50

Extended Executive Summary

595

575
19

60

AL3384 · Observed

calculated
calculated[m[ma.s.l.]
a.s.l.]

23

19

70

19

80

19

90

CD1132 · WIS

20

00

20

10

20

20

CD1132 · WEAP

20

30

20

40

20

50

CD1132 · Observed

observed[m [ma.s.l.][m[ma.s.l.]
observed
a.s.l.] calculated
calculated
a.s.l.]

observed
observed[m[ma.s.l.]
a.s.l.]

100 560

545

80

540
565
80 550550535

520 60520
60 540
545

525
530

40

515

20

40 530500
525
20 520

0

480
0

100

540

500
480

510
505

505
510

495
470
485

460-20460-20 500
485

-40
440

-40 490
440
465

450
475

-60

-60 480

420
-80

420
445
-80 470

465
430
455

400
-100

400
-100460
425

445
410

60 60 70 70 80 80 90 90 00 00 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0
1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 2 0 2 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
AE1003· WIS
AL3361· WIS

60 60 70 70 80 80 90 90 0000 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020

AE1003· Observed
AL3361· Observed

AL1043
· WIS
F1014
· WIS

AL1043· WEAP
F1014· WEAP

AL1043· Observed
F1014· Observed

Figu
re

AE1003· WEAP
AL3361· WEAP

11
Simulated
observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoringin the A7/B2
aquifer for
calculated[mand
a.s.l.]
observedwells[m a.s.l.]calculated[mscenarios
a.s.l.] 1 (orange curves) and 2 (blue curves)
observed [m a.s.l.]

590

550

580

540

570

530

560

520

550

510

540

500

Figure11 shows that a significantly better fit of the trends 490
530
recorded through 2017 is achieved for scenario 1 (orange
520

480

510

470

500

460

490

450

curves) compared to scenario 2 (blue curves).

19

60

19

70

19

80

AL3390 · WIS

19

90

20

00

20

10

AL3390 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

AL3390 · Observed

50

605

570

585

550

565

530

545

510

525

490

505

470

485

450

465

430
19

60

19

70

19

80

F3755 · WIS

19

90

20

00

20

10

F3755 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

F3755 · Observed

20

50

Figu
re

24

12

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Simulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer for 2017-2050 under scenario 1

Generally, in the A7/B2 aquifer, scenario 1 shows a better

Decreasing groundwater levels have an impact on ground-

fit of the calculated and observed values than scenario 2,

water availability and groundwater production costs. The

especially in the observation wells close to irrigation areas.

availability is reduced because wells become dry, whereas

For 2017-2050, the model under scenario 1 predicts draw-

groundwater production costs increase due to the higher

downs of up to 100 m (Figure 12). However, the maximum

pump lift and thus higher electric energy consumption.

drawdown predicted for the same period under scenario

Furthermore, the need to deepen or replace wells leads to

2 reaches approx. 65 m (Figure 13). In both scenarios, theadditional costs.

areas with major drawdowns are Wadi Al Arab, Ramtha/
Mafraq, northeast of Amman, east of Madaba and east of Al
Shubak and Jafer.

Figu
re

Extended Executive Summary

13

Simulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer for 2017-2050 under scenario 2

By coupling the groundwater model with the existing
WEAP model, a decision support system was created(WEAP-MODFLOW-DSS) that assesses groundwater-related
processes as well as the spatial and volumetric limitationsof the available water resources in detail. Without a groundwater model, the WEAP model neglects spatial informationand considers aquifers as infinite groundwater resources,
which contradicts the natural conditions. Therefore, thecoupled WEAP-MODFLOW model constitutes a necessary
improvement of the WEAP model, and the MWI is now
capable of improving the strategic management of groundwater resources and water supply infrastructure.

25

26

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Unmet demand [MCM]

Supply Requirement [MCM]
1900

1800

1700

1600

1500

600

400

200

0
2015

2020

Figu
re

Unmet demand · Reference

14

2025

2030

Unmet demand · Reference coupled

2035

2040

Supply Requirement

Calculated unmet demands with and without coupling for scenario 1 and the supply requirements for all demand sites in Jordan

The results of the coupled WEAP model show that ground-mately 630 MCM in 2040, which demonstrates the increas-water production is lower than required in the uncoupled

ing water supply deficits in Jordan and the importance of

WEAP master model. Figure 14 illustrates the unmet de-more accurately assessing groundwater availability.

mand, which is the difference between the supply requirements and supply delivered.
As expected, the unmet demand is higher in the coupledmodel because of the lower groundwater production as aresult of declining groundwater levels. According to thesimulation results, the coupled model leads to an unmet
demand that increases from 400 MCM in 2015 to approxi-

Extended Executive Summary

27

Unmet demand [MCM]
8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0
2011

2015

Figu
re

Zarqa agriculture ·Reference

15

2019

2023
Zarqa agriculture ·Reference coupled

2027

2031

Madaba agriculture ·Reference

2035

2039

Madaba agriculture ·Reference coupled

Unmet irrigation demands at Zarqa and Madaba with and without coupling for scenario 1

The impact of limited groundwater availability can also be

All of these assessments show that the groundwater re-visualized for individual demand sites, such as Zarqa andsources in Jordan are very limited. The still-available re-Madaba (Figure 15). While the uncoupled model calculated

sources require urgent protection against surface pollution,

permanent coverage of supply at both sites, the coupledwhich appears to be a serious problem. Many springs withmodel estimated an unmet demand that steadily increased

large discharges cannot be used as water supplies because

over the period to approximately 7.5 MCM for Zarqa and 3.7of pollution. To protect these resources, groundwater pro-

MCM for Madaba in 2040.

tection zones were implemented in a previous BGR project.
Another important tool for assessing pollution hazards isthe groundwater vulnerability map (Annex 13). This map
highlights areas where aquifers are naturally unprotected(Chapter 8). Any pollutant can easily reach the groundwater

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

28

16

Groundwater vulnerability map

table and spread quickly. To develop this important tool, theThe map shows that the vulnerabilities are highest near the

structure of the subsurface aquifer system combined with

outcrops of the aquifers because there is little or no protec-

the actual groundwater levels are key information.

tive cover. This is especially the case in the deeply incisedwaters that run from the highlands towards the Dead Sea

The COP method (Vías et al., 2006) was used in this study

Rift basin. In contrast, the vulnerability along the outcrops

because it considers the rapid flow through the karst fea-of the B3 aquitard is very low because of its high thicknesstures that are present in northern Jordan. Three groups

and low permeability.

of factors are considered in this method: overlying layers(O), concentration of flow (C) and precipitation (P). The

The vulnerability map leads to purposeful protection ofprocesses that govern infiltration and transport are par-critical areas and must be considered in any further land-

ametrized, combined and shown on a map (Figure 16) in

use planning, such as to avoid the installation of criticalan easy-to-understand form with qualitative classes fromindustries in highly vulnerable areas.

high vulnerability (fast transport) to low vulnerability (slowtransport).

In conclusion, significant efforts have been made to update the subsurface information and vulnerability map, tocollect and analyze current field data for groundwater andExtended Executive Summary

springs and to develop decision-making tools. Recent water

1.

29

One of the most effective measures for addressing thelevel data were collected at 550 measurement points. The

water crisis is increasing awareness among national,

resulting assessment of groundwater resources, especiallyregional, and local decision makers as well as among

the A7/B2 aquifer and the comparison to the conditions in

the most important private water users, such as water

the 1990s, shows that the groundwater conditions in Jordan

companies and farmers. All institutions related to theare very critical. The generally significant drawdown of thewater sector must have access to this studyAny poten-

water levels, development of regional depression cones, loss

tial for saving water should be fully exploited. Waterof saturated thickness and growing extension of unsatu-

companies must reduce water losses due to leaking

rated zones, inversion of flow directions towards areas ofpipes to a minimum. Continuous maintenance or,extensive groundwater exploitation and increasing number

where necessary, modernization of the water supplyof dried springs are clear indicators of the severe overuse of

network is needed. In the agricultural sector, water-sav-groundwater resources.

ing technologies and processes together with the cultivation of low-water demand crops must be promoted.

The results of the transient groundwater flow model cou-

In critical areas, the licensed water volumes must be

pled to the WEAP model predict continued significant

reduced, or the licenses should not be extended.

declines in groundwater levels in certain areas. Decreasingwater levels and increasing unsaturated areas will have

2. Groundwater resources must be protected from any

serious economic and operational consequences on waterkind of contamination that could reduce their availabil-

abstraction for both private and public use. Water levels at

ity and exacerbate the water crisis. Urban planning andgreater depths require higher energy consumption to lift

project licensing must consider groundwater vulnera-

water and consequently increase operational costs. Further-bility (Brückner, Hamdan, Breazat, 2018) to reduce themore, existing wells must be deepened, riser lines must be

risk of the negative impacts of potentially contaminat-

extended, and pumps must be exchanged with more pow-

ing activities in highly vulnerable areas.

erful and expensive pumps to adapt to lower water levels. A
significant number of wells will dry up in upcoming years.

3. It is highly recommended to identify alternative water

Because salinity and mineralization of abstracted ground-sources, such as the desalination of sea water or brack-water increases with depth, water quality will become a

ish groundwater, as well as to study the economic fea-

major cost factor, eventually requiring water treatment bysibility of these methods for the domestic water supply

cost-intensive technologies and disposal of brines.

by comparing their costs with the steadily increasing
costs of groundwater exploitation. The development of

To mitigate these conditions and slow or reverse the con-new sources reduces the drinking water supply sector’s

tinuous increase in water supply costs as well as secure thedependency on decreasing groundwater resources,

future water supply, decisive measures by the Jordanianincreases drinking water supply sustainability, and im-

government are urgently needed. Potential effective meas-

proves water security.

ures that could contribute to mitigating or overcoming the
Jordanian (ground)water crisis are as follows:

4. Through analysis of the groundwater resources basedon field investigations and the groundwater model,
areas of illegal well operations have been identified, andthe difference between the groundwater model results

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Source: BGR

30

Source: BGR

and the field measurements provides an initial estimate

continue regular monitoring of its water resources, in-of the amounts of illegally abstracted water. Illegal wells

cluding regular field inspections at least every 6 months.

should be closed, especially in northern Jordan. Addi-

This basic information is indispensable for successful

tionally, stricter control of abstracted volumes, revoking

water resource management.

of licenses, and application of higher water fees need to
be implemented.

7. The coupled WEAP-MODFLOW model improves theability to forecast the effects of future developments.

5. Despite the extremely high costs of pumping and en-

Because the model allows for the quantification ofergy consumption in the Jordan highlands, extensive

wellfield productivity and identifies the origin of supply

agriculture is widespread, probably because of the sub-deficits, it must be used for water supply management

sidization of electricity for irrigation. Further studies are

and planning in Jordan.

needed to fully understand why irrigation in the highlands is still profitable, and subsidies must stop.

8. Maps can be used together with the groundwater model
to identify favorable areas for siting new wellfields for

6. Management decisions on a local level cannot be madepublic water supply. These areas must have a good satu-

with the scarce data availability. Additional field inves-

rated thickness and a low depth to groundwater. How-

tigations and local data collection are recommended

ever, the final decisions must be based on exhaustive

to enhance prediction reliability. The MWI needs tofeasibility studies.

INTRODUC T ION

2

2
Introduction
Jordan is one of the most water-scarcecountries in the world. Groundwater
resources are the main water supply
source, and they are used for domestic,
industrial, and agricultural purposes.
Due to population growth and the
expansion of industrial and agriculturalactivities, the need for water resources
is continuously increasing. Decreasing
groundwater levels in monitoring wells
and drying of production wells andsprings are indicators of extremely
critical groundwater resource conditions
in Jordan.

Introduction

33

Funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation

The depth to groundwater and the resulting delineation ofand Development of Germany, as part of the Jordanian-­

confined and unconfined areas are important information

German technical cooperation, the BGR and MWI are joint-with economic implications because they reflect the re-ly working on several topics in the field of groundwater

quired amount of pump lift. In unconfined areas, the water

resources in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Figure 17).

level indicates the minimum necessary drilling depth, but

For Jordan’s future, it is crucial to understand the present

in confined areas, the water level may be hundreds of me-

conditions, how they have developed over the years, andters above the top of the actual aquifer. However, the drill-

what the effects of different future management strategies

ing must reach at least the top of the aquifer. The saturated(scenarios) will be on resource availability. By doing so, athickness map describes how much water remains in ansound base for making drastic but necessary decisions foraquifer. This information is relevant to identifying areas for

safeguarding Jordan’s scarce groundwater resources can be

new drilling sites or other cost-intensive operations, such as

established.

well deepening. Without information about the subsurface
structure, none of these estimations would be possible.

The last nationwide study on groundwater resources was
conducted in the 1990s by the BGR. Since then, only local

To visualize the regional trends, the groundwater condi-

studies of different topics have been performed. The results

tions encountered in October 2017 were compared withof these studies show that the groundwater conditions in

the results of the 1995 nationwide study. Groundwater level

Jordan are rapidly deteriorating. Although several donors

changes between 1995 and 2017 were identified, and areas

have developed multimillion-dollar programs to improveof significant drawdown over the last 22 years can easily be

the water supply situation in Jordan, the nationwide anal-

seen. These regions in Jordan require urgent action if theysis of the available resources have not been updated. The

groundwater resources are to be preserved.

BGR decided to take over this task in 2016 with a study thatcovers the entire country and involves the different aspects

To decide on future groundwater management measures,

needed to analyze and understand the current groundwater

decision makers also need to know how these measures willconditions. The focus is on groundwater quantity rather

affect the resources. With this aim, a nationwide ground-than quality.

water flow model was established, which adequately represents the past groundwater developments, forecasts futureFirst, all available geological or hydrogeological drilling data

developments under different scenarios and allows forwere collected and analyzed to update the SCMs and draw

the rough assessment of illegal abstractions. Coupled with

subsurface cross-sections. The maps describe the aquifer

the nationwide WEAP model, the effects of various water

geometries down to the Upper Cretaceous aquifers and thus

planning options can be evaluated, and the decision-mak-to identify areas with groundwater potential. The structural

ing processes for strategic water management can be sup-information in combination with the current groundwater

ported. Without a groundwater model, the WEAP modellevels can be used to define unsaturated areas or estimate

neglects spatial information and considers aquifers to be in-

the amount of groundwater still available in an aquifer.

finite groundwater resources, which is not consistent with
the natural situation.

In the second step, the project activities concentrated on thedefinition of the actual groundwater conditions in Jordan.

For comprehensive groundwater resource management,

Two nationwide surveys were carried out in 2017 to collectsprings must be included, especially considering the large

precise groundwater level data, including a DGPS survey

number of springs in Jordan. The BGR together with MWI

to obtain the most accurate coordinates and elevation in-

conducted two nationwide surveys to assess the present

formation. Groundwater contours were drawn for Octoberstatus of all springs that had not been measured in the last2017 using all available data for the main aquifers in Jordan.

two years but where flow measurements had been obtained

For each aquifer, the resulting groundwater contour lines

in the previous two years. The results of the surveys show

were combined with the corresponding updated structure

how many springs are now dry and how the average dis-

contour map to develop different thematic maps, such as

charge of the still-running springs has changed as a direct

the depth to groundwater and the saturated thickness maps.

effect of decreasing groundwater levels.

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

Source: Bashar Tabbah Photography

34

17

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The groundwater resources in Jordan are scarce and need

key information. Based on these two factors (structure andprotection against pollution from the surface, which ap-

water level), the speed at which polluted water can infiltrate

pears to be a serious problem. Many springs with large dis-and contaminate the resources in different areas can be

charges cannot be used for water supplies because of pol-estimated. The vulnerability map leads to the purposeful

lution. To protect these resources, groundwater protection

protection of critical areas and must be considered in any

zones were implemented in a previous BGR project. Anoth-further land-use planning, such as to avoid the installation

er important tool needed to assess pollution hazards is theof critical industries in highly vulnerable areas.

groundwater vulnerability map. This map highlights areas
where aquifers are naturally unprotected. Any pollutant can

The authors of this study believe that all of the products

easily reach the groundwater table and spread quickly. To

presented here should be used to manage and protect thedevelop this important tool, the structure of the subsurface

scarce water resources of Jordan in the best possible way.

aquifer system and the actual groundwater level are again

HYDROGEOLOGIC AL
SE T T ING
AND U­ PDATE S TO
THE STRUC TURE
CONTOUR MAP

3

		

3
Hydrogeological Setting
and Updates to the Structure
Contour Map
Florian Brückner & Mohammad Alhyari

For any kind of groundwater resource
management, subsurface informationis needed to estimate the availabilityof groundwater. To site a new groundwater well, the hydrogeologist requires
subsurface information to estimate theprobability of encountering water as wellas the costs of well construction. Several
methods exist to visualize the subsurface geological conditions, such as single
borehole logs, cross-sections and SCMs,
and complex 3D geological models.
SCMs are geostatistical interpolations ofborehole information about geological orhydrogeological layer variations and represent the current knowledge about thesubsurface groundwater systems. SCMs
are two-dimensional representations of
the elevations of geological units in thesubsurface, and this information is usually obtained from borehole data.
Nationwide SCMs were first produced in
1995 and combined the results of studies
in southern Jordan (Hobler et al., 1991)
and northern Jordan (Margane & Hobler,1994). Since then, many new wells havebeen drilled, and the SCMs urgently required updating. The new maps show theestimated bases of major hydrogeological units and serve as important tools
not only for planning new boreholes but
also for resource estimations (Chapter 3)
and groundwater vulnerability mapping(Chapter 8). For the first time, separate
maps for the A3, A4 and A5/A6 formations were developed. Based on the new
SCMs, several subsurface profiles weredrawn using GIS and manual methods.

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

37

3.1 Methods and Data
3.1.1		 Updated Structure Contour Maps
The 1995 contour lines remained unchanged unless new

logical descriptions. Drilling records of the numerous pri-information was available, which was mostly from govern-

vate water wells from the WAJ database could not be usedmental water wells stored in the WIS database of the MWI.

because of their low data quality.

The data quality of the WIS is often limited; there is no system in place for quality control or to prevent data entry er-

The boundaries of the geological layers are based onrors, coordinates and elevations are frequently incorrect or

1:50,000 scale geological maps of the NRA, except in theinaccurate, and systematic errors occur due to conversion

eastern desert, where 1:250,000 scale maps from the Ger-of coordinates. Additionally, neighboring boreholes often

man Geological Mission were used (Bundesanstalt fürhave conflicting lithological information. Therefore, other

Bodenforschung, 1966, 1968).

data sources were used where available, such as drilling
The main faults (Figure 18) were identified through a litera-well as exploration boreholes for oil, oil shale and uranium.

ture review, remote sensing data, and major displacements

These features are generally well documented, often with

between neighboring boreholes, but their exact positions

geophysical logs that make it possible to cross-check geo-

and orientations often remain unclear; therefore, all fault

Figu
re

reports from the water suppliers and drilling companies as

18

Overview of faults in Jordan

38

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

planes were simply considered to be vertical. Consequently,“Groundwater Resources of Northern Jordan – Contribu-

the maps are less accurate near the faults. Smaller faults

tions to the Hydrogeology of Northern Jordan” (Margane etwere not considered, even though they may be relevant atal., 2001), Geology of Jordan (Bender, 1974) and the Ground-the local scale. The country was divided into several “fault

water Resources of Northern and Southern Jordan (Mar-blocks” that were interpolated independently in ArcGIS

gane et al., 2002).

from the structure contour lines and then merged together
to account for displacements along faults.
The geological sequence in Jordan is subdivided into litho-

3.1.2 Hydrogeological map

stratigraphic units based on hydrogeological relevance (Fig-The hydrogeological map (Annex 1) is a simplified map ofure 23). These units describe the succession of aquifers andthe outcrops of the hydrogeological units in Jordan (Fig-aquitards and have been a well-established system since theure 19). The map was originally created by the MWI and1970s (GTZ/NRA 1977, Abu Ajamieh et al., 1988, BGR/WAJ

combines the geological formations with their respective

1991).

hydrogeological characteristics. To simplify this map, formations with similar hydrogeological characteristics and/The series of sedimentary rocks is up to 3000 m thick be-or hydraulic connections were merged to represent a single

cause the base levels for some of the aquifers are very deephydrological unit.

due to downfaulting of the Dead Sea Rift valley. A complex
aquifer system developed with 3 major hydraulic complex-

The hydrogeological setting of Jordan has been described

es, which are important for the entire region and are sepa-

in detail in many previous studies. This section is based on

rated by marly and clayey aquitards:

Source: BGR

Source: BGR

Source: BGR

Basalt: The shallow (upper) aquifer sys-

Limestone: The Upper Cretaceous

Sandstone: The Kurnub-Zarqa-Ram/

tem, consisting of Tertiary and Quater-

A7/B2 limestone aquifer (the most

Disi ­Sandstone aquifer systemnary sedimentary and igneous rocks

important aquifer in Jordan) and the(alluvium, basalt, B4-B5)

A1-A6 ­limestone-marl aquifer-aquitard group

This long-term established aquifer grouping is only a gen-aquifer system. In the central part of Jordan, the Kurnub

eral description and can vary locally. In some areas, the A7/

Formation and Ram Group are hydraulically connected.

B2 aquifer is directly connected to the overlying basalt aq-

However, this connection cannot be assumed for the en-uifer. In areas where the A7/B2 aquifer is already unsaturat-

tire country because in northern and eastern Jordan, theseed, the deeper A4 or A1/A2 aquifer can be locally important.

groups are separated by the Khreim aquitard and/or the

In addition, this aquifer-aquitard group separates the two

low-permeability Zarqa Formation.

important aquifer systems of A7/B2 and the deep sandstone

Figu
re

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

Figu
re

19

20

39

Simplified hydrogeological units of Jordan

Aquifer classification system (after Struckmeyer & Margat, 1995)

The colors of the hydrogeological units in the map were se-systems with high or moderate potential, the color scheme

lected based on the aquifer classification system of Struck-

also considers the dominant type of groundwater flow

meyer & Margat (1995). Blue and green represent aquifers,

within the rock: blues are used for systems in which theand the darker the color is, the greater the potential forflow is mainly intergranular, while greens represent systems

aquifer exploitation is. Formations with limited potential

formed by hard rock, including karst, where the flow occurs

are show in light brown, while strata with essentially no

in fissures, fractures or dissolution cavities (Figure 20).

groundwater are indicated by dark brown. For groundwater40

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

3.1.3 Hydrogeological Cross-Sections

Depressions or uplifted areas in the SCMs that could be theFour cross-sections were constructed using the new SCMs

result of possible tectonic movements are indicated, but the(Figure 21) along the cross-section lines from Hobler et al.

faults were not drawn. When using the SCMs or cross-sec-(1991) in southern Jordan and Margane & Hobler (1994) intions for hydrogeological exploration, the shortcomings ofnorthern Jordan (Annex 2). SRTM (USGS, 2015) grid data

the data and tools must be considered.

with 90 m x 90 m resolution wereused to describe the surface topography. The SCMs andgroundwater contour maps are displayed at the same grid

3.2 Results

resolutions. The cross-sections have a vertical scale of 1:25
and a horizontal scale of 1:322,000.

The hydrostratigraphic classification of the geological units
in Jordan is shown in Figure 23. In the following sections,the major hydrogeological characteristics of the main aq-

idealized representations of the subsurface, the updated

uifer and aquitard systems are described, and their SCMs

SCMs were used here. Due to data gaps, only the upper

are presented. The SCMs were only updated for those units

parts of the aquifers and major faults are shown (Figure 22).

with sufficient new information.

Figu
re

In contrast with the previous cross-sections, which were

21

Overview map with locations of cross-sections

Figu
re

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

22

Cross-section C-C‘-C‘‘ from the Jordan Valley to the southeast

41

42

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

ERA

SYSTEM

EPOCH

GROUP

Holocene

FORMATION

LITHOLOGY

Alluviumclay, silt, sand, gravel

Lisanmarl, clay, evaporites

Samraconglomerates

THICKNESSALLUVIUM(Aquifier)MioceneOligocene

PALEOGENE

EocenePaleocene
Maastrichtian>300

100-350
NeogeneBELQA

CENOZOIC

Pliocene
NEOGENEJORDAN VALLEYQUATERNARY
Pleistocene

BASALT(Aquifier)sand, gravel

Wadi Shallala

chalky and marly limestone withglauconite

0-550

Umm Rijam

limestone, chalk, chert

0-310

Muwaqqarchalky marl, marl, limestone

80-320

Amman-Al Hisa

limestone, chert, chalk, phosphorite

20-140W. Umm Ghudran

dolomitic marly limestone, marl,chert, chalk

20-90

Wadi as Sir

dolomitic limestone, limestone,chert, marl60-340Sheibmarl, limestone40-120

A5/6(AQUITARD)

Hummarlimestone, dolomite

30-100A4 (AQUIFER)

Fuheismarl, limestone

30-90

A3
(AQUITARD)

Naurlimestone, dolomite, marl90-220

A1/A2(AQUIFER)

Subeihisandstone, shale120-350KURNUB(AQUIFER)

Campanian

ConiacianTuronianAJLUNCRETACEOUSMESOZOIC

Upper

Santonian

Cenomanpian

AQUIFER
UNIT

B4/5(AQUIFER)B3(AQUITARD)

A7/B2(AQUIFER)

AlbianHauterivian

KURNUB

Lower

AptianBarremian
Valanginian

Aarda

sandstone, shale

Berriasian

TRIASSICZARQAJURASSIC

siltstone, sandstone, limestone

0->600Ramthasiltstone, sandstone, shale, limestone,
anhydrite, halite

0->1250

Hudaybsiltstone, sandstone, limestone

0->300Alnasiltstone, sandstone, shale0->1000

Batra

mudstone, siltstone

0->1600

Trebeelsandstone

0-130

mudstone, siltstone, sandstone

0-200

Amud

sandstone

0->1500

Ajram

sandstone

0-500

Burj

siltstone, dolomite, limestone,sandstone

~120

Salib

arkosic sandstone, conglomerate

0->750Unassigned clastic unit

sandstone, argillaceous siltstone,
claystone

0-1000conglomerate, sandstone

up to 420

Sahl as Suwwan
ORDOVICIANCAMBRIAN

PRECAMBRIANRAM

PALEOZOICSILURIAN

KHREIM

PERMIAN

Azab

SaramujFigu
re

Aqaba Igneous

23

Stratigraphic chart of Jordan with hydrogeological classifications (after El-Naser, 1991 and Margane et al., 2000)

ZARQA(AQUIFER)KHREIM(AQUITARD)RAM
SANDSTONE(AQUIFER)BASEMENTCOMPLEXHydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

43

3.2.1 Ram Hydrogeological Unit

3.2.3 Zarqa

The Ram Group (Cambrian to Ordovician) consists main-

The Permian to Triassic Zarqa Group combines two forma-

ly of medium- to coarse-grained siliciclastic rocks thattions of marine and alluvial origins (Hudayb and Ramtha).

unconformably overlie the peneplain crystalline granite

The overlying marine Jurassic carbonates of the Azab For-basement complex (Barthelemy et al., 2010; Powell et al.

mation are usually included in this group, although it was2014). The sediments were deposited at high velocity by aelevated to group status in the 2016 stratigraphic chart ofhigh-discharge system of braided rivers in a near-coastal

Jordan (Hussein & Moumani, 2016). The Zarqa Group forms

environment, as evidenced by brief marine intercalations.

a minor aquifer that is hydraulically connected to the Kur-

The source rocks were distant Neoproterozoic granitoids ofnub sandstone in some areas.

the Arabian-Nubian shield that were uplifted and eroded(Powell et al., 2014).

3.2.4 Kurnub
The Kurnub Group is composed of sandstones that markOutcrops are located along the lower slopes of the rift es-

the base of a Lower Cretaceous transgressive event. It lies

carpment and in the southern desert, where the complete

directly on top of the Ram Group in the western part ofsequence reaches a thickness of up to 1000 meters. Infor-

Jordan, whereas to the east, the Khreim unit separates thesemation from boreholes shows that the Ram Group sand-two groups. The thickness increases to the northeast andstones underlie all of Jordan except for small areas aroundreaches 30 m-150 m near Azraq (Barthelemy et al., 2010).

Aqaba and on the eastern escarpment of Wadi Araba, where

Outcrops are mainly located south of the Zarqa River andthe Ram Group units are either eroded or separated fromon the lower slopes of the rift escarpment as well as inadditional eastern occurrences by faults. The thickness in-deeply incised wadis. The Kurnub sandstone is an aquifer.

creases to the northeast, reaching more than 2000 m in the
Wadi Sirhan depression (BGR/ESCWA, 2013).

3.2.5 A1/A6 Hydrogeological Unit
Several formations belonging to the Upper Cretaceous

From a hydrogeological point of view, the Ram Group is an

Ajlun Group are usually grouped together as the “A1/A6

important porous aquifer that dewaters towards the Deadaquitard” when working at the countrywide scale. At the

Sea. The name “Disi Sandstone” is sometimes used for thislocal scale, the A1/A2 and A4 aquifers are important for theformation, but the Disi Sandstone is just one of the forma-water supply, especially in areas where the overlying A7/B2

tions that comprise the Ram Group. In western Jordan, theaquifer has nearly dried up. The Naur Formation (A1/A2) is

Kurnub aquifer directly overlies the Ram Group aquifer,

composed of intercalations of limestone and relatively thinforming a combined aquifer complex (Margane et al., 2002).

layers of marl and marly limestone. The Hummar Forma-

In eastern Jordan, low-permeability strata from the Khreimtion (A4) mainly consists of thick limestone layers, whereas

Group separate the two sandstone aquifers.

the Fuhais (A3) and Shuayb (A5/A6) formations are princi-

3.2.2 Khreim Hydrogeological Unit

pally composed of marl and marly limestone. Outcrops of
the Upper Ajloun Group are mainly located northwest of

The Silurian Khreim Group consists of several formations

Amman and are common on the slopes of the rift escarp-(Sahl as Suwaan, Umm Tarifa, Trebel, and Alna). The unit isment and side wadis. The A3, A4 and A5/A6 units cannot becomposed of fluvial to shallow marine sediments. The main

distinguished from each other south of the Siwaqa Fault.

lithologies are fine-grained sandstones and siltstones.
Due to the low permeability of the sandstones and siltstones, the entire unit is considered to be an aquitard (Margane & Hobler, 1994, Barthelemy et al., 2010).

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

44

24

Structure contour map of the A1/A2 aquifer

A1/A2 Aquifer
The Naur Limestone formation (A1/A2) formed during a

structural elements can be identified (Figure 24), including

major marine transgressive event during the early Ceno-

the structural high of the Ajloun Dome in northern Jordan,

manian over the alluvial rocks of the Kurnub sandstone

from which the strata dip to the west, north and east; the(Powell, 1988). The prominent cliff-forming dolomitic

depression of the Jafer Basin north of Ma’an; the deeply

limestones can be found across most of Jordan except in thesubsided Wadi Sirhan Graben with the bordering Fuluq

south, in the highlands along the Dead Sea Rift south of theFault; and the Siwaqa Fault, an east-west-striking fault

Dead Sea and along the lower reaches of the Zarqa River.

south of the Dead Sea with large displacements. In general,

The aquifer thins from nearly 300 m in the Irbid area in thethe A1/A2 and overlying formations dip gently to the east

north to approximately 150 m in Wadi Mujib to only 25 m

due to uplift of the graben shoulder of the Dead Sea Rift.

at the Ras en Naqb escarpment in the south. Several

Figu
re

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

2545Structure contour map of the A3 aquitard

A3 Aquitard
The A3 aquitard (Fuhais Formation) has an average thick-regarding the presence of the A3 aquitard east of the Fuluq

ness of approximately 50 m and thins to the south. The

Fault. Due to facies changes, the borders between A3, A4 andstructural trends follow that of the underlying A1/A2 For-

A5/A6 are unclear south of the Siwaqa Fault, and these units

mation (Figure 25). The A3 is not present in the lower Zarqa

are mapped as one unit. North of the fault, the formation isRiver, the Baqa’a Valley northwest of Amman and between

characterized by marls and argillaceous and nodular lime-

Amman and the northern Dead Sea. There are no datastones (Schulze et al., 2003)

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

46

26

Structure contour map of the A4 aquifer

A4 Aquifer
The thickness of the A4 aquifer (Hummar Formation) is

Chapter 5). The aquifer is hydraulically connected to thecomparable to that of the A3 aquitard. The lithology chang-

underlying A1/A2 aquifer or the overlying A7/B2 aquifer

es from cliff-forming dolostones and dolomitic limestones

due to faulting and karstification (Brückner et al., 2015;

in the north to marls and shales intercalated with fossilifer-

Margane et al., 2009; Subah & Hobler, 2004). The structure ofous limestone in central Jordan (Schulze et al., 2003). Several

the A4 aquifer is shown in Figure 26.

springs emerge from this aquifer (see

Figu
re

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

27

47

Structure contour map of the A5/A6 aquitard

A5/A6 Aquitard
The A5/A6 aquitard, or Shueyb Formation, has a similar dis-karstification (Brückner et al., 2015). This aquitard consists

tribution and thickness to the A3 and A4 formations (Figureof a limestone member in the upper part of the formation

27). This aquitard separates the A4 aquifer from the A7/B2

and marls and marly limestones in the lower part with oc-

aquifer, although there is some evidence that this separa-casional claystones and bituminous shales.

tion does not always exist, which is probably due toGroundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

48

28

Structure contour map of the A7/B2 aquifer

3.2.6 A7/B2 Aquifer
The A7/B2 aquifer consists of three formations of the Up-

The majority of the wells that fully penetrate the A7/B2 aq-

per Cretaceous Ajloun (Wadi as Sir) and Balqa (Wadi Umm

uifer are located in northern Jordan between Amman, Ma-

Ghudran and Amman-Al Hisa) groups. The main lithologies

fraq, and Ajloun. The thickness increases towards the Sirhan

are massive limestone, dolomitic limestone, and dolomite

Graben, where it can reach 2200 m. The dip is generally to-with intercalated beds of sandy limestone, chalk, marl, gyp-wards Wadi Sirhan and away from Ajloun Dome (Figure 28),

sum, chert, and phosphorite (Margane et al., 2002).

which is a prominent structural high in northern Jordan.

Figu
re

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

29

49

Structure contour map of the B3 aquitard

3.2.7 B3 Aquitard
Chalky to marly Paleogene limestones with minor interca-

Because the majority of the water wells in Jordan tap thelations of chert comprise this formation, which is the mostunderlying A7/B2 aquifer, the base of this formation is gen-important aquitard in Jordan. These limestones were de-erally well documented (Figure 29). Additionally, significant

posited in a shallow shelf environment. Most of the provenamounts of “oil shales” (lithologically: bituminous marls)

oil shale reserves in Jordan formed in the lower part of thisare present in this formation, and many exploration bore-

formation due to locally elevated bitumen contents (Ziegler,holes have been drilled to investigate the potential for its

2001).

extraction.

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

50

30

Structure contour map of the B4/B5 aquifer

3.2.8 B4/B5 Aquifer
The Paleogene B4 (Umm Rijjam) and B5 (Wadi Shallala) for-unclear because of extensive alluvial cover, especially northmations form a combined aquifer at the regional level, al-of Azraq. The average thickness of the B4/B5 aquifer is ap-

though the marls in B4 can act as aquitards in some areas

proximately 230 m, and the maximum thickness of 970 m,(Margane & Hobler, 1994). Outcrops of the B4/B5 aquifer

including the alluvium, is located in the Sirhan Graben

can be found in eastern Jordan as well as in the north and in­(Figure 30).

the Jafer Basin. In some areas, the outcrops are

Figu
re

Hydrogeological Setting and Structure Contour

3151Structure contour map of the Basalt aquifer

3.2.9 Basalt
The Harrat Ash Shams Basalt (Tertiary to Quaternary) is theflow in the Basalt is highly anisotropic, with higher hori-Jordanian part of the North Arabic Volcanic Province. Thiszontal conductivities between the individual lava flows

region includes the Golan Heights and Harrat Province inwith thicknesses between 3 m and 25 m (BGR/ESCWA,

Saudi Arabia and is centered on the Jebel al Arab in South-1996) and local perched aquifers. In addition, faults andern Syria. The province consists of Neogene plateau basalts

cooling cracks lead to downward leakage. In Jordan, theas well as Quaternary lava flows and shield volcanoes (Wag-­Basalt aquifer is hydraulically connected in some areas toner, 2011). The greatest thickness of approximately 1500 m

the underlying formations. The contact between the Basalt

is located at the Jebel al Arab volcano (1803 m asl), and theand the underlying layers is obscured by alluvium overthickness decreases to the south with a maximum estimat-

large areas. Several important wellfields for the water sup-ed thickness in Jordan of 500 m (Figure 31) (Margane et al.

ply of Amman are located in the Basalt area, including the2002). The Jebel al Arab Mountain is the main recharge area

Aqeb and Corridor wellfields (Borgstedt et al., 2007).

for the Basalt aquifer. Groundwater

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

3.3 Recommendations
To improve the accuracy of future SCMs, two issues must be

In terms of data quantity, it would be useful to store alladdressed: data quality and data quantity.

borehole information, not only water wells, in a central
lithology database. Many high-quality lithological data were

The main reason for the low accuracy in some areas is the

produced from gas, oil, oil shale and uranium exploration

low quality of some of the data. Several improvements arewells, but the data are scattered and in danger of becoming

feasible from the field level to data storage. In the field, it islost. As a short-term solution, exploration wells could

recommended that an independent site geologist ensures

be entered into the WIS database, which is currently thethat the geological description is accurate and that thelargest lithological database in Jordan. Additionally, it is re-quality of the borehole geophysics allows for later interpre-

commended to not only store the analysis of borehole logs

tation. Minimum quality standards for borehole descrip-

but also the original borehole data in digital form because

tions can be formulated in terms of reference (ToR) for

these data can be used in 3D geological models.

well drilling. When entering the data, a data validation stepshould be mandatory to avoid typing errors and incorrect
coordinates. Drilling reports should be stored for future
re-interpretation and quality control.

Source: BGR

Source: BGR

52

GROU NDWATER
RE SOURCE
A SSE SSMENT

4

4Groundwater Resource
Assessment
Rebecca Bahls
Groundwater resources are the main
water supply sources in Jordan, andthese resources are used for domestic,
industrial, and agricultural purposes.
Due to population growth and expanding industrial and agricultural activities,
the demand for water is continuously
increasing.
Decreasing groundwater levels and driedout production wells and springs are indicators of extremely critical groundwater resource conditions in Jordan. Therefore, it is important to assess and analyze
the actual conditions to have a soundbase for taking drastic but n­ ecessary

actions to safeguard Jordan’s scarcegroundwater resources.
This chapter presents groundwater contour maps of the Ram/Disi, Kurnub, A1/
A2, A4, A7/B2, B4/B5 and Basalt aquifers
for October 2017. The groundwater contour maps are the basis for other thematic maps, such as maps of the saturated
thickness, the depth to water level, andthe groundwater level difference between 1995 and 2017. Without the subsurface structure information presented
in Chapter 3.2, the thematic maps could
not be created.

Groundwater Resource Assessment

55

4.1 Methods and Data
To collect reliable groundwater level data from all available­considered after quality analysis and extrapolation follow-

monitoring points in Jordan, a comprehensive field cam-ing the long-term water level trends to estimate the Octo-paign was carried out in October 2017. Additionally, a DGPS

ber 2017 values (Bahls et al., 2017). Whenever a monitoring

survey to record the precise locations and elevations of all

well had only a single measurement, the water level trendsites used in this report was conducted. Because the pointfrom the closest well in the same aquifer was used instead.

data are not homogenously distributed, data from othersources had to be included. The main data sources are as

The different data sources and various degrees of uncer-

follows:

tainty were considered in the interpolation and manual→ Groundwater level measurements by BGR/MWI in

drawing of the groundwater contour lines. Given the limit-­October 2017ed number of groundwater level monitoring wells and their→ “Water Information System” (WIS) database of the MWI

often-inadequate spatial distributions, the drawing of the→ Yarmouk Water Company

contour lines for a given aquifer was mainly based on in-→ Hydrometeorological System Support Project (HSSP)

terpretation of the hydrogeological conditions. To identify

performed by the MWI with the consultation of Dornier

unsaturated areas, the structure contour map (Chapter 2)

Consulting International GmbH, Germanyof the considered aquifer was subtracted from the corre-→ Energy Efficiency Project, Fichtner→ Water Authority Jordan (archived data and new data obtained during maintenance of abstraction wells)→ Immediate Measures Water Supply North Project(IMWS), Dorsch International Consultants

sponding groundwater contour lines.

4.1.2 Depth to Groundwater Map
The depth to groundwater map has economic implications
because it shows the minimum drilling depth and required→ UNICEF wells in Azraq

pump lift. The depth to groundwater map in meters below→ Drilling reports from various companies

the surface for each aquifer was calculated by subtracting
the corresponding October 2017 groundwater contour lines

The field data collected by the MWI and BGR as well as thefrom the SRTM 30 digital elevation raster (Jarvis et al. 2008;

data from the WIS database of the MWI are from ground-Farr et al. 2007; Verdin et al. 2007).

water monitoring wells. The measurements from the othersources were mainly recorded from pumping wells during

4.1.3 Saturated Thickness Map

maintenance of the pumps and are likely to represent static

The saturated thickness was determined by the difference

water levels.

between the October 2017 groundwater contour lines andthe base of the representative aquifer (Chapter 3.2). The en-

An area of data certainty was defined for each aquifer based

tire thickness of the aquifer was plotted in areas where theon the available data distribution. All of the thematic maps

aquifer is still confined.

are limited to this area.

4.1.1 Groundwater Contour Map ­October 2017

4.1.4 Difference Map for 1995-2017
This map presents the difference between the groundwatercontour lines from 1995 and those from 2017 and provides

In addition to the measurements made by the MWI/

an indication of the groundwater level changes over the last

BGR project in 2017, historical data from 2012-2016 were

22 years for each aquifer.

4.2 Results
The unsaturated areas are based on calculations and haveas well as lithological drilling descriptions and inter-not been confirmed by field measurements due to the lackpretations). The results of the individual thematic mapsof reliable monitoring information (e.g., monitored aqui-and possible uncertainties are described in the following

fer, screened depths). Furthermore, these areas depend on

subchapters. All major maps are included in the attach-interpolations of point data (water level measurements

ments.

56

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

4.2.1 Deep Sandstone Aquifer System
The deep Sandstone aquifer system is composed of two

sandstone aquifers is neither precise nor reliable. Ground-major aquifers (Rum and Kurnub), the low-permeability

water contour maps can only be produced for the parts of

Zarqa aquifer and the Khreim aquitard. The aquifer system

the country where data are available.

is a large reservoir of fossil groundwater and plays a crucialrole in the water supply of Jordan. The Disi wellfield (Ram/In addition to the data collected in 2017, historical ground-

Disi aquifer) in the south of the country makes a majorwater levels from the exploration wells were compared

contribution of approximately 100 MCM per year to thewith the 2019 measurements. Because the levels have re-domestic water supply. It began operations at the end of

mained more or less constant, the 2019 values were used to2013, and water is transferred to northern Jordan via thedraw the contour lines.

Disi conveyer.
For the deep Sandstone aquifer system, 63 measurements
Figure 32 shows the data scarcity for the deep Sandstone

were used, including 4 springs and 14 measurements ob-

aquifer system. The data covers only parts of southern andtained before 2017, which were extrapolated.

Figu
re

western Jordan. Additionally, the classification of the tapped

32

Groundwater level contour lines for the deep Sandstone aquifer system and the Kurnub aquifer, October 2017

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

33

57

Potential depth to groundwater in the deep Sandstone aquifer system

Groundwater Contour Map – Ram/Disi and­Kurnuband Ajloun, where the Kurnub aquifer outcrops, appears as

In central and southern Jordan, where the Khreim aqui-water flows in all directions but dominantly towards thetard and Zarqa aquifer are thinned out, the Kurnub andJordan Valley.

a dome that indicates a recharge area, from which ground-

the Ram/Disi Sandstone form one hydraulic unit. Around
Kurnub aquifer from the Ram/Disi aquifer, which is visible

Depth to Groundwater Map – Deep Sandstone
Aquifer System

based on a difference in the hydraulic heads of more thanFigure 33 shows the depth to groundwater (m bgl) for the

100 meters. Therefore, each group is presented separately indeep Sandstone aquifer system in central and northern

Figure 32 and Annex 3.

Jordan (Annex 4). Because the aquifer is confined in mostAmman to the northwest, the Zarqa Group separates theof the area, this is the potential depth to groundwater andIn southern Jordan, groundwater in the deep Ram/Disiallows for calculation of possible pump lift. However, theaquifer first flows from Saudi Arabia to the northeast, turns

drilling depth is generally much deeper and must be con-to the northwest around the Ras en Naqb escarpment andsidered for well construction. The interpolated information

finally discharges into the Dead Sea. Due to data scarcity,

has to be addressed and requires further verification in thecontour lines for the Kurnub aquifer can be drawn only forfield.

a small region northwest of Amman. The area around Salt

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

58

34

Potential depth to groundwater in the Ram/Disi aquifer

Depth to Groundwater Map – Ram/Disi
Figure 34 shows that the potential depth to groundwater

Figure 36 shows a continuous decline at a rate of 0.6 m/yr

(Annex 4) varies from less than 100 meters to more than 400

until 2013 and a total decrease of 11 meters. The water level

meters, which can be used to estimate pump lift. When theappears to have stabilized since 2013, probably due to the

Ram/Disi aquifer is confined, especially where the Khreim

ceasing of agricultural activities during that year. A draw-

aquitard outcrops, the drilling depth would be much deep-

down of more than 50 meters in the far western part of theer. There may be a difference of several hundreds of metersarea is an artifact of the interpolation in the area (Figure 35).

between the drilling depth and the potential groundwaterlevel.

In areas with high abstraction rates, larger drawdowns of up
to 50 meters are noticeable (Figure 35). In monitoring wellDifference in Groundwater Map – Ram/Disi

ED1328 (Figure 37), located southeast of K1000, the record-

The difference in groundwater levels between the 1990s

ed average decline rate from 1995 to the end of 2013 wasand 2017 is generally less than 25 meters (Figure 35), which

0.55 m/yr, but it increased ten times after the beginning ofconfirms the long-term decline measured in monitoring

operations of the Disi conveyer project to approximately 5well K1000, located 40 km east of Disi. The hydrograph inm/yr between 2013 and 2017.

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

35

Difference in groundwater levels of the Ram/Disi aquifer between 1995 and 2017

Source: BGR

59

60

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Meters above mean sea level

Meters below ground level

670

80

665

85

660

90

655

95

650

100

645

105

640

110

635

115

630

120

625

125

620
20

Figu
re

20

00

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

13

12

11

20

20

20

2

15

4
01

20

20

16

20

17

20

130
18

Groundwater levels in the Ram/Disi aquifer recorded from 1995 to 2017 at well K1000

36

Meters above mean sea level

Meters below ground level

750

90

745

95

740

100

735

105

730

110

725

115

720

120

715

125

710

130

705

135

700

140
95

Figu
re

19

37

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Groundwater levels in the Ram/Disi aquifer recorded from 1995 to 2017 at well ED1328

20

10

20

11

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

20

18

Groundwater Resource Assessment

4.2.2 A1/A2 and A4 Aquifers
The first-ever groundwater contour map produced for the
A4

in northern Jordan, where the overlying A7/B2 aquifer is

A3partially exhausted. Because both aquifers have similar hy-

A1/A2

draulic heads, they are analyzed together using 51 ground-

A1/A6

Sandstone aquifer

Figu
re

water level measurements (27 from 2017) and 28 springmeasurements.

aqa5). These aquifers are of high importance locally, especiallySiw

A1/A2 and A4 aquifers reflects the 2017 conditions (Annex

Fau
lt

A7/B2
A5/A6

38

Schematic representation of the A1/A6 units near
the Siwaqa Fault

The analysis differentiated the aquifer north and south of
the Siwaqa Fault. North of the Siwaqa Fault, all individual
units, including A1/A2, A3, A4 and A5/A6, are describedgroundwater contour lines (Figure 39). Information about

separately (Chapter 3). South of the Siwaqa Fault, the units

the aquifer tapped by each observation well was retrieved

are similar and cannot be clearly distinguished from one

from the WIS database. However, a clear distinction be-another (Figure 38).

tween the different formations was not always possible,
even north of the Siwaqa Fault, which indicates that the

Groundwater Contour Map
All 80 groundwater level measurements from the A4 and

Figu
re

A1/A2 aquifers were included in the construction of the

39

Groundwater level contour lines for the A1/A6 aquifer complex, October 2017

61

62

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

information in the database is not always accurate. Fur-

Depth to Groundwater Map

thermore, in some cases, the upper A4 aquifer is already

The maps presented in this chapter are based on theexhausted, and the wells have been deepened into the lower

groundwater contour lines for October 2017 and show theA1/A2 aquifer, but the information is not available in thepotential depth to groundwater for the A4 (Figure 40) anddatabase.

A1/A2 (Figure 43) aquifers north of the Siwaqa Fault as wellas the depth to potential groundwater for the entire A1/A6

Groundwater is recharged in the Ajlun and As-Salt Moun-aquifer unit south of the Siwaqa Fault (Figure 45). Thesetains. The groundwater then flows mainly towards themaps can be used to estimate the pump lift, but because

Jordan Valley, north, and east. Recharge also likely occurs at

most of the saturated areas are confined, the depth to theJebel al Arab in Syria and enters the country to the south/

top of the aquifer is shown in separate maps (Figure 41,

southwest. The data density decreases greatly to the south,

Figure 44, and Figure 46) to obtain information about the

but groundwater recharge in the outcrop areas around Kar-possible drilling depth.

ak can be assumed to flow mainly to the east.
North of the Siwaqa Fault, the depth to groundwater inthe A4 aquifer varies from less than 100 to more than 400

Figu
re

meters, which is confirmed by in situ water level measure-40

Depth to groundwater in the A4 aquifer

Groundwater Resource Assessment

ments at monitoring well AL3522 (Figure 42). A wide area of
the aquifer appears to be unsaturated, and groundwater isabstracted from the deeper A1/A2 aquifer.
North of Ajloun, the A4 aquifer appears to be unsaturated.
Here, the aquifer dips steeply, and its top is encountered between 200 and 700 m bgl. The exploitation of the overlying
A7/B2 aquifer is economically challenging in the area northof Irbid; thus, exploitation of the A4 aquifer appears to be
impossible. The area between Mafraq and Irbid requires an
on-site investigation of the A4 aquifer to precisely define its

Figu
re

depth.

41

Depth to the top of the A4 aquifer in confined areas

63Meters above mean sea level

Meters below ground level

480

177

475
64

182

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

470

187

Meters above mean sea level

465
480

Meters below ground level

192
177

460
475

197
182

455
470

202
187

450
465

207
192

460

197

455

202

450

207

00

Figu
re

20

Figu
re

43

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

20

16

20

17

20

18

Groundwater levels in the A4 aquifer recorded in 2000-2017 at well AL3522

42

20

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

Depth to groundwater in the A1/A2 aquifer

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

20

16

20

17

20

18

Groundwater Resource Assessment

65

Near Mafraq, the groundwater level in the Za’tari monitor-

greater than 400 meters. In the area of potentially shallow

ing well shows a continuous decline and no seasonal varia-

groundwater, the top of the aquifer is closer to the surface

tions. From 2001 to 2017, the groundwater level decreased

at 200 to 300 m bgl. Otherwise, the depths to the top of theby approximately 10 m with an average of more than 0.6

aquifer are from 300 m to 400 m bgl and greater in the A1/

m/yr (Figure 42). This indicates the overexploitation from

A2 aquifer north of the Siwaqa Fault.

the A1/A6 aquifer in the northern part of Jordan describedabove.

South of the Siwaqa Fault, nearly the entire reliable area isunder confined conditions (Figure 45, next page). The po-

The potential depth of groundwater in the A1/A2 aquifer

tential groundwater depth is relatively shallow at less thanis based on the same groundwater contour lines, but the

200 m bgl. South of Tafelah, the top of the A1/A6 aquifer is

expansion of the potentially unsaturated zones is much

between 100 and 300 m bgl. Because of tectonic faulting,smaller (Figure 43). The depth to the potential groundwa-

the aquifer is much deeper in the area around Petra. Fur-ter around Amman is less than 100 meters in the western

thermore, the aquifer dips to the east, and the depths vary

part and increases to the east to more than 300 meters. The

from 100 m in the westernmost outcrop to 800 meters inwidest area is north of Amman, with a potentially shallow

the eastern part of the reliable area (Figure 46, next page).

Figu
re

depth to groundwater that increases to the north to depths

44

Depth to the top of the A1/A2 aquifer in confined areas

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

66

45

Depth to groundwater in the A1/A6 aquifer

Source: BGR

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

46

Depth to the top of the A1/A6 aquifer in confined areas

67Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

68

47

Saturated thickness of the A4 aquifer north of the Siwaqa Fault

Saturated Thickness Map
The individual saturated thicknesses for the A4 and A1/A2

Additionally, the A1/A2 aquifer shows first indications ofaquifers north of the Siwaqa Fault and for the entire A1/

unsaturated areas north of the Siwaqa Fault, mainly in theA6 unit south of the Siwaqa Fault were determined based

outcrops (Figure 48). Elsewhere, the aquifer is under con-on Brückner (2018) and the groundwater contour lines for

fined conditions. Around Amman, the saturated thickness

October 2017 (Annex 7).

varies between 100 and 200 meters. Farther north between
Mafraq and Irbid, the saturated thicknesses increase to 200

North of the Siwaqa Fault, a considerable area of the A4

to 300 meters and more. To reach the aquifer, the drilling

aquifer is already under unsaturated conditions (Figure

depth is very deep (more than 400 meters), and it is doubt-47), mainly where the overlying A7/B2 aquifer is dry andful that it is economically feasible.

the wells were deepened into the A4 aquifer. Althoughmost of the still-saturated area is under confined conditions, the saturated thickness is less than 100 meters.

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

48

Saturated thickness of the A1/A2 aquifer north of the Siwaqa Fault

The saturated thickness of the entire A1/A6 unit southof the Siwaqa Fault (Figure 49) shows that the aquifer isunder confined conditions. Because a clear distinction between the individual units is not possible, less permeable
units are also part of the estimated saturated thickness.
Therefore, estimated thicknesses between 200 and morethan 400 meters cannot be considered a total economically usable thickness. Detailed on-site investigations areneeded prior to any further abstraction planning.

69

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

70

49

Saturated thickness of the A1/A6 aquifer south of the Siwaqa Fault

4.2.3 A7/B2 Aquifer

Groundwater Contour Map

The A7/B2 aquifer is the most important aquifer in Jordan

All 243 groundwater level measurements from the A7/B2

and is extensively exploited, especially in the northern andaquifer were used in the construction of the groundwater

central highlands. The actual conditions of this aquifer

contour lines. Information about the aquifer tapped by theand the changes since the last nationwide study conducted

observation wells was retrieved from the WIS database.

in the 1990s are of key importance for groundwater man-

However, the aquifer is already exhausted in some areas,

agement in Jordan.

and the wells have been deepened into the lower-­lying A4
or A1/A2 aquifer. This information was not entered into the

The available data for the A7/B2 aquifer comprises 111

database.

groundwater level measurements taken in 2017, 118 measurements extrapolated to 2017 and 14 spring elevations.

A small-scale version of the original A7/B2 groundwatercontour map attached to this report (Annex 8) is shown in
Figure 50. The southern outcrop areas indicate groundwater recharge with an easterly flow direction, following
the dip of the aquifer base (Figure 28). The transmissivity
increases and the groundwater level gradient decreases

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

50

71

Groundwater level contour lines for the A7/B2 aquifer, October 2017(contour lines are farther apart) towards the Jafer Basin.

ly flowed towards the Azraq depression. Due to intense

The groundwater contour map also shows that northeast

agricultural abstraction east of Mafraq, a large cone of de-of Tafelah, the natural flow direction begins to slowly turnpression has developed. Groundwater now flows towards

from east to north.

this cone and the Yarmouk River, even from the Azraq
depression.

In the northern part of the country, groundwater flows
from the recharge areas around Ajlun and Jerash to theNorth of Ajlun, the groundwater flow direction turns from

northeast and east. Recharge also occurs in the north at

north to northwest towards the Jordan Valley, following theJebel al Arab in Syria and enters Jordan as lateral inflow tooverall dip of the strata (Figure 28).

the south. In 1995, groundwater inflow from Syria main-Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

72

51

Regional comparison map of the A7/B2 aquifer from 1995 to 2017

Regional Groundwater Comparison Map(1995-2017)

Only minor changes in the regional

The map shown in Figure 51 was prepared on special re-in southern Jordan between 1995 andquest by the management of the MWI to analyze several

2017. However, the situation in thecomponents in one map (groundwater contour lines, flow

northern part of the country is very

direction, area of high salinity, unsaturated areas, and maindifferent; in this area, the groundwater flow direction

wellfields) and to compare the changes in flow direction

appears to have turned by 180° in the following regions:

groundwater flow pattern occurred

between 1995 and 2017. The 1995 groundwater contour
lines were digitized from the available map. In 1995 and→ North of Irbid: The flow direction is now to the west

2017, different monitoring wells were used to interpret the

towards the Jordan Valley rather than to the north-groundwater conditions, which means that the areas of de-west. This change probably results from the intensive

tail are also different. The contour lines are very precise andgroundwater exploitation in the area, which has

detailed in some areas in 1995 and in other areas in 2017.

caused a regional depression cone.

This fact must be considered when analyzing the differences in groundwater levels and flow directions.

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

52

73

Potentially unsaturated areas in 1995 (pink) and 2017 (brown)→ Northwest of Mafraq: The groundwater flow direction

towards the Azraq region. It was not possible to collectnear the border has rotated from E-W to NE-SW. The

recent (2012 to 2017) water level data for this area, and­increasing pumping activities are the only plausible cause

an assessment of the actual groundwater conditions is

for this change.

difficult. However, the groundwater flow direction NW
of ­A zraq appears to have reversed and is now southeast-→ Jebel al Arab and east of Mafraq: The radial flow at Jebel

northwest rather than northwest-southeast. A similar

al Arab results in a lateral inflow at the border, such as thetrend was indicated in the updated groundwater contour

north-south flow direction turning towards the west near

map for the area around Mafraq in 2013 (Margane et al.,Mafraq. As a result of high abstraction, a regional cone of2014). This would imply that as a result of the intensive

depression with its center east of Mafraq has developed,

groundwater exploitation in northern Jordan, a regional

which has led to a change in flow direction from domi-

cone of depression that dominates the groundwater flow

nantly N-S to NW-SE.

patterns has developed, which also indicates that the­A zraq area no longer receives any groundwater inflow→ Azraq: In 1995, a wide area around Azraq was mapped
as a slight depression with general groundwater flowfrom the west.

74

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figure 52 (see previous page) shows the limit of saturation

Depth to Groundwater Map

in 1995 and the potentially unsaturated areas in 2017. In

Figure 53 shows the potential depth to the static groundwa-

the areas that are potentially unsaturated, economicallyter level in the A7/B2 aquifer (Annex 9). These values werefeasible abstraction of groundwater for domestic supply is

calculated based on the October 2017 groundwater contour

no longer given. In 1995, the unsaturated areas in northernlines and a digital elevation model (SRTM 30). The accuracy

Jordan were estimated to cover approximately 620 km². Inof the map is rather low, especially in areas with high eleva-

2017, this area had tripled to 1,900 km² for the northerntion gradients near the escarpment. In the areas where thearea alone, as shown on the map. Continuous abstraction

A7/B2 aquifer is confined, the potential depth to groundwa-

will lead to an even faster expansion of these areas.

ter is shown. In these areas, the actual depth to the aquifer
is represented by the contour lines of the top of the aquifer.
This means that to penetrate the aquifer, drilling must be
deeper than the top of the aquifer indicated in the map by
the purple contour lines.
This regional map allows for the identification of areas

Figu
re

where shallow water levels are encountered and, provided

53

Depth to groundwater in the A7/B2 aquifer

Groundwater Resource Assessment

75

there is sufficient aquifer saturation, where low pumpSaturated Thickness Map

lift allows for an economically feasible use of resources.

The saturated thickness was estimated based on the

Shallow groundwater depths are mainly located neargroundwater contour lines for October 2017 and the basethe wadis and in the southern part of the aquifer. In theof the A7/B2 aquifer by Brückner (2018) (Chapter 3.2).

southern area, the depth to groundwater is generally be-

In the areas where the A7/B2 aquifer is confined (Annex

tween 50 and 200 m bgl. Because the groundwater is con-10, Figure 54), the entire aquifer thickness is considered

fined, the depth to groundwater shown in the map cor-to be the saturated thickness. Given the uncertainties in

responds mainly to the potential depth. The depth to thethe structural model and the extrapolated groundwateraquifer (i.e., the depth required to reach the groundwatercontour map, this map only allows for the regional iden-in a potential well) varies between 100 m and 400 meters.

tification of potential areas for groundwater abstraction.
Local on-site investigations are needed to confirm theseIn northern Jordan, the depth to groundwater is generally

regional results, especially in the outcrop areas, where themuch greater and varies between 200 m and 400 m.

saturated thickness appears to be too optimistic, such as inSouth of Jabel al Arab, the groundwater is confined, andthe highlands between Madaba and Karak.

the groundwater level potential depth is at least 300 m.
The actual depth to the top of the aquifer is between 500

Figu
re

m and 1000 m below the surface.

54

Saturated thickness of the A7/B2 aquifer

76

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

In the outcrop areas south of Madaba to Tafelah, the aquiferis at high elevations and generally dips to the east. Recharge
occurs in these outcrops. However, as the aquifer experiences significant drawdowns, most of the recharge is assumed
to flow east following the general dip towards the low-lying
unsaturated areas of the aquifer and does not saturate theoutcrop areas. The aquifer is relatively unsuitable for economic abstraction in the outcrops, which is confirmed by
the fact that some wells in the Heedan wellfield had to be
deepened to reach the deeper A4 aquifer. Due to the lack ofmonitoring data, the groundwater conditions in the outcrop areas as well as the potentially unsaturated areas are
only assumptions. The areas between Madaba and Karakas well as north of Tafelah are not classified as potentiallyunsaturated, although their natural conditions are similar
to the areas south of Karak and south of Tafelah. These areas
may also be unsaturated, but some springs near the escarpment still show small but continuous discharges, whichindicates groundwater availability in the area. Additional
investigations are needed to confirm the results.
The map also shows the eastern limit of aquifer confinement. This limit has a high degree of uncertainty because
it is estimated based on the structure contour map andSource: BGR

extrapolation of the groundwater level surface because no
groundwater level data are available in that area.

In summary, the map shows the following findings:

Difference in Groundwater Map→ The area between Ajlun and Irbid appears to be unsatu-

The groundwater level difference between 1995 and Oc-

rated.
→ Previously reported unsaturated areas around Mafraq
have expanded slightly to the east.

tober 2017 (Annex 11, Figure 55) was estimated based on
the contour lines for both years and shows the changes ingroundwater level over the last 22 years at a regional scale.

→ Areas west and northwest of Amman, between Zarqa and

The data sources for both maps are very different and have

Mafraq, and between Amman and Madaba are now un-high accuracies in different areas. Some areas are very pre-saturated.

cise in the 1995 map, whereas they do not have good data

→ Small areas west and southeast of Al Qatranah appear to
be unsaturated.
→ The unsaturated area in the southernmost part of the

distributions in 2017. These differences lead to uncertainties in the map. Therefore, this map only provides a broad
regional indication of the drawdown, and the values canaquifer along the Ras en Naqb escarpments has substan-differ significantly from those measured at a certain loca-

tially expanded.

tion.

Saturated thicknesses of less than 100 m mainly surroundunsaturated areas as well as in the confined area west of Jafer.
Only small parts of the aquifer have saturated thicknesses
greater than 300 m, such as in the north around Irbid, westof the Fuluq Fault and south of the Salawan Fault. However,groundwater exploitation in these areas should be considered carefully as the A7/B2 aquifer dips steeply, and the aquifer base is more than 2500 m bgl (Figure 28). Groundwater
exploitation is not economically feasible at these depths.

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

55

77

Difference in groundwater levels of the A7/B2 aquifer between 1995 and 2017

The following results can be obtained from the map:
→ The groundwater level in the area south of Karak and Tafelah has declined by more than 100 meters, and the aquifer
is now unsaturated.
→ Around Amman, due to a mapped groundwater drawdown
of between 50 and more than 100 meters, the aquifer is
now unsaturated.
→ Depending on the available saturated thickness between
Mafraq, Irbid, and Ajlun, the drawdown varies strongly.
However, the entire area appears to now be unsaturated.
→ North of Irbid, the water level shows a general drawdown
of approximately 50 meters.

→ North of Mafraq, the overall drawdown is approximately
60 meters.
→ The area between Amman and Zarqa shows a drawdown ofapproximately 25 meters.
→ Between Amman and Madaba, the drawdown generally
varies between 50 and 75 meters.
→ The area between Madaba and Al Qatranah shows a general drawdown of 50 meters.
→ Drawdowns of up to 25 meters can be observed in the area
between Al Qatranah and Tafelah.
→ The area south of Tafelah shows a large variability in local
drawdown from no significant drawdown to 50 meters.

78

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Meters above mean sea level

Meters below ground level

500

172

495

177

490

182

485

187

480

192

475

197

470

202

465

207

460

212

455

217

450

222

445

227

440

232

435

237

430

242

Figu
re

19
56

95

19

96

1

7
99

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

14

20

20

15

16

20

17

20

20

18

Groundwater levels recorded for 1995-2017 in the A7/B2 aquifer at well AL1521

Strong long-term drawdowns can also be observed in the

In summary, the drawdown map (Figure 57) shows the fol-monitoring wells. Near Mafraq, strongly rates of decline

lowing findings:

were registered in observation well AL1521 (Figure 56).
From 1995 until 2005, the groundwater levels declined at a

→ The area west of Ma’an is dominated by governmental

rate of 1 m/yr. Since 2013, the drawdown rate has increased

wells with yearly productions of more than 500000 m³

suddenly to 12 m/yr, which is probably due to the large vol-and drawdowns of 50-100 meters over the last 25 years.

ume of groundwater abstracted from the area, representing
a quarter of all exploited groundwater in Jordan (Margane
et al., 2013).

→ The area east of Petra is dominated by private wells withproductions between 250000 and 500000 m³ in 2016, resulting in drawdowns of 50-100 meters. The area aroundFigure 57 shows the locations and annual production vol-Petra has experienced a drawdown of more than 100

umes of both private and governmental wells (Figure 57)

meters in the last 25 years as a result of the high density

compared with the groundwater level drawdown (Figure 57,

of abstraction wells east of Petra.

right). The concentrations of wells in certain areas explain
the strong measured decline in groundwater. However, it is→ The governmental wellfields along the King Hussain de-unclear whether all of the considered wells are in the A7/B2

sert highway between Ma’an and Al Qatranah have local

aquifer, as this information is generally not available. Some

effects on the aquifer. The drawdowns vary from minor

wells may penetrate a deeper aquifer, which is a sign thatto 100 m just north of Al Qatranah.

the A7/B2 aquifer is already dry in these areas.
→ The area between Al Qatranah and Amman is strongly
dominated by private pumping wells that produce overall drawdowns of between 50 and 100 meters. The area

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

57

79

Left: Abstraction wells according to their volume (MCM), right: groundwater drawdowns since 1995 and locations of abstraction wells

east of Madaba has a drawdown of more than 100 me-of Amman. The unsaturated area extends to the east as aters. In 1995, the salinity in this area was already above

result of the high density of abstraction.

1500 µS/cm. Due to the steady drawdown over the last
25 years, the water quality has most likely continued todeteriorate.

→ The area between Mafraq and Ramtha has a high density of private abstraction wells and high drawdowns ofmore than 100 meters in some areas.

→ Between Amman and Zarqa, governmental wells withannual productions of more than 500000 m³ are domi-→ The areas around Irbid and the Yarmouk River Valley are

nant, but the overall drawdown is less than 50 meters.

of special interest. The number of wells is very small, but
the drawdown is extremely high (more than 100 meters).

→ East of the Zarqa and Mafraq Road, private wells areThis is an indication of illegal pumping for agriculture

dominant. Only a few governmental wellfields exist andin the region, which can be seen in Google Earth images

have productivities of >500000 m³ for the water supply(Figure 58 and Figure 59).

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Google Earth image of the area W/NW of Irbid (source: Google Earth V 7.1.8.3036, June 2018, northern Jordan, 32°41‘37.02“ N 35°48‘13.23“ E, Eye alt
23.89 km, Maxar Technologies 2019, CNES/Airbus 2019)

Figu
re

80

Close up Google Earth image of the red circle indicated in the Figure 58, showing the agricultural activities in this area (source: Google Earth V
7.1.8.3036, June 2018, northern Jordan, 32°42‘23.95“ N 35°47‘21.30“ E, Eye alt 1.95 km, CNES/Airbus 2019)

58

59

Figu
re

Groundwater Resource Assessment

60

81

Spatial distribution of monitoring locations with indications of quality measurements. The red rectangle indicates the Azraq area,
which is analyzed further

4.2.4 B4/B5 Aquifer

Groundwater Conditions Around Azraq

The Basalt and B4/B5 aquifers are only of regional impor-

The groundwater contour lines for the B4/B5 and Basalt

tance, mainly in the area around Azraq, where a wellfield

aquifers in the Azraq area are presented in Figure 61 (seefor domestic water supply is located (Figure 60). The wells

next page).

farther east towards the Iraqi border are military wells.
The AWSA wellfield is located north-northwest of Azraq,
Only the area around Azraq has an adequate data density

which is indicated by the cone of depression north of Azraq.

for the development of groundwater contour maps (Figure

The hydraulic heads of the A7/B2 aquifer are very similar60). However, the reliability of some of the available data

to those of the B4/B5 and Basalt aquifers (Figure 61, next

is highly questionable and must be considered during thepage), which is an indication of the hydraulic connectivity

analysis.

between B4/B5 and A7/B2. The B3 aquitard usually separates the A7/B2 from the B4/B5 in this area. However, theA7/B2 aquifer is confined in this area, and private wells
probably penetrate both aquifers, which could lead to vertical bypass through the boreholes.

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

82

Figu
re

61

62

Groundwater level contour lines for the Basalt and B4/B5 (light blue) and the A7/B2 (dark blue) aquifers in the Azraq area, October 2017

NNW-SSE cross-section

Groundwater Resource Assessment

83

A hydraulic connection between the A7/B2 and B4/B5

Considering the amount of water abstracted from the B4/

aquifers through the overlying Basalt may also be possible.

B5 aquifer for irrigation purposes, it is questionable wheth-

To the NW, the Basalt aquifer is hydraulically connected toer the recharge from the north (Jebel al Arab) is sufficient tothe underlying A7/B2 aquifer (Figure 62). Farther to the SSE,

maintain the water level. The contour lines of A7/B2 (Figure

the A7/B2 aquifer dips down and the B3 aquitard appears,

61) bulge towards the east (Azraq), which indicates ground-which is in turn covered by the B4/B5 and Basalt aquifers.

water abstraction, although B4/B5 is the main aquifer

The confined A7/B2 aquifer could recharge the Basalt aq-

source in this area. Probably, the bulge in the contour lines

uifer in the NW by means of vertical leakage. Groundwateris due to the effect of the hydraulic connection between thewould flow in the Basalt to discharge into the B4/B5 aquifer

two aquifers.

farther to the SE.
The overall drawdown since the 1990s in the Azraq area
A hydraulic contact through the Fuluk Fault is also a possible

appears to be approximately 10 meters, which is reflected inhydraulic connection between A7/B2 and B4/B5, but the flow

monitoring well F1043 (Figure 63). The water level declined

direction does not indicate such an effect. A hydraulic con-steadily between 1995 and 2009 before a more irregularnection through the fault south of Azraq is also possible, but

drawdown was recorded, likely due to temporarily higher

this cannot be analyzed further due to the lack of data.

abstraction rates.

Meters above mean sea level

Meters below ground level

510

7

505

12

500

17

495

22

490

27

485

32

480

37

475

42

470

47

465

52

460

57
95

Figu
re

19

63

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

Groundwater levels in the B4/B5 aquifer for 1995-2017 recorded at well F1043

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

20

18

84

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

4.3 Recommendations
Generally, decreasing water levels and increasing

To mitigate these conditions and slow or reverse the contin-

unsaturated areas will have serious economic and op-

uous increase in the water supply costs as well as to secure

erational consequences for water abstraction for pri-the future water supply, decisive measures by the Jordanianvate and public use. The growing drawdown increas-

government are urgently needed. Possible actions include dif-es energy consumption for lifting the water and consequently

ferent water demand and water supply management options.

increases operational costs. Furthermore, existing wells must

Determining which options are the best and most effective inbe continuously adapted to lower water levels; wells mustthe context of Jordan is beyond the scope of this study. Thesebe deepened, riser lines must be extended, and pumps must

decisions must be made by the Jordanian government consid-

be exchanged for more powerful and expensive pumps. In

ering not only the contribution of each option to increasing

extreme cases, wells have to be replaced. A significant number

water security for the population but also its social, economicof wells will become dry in the coming years. Because salinityand environmental implications. Subject to the informationand mineralization of the abstracted groundwater increasepresented above, a few potentially effective measures arewith depth, water quality will become a major cost factor,

listed that could contribute to mitigating or overcoming theeventually requiring water treatment by expensive technolo-(ground)water crisis in Jordan.

gies and disposal of brines.

Development of new wellfields

overlie the A7/B2 aquifer, which can be reached at drilling

The development of new wellfields for public water supply

depths of over 300-400 meters. Here, a risk of contaminat-

has the potential to improve the continuity of the drinking

ing the water, such as by arsenic, nickel and salinity, whichwater supply and reduce the costs of groundwater exploita-

are present in the northern and middle parts of Jordan,tion.

exists if the groundwater from the B3 or B4 Formation infiltrates through the well. This is likely to occur if the casing

However, new wellfields will not reduce the overexploita-

and sealing of the annular space is not completely tight.

tion of groundwater, but they may be effective to buy timeand sustain the drinking water supply while measures ori-

Large saturated thicknesses can be found in other areas,

ented towards a long-term solution for the water crisis are

but the depth to groundwater is already approximately

implemented.

300 meters below the ground, and exploitation is likely noteconomically feasible because of the high pumping lift, theThe maps in this study can be used to identify feasible areas

resulting high energy cost and the likelihood of high salin-

for the development of new wellfields. These areas should

ity groundwater. For example, in NW Jordan around Irbid,

have large saturated thicknesses and low depths to ground-the saturated thickness of the A7/B2 is very high, but thewater.

aquifer dips to the N/NW.

For example, the area east of Mafraq in the Al-Badiah dis-

The maps in this study can be used to identify potentiallytrict has favorable characteristics with a groundwater depthfavorable wellfield locations. However, the final decision onof less than 200 m and saturated thicknesses of up to 300 m.

the siting of a new wellfield must be based on an exhaustive
feasibility study, in which the local hydrogeological condi-

In the south, the area north of Ma’an has a good saturated

tions, the distance to the demand site, required infrastruc-thickness of more than 300 m. Hardly any drawdown has

ture, water quality, building and operational costs, land

occurred over the last 20 years, and the depth to groundwa-

ownership, possible impacts on existing water rights andter is less than 200 m. However, the B5/B4/B3 formations

security issues are evaluated.

Groundwater Resource Assessment

85

Assess illegal groundwater abstraction

Subsidizing systems exist because they were created withThis study identified areas with large drawdowns but small

a certain objective, such as to support the rural population

numbers of wells. In these areas, installations of many il-or to secure the national food production. The existence

legal wells should be considered. This is especially the caseof subsidies for agriculture in the highland desert region

north and west of Irbid, where records of private wells in

implies that the Jordanian government or population pays

the WIS are rare, but satellite images show a wide area used

for the overexploitation of scarce groundwater resources,

for agriculture.

which appears to be paradoxical. However, the negative implications are often not known at the time these subsidies

To restrict the illegal abstraction of groundwater, the impor-

are designed and implemented.

tance of the problem must be evaluated. As a first step, it ishighly recommended to assess the expansion of irrigated ag-

Therefore, it is highly recommended to study the econom-

ricultural areas and to compare the needed irrigation water

ics of agriculture in the highlands and identify subsidies forvolumes with records of licensed water uses. Using remote

groundwater abstraction. The subsidies may be direct pay-sensing technologies and satellite images taken during thements to farmers, and these subsidies can be easily identi-

dry season, the irrigated agricultural areas can be delimited,

fied and quantified. However, subsidies can also be indirect

and the crops can be identified. By overlaying this spatial

or hidden, which create special low tariffs for the energy

information on a map of the licensed wells and the surface

required for groundwater abstraction (diesel or electricity)water infrastructure used for irrigation, irrigated areas withand artificially high prices for agricultural products. Arti-

and without water rights can be identified. The total illegally

ficially high prices are achieved through price regulation,

abstracted volumes can be estimated by multiplying the ille-high customs duties on the agricultural products or othergally irrigated areas by the typical crop water demand in aridsituations that lead to a type of monopoly by local farmers.

or semiarid climates.
Only accurate knowledge of the subsidy system and its
The same approach can be used to estimate the water vol-total cost for the beneficiaries and payers can facilitate aumes used on the licensed irrigated areas, and this can bepolitical discussion of the objective of subsidies and theircompared with the volumes declared by the well owners.

negative impacts. This discussion, with the participation of

Therefore, the illegally abstracted water volumes in the

all involved parties and sectors, can lead to system reform­licensed agricultural wells can be quantified.

and maintain the objective of the original subsidies while
avoiding the negative impacts.

Based on the results of this assessment, additional measures
can be taken, such as closure of illegal wells, strict control ofabstracted volumes, revocation of licenses, and applicationof higher water fees.
Identify and reform subsidies for groundwater abstraction
The results of this study show that groundwater in Jordan is
extracted at depths of more than 100 meters and up to >300
meters in the northern highlands. Consequently, the pumping lifts and the resulting energy costs are extremely high.
The sector that is most sensitive to the high cost of water
is the agriculture sector; it requires large volumes of waterand has relatively low profitability. Despite the extremely
high pumping lift and energy consumption in the Jordanian highlands, extensive agricultural activities can beobserved.
One explanation of this apparent contradiction is subsidies
for agriculture in the highlands.

Source: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Increase awareness of the water crisis based on solidand WAJ in its use. A well can be used to update ground-­informationwater level contour maps only if the exact coordinates

One of the most effective measures for addressing the water

are available.

crisis is to increase awareness among national, regional andlocal decision makers as well as among the most important

Save water

private water users, such as water companies and farmers.

Any potential for saving water should be fully exploited.

All institutions related to the water sector must be in-

Water companies should reduce water losses due to leaking

formed about this study.

pipes to a minimum through continuous maintenance or,where necessary, modernization of the water supply net-

Knowledge of the water resource conditions, its past devel-

work.

opment and the possible future impacts strengthens theability to find a solution to the crisis and fosters the forma-In the agricultural and industrial sectors, water-saving tech-tion of alliances.

nologies and processes as well as cultivation of low-water
demand crops should be promoted. Therefore, positive or

Messages to decision makers and the general public must be

negative incentives or a combination of both may be used.

based on reliable and credible information.

The positive incentives include monetary or nonmonetaryawards for innovative water-saving technologies, and fees

Enhance groundwater monitoring

for water abstraction are the most important negative incen-

The results of this study are based on reliable information.

tives. For Jordan, it is highly recommended to assess whether

In the future, the MWI will need to regularly update thethese fees are sufficiently high to stimulate the investment inresults of this study and develop foundational informationwater-saving technology or the shift towards low-water de-

about the groundwater conditions. To recollect the nec-

mand crops. In addition, the economic sense of a minimum

essary reliable data, the following tasks are highly recom-

volume that is free of charge should be evaluated.

mended:In cases where private water users severely affect the→ Manually monitor the groundwater levels in all avail-groundwater abstraction for the drinking water supply, theable monitoring wells every 3 months. Automatic sys-

well licenses should be renewed annually as mentioned

tems may also be used for the collection of continuous

in the bylaw. In critical areas, the licensed water volumes

groundwater data. Because of the failure susceptibility ofshould be reduced, or the licenses should not be extended.

the telemetric systems observed during the implemen-

Purchase of private wells by the water company or the MWI

tation of this project, groundwater monitoring must rely

should also be considered. These measures would stop or

on manual measurements.

reduce private groundwater abstraction in areas affected byvery high groundwater drawdowns.

→ Measure the SWLs in pumping wells during maintenance. There is an urgent need for close and reliable co-

Identify alternative water sources

operation with the WAJ Well Maintenance Department

For all of the water supply and demand management op-

to collect the additional groundwater level data required

tions discussed above, it is highly recommended to identify

for the development of groundwater level contour maps.

alternative water sources, such as the desalination of seawater or brackish groundwater, and to study their economic→ In every transaction regarding any kind of well drilling,feasibility for the domestic water supply by comparing theirmaintenance or rehabilitation work, the proper collec-

costs to the continuously increasing costs of groundwatertion of the SWL, including the date, must be explicitly

exploitation.

mentioned in the requirement of the ToR. In many cases,
an SWL is available, but not the date of the measure-

The costs of the use of alternative water sources in the nearment, which renders the value useless.

future could be below the cost of exploiting continuously
deeper and more saline groundwater resources. Further-→ Measure the coordinates and elevations of all wells,

more, the development of new sources reduces the depend-

particularly monitoring wells, with differential GPS

ency of the drinking water supply on the shrinking ground-technology. The project acquired one type of DGPS

water resources, increases the sustainability of the drinking

equipment and trained the technical staff of the MWI

water supply and improves water security.

Source: Bashar Tabbah Photography86

A SSE SSMENT
OF SPR INGS

5

5Assessment of Springs
Rebecca Bahls
As the scarce groundwater resources in
Jordan are continuously decreasing, thesurface water resources should be used
for the water supply as much as possible.
Therefore, springs must be considered
in comprehensive groundwater resource
management, especially in Jordan, withits many springs along the highlands.
A total of 861 springs are listed in the
WIS database of the MWI for the different aquifers; however, no recent data
were available for many of them. In thisproject, a nationwide assessment of thesprings was conducted to identify theircurrent status for a comprehensive analysis. In 2016/2017, only 23 springs wereused for the drinking water supply. Many
springs cannot be used because of bacterial pollution, despite large amountsof discharge. The water from important
springs is treated to remove the bacterial
contamination. In 2017, approximately 20
MCM of water was provided by springs
for the drinking water supply.

Assessment of Springs

89

5.1 Methods and Data
All available data for the 861 springs in Jordan in the WIS

The average discharge over the last five hydrological years

database were collected and analyzed. The springs were

(October 2013 to September 2018) for perennial springs wasclassified based on their recorded discharge as “perennial

estimated considering all recorded data (Annex 12). Usingflow”, “seasonal dry” or “dry”, although no current infor-

these values and the natural neighbor interpolation method

mation was available for a considerable number of these(Sibson, 1981), hot spot areas of high spring discharge weresprings. Therefore, two field surveys were conducted in thisidentified.

project in combination with the MWI to identify the statusAdditionally, the average spring discharges of all springs in

the last three years but had recorded discharge measure-a single aquifer was analyzed to provide an overview of thements for the prior 2 years. To evaluate the seasonal varia-

changes in discharge per aquifer over time and to identify

tions, the first survey was conducted at the end of the rainy

any correlations with the decrease in groundwater. Becauseseason (March 2018), and the second survey was completed

not all springs have a continuous data series, the 5-yearat the end of the dry season (October 2018).

­average was calculated for each spring.

Figu
re

es of all of the springs that had not been measured during

64

Locations and classification of springs in Jordan

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

90

5.2 Results
Figure 64 (previous page) shows a map of all springs in Jor-trend has increased since 1987, with four peaks in 1988,

dan based on their current status: 361 springs are perennial,

1995, 1999, and 2014.

23 are intermittent, and 195 are dry (Annex 12). The flow
conditions of the other 12 springs remain unknown be-

According to Figure 66, the number of newly drilled wells

cause it was impossible to identify these springs in the field.

per year was already very high in the 1980s (1100) but nearly
tripled to 2900 in the 1990s. Because the largest number

The map indicates that springs are concentrated in theof springs had dried in the 1990s, it can be concluded thathighlands. Perennial and dry springs are evenly distributed,

there is a correlation between the number of new wells andand there is no specific area where dry springs are more

the number of dry springs.

common.
Figure 67 shows the distribution of the 5-year average
Figure 65 shows the number of springs that dried per year.

spring discharge of perennial springs. In the high recharge

The number is exceptionally high in 1995. The last nation-areas in Ajloun, northwest of Amman, areas of large springwide inventory was conducted in that year, and many ofdischarges (approximately 10 MCM/yr) are located to thethe classified dry springs had likely dried before 1995. The

south-southwest of Madaba, around Karak, Tafelah andnumber of dry springs has varied annually, but the overallsouth of Petra.

30
25
20
15
10
5

Figu
re

1958
1962
1963
1967
1968
1974
1980
1981
1982
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

0

65

Number of dry springs per year

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Figu
re

1930's66

1940's1950's1960's1970's1980's1990's2000's2010'sNumber of wells drilled per decade according to the WIS. The database contains 8420 wells, but 1966 have no dates and therefore are not considered

Figu
re

Assessment of Springs

67

91

Five-year average discharge of the perennial springs in MCM

the number of drilled wells began to increase (Figure 66).
Regular collection of discharge data for springs began in

In the late 1980s, the discharge decreased to less than 80

the early 1970s and covered a larger number of springs.

MCM/yr due to the large increase in the number of drilled

The total yearly spring discharge had a recorded maximum

wells, which more than doubled since the years prior toof 249 MCM/yr in the early 1970s (Figure 68) and has de-being recorded. However, the discharge recovered to 90

creased constantly since, except in the early 1990s, when

MCM/yr in the early 1990s. Since then, the average spring

an increase was recorded. The latest discharge values showdischarge has continuously decreased to 68 MCM/yr. The

that the total spring discharge decreased by more than 115

second largest source of spring discharge is the A4 aquifer

MCM/yr to 136 MCM/yr in the early 2010s.

at more than 50 MCM/yr in the early 1970s. Except for asmall increase in the early 1990s, groundwater extraction
from this aquifer caused a continuous decrease in springdischarge to 23 MCM/yr. The average spring discharge

The same trend is observed for the individual aquifers.

from the Alluvium remained approximately constant

The average yearly spring discharge for the A7/B2 aquifer

from the early 1970s (29 MCM/yr) to the end of the last(Figure 68) was approximately 120 MCM in the early 1970s

millennium (23 MCM/yr). Since then, the discharge has

but decreased to 90 MCM/yr in the early 1980s, probably

declined to 12 MCM/yr.

as a result of water abstraction from the aquifer when

92

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

MCM/yearAlluvium

B4

A7/B2

A4

A1/A2

Sandstone

249

250

22

225

18

200
54

175
150

214
200

23

194

18

22

174

17

21

43
33

125

20

23
17

21
39
15

28

100

161

25

100

91

76

50
4

Figu
re

136

18

18

14

14

19

23

72

69

68

4

3

3

3

2

29

26

28

23

25

23

2
16

2
13

2
12

1971-1975

1976-1980

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2000

2001-2005

2006-20102011-2015

0

68

13

135

94
79

25

19

23

121

75

147

Average spring discharges per aquifer in MCM/yr

Spring discharge (m³/hr)
800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Linear negative trend* of -6.5 m³/hr per year
Figu
re

* The linear trend is estimated with the method of least squares

69

Discharge measurements from 1960 to 2017 at Sarah spring

Hydrological Year (Oct-Sept)Assessment of Springs

93

Spring discharge (m³/hr)
800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Linear negative trend* of -1.1 m³/hr per year

Hydrological Year (Oct-Sept)

Figu
re

* The linear trend is estimated with the method of least squares

70

Discharge measurements from 1937 to 2017 at the ‘WADI ES SIR’ spring

Spring discharge (m³/hr)
800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
93
19

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

20

05

Linear positive trend* of +7.3 m³/hr per year
Figu
re

* The linear trend is estimated with the method of least squares

71

Discharge measurements from 1995 to 2017 at the ‘WADI ES SIR’ spring

20

07

20

09

20

11

20

13

20

15

20

17

Hydrological Year (Oct-Sept)

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

The discharges of the springs dewatering the Sandstone

at this spring is -1.1 m3/hr per year. Interestingly, a posi-aquifer and the A1/A2 aquifer remained generally con-tive trend is observed since the last nationwide study instant at approximately 20 MCM/yr and 16 MCM/yr, re-1995 (Figure 71). This effect is most likely due to the leak-

spectively, over the described time period.

ing water supply network of the city of Amman.

This decreasing trend can also be observed in individual
springs. One example is the Sarah spring (Figure 69) in

5.3 Recommendations

Karak, which dewaters the A7/B2 aquifer. Here, the longterm analysis shows a negative trend of -6.5 m3/hr per

The critical water conditions in Jordan are also reflected

year. However, the negative trend is even more severe atin the decreasing spring discharge and increasing number-12.1 m /hr per year since 1995, when the last nationwide

of dry springs. Groundwater resources are limited in Jor-

study was completed.

dan, which makes the available surface water even more

3

precious. These resources need to be protected from any
In springs located near larger cities, such as the Wadi Es

type of contamination. The treatment of already contam-

Sir spring west of Amman (dewatering the A4 aquifer), theinated springs with high discharges and the connection

trend is not as severe (Figure 70) as other springs dewater-of additional springs to the water supply system must be

ing the same aquifer. The long-term decrease in discharge

evaluated.

Source: BGR

Source: Bashar Tabbah Photography

94

GROUNDWATERMODEL OF JORDAN

6

6Groundwater Model of Jordan
Mark Gropius

Comprehensive water resource management requires previously described information about the subsurface, the current
groundwater level conditions and pastdevelopments. Based on this important
information, decision makers can takesuitable actions, such as the installationof a new wellfield. The possible effectsof this new wellfield on the groundwaterconditions can be simulated in a groundwater model.
A groundwater model is a simplified
approximation of an aquifer based on
subsurface information and uses numerical methods to calculate the hydraulicflow processes. The model simulates
hydraulic heads and water table elevations, calculates groundwater flow rates
and directions, and estimates the waterbalance. Once these models have beencalibrated to reasonably reproduce pastgroundwater behavior, they can be used
to analyze the present conditions ofgroundwater resources and to forecast
future groundwater development.
Presently, the MWI uses a WEAP modelfor the nationwide assessment and planning of water allocation. The possibilities of the WEAP model to account forgroundwater resources are very limited
because aquifers are considered to behomogeneous and infinite reservoirs,
which do not represent the local naturalhydrogeological conditions. Therefore, anationwide numerical groundwater flow
model (using the finite difference code
MODFLOW) was developed to spatiallyassess and quantify all relevant hydraulicprocesses and to provide detailed information about the groundwater levels of
all relevant aquifers.

Groundwater Modeling

97

Furthermore, the numerical groundwater flow model can→→ By coupling the groundwater model with the existing

be applied as a stand-alone tool for assessing the effects of

WEAP model, a decision support system is createdmanagement strategies on groundwater resources, such as to(WEAP-MODFLOW-DSS) that assesses groundwater-­predict the impacts ofrelated processes as well as the spatial and volumetric→→ decreasing groundwater levels on existing wellfields,

limitations of available water resources in detail. With→→ new or currently unaccounted for groundwater

this tool, the MWI is capable of improved strategic man-­abstractions, and→→ water use reductions in different sectors and/or ­locations.

agement of the groundwater resources and the watersupply infrastructure within the MWI.

6.1 Methods and Data
6.1.1 Groundwater Modeling
Previous Studies
Several numerical models have been established in Jordan

est amounts of rainfall occur in the highlands of Jordan

in the past. The most important modeling studies covering(540 mm/a) and the Syrian Arab Republic (975 mm/a). The

the majority of the Jordan territory are as follows:

rainfall amount decreases rapidly to the southeast and the→→ BGR, 2005 (Schmidt) in the framework of the National

Wadi Araba (Jordan Valley).

Water Master Plan (MWI, 2005)→→ WAWI, 2006 (Mull & Holländer)

Groundwater Recharge→→ BRGM, 2010 (Barthelemy et al.)Groundwater recharge was estimated by considering thatthe recharge in areas with precipitation more than 75 mm/a

Each of the models includes different assumptions or

is approximately 3.3% of the total rainfall (Margane et al.

­limitations. BGR (2005) conducted numerical flow mod-2002). This assumption leads to an annual recharge volume

eling in the framework of the National Water Masterof approximately 280 MCM within Jordan.

Plan, which covers all of the hydrogeological units fromthe Ram/Disi aquifer to the basalt. However, this model

The groundwater recharge in the model was distributed as

excludes the Jordan Valley and some areas to the east andfollows:

south of the country and neglects any vertical exchanges→→ 20% where the annual precipitation exceeds 300 mm/a

among hydrogeological units. Mull & Holländer (2006)→→ 2% where the annual precipitation is from 75 mm/a tosimulated only the Ram/Disi aquifer as a transboundary
aquifer. The BRGM numerical groundwater model in-

300 mm/a→→ 0% where the annual precipitation is less than 75 mm/a

cluded the deeper hydrogeological units ranging from theRam/Disi to the A7/B2 aquifers, although the latter was

The recharge was not differentiated based on the outcrop-

only considered to investigate the impact of vertical leak-ping rocks except for the B3 outcrops, where the recharge

age processes.

was set to zero because the B3 Formation is considered to

6.1.2 Hydrological data

be impermeable. The distribution used in the steady statecalculations is shown in Figure 72. As expected, the largest

The quality of a model depends on the quality of the con-recharge occurs in the highlands east of the Jordan Rift Val-sidered data. In the following section, all of the relevantley. An additional important area is the Jebel Arab (Jebel aldata used and their sources are described.

Arab) in southern Syria, which adds significant recharge tothe basalt aquifer.

Precipitation
The rainfall distribution is based on the WorldClim Version

For the transient simulations, the groundwater recharge

1.4 (release 3) dataset created by Hijmans et al. (2005). The

varied according to the deviation in annual mean precipita-

rainfall distribution roughly follows the topology. The larg-tion from the long-term average.

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

98

72

Groundwater recharge distribution for the steady state calibration

Groundwater Level Data
Groundwater level data were taken from the WIS, which

Because the A7/B2, B4/B5 and Basalt aquifers are hydrau-

stores groundwater level measurements collected since thelically connected, their predevelopment conditions were

1960s. The data availability for each well varies from single

compiled using selected observation wells that correspondobservations to long-term time series. For the steady state

to either of the aquifer units, and only one hydraulic headcalibration, an average of the available groundwater level

distribution was applied as a target for the steady state cali-data between 1960 and 1990 was calculated for each moni-

bration. The coordinates and elevations were taken fromtoring well, irrespective of the amount of data. This average

the groundwater resource assessment study (Chapter 4).

was assumed to represent groundwater levels under prede-Time series available in the WIS database were used to cali-velopment conditions (Figure 73). For the Ram/Disi aquifer,brate the transient model

the static water levels measured after completion of the
deep wells were also used.

Figu
re

Groundwater Modeling

73

Structure contour map of the A3 aquitard

Spring Discharge Data
Springs with discharges greater than 150 m3/h and the
locally well-known springs were considered in the model(Figure 74, next page). The outflow elevations were taken either from the results presented in Chapter 5 or from Google
Earth.

99

Figu
re

100

74

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Locations of springs assigned in the groundwater model

6.1.3 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model

Geological Structure Model

The aquifer systems described in Chapter 3 were imple-

The geological structure model was adopted from the re-mented in the groundwater flow model, as shown in Table 1

gional model by the BRGM, which was provided to the BGR
without any information corresponding to Saudi Arabia.

Table 1:Units younger than the A7/B2 Formation, which were not

HYDROGEOLOGICAL UNITS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION IN THE
GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL

included in the BRGM model, were derived from previous
BGR studies (Margane et al., 1995, MWI, 2005).

Hydrogeological unit

Classification

Harrat Basalt

Aquifer

Alluvium (Jordan Valley)

Aquifer

B4/B5

Aquifer

B3

Aquitard

A7/B2 Group

Aquifer

A1/A6 Group

Aquitard

more than 2000 m. In the Disi area in southern Jordan, theKurnub

Aquifer

Karawi basaltic dike extends from Mudawwara to theZarqa Group

Aquitard

northwest to the Jordan Valley escarpment and acts as a hy-

Khreim Group

Aquitard

draulic barrier. All three tectonic structures are included in

Ram/Disi

Aquiferthe model.

The most important tectonic features are the Jordan Valley
and the Fuluq Fault, which delimit the Sirhan depression to
the east. These features cause vertical displacements of

Figu
re

Groundwater Modeling

75

101

Extent of the numerical model. The grid cell size is 2,000 m x 2,000 m. The colors indicate the geological units of the model in layer 1 (land surface).
The white areas are not modeled

6.1.4 Numerical Groundwater Flow Model

2D Model Grid

The numerical model is based on the MODFLOW-NWT

The political borders with Saudi Arabia to the south andsource code (Niswonger et al., 2011), which applies the finite

southeast and with Iraq to the east delimit the groundwa-

difference method to solve the groundwater flow equations.

ter flow model. The model extends to the north into Syria,

The commercial software package Groundwater Modelingincluding the area of Jebel al Arab, which is an important

System (GMS) from Aquaveo LLC was used to set up therecharge zone for the Basalt aquifer.

model.
The model covers a total area of 109,564 km2 with 27,391
active cells with a cell size of 2,000 m x 2,000 m (Figure 75).

102

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figu
re

Materials
BasaltDead Sea Sediments
B4B5
B3
A7B2
A1A6
Kurnub
Zarqa
KhreimRam

76

3D groundwater model

3D ModelThe 3D model is composed of 9 layers and has a total of

A horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-05 m/s was

246519 active cells. All of the model layers have the same

initially assigned to A7/B2 but was altered during the tran-

lateral extent (Figure 76). The top of the model (land sur-sient simulation. Values of 1.0E-06 m/s and 2.0E-04 m/sface) varies from approximately 1803 m asl in the highlands

were needed in the recharge areas south of Al Shubak andto -750 m asl in the Dead Sea. At the bottom, the modelin Jafer, respectively, to achieve a better fit of the calculated

has elevations from approximately 1500 m asl to -6500 m

hydraulic heads. The lateral hydraulic conductivities of B3

asl. The layer elevations derived from the BRGM structuraland A1/A6 were also altered in the areas south of Al Shubak.

model were manually smoothed to avoid numerical insta-

The B3 layer was altered marginally in Yarmouk. The hy-bilities.

draulic conductivity of the Ram aquifer was set to 1.8 m/s
but had to be changed to 2.5 m/s in the Disi area.

Parameter Settings
Relevant hydraulic parameters were obtained by calibrating

Additionally, the vertical hydraulic conductivities of the A1/

the numerical model (Table 2 and Table 3). Changes in theA6 layer varied regionally to reproduce the hydraulic head

hydraulic conductivity were applied regionally and do notdifferences between the overlying limestone and the un-reflect local variations.

derlying sandstone formations.

Groundwater Modeling

103

Table 2HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES CONSIDERED FOR THE HYDROGEOLOGICAL UNITS IN THE MODEL
Hydrogeological unit

Kh [m/s]Basalt1.0E-04

B4/B5

8.0E-05

Kv [m/s]
1.0E-04
8.0E-06-

8.0E-05

Alluvium (Jordan Valley)

1.0E-05-

1.0E-04

1.0E-05-

1.0E-04B3

1.0E-07-2.0E-07

5.0E-09-

1.0E-08

A7/B2

1.0E-06-

2.0E-04

1.0E-07-2.0E-05

A1/A6

5.0E-07-

2.5E-06

2.0E-11-

2.5E-08

Kurnub

5.0E-06

5.0E-07

Zarqa Group

2.5E-06

2.5E-08

Khreim Group

5.0E-07

Ram/Disi aquifer

1.8E-05-

5.0E-09
2.5E-05

1.8E-05-

2.5E-05

Table 3SPECIFIC STORAGE AND POROSITY VALUES USED FOR THE HYDROGEOLOGICAL UNITS IN THE MODEL
Hydrogeological unit

Spec. storage [1/m]Spec. yield [-]1.0E-07

0,05

Basalt
B4/B5

-

5%

1.0E-06

0,1

10%

-

15%

B3

1.0E-06

0.001

0.1%

-

1.0%

1.0E-06--

1.0E-05

1.0E-05

0,03

-

5%

Alluvium (Jordan Valley)
A7/B2

1.0E-07

Porosity [%]
0,1

2%

0.025

-

0,1

4%

0,01

-

0,04

2%

A1/A6

1.0E-06

Kurnub

1.0E-06

0.025

2%

Zarqa Group

7.0E-07

0,01

1%

Khreim Group

7.0E-07

Ram/Disi aquifer

7.0E-07

0,01
0,05

-

1%
0,1

2%

-

10%

Table 4LATERAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ALONG THE MODEL BORDERS
BorderHydrogeological unit

Type (steady state)

Type (transient)

Ram/Disi

Constant head

Fixed flux (wells)

Eastern border with Iraq/Saudi Arabia

Ram/Disi

Constant head

Fixed flux (wells)

Northwestern border (Jebel Sheikh)

Basalt - B4/B5

Constant head

Fixed flux (wells)

Jordan River

AlluviumConstant head

Constant head

Dead Sea

AlluviumConstant headTransient head

Red Sea

AlluviumConstant head

Constant headSouthern border with Saudi Arabia

Boundary Conditions
Bottom of the Model

Lateral Boundary Conditions

The bottom of the model is represented by the top of the

For the steady state model, constant head boundaries were

Precambrian Basement complex of crystalline rocks thatapplied along the borders. The head values were derived

are considered impermeable and is thus assumed to be afrom the results of BRGM (2010). The fluxes calculated

no-flow boundary.

along the respective boundary sections were then converted
to fixed flux boundaries for the transient groundwater flow
model (Table 4). The western boundary of the model was
set as a no-flow boundary because no information about
groundwater flow to or from the west is available.

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Table 5
DISTRIBUTION OF PUMPING WELLS (THROUGH 2017)
BasaltDomestic

Irrigation

Industry

Total

50

217

3

367

-

-

13

180

1771

53

2044
2143

Alluvium
B4/B5
A7/B2

646

1158

178

A1/A6

131

73

13

220

Kurnub

68

74

10

168

Zarqa

6

4

1

11

Ram/Disi

42

103

4

194

Sum

1123

3400

262

5160

Pumping Wells
The abstraction from approximately 5160 pumping wells

Pumping wells outside Jordan were not considered due to a

was included in the model. The data through 2017 werelack of data.

retrieved from the WIS. The information includes the use
type (domestic, industrial, irrigation) as well as from which

Springs

aquifer the groundwater was withdrawn (Table 5). However,Springs are modeled as drain boundary conditions. The Az-

it is unclear when well operations began, and the pumping

raq wetlands, also referred to as the Azraq Oasis, discharged

rates are not always reliable due to noncontinuous moni-

approximately 14 MCM per year (Margane et al., 1995) intoring.

1963/64. The irrigation development in the area and thestart of the AWSA wellfield operation in 1982 led to the dis-

For irrigation wells, the start of operation in the WIS does

appearance of springs in 1993. Two springs with an outflow

not coincide with the start of irrigation development inelevation at 515 m asl are assigned in the model as drain

the country. In such cases, the pumping rates were linearlyboundary conditions. Additional drain boundary conditions

extrapolated to zero at the time that irrigation development

are applied to seven cells within the wetland area at 508 mreportedly began in a specific area. The simulation resultsasl.

show that this approximation is more appropriate than neglecting the initial pumping activities.

Wadis/Rivers
Major rivers (Yarmouk and Zarqa) and wadis (Kafrein,

The significant increase in the number of abstraction wells

Mujib, and Hasa) are considered to be drain boundary con-at the turn of 1994/1995 is noticeable. This coincides withditions. The Jordan River is modeled as a constant head in

the decision of the Jordanian government to equip all pri-both the steady state and transient models. The river water

vate wells with flow meters in 1993 (Margane & Almomany,

levels were estimated based on a digital elevation model

1995). However, significant uncertainties about extraction

and Google Earth.

by wells remain, mainly due to illegal wells, unlicensed
deepening, relocation of existing wells and broken flow

Dead Sea

meters.

The Dead Sea is assumed to be a constant head at -395 m asl(head in 1960) with the present-day extension in the steady

Beginning in 1995, the licensed wells were found to be 23%

state model. For the transient model, a transient head

governmental and 77% private, whereas the total abstrac-

boundary condition reflecting the observed decline in thetion was 51% governmental and 49% private. However,Dead Sea water level is assigned (Figure 77).

recent studies of the Azraq and Ramtha areas using remotesensing (Al-Bakri, 2016) and a classic comparison using
water level declines and specific yields (Margane et al., 2015)
revealed large discrepancies between the metered abstractions for private wells and the estimated real abstraction
rates, which are 2.5 to 3 times higher than the official values.

Source: BGR

104

Groundwater Modeling

Water level above MSL (m)105Time (years)

-390
-395
-400
-407
-405
-410

-411

-415
-415
0

-420

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Time since 1993 (years)
30

Figu
re

19

1

77

19

40

19

50

Water level of the Dead Sea (Nof, 2012)

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

Figu
re

106

Figu
re

78

79

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Groundwater contours for the predevelopment conditions in the A7/B2 aquifer

Groundwater contours for the predevelopment conditions in the Ram/Disi aquifer

Groundwater Modeling107

6.2 Results
6.2.1 Calibration
The model was calibrated for steady state conditions andof 797.47 MCM and a total outflow of 797.51 MCM. The dif-

validated under transient conditions.

ference between the total outflow and inflow is -0.04 MCM
or 0.4%, which is acceptable for the size of the model area.

Steady State Hydraulic Heads
The steady state calibration provides results under prede-A more detailed water balance analysis (Table 7) reveals thatvelopment conditions. The modeled groundwater contours

most of the inflow is lateral inflow from Saudi Arabia (269

for the A7/B2 and Ram/Disi aquifers are shown in FigureMCM) through the Ram/Disi aquifer followed by ground-

78 and Figure 79, respectively. The hydraulic heads and flow

water recharge (260 MCM).

directions are consistent with the results of BRGM (2010)
and MWI (2005).

The highest discharge occurs in the Dead Sea (216 MCM),
followed by discharge into the Yarmouk River (120 MCM).

Steady State Water Balance

In addition, a significant outflow from Jordan to Saudi Ara-

The water balance of the calibrated steady state conditions

bia of 82 MCM occurs along the no-flow barrier that repre-

is presented in Table 6. The overall model has a total inflow

sents the Karawi dike.

Table 6
WATER BALANCE FOR STEADY STATE CONDITIONS
Constant head

Inflow [MCM]

Outflow [MCM]

433.01445.58

Wells

0

23.61

Drains0328.32

Recharge

364.460

Total

797.47797.51

Total Inflow – Outflow-0.04 MCM (≈ 0.4%)

Table 7DETAILED WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR STEADY STATE CONDITIONS [MCM]
Inflow [MCM]

Outflow [MCM]

Literature [MCM]

SourceBGR (2005)

Inflow from the south (Ram/Disi)

269

82

300 (inflow)

Inflow from the east (Kurnub - Ram/Disi)

78

43,5

90 (inflow)

BGR (2005)

Outflow to the Azraq Oasis/wetland

19,9

Dez 18Margane (1995)

Wadi Zarqa River

15,2

60

Wadi Kafrein and Shuayb

33

28

Wadi Mujib

53

57

Wadi Hasa

8,5

25,5

Yarmouk River

122

Outflow to the Dead Sea

216

Mull & Holländer (2010)

Margane (2002)

120
210

BGR (2005)

300

Mull & Holländer (2010)

Inflow from the north (Jebel Sheikh)

79

114

Recharge estimation BGR

Recharge in Jordan

260

280

Margane (2002)

Pumping wells

23,5

Active wells 1960

108

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

6.2.2 Transient Modeling
The hydraulic heads and parameters of the steady state

which is not shown by the observed levels (Figure 80, right).

calibration were used as initial conditions for the transientThus, the model is unreliable in the vicinity of the Dead Sea,modeling that simulates the 1960-2017 period with annu-

most likely due to density-dependent flow processes thatal stress periods subdivided into 12 equal time steps. The

are not considered in this model.

transient data applied to the transient model comprise thewater level of the Dead Sea, groundwater recharge, andBasaltpumping rates of abstraction wells.

The calculated groundwater levels at well AL3361 (Figure
81, next page) follow the measured decline of approximate-

The results of the transient simulation were verified using

ly 30 m from 1988 to 2012. However, the sudden decline

the observed historical groundwater level measurementsthat increased in the 3 years before 2015 was not repro-

in monitoring wells, the discharge rate at the Azraq springs,

duced. The observed water levels at monitoring well F1014

and the groundwater contour maps (Chapter 4).

near Azraq (Figure 81) show a decline of approximately
15 m from 1996 to 2011, and this decline is not mirrored

Transient Hydraulic Heads at Monitoring Wells

by the model.

The calculated and observed hydraulic heads for selected
monitoring wells and aquifers are discussed below.

B4/B5
Monitoring well F1022 (Figure 82, next page) in Azraq shows

Alluviuma water level decline of approximately 20 m between 1995

The calculated heads correlate appropriately with the long-and 2015, which is not followed by the calculated heads.

term trend at well AB1164 (Figure 80) in the northern part

However, the decline of approximately 12 m from 1998 toof the Jordan Valley. However, near the Dead Sea, the cal-2015 at monitoring well G3081 (Figure 82) in the Jafer area

culated heads follow the trend of the Dead Sea water level,

is matched by the model results.

calculated [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

-200

-200

-340

-340

-210

-210

-350

-350

-220

-220

-360

-360

-230

-230

-370

-370

-240

-240

-380

-380

-250

-250

-390

-390

-260

-260

-400

-400

-270

-270

-410

-410

-280

-280

-420

-420

-290

-290

-430

-430

-300

-440

-300
19

60

19

70

19

Figu
re

AB1164

80

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

AB1164 · Observed

-440
19

60

19

70

19

CA1011

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

CA1011 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the Alluvium in the Jordan Valley

Groundwater Modelingcalculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]109

observed [m a.s.l.]

560

560

560

545

550

550

550

535

540

540

540

525

530

530

530

515

520

520

520

505

510

510

510

495

500

500

500

485

490

490

490

475

480

480

480

465

470

470

470

455

460

460

460

445

19

60

19

70

19

80

Figu
re

AL3361

81

19

90

20

00

20

10

19

60

19

70

AL3361 · Observed

19

80

19

F1014

90

20

00

20

10

F1014 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the Basalt aquifer

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

870

890

580

565

860

880

570

555

850

870

560

545

840

860

550

535

830

850

540

525

820

840

530

515

810

830

520

505

800

820

510

495

790

810

500

485

780

800

490

475

790

480

770
19

60

19

70

19

Figu
re

G3081

82

80

19

90

20

00

20

G3081 · Observed

10

465
19

60

19

70

19

F1022

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the B4/B5 aquifer

80

19

90

20

00

20

F1022 · Observed

10

110

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

calculated [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]
570
570
560
560
550
550
540
540
530
530
520
520
510
510
500
500
490
490
480
480
470
470

60
1960
19

70
1970
19

observed [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

80
1980
19

AL3384
AL3384

90
1990
19

Figu
re

60
1960
19

83

70
1970
19

observed [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

80
1980
19

AE1003
AE1003

660
660
650
650
640
640
630
630
620
620
610
610
600
600
590
590
580
580
570
570
560
560

AL3384 · Observed
AL3384 · Observed

calculated [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]

100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60
-60
-80
-80
-100
-100

10
20 1 0
20

00
2000
20

560
560
550
550
540
540
530
530
520
520
510
510
500
500
490
490
480
480
470
470
460
460

calculated [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]

90
1990
19

00
2000
20

10
20 1 0
20

100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60
-60
-80
-80
-100
-100

AE1003 · Observed
AE1003 · Observed

60
1960
19

70
1970
19

observed [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

80
1980
19

CD1132
CD1132

90
1990
19

00
2000
20

CD1132 · Observed
CD1132 · Observed

calculated [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]
700
700
690
690
680
680
670
670
660
660
650
650
640
640
630
630
620
620
610
610
600
600

60
1960
19

70
1970
19

10
20 1 0
20

690
690
680
680
670
670
660
660
650
650
640
640
630
630
620
620
610
610
600
600
590
590

observed [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

80
1980
19

CD1106
CD1106

90
1990
19

00
2000
20

10
20 1 0
20

705
705
695
695
685
685
675
675
665
665
655
655
645
645
635
635
625
625
615
615
605
605

CD1106 · Observed
CD1106 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells in the A7/B2 aquifer

A7/B2
The observed groundwater levels show large decline ranges

aquifer. Furthermore, the steady increase in the extraction(5 m to 100 m) from 1980/1990 to 2015 because of the het-

rate leads to changes in the trends, which are observed inerogeneous drawdown throughout the A7/B2

the measured groundwater levels.

Groundwater Modelingcalculated [m a.s.l.]111

observed [m a.s.l.]

In general, the simulated hydraulic heads reproduce

1000

1200

the observed groundwater levels, such as in AL3384,

990

1190

980

1180

such as in wells CD1132, AE1003, and CD1106 (Figure

970

1170

83).

960

1160

950

1150

lated heads that are approximately 225 m lower than

940

1140

the observed values in well G3147 (Figure 84).

930

1130

920

1120

910

1110

900

1100

but they fail to reproduce the observed increased drawdown since 2000 caused by the rising extraction rates,

Local effects that are not yet understood lead to calcu-

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

Figu
re

G3147

84

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

90

20

00

20

10

G3147 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads in well G3147

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

570

580

740

740

560

570

730

730

550

560

720

720

540

550

710

710

530

540

700

700

520

530

690

690

510

520

680

680

500

510

670

670

490

500

660

660

480

490

650

650

480

640

470
19

60

19

70

19

Figu
re

AD3014

85

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

AD3014 · Observed

640
19

60

19

70

19

80

AL3349

19

90

20

00

20

10

AL3349 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the A1/A6 Formation

A1/A6
Figure 85 shows the calculated and observed hydraulic

the small level variation observed at well AL3349, but a de-heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the A1/cline of only 5 m is simulated at well AD3014 instead of theA6 Formation. The calculated hydraulic heads reproduce

10 m that was measured.

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

800

800

800

800

790

790

790

790

780

780

780

780

770

770

770

770

760

760

760

760

750

750

750

750

740

740

740

740

730

730

730

730

720

720

720

720

710

710

710

710

700

700

700
19

60

19

70

19

80

Figu
re

ED1203

86

19

90

20

00

20

10

ED1203 · Observed

700
19

60

19

70

19

80

ED1202

19

90

20

00

20

10

ED1202 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the Ram/Disi aquifer

Ram/Disi Aquifer
The observed water level declines at the selected mon-The results demonstrate that the mod-itoring wells associated with the Ram Group in the Disi

el is able to adequately reproduce thearea range from 7 m to 20 m during the modeled period.

groundwater development in Jordan,

The calculated hydraulic heads adequately reproduce theespecially considering its size and theobserved trends (Figure 86).

data availability.

Water Balance for 2017
The water balance of the transient simulation for 2017 is

A more detailed water balance analysis (Table 9) reveals that

presented in Table 8. The overall model has a total inflow of

the inflow is mostly lateral inflow from Saudi Arabia (266

1754 MCM and a total outflow of 1783 MCM. The differenceMCM) through the Ram/Disi aquifer and groundwater re-

between the total outflow and inflow is -28 MCM or 1.6%,

charge from precipitation (267 MCM).

which is acceptable for the size of the model area.
Groundwater discharge to Wadi Zarqa ceased in 2017, whichis consistent with reality because only treated wastewater iscurrently discharged in this area.

Source: BGR

112

Groundwater Modeling

Table 8WATER BALANCE FOR THE TRANSIENT SIMULATION IN 2017
Inflow [MCM]

Outflow [MCM]

Constant head

95

909

Wells

464

722

Drains0148

Recharge

481

0Storage715

Total Inflow – Outflow

4-28 MCM (≈ 1.6%)

Table 9DETAILED WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR 2017 [MCM]
Inflow [MCM]

Outflow [MCM]

Inflow from the south (Ram/Disi)

266

69

Inflow from the east (Kurnub - Ram/Disi)

77

0

Wadi Zarqa River

0

Wadi Kafrein and Shuayb

1Wadi Mujib

20.5

Wadi Hasa

5

Yarmouk River120

Outflow to the Dead Sea

601

Springs
Recharge in Jordan
Pumping wells

3
267
651

113

114

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Discharge [m³/d]

Discharge [m³/d]

0

0

-2000

-5000

-4000
-10000-6000-15000-8000-10000-20000-12000-25000-14000-30000-18000-35000-18000-20000-40000

Figu
re

19

87

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

20

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

20

Simulated discharge [m3/d] of the Azraq springs (left) and wetland outflow (right)

Azraq Springs and Wetlands
The discharge of the Azraq springs declined continuously

The total simulated groundwater outflow for the Azraq

from 13000 m3/d (approx. 5 MCM/a) in 1960 to zero in 1995

wetland declined from 31000 m³/d (approximately 11.5

(Figure 87, left). The real conditions are accurately repre-

MCM) before development to 900˚m3/d (0.3 MCM/a)sented, although the springs dried two years before in 1993.

in 2016 (Figure 87).

Figu
re

Groundwater Modeling

88

115

Comparison of groundwater contour maps and flow directions (model results on the left, groundwater resource assessment on the right)

Comparison of Transient Model Results with
the Groundwater Resource Assessment Studyin both maps, although local differences are visible.

The modeled groundwater levels for A7/B2 in 2017 werecorresponding map from the groundwater resource assess-compared with the corresponding contour map from thement (Chapter 4.2.3.5). In general, the areas with significant

groundwater resources assessment (Figure 88). The ground-

drawdowns coincide, but the modeled total drawdown iswater levels agree relatively well in both studies. The mostsignificantly less than the groundwater resource assessment

significant differences occur in the highlands west of Maan,

results (Chapter 4). The difference occurs because illegally

where the calculated groundwater levels are significantly

abstracted groundwater for irrigation was not considered inlow. Furthermore, the general flow direction is comparable

the model; thus, the abstraction was underestimated.

The drawdown during 1995-2017 was compared with the

Figu
re

116

89

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Comparison of groundwater drawdown maps from 1995 to 2017 (model results on the left, groundwater assessment results on the right)

6.2.3 Predictive ModelingAfter the transient validation, the model was used toon mapped irrigated areas for 2015 and 2017 using remote

forecast the drawdown for 2000-2050 based on different

sensing data and crop water demand calculations (Al-Bakri,

management assumptions. Two groundwater abstraction2016) (Table 10, Figure 90).

options were considered:
2. Enforcement of the groundwater bylaw scenario: abstrac1. Baseline scenario: abstraction from the WIS for domestic

tion from the WIS for domestic and industrial uses. The

and industrial uses. The groundwater abstractions for irri-

groundwater abstraction volumes were based on current

gation were taken from the WEAP model, which are based

abstraction rates documented in the WIS (Table 10).

Groundwater Modeling

Table 10
COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION WATER DEMANDS ACCORDING TO THE RESPECTIVE SOURCES
Baseline scenario

Groundwater-by-law scenario

Data from WEAP [MCM/yr

Data from WIS [MCM/yr]

MF_Agriculture

103.7

60.8

ZA_Agriculture

33.5

9.1

ZA_Agriculture_Azraq

33.5

25.8

5.4

0.7

AM_Agriculture

120.8

68.5

IR_Agriculture

17.6

3.2

JA_Agriculture

2.9

2.2

KA_Agriculture

23.7

7.7

MA_Agriculture

63.6

49.2

MD_Agriculture

6.3

2.9

TA_Agriculture

5.1

3.2

AQ_Agriculture

32.4

23.6

Sum

448.5

256.9

Figu
re

AJ_Agriculture

90

Irrigated areas according to the WEAP model

117

118

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Groundwater abstraction [MCM]
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1960

1969

1980

1990

2000

Figu
re

Scenario 1 [WEAP data]

91

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Scenario 2 [WIS data]

Simulated groundwater abstractions from 1960 to 2050 for all wells

Total Groundwater Abstraction
The difference between the irrigation abstractions in theative to the saturated thickness in the well. With decreasing

WEAP model and the data from the WIS in 2014 is 270

groundwater levels, the saturated thickness decreases until

MCM, and it was stipulated that additional irrigation ab-

the well becomes dry and the abstraction is zero. The sim-straction began in 2000.

ulated reduction in the abstraction rates corresponds to a
reduction in groundwater availability.

For scenario 1, the abstraction rates are consistent with theWIS data until 2000. Subsequently, the irrigation rate from
WIS increased linearly to reach the WEAP values in 2014.
The total annual groundwater abstraction in 2017 was 920
MCM. Subsequently, the abstractions decreased by 13%
to 800 MCM/year in 2050 (Figure 91). For scenario 2, theabstraction rates correspond to the WIS data, increased
continuously to 653 MCM/year in 2017 (Figure 91) andthen decreased to 600 MCM/year in 2050. This decreasein abstraction rates after 2017 is caused by the decreasing
groundwater levels. The model reduces the abstraction rel-

Predicted groundwater abstractions
decrease by 13% in 2050 if abstraction
rates remain unchanged. This decreasein abstraction rates after 2017 is causedby the decreasing groundwater levels and corresponds to a reduction in
groundwater availability.

Groundwater Modelingcalculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

540

540

520

520

500

500

480

480

460

460

440

440

420

420

400

400
19

70

19

80

Figu
re

AL3361 · WIS

92

19

90

20

00

20

10

AL3361 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

AL3361 · Observed

observed [m a.s.l.]

560

545

550

535

540

525

530

515

520

505

510

495

500

485

490

475

480

465

470

455

460

445
19

60

19

70

19

80

19

F1014 · WIS

90

20

00

20

10

F1014 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

F1014 · Observed

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the Basalt aquifer

Transient Hydraulic Heads at Monitoring Wells
BasaltAt well AL3361 (Figure 92), the calculated heads for scenario 1 with higher irrigation abstraction from the WEAP
model show a drawdown of 63 m for 2017-2050, and thecurve follows the currently observed trend. For scenario 2,
assuming the lower irrigation abstractions from the WIS,
a drawdown of only 29 m is predicted until 2050. This
indicates that the future conditions in the Basalt aquifer
could potentially improve if the abstraction rates for irrigation are set to the WIS values and enforced by law.
At monitoring well F1014, a water level decline of approximately 10 m is calculated in scenario 1, and a decline
of approximately 7.5 m is calculated in scenario 2. The
predicted groundwater levels do not follow the steep decreasing trend observed after 2011, likely because of local
effects that are not considered in the model.

Source: BGR

1960

calculated [m a.s.l.]

119

120

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

560

550

670

715

540

530

650

695

520

510

630

675

500

490

610

655

480

470

590

635

460

450

570

615

440

430

550

595

420

410

530

575

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

AL3384 · WIS

20

00

20

10

20

20

AL3384 · WEAP

20

30

20

40

20

50

19

60

AL3384 · Observed

calculated [m a.s.l.]

19

70

19

80

19

90

CD1132 · WIS

observed [m a.s.l.]

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0

0

-20

-20

-40

-40

-60

-60

-80

-80

20

00

20

10

20

20

CD1132 · WEAP

20

30

20

40

20

CD1132 · Observed

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

565

550

545

530

525

510

505
470
485
450

465

430

445

-100 425

-100
19

60

19

70

19

80

20

00

20

10

AE1003 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

410
19

AE1003 · Observed

60

19

70

19

80

AL1043 · WIS

Figu
re

AE1003 · WIS

19

90

19

90

20

550

580

540

570
A7/B2

530

In
general, scenario 1 shows a better fit between the calcu-520
560
lated and observed values than scenario 2 (Figure 93), espe550

510

cially in the observation wells close to irrigation areas. The

540
scenario
results do not differ at monitoring well AE1003 500

becausethere are no agricultural activities nearby.
530

490

520

480

510

470

500

460

00

20

10

AL1043 · WEAP93 Part 1:
selected monitoring
associated [mwitha.s.l.]
the A7/B2 aquifer
calculated[mSimulated
a.s.l.] and observed hydraulic heads forobserved[m a.s.l.] wells
calculated

590

50

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

AL1043 · Observed

observed [m a.s.l.]

605

570

585

550

A better agreement between the calculated and ob-

565

served values is achieved when higher abstraction rates

530

are applied according to the calculated crop water de- 510

545

mand (scenario 1) than for scenario 2 (enforcement of

525groundwater bylaw), especially close to irrigation areas.490
505

470

485

450

-100 425

-100
19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

AE1003 · WIS

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

observed [m a.s.l.]

590

550

580

540

570

530

560

520

550

510

540

500

530

490

520

480

510

470

500

460
450

490
19

19

70

19

80

19

90

Figu
re

20

10

20

20

60

20

30

20

40

20

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

AL1043 · WIS

Groundwater
Modeling
AL1043 · WEAP
AL1043· Observed 121

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

605

570

585

550

565

530

545

510

525

490

505

470

485

450

465

50

430
19

60

AL3390 · Observed

AL3390 · WEAP

AL3390 · WIS

93

20

00

19

AE1003 · Observed

AE1003 · WEAP

calculated [m a.s.l.]

60

410

19

70

19

80

19

90

F3755 · WIS

20

00

20

10

20

20

F3755 · WEAP

20

30

20

40

20

50

F3755 · ObservedPart 2: Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the A7/B2 aquifer

Ram/Disi aquifer
The calculated decline in groundwater levels is similar in

abstraction in the area is the Disi wellfield, which is used forboth scenarios (Figure 94) because this aquifer is not usedthe drinking water supply.

for major irrigation activities. The dominant groundwater

calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]calculated [m a.s.l.]observed [m a.s.l.]

770

770

770

770

750

750

750

750

730

730

730

730

710

710

710

710

690

690

690

690

670

670

670

670

650

650

650

650

630

630

630
19

60

19

70

19

80

Figu
re

ED1203 · WIS

94

19

90

20

00

20

10

ED1203 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

ED1203 · Observed

50

630
19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

ED1202 · WIS

Simulated and observed hydraulic heads for selected monitoring wells associated with the Ram/Disi aquifer

20

00

20

10

ED1202 · WEAP

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

ED1202 · Observed

50

Figu
re

122

95

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Simulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer for 2017-2030 under scenario 1

Groundwater Drawdown
Scenario 1: Baseline scenario
The predicted drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer under scenario 1 (Figure 95) reaches 55 m for 2017-2030 and up to
approximately 100 m for 2017-2050 (Figure 96).
Scenario 1 results in irrigation abstraction rates from the
WEAP model that forecast major drawdowns in Wadi Al
Arab, Ramtha/Mafraq, northeast Amman and east Madabathat vary between 25 m and 55 m in 2030 and from approximately 50 m to 100 m in 2050. Predicted drawdowns of 20
m (2030) and 50 m (2050) are calculated for the areas around
Maan and Jafer, respectively.

Figu
re

Groundwater Modeling

97

Simulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer for 2017-2050 under scenario 1

Scenario 2: Enforcement of the groundwater bylaw
Under scenario 2 with abstraction rates due to irrigationfrom the WIS, the model predicts drawdowns of 55 m from2017 to 2030 (Figure 97) and up to approximately 95 m for2017-2050 (Figure 98). For scenario 1, the areas with major
drawdowns are Wadi Al Arab, Ramtha/Mafraq, northeast
Amman, east Madaba and the areas around Maan and Jafer.

123

Figu
re

124

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

97

Simulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer for 2017-2030 under scenario 2

6.3 Recommendations
The groundwater model underlines certain restrictions that→→ Consideration of density-dependent processes in therefer to the model concept and data availability, leading tointeraction between the Dead Sea and the groundwater.

the following recommendations:

The impact of the decline in the Dead Sea water level on
the adjacent groundwater resources is overestimated in→→ Reassessment of groundwater recharge. The implemented approach does not reflect the topography, soil andunderground parameters.
→→ Consideration of groundwater abstractions in Syria andnorthern Saudi Arabia (Tabouk area), which are likely toimpact the groundwater resources in southern Jordan.

the model and should be revised to increase the reliability of the model predictions in the Jordan Valley.

Figu
re

Groundwater Modeling98

Simulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquifer for 2017-2050 under scenario 2

The scenario analysis shows that a partial reduction in groundwater abstraction (enforcement of the groundwater bylaw) will improve the groundwater availability compared to thebusiness-as-usual (baseline) scenario. However, the continuous negative development ofgroundwater resources is not reversible.

125Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Disclaimer
In evaluating the model results, the countrywide ground-hydrogeological or hydraulic processes are not resolved to awater model is based on a regular grid with a cell size offiner degree than the given cell size. Closely grouped pump-

2,000 m x 2,000 m and very general assumptions of theing wells are not resolved individually but are hydraulically

hydraulic parameters. While this grid size ensures rea-

represented as a lump sum within the respective model cell.

sonable simulation times for the numerical model and aThis is a clear limitation to its use as a wellfield manage-

manageable effort for coupling with the WEAP model, it

ment tool.

implies that local variations in the geological structures andSource: BGR

126

DEC I SION SUPPORTSYSTEM FOR
GROUNDWATERMANAGEMENT( WE AP-MODFLOW )7

7
Decision Support System for
Groundwater Management(WEAP-MODFLOW)Mark Gropius & Markus Huber

The water supply network in Jordan isextremely complex. To improve strategic water resource planning, the MWI
applied a nationwide WEAP model thatsimulates water allocation throughout
the water supply network and identifies
water supply deficits. The model allows
for the evaluation of various water plan-ning options and future scenarios andthus supports decision-making processes
for strategic water management. Coupledwith the nationwide groundwater flow
model (Chapter 6), a reliable decision
support system (DSS) for groundwater
management purposes is available to the
MWI.

Decision Support System for Groundwater Management (WEAP-MODFLOW)

129

Source: Matthew Dalton, courtesy of APAAME

7.1 Methods and Data
7.1.1 WEAP
physical capacities control the amount of water abstracted.

wide WEAP model that represents the water supply net-

Such a design requires high sensitivity when setting up sce-work at the district scale (Figure 99). In this model, eachnarios to avoid underestimation of water shortages due towellfield is represented by a transmission link whose

groundwater resource limitations.

Figu
re

Since 2009, the MWI has developed and applied a nation-

99

Schematic of the countrywide WEAP model

Figu
re

130

100

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Implementation of wellfields as transmission links in the master model (left) and as demand sites in the slave model (right)

7.1.2 WEAP-MODFLOW Linkage
Setting up a dynamic link between the nationwide WEAP

water allocation option into the calculation of the ground-model and the nationwide MODFLOW groundwater flow

water processes.

model (Chapter 6) to develop a comprehensive DSS forgroundwater management required a special approach, not

The new WEAP-MODFLOW linkage approach uses a sim-

only because of the peculiarities of WEAP but also because

plified WEAP model (slave model) as a surrogate for theof the performance. Both models (WEAP and MODFLOW)

nationwide model (master model) without losing any of its

require a significantly long time to calculate. Whenever sce-detailed information and planning options (Figure 100).

narios are likely to show no effect on groundwater, suchas when dealing with costs, it is not necessary to calculate

The spatial relationship between the WEAP elements andall of the groundwater processes. Similarly, if abstraction

MODFLOW grid cells was established using a GIS shapefilechanges are the focus, it is not necessary to integrate every

generated by the tool LinkKitchen (Huber, 2013).

7.2 Results
The continuous declines in groundwater levels in Jordan

sessed by the uncoupled WEAP master model. The calculated

have led to less groundwater availability for pumping andsupply requirement varies between 1450 MCM and 1550

thus to reduced pumping rates (Chapter 6). The “supply

MCM, but the supply delivered only reaches 1320 in 2015 anddelivered” option in WEAP allows for a comparison of theapproximately 1200 MCM in 2040. The “pumping reduction”

total abstracted volumes with the supply requirements (Fig-

option delivers the absolute amount by which the groundwa-

ure 101). Under scenario 1, the amount of groundwaterter abstraction at a wellfield or demand site is reduced due tosupplied by the aquifer does not cover the requirements as-

the decline in groundwater level. Figure 102 shows the calculated pumping reductions for all demand sites. A reduction of
approximately 40 MCM is estimated in 2015, but it increases
to approximately 155 MCM by 2040.

Due to the decline in groundwater levels a reduction of pumping rates of approximately 40
MCM is estimated in 2015, but it increases toapproximately 155 MCM by 2040.

Decision Support System for Groundwater Management (WEAP-MODFLOW)

[MCM]
1600

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000
2015

2020

2025

2030

Figu
re

Supply delivered · Reference coupled

101

2035

2040

Supply Requirement

Supply requirements for all groundwater-related demand sites in Jordan and calculated supply delivered by scenario 1

[MCM]
175

150

125

100

75

50

25
2015

2020

2025

2030

Figu
re

Pumping reduction · Reference

102

Pumping reductions for all demand sites in Jordan under scenario 1

2035

2040

131

132

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Demand Site Coverage (% of requirement met)
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
2015

2020

Figu
re

WF_Lajjoun

103

2025

WF_RusseifaAM

2030

2035

WF_Tamween

WF_Awayan

2040

Pumping reductions for selected demand sites under scenario 1

The coverages of the requirements for individual wellfields

rerun with the reduced abstraction rates provided by theare quite variable (Figure 103). According to the coupledslave model.

WEAP slave model, the Lajjoun, Russeifa, Tamween, andAwayan wellfields cover 95% to 100% of the demand under

Figure 104 illustrates the unmet demand, which is the

scenario 1 in 2015. By 2040, these individual coverages de-difference between the supply requirement and the sup-crease substantially; Lajjoun reaches 85%, Russeifa is 35%,

ply delivered. As expected, the unmet demand is higher

Tamween is 20%, and Awayan is only 10%.

for the coupled model because of the lower groundwaterproduction. Based on the simulation results, the coupled

The “Coupled” WEAP Master Model

simulation leads to an unmet demand that increases from

The results of the coupled WEAP slave model show that

400 MCM in 2015 to approximately 630 MCM in 2040,

groundwater production is lower than required in thewhich demonstrates the increasing water supply deficits inuncoupled WEAP master model. To illustrate the improve-

Jordan and the importance of more accurately assessing thement in forecasting of the WEAP-MODFLOW coupled

groundwater availability.

model towards the WEAP master model, the latter was

Decision Support System for Groundwater Management (WEAP-MODFLOW)

Unmet demand [MCM]133

Supply Requirement [MCM]
1900

1800

1700

1600

1500

600

400

200

0
2015

2020

Figu
re

Unmet demand · Reference

104

2025

2030

Unmet demand · Reference coupled

2035

2040

Supply Requirement

Calculated unmet demands with and without coupling for scenario 1 and the supply requirements for all demand sites in Jordan

The analysis of all irrigation demand sites in Jordan reveals

coupled model nor the uncoupled model shows any trendthat as expected, the unmet demand is considerably higher

in unmet demand because this scenario does not consider

for the coupled model (Figure 105). However, neither the

an increase in agricultural demand.

[MCM]
300

200

100

0
2015

2020

2025

Figu
re

Unmet demand for Agriculture · Reference

105

2030

2035

Unmet demand for Agriculture · Reference coupled

Unmet demands for all irrigation demand sites in Jordan with and without coupling under scenario 1

2040

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

The impacts of limited groundwater availability can also be

lated the permanent coverage of supply for both demandvisualized at individual demand sites. Figure 106 presentssites, the coupled model estimated unmet demands that

the Zarqa and Madaba irrigation demand sites for 2015-

steadily increase during the period to approximately 7.52040 under scenario 1. While the uncoupled model calcu-

MCM in year 2040 for Zarqa and 3.7 MCM for Madaba.

Unmet demand [MCM]
8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0
2011

2015

Figu
re

Zarqa agriculture ·Reference

106

2019

2023
Zarqa agriculture ·Reference coupled

2027

Madaba agriculture ·Reference

Unmet irrigation demands at Zarqa and Madaba with and without coupling under scenario 1

7.3 Recommendations
The coupled WEAP-MODFLOW model improves the ability
to forecast future developments. The model allows for thequantification of wellfield productivity and identifies theorigin of supply deficits. Although still under development,
the countrywide WEAP-MODFLOW-DSS is a valuable tooland must be used for water supply management and planning in Jordan.

2031

2035
Madaba agriculture ·Reference coupled2039

Source: BGR

134

GROUNDWATER
VULNER ABIL I T Y
MAP

8

8
Groundwater Vulnerability Map
Florian Brückner
In view of the increasing water scarcity in Jordan, it is important to maintainthe quality of existing groundwater resources. The concept of water protection
zones was introduced in Jordan with thedevelopment of the water protection
guideline (MWI, 2002). The aim of these
protection zones is to protect existingwater sources from pollution by implementing land-use restrictions.
A well-established tool for mapping thesusceptibility of an aquifer to pollution isthe vulnerability map. Groundwater vulnerability maps indicate how fast poten-

tial contaminating substances can reachgroundwater resources. They are also a
communication tool between water experts and decision makers such as landuse planners; complex hydrogeologicalsettings are translated into simple classes of high to low vulnerabilities. Groundwater vulnerability maps can be used todesignate zones for industrial and urban
development, prioritize areas to be connected to the sewer network, assess theneed for detailed environmental impact
assessments and as inputs for the delineation of groundwater protection zones.

Groundwater Vulnerability Map

137

Several vulnerability maps have been produced for Jor-

was prepared using the COP method (Vías et al., 2006). The

dan [Al-Adamat et al. (2003), Al-Hanbali & Kondoh (2008),

method was chosen because it considers the rapid flow

Awawdeh & Obeidat (2015), Borgstedt et al. (2007), Brosig

through karst features, which are present in northern Jor-et al. (2008), CDM International (2004), El-Naqa (2004);

dan (Brückner et al., 2018). Three types of information are

Hamdan et al. (2016); Hijazi et al. (1999), Kuisi et al. (2014),

required for the application of the method: overlying lay-

Margane et al. (1997, 1999, 2009, 2010), Talozi (2013), Werz &ers (O), concentration of flow (C) and precipitation (P).

Hötzl (2007), and Xanke et al. (2017)]. However, these maps
were produced using different methods, and they may not
be comparable. Therefore, a nationwide vulnerability map

8.1 Methods and Data
All of the input data were interpolated and classified in
GIS. The needed factors were assigned following indexing
from the COP method. The different input layers werethen combined into a single map to describe the vulnera-

Two Concepts for Groundwater Protection ­Groundwater Vulnerability Maps and Groundwater
Protection Zones
Groundwater Vulnerability

bility of groundwater to pollution.

8.1.1 O Factor (Overlying Factor)
The O factor evaluates the thickness of the unsaturated
zone (distance from the surface to the groundwater) andits composition. The farther seeping contaminants need totravel to reach the groundwater table and the more they
are degraded and diluted, the less harmful they are.
The method first evaluates the thickness and texture of
the soil, both of which depend largely on the soil forma-Target: Groundwater Resource
Pathway: Unsaturated Zone

tion processes and parent rocks. Soils that originate fromthe sandstone in Wadi Rum are usually quite deep, butwater can flow rapidly through the sand. In the highlands,

Groundwater Protection Zones

erosion is important because of the steep topography andrainfall. The soils in these areas are often deep and contain large amounts of clay that hinders water percolation.
However, if the topography is too steep, soils are washedaway by water and accumulate in the valleys.
Subsequently, the thickness and lithology of the geolog-

Target: Groundwater Resource
Pathway: Unsaturated Zone
Modified from Daly et al. (2002)

ical layers are evaluated. Impermeable rocks such as clay
and marl have a high protective function (low vulnerability), whereas the protective ability of sand, gravel orfissured rock is low. Furthermore, groundwater under

The aim of both concepts is to prevent groundwater

confined conditions offers more protection than uncon-

pollution. Groundwater vulnerability describes the trans-

fined groundwater. However, deep groundwater levels,

port of contaminants in the unsaturated zone, whereas

as is the case in Jordan, increase the natural protection oftransport in the saturated zone is used for groundwater

unconfined groundwater against pollution. The thickness

protection zones. Groundwater vulnerability looks atof the unsaturated zone can only be calculated if enoughthe groundwater resource as a whole, whereas only the

information on the structure and water levels is available.

groundwater catchments of wells or springs are consid-

Because this is not the case for the Kurnub and Disi sand-ered for protection zones. Both concepts use land use

stone aquifers or the alluvial aquifer in the Jordan Valley,

restrictions in certain areas to achieve that aim.

these aquifers were omitted from this study.

138

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

the calculation of the O factor. For this system, the protection is low where the water level is shallow (e.g., incisedand underlying aquifers (A7/B2, B4/B5) are assumed towadis, Azraq Oasis) and high in areas where the B3 aqui-form a combined aquifer system, which is considered intard covers the A7/B2 aquifer (Figure 107).

Figu
re

The vulnerability was always calculated for the upper aquifer, which is the aquifer closest to the surface. The Basalt

107

O factor classifications for the different aquifers

Figu
re

Groundwater Vulnerability Map

108

139

Effects of surface features (top left) and vegetation (top right) on the concentration of flow (bottom).

8.1.2 C Factor (Concentration of Flow)
Water bypasses impermeable layers wherever fissures orsteep topography, the water will mainly run off along thekarst features are present. This effect is considered in the C

surface (Figure 108, top right).

factor (concentration of flow). The vulnerability increases
with the degree of karstification (Figure 108, top left).

The contribution of the flow concentration to the groundwater vulnerability is generally low (Figure 108, bottom).

The slope and vegetation also play a role in infiltration.

It is very low in the steep slopes of the Dead Sea Rift andWhen the vegetation is high and the slope is low, watermoderate to high in the highlands, where karstified lime-

can accumulate and percolate into the ground, whereas instones crop out.

Figu
re

140

109

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Effects of precipitation quantity (top left) and intensity (top right) on the precipitation factor (bottom left).

8.1.3 P Factor (Precipitation)
Most contaminants reach the groundwater with infiltrating

tation events is mostly lost by evaporation. The rainfall israinwater, which is accounted for by the P factor. The vul-

simply calculated as the average annual rainfall divided by

nerability increases somewhat with higher rainfall (Figure

the number of rainy days. The resulting precipitation (mm/109, top left). However, if the rainfall is very high, dilutionday) was then classified according to parameters given

occurs, and the vulnerability decreases.

by the method of Vias et al. (2006) (Figure 109, top right).
Rainfall affects the vulnerability only in the highlands, es-

The rainfall intensity is also important, especially in arid

pecially in the north between Amman and Irbid (Figure 109,and semiarid environments. Rainfall from small precipi-bottom).

Groundwater Vulnerability Map

141

8.2 Results
The final vulnerability map was obtained by combining

deeply incised wadis flowing from the highlands towards

the mapped concentrations of flow, overlying layers andthe Dead Sea Rift basin. However, the vulnerability along

precipitation (Figure 110). The vulnerabilities are highest in

the outcrops of B3 is very low because of its large thickness

areas where the aquifers outcrop, mainly because there isand low permeability.

Figu
re

little or no protective cover. This is especially the case in the

110

Groundwater vulnerability map

8.3 Recommendations
Groundwater must be protected from any kind of con-human activities can have negative effects on the ground-tamination that could additionally impair the available re-water quality. Furthermore, several land-use types, such assources and exacerbate the water crisis. The groundwatermining, underground fuel tanks and cesspits, remove thevulnerability map depicts areas where contamination cannatural protective cover. Thus, the vulnerability is higher

rapidly reach the groundwater. Therefore, this map must

than indicated in the map in these areas.

be considered in land-use planning because many types ofGroundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Sources: BGR

142

APPENDI X

9

9Appendix
Reference List
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of acronyms and units of measurement
List of AnnexesReference List

145

Reference List
Abu-Ajamieh, M., Bender, F., Eicher, R. (1988): Natural Re-

BGR – WAJ (1991): Hobler, M., Bender, F., Rashdan, J.,

sources in Jordan, Inventory – Evaluation – Development

Schmidt, G.: Groundwater Resources of Southern Jordan,

Program. – 224 pp, NRA. Amman.

Vol. 1-5. Unpublished Report of the Federal Institute forGeosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Project No.

Al-Adamat, R. A. N., Foster, I. D. L., Baban, S. M. J. (2003):

86.2068.4 and No. 88.2180.3, Report No. 108652 and 107375.

Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the Basal-

Hannover.

tic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, Remotesensing and DRASTIC. Applied Geography, 23(4), 303–324.

BRGM. (2010): Jordan Aquifers Modelling Project 3D geological model - Intermediary Report no 1, (1).

Al-Hanbali, A., Kondoh, A. (2008): Groundwater vulnerability assessment and evaluation of human activity impact

Borgstedt, A., Margane, A., Hamdan, I. (2007): Delineation of(HAI) within the Dead Sea groundwater basin, Jordan. Hy-

Groundwater Protection Zones for the Corridor Well Field.

drogeology Journal, 16(3), 499–510.

Amman: MWI and BGR.

Awawdeh, M., Obeidat, M. (2015): Groundwater vulnerabil-

Brosig, K., Geyer, T., Subah, A., Sauter, M. (2008): Travel time

ity assessment in the vicinity of Ramtha wastewater treat-

based approach for the assessment of vulnerability of karst

ment plant, North Jordan. Applied Water Science, 321–334.

groundwater: The Transit Time Method. Environmental
Geology, 54(5), 905–911.

Bahls, R., Alhiary, M., Al Kurdi, O., Al-Kordi, R., Hani, M.,
Sawryeh, K., Holzner, K. (2017): Groundwater Monitoring

Brückner, F., Al Hyari, M., Hiasat, T., Jaber, A., Al Qadi, M.,

Well Inventory Field Campaign – April/Mai 2017, part ofToll, M., Bani Mustafa, B.(2015): Delineation of Groundwater

the BGR project “Groundwater Resources Management”,

Protection Zones for Tanoor and Rasoon Springs. Amman:

BGR-No.: 05-2389-01-0910.

MWI and BGR.

Bahls, R., Holzner, K., Alhyari, M., Al Kurdi, O., Al-Kordi, R.,

Brückner, F., Breazat, A. (2018): Explanatory Notes for theHani, M., Sawryeh, K. (2018): Groundwater Resources As-

Groundwater Vulnerability Map of Jordan (Middle andsessment of the A7/B2 Aquifer in Jordan, part of the BGR

Shallow Aquifer Systems). Amman.

project “Groundwater Resources Management”, BGR-No.:
05-2389-01-0910.

Brückner, F (2018): “Update of Structure Contour Maps of
Ajloun and Belqa Groups” which is part of the BGR project

Barthelemy, Y., Wuilleumier, A. (2010): Jordan Deep Aquifers“Improved Groundwater Resources Management in Re-

Modelling Project. Final Report.

sponse to the Syrian Refugee Crisis”.

Bender, F. (1974): Geology of Jordan, Contributions to the

Bundesanstalt für Bodenforschung (1966): Geological Map

regional geology of the Earth. Berlin, Gebrüder Borntraeger.

of Jordan – Sheet Bayir. Scale 1:250.000, Hannover.

Bender, H., Hobler, M., Rashdan, J., Schmidt, G. (1991):

Bundesanstalt für Bodenforschung (1968): Geological Map

Groundwater Resources of Southern Jordan, Volume 1-4.

of Jordan – Sheet Azraq. Scale 1:250.000, Hannover.

Amman: Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). Project No. 89.2105.8.

CDM International. (2004): Jordan Watershed/Water Quality Management Project – Phase 2 Task 1 Qairawan Water-

BGR/ESCWA. (2013): Inventory of Shared Water Resourcesin Western Asia.

shed Management Plan.

146

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Daly, D. Dassargues, A. Drew, D. Dunne, S. Goldscheider, N.

Hutchinson, M.F. (1988): Calculation of hydrologically sound

Neale, S. Popescu, I. C. & Zwahlen, F. (2002). Main concepts

digital elevation models. Paper presented at Third Internation-of the “European approach” to karst-groundwater-vulner-

al Symposium on Spatial Data Handling at Sydney, Australia.

ability assessment and mapping. Hydrogeology Journal,
10(2), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0185-1

Hutchinson, M.F. (1989): A new procedure for gridding
elevation and stream line data with automatic removal of

El-Naqa, A. (2004): Aquifer vulnerability assessment using

spurious pits. Journal of Hydrology, 106: 211–232.

the DRASTIC model at Russeifa landfill, northeast Jordan.
Environmental Geology, 47(1), 51–62.

Hutchinson, M.F. (1996): A locally adaptive approach to theinterpolation of digital elevation models. In Proceedings,

El-Naser, H. (1991): Groundwater Resources of the Deep

Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating

Aquifer Systems in NW-Jordan: Hydrogeological and

GIS and Environmental Modeling. Santa Barbara, CA: Na-

Hydrogeochemical Quasi 3-Dimensional Modelling,tional Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.

Forschungsergebnisse aus dem Bereich Hydrogeologie undUmwelt, Heft 3, Selbstverlag des Lehr- und Forschungsbere-

Hutchinson, M.F. (2000): Optimising the degree of dataiches Angewandte Geologie und Hydrogeologie der Univer-smoothing for locally adaptive finite element bivariate

sität Würzburg Würzburg.

smoothing splines. ANZIAM Journal 42(E): C774–C796.

Farr, T.G., Rosen, P.A., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R.,

Hutchinson, M.F., Xu, T., and Stein, J.A. (2011): Recent Pro-

Hensley, S., Kobrick, M., Paller, M., Rodriguez, E., Roth,gress in the ANUDEM Elevation Gridding Procedure. In:

L., Seal, D., Shaffer, S., Shimada, J., Umland, J., Werner,

Geomorphometry 2011, edited by T. Hengel, I.S. Evans, J.P.

M., Oskin, M., Burbank, D., Alsdorf, D (2007): The Shuttle

Wilson and M. Gould, pp. 19–22. Redlands, California, USA.

Radar Topography Mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, RG2004,

See: http://geomorphometry.org/HutchinsonXu2011.

doi:10.1029/2005RG000183.
Kuisi, M. Al, Mashal, K., Al-Qinna, M., Hamad, A. A., Margana,
GTZ/NRA (1977): National Water Master Plan of Jordan. –A. (2014): Groundwater Vulnerability and Hazard Mapping

unpubl. Report. Agrar- und Hydrotechnik GmbH (AHT) andin an Arid Region: Case Study, Amman-Zarqa Basin (AZB),

Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

Jordan. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, Vo. 6 No.

(BGR), Vol. I-IV, Hannover, Frankfurt, Amman.

4, 297–318.

Hamdan, I., Margane, A., Ptak, T., Wiegand, B., Sauter, M.

Margane, A., Hobler, M. (1994): Groundwater Resources(2016): Groundwater vulnerability assessment for the karst

of Northern Jordan Vol. 3: Structural Features of the Main

aquifer of Tanour and Rasoun springs catchment area

Hydrogeological Units in Northern Jordan. Technical Coop-(NW-Jordan) using COP and EPIK intrinsic methods. Envi-eration Project “Advisory Services to the Water Authority ofronmental Earth Sciences, 75(23), 1–13.

Jordan” BGR and WAJ, BGR archive no. 118702:1-3. Amman.

Hijazi, H., Hobler, M., Rayyan, M., Subah, A. (1999): Mapping

Margane, A., Almomani, M., Hobler. M. (1995): Ground-of Groundwater Vulnerability and Hazards to Groundwater

water Resources of Northern Jordan. Amman, BGR. Vol.2:

in the Area South of Amman.

Groundwater Abstraction Groundwater Monitoring, Part 1:
Groundwater Abstraction in Northern Jordan.

Hijmans, R.J., S.E. Cameron, J.L. Parra, P.G. Jones and A. Jarvis(2005): Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces

Margane, A., Hobler, M., Subah, A. (1997): Special Report No.

for global land areas

3: Mapping of Groundwater Vulnerability and Hazards toGroundwater in the Irbid Area. Amman: MWI and BGR.

Markus Huber (2013): LinkKitchen 2.0. User Manual.
Margane, A., Hobler, M., Subah, A., Almomani, M., Ouran,
Hussein, M.A., Moumani, K. (2016): Stratigraphic Column ofS., Zuhdi, Z. (1999): Mapping of groundwater vulnerability

Jordan.

and hazards to groundwater in the Irbid area. N Jordan:
Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Geologie, 45, 175–187.

Reference List

147

Margane, A., Hobler, M., Almomani, M., Subah, A. (2002):

Powell, J.H. (1988): The Geology of Karak Area Map Sheet No

Contributions to the hydrogeology of Northern and Cen-

3152 III. Amman.

tral Jordan. Bundesanstalt fuer Geowissenschaften undRohstoffe und den Staatlichen Geologischen Diensten in

Powell, J. H., Le Nindre, Y.-M. (2014): Cambrian stratig-

der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.), Geologisches Jahr-

raphy of Jordan. GeoArabia - Middle East Petroleum Ge-

buch. Reihe C (Hydrogeologie, Ingenieurgeologie). Stuttgart

osciences, (3), 81–134. Retrieved from http://nora.nerc.

Schweizerbart.

ac.uk/507989/1/Powell Ram LV5 Mar1.pdf.

Margane, A., Almomani, M. (2009): Delineation of Ground-

QGIS Development Team (2018). QGIS Geographic Infor-

water Protection Zones for the Springs in Wadi Shuayb.

mation System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Pro-

Amman: MWI and BGR.

ject. http://qgis.osgeo.org

Margane, A., Subah, A., Hamdan, I., Borgstedt, A., Almomani,

Schulze, F., Lewy, Z. Kuss,J. (2003): Cenomanian - TuronianT., Al-Hassani, I., Hajali, Z., Jaber, A., Smadi, H., Ma’moun, I.

carbonate platform deposits in west central Jordan. Inter-(2009): Technical Report No. 13: Delineation of Groundwa-

national Journal of Earth Sciences, (92), 641-660.

ter Protection Zones for the Hallabat Wellfield Delineationof Groundwater Protection Zones for the Hallabat Wellfield.

Sibson, R., (1981): “A Brief Description of Natural Neighbor

Amman.

Interpolation,” Chapter 2 in Interpolating multivariate data,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 21-36.

Margane, A., Hamdan, I., Almomani, T., Hajali, Z., Ismail, M.,
Al-Hassani, I., Smadi, H. (2010): Technical Report No. 9: De-

Struckmeier, W. F., Margat, J. (1995): Hydrogeological Maps -lineation of Groundwater Protection Zones for the Lajjun,

A Guide and a Standard Legend. – International Association

Qatrana, Sultani and Ghweir Well Fields. Federal Instituteof Hydrogeologists (IAH), Int. Contrib. to Hydrogeol. 17: 177

for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). Technical Re-p.; Heise Hannover.

port No. 9. Project No. 2005.2110.4.
Subah, A., Hobler, M. (2004): Hydrogeological Proposal for
Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Guideline for Water Re-

the Delineation of a Groundwater Protection Area for thesources Protection (2002).

Qunayyah Spring. Amman.

Mull, R., Holländer, H. (2006): Water Supply of Tabuk and

Talozi, S. A. (2013): Groundwater Contamination Hazards,

Coastal Towns and Villages. Report on Aspects of Ground-

Vulnerability and Risk GIS Mapping for Seven Municipali-water Management with Reference to the Water Resources

ties in the Jordan Valley, (December).

of the Transnational Saq Aquifer in Northern Saudi Arabia
and Southern Jordan. Hannover, Universität von Hannover.

USGS (2015): Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. College
Park, Maryland: Global Lando Cover Facility, University of

MWI. (2005): National Water Master Plan.

Maryland.

Niswonger, R.G., Panday, Sorab, and Ibaraki, Motomu.

Vías, J. M., Jiménez, P. (2006): Proposed method for ground-(2011): MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton formulation for MOD-water vulnerability mapping in carbonate (karstic) aquifers:

FLOW-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Meth-

the COP method. Hydrogeology Journal, 14(6), 912–925.

ods 6-A37, 44 p
Werz, H., Hötzl, H. (2007): Groundwater risk intensity mapNof, R. N., Ziv, A., Doin, M.-P., Baer, G., Fialko, Y., Wdowin-ping in semi-arid regions using optical remote sensing dataski, S., Eyal, Y., Bock, Y. (2012): Rising of the lowest place on

as an additional tool. Hydrogeology Journal, 15(6), 1031–1049.

Earth due to Dead Sea waterlevel drop: Evidence from SARinterferometry and GPS. Journal of Geophysical Research,

Xanke, J., Goeppert, N., Sawarieh, A., Liesch, T., Kinger, J., Ali,

Volume 117, Issue B5.

W., Hötzl, H., Hadidi, K., Goldscheider, N. (2015): Impact ofmanaged aquifer recharge on the chemical and isotopic

OpenStreetMap contributors. (2015) Planet dump. Re-

composition of a karst aquifer, Wala reservoir, Jordan. Hy-trieved from https://planet.openstreetmap.org

drogeology Journal, 23(5), 1027–1040.

148

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

List of Figures
Figure 1

Structure contour map of the A7/B2 aquifer

12

Figure 24

Structure contour map of the A1/A2 aquifer

44

Figure 2Structure contour map of the Basalt aquifer

14

Figure 25

Structure contour map of the A3 aquitard

45

Figure 3

Locations of cross-sections

15

Figure 26

Structure contour map of the A4 aquifer

46

Figure 4

 roundwater level contour lines for the A7/G
B2 aquifer, October 201716

Figure 27Structure contour map of the A5/A6 aquitard 47

Figure 28Structure contour map of the A7/B2 aquifer

48

Figure 5 ifference in groundwater levels of the A7/D
B2 aquifer between 1995 and 201717

Figure 29Structure contour map of the B3 aquitard

49

Figure 6

 roundwater level contour lines for the A1/G
A6 aquifer complex, October 201718

Figure 30

Structure contour map of the B4/B5 aquifer

50

Figure 31

Structure contour map of the Basalt aquifer

51

Figure 7 roundwater level contour lines for the deep 19
G
Sandstone aquifer system and the Kurnub
aquifer, October 2017

Figure 32

 roundwater level contour lines for the deep 56
G
Sandstone aquifer system and the Kurnub
aquifer, October 2017

Figure 8 ive-year average discharges of the perennial
Fsprings in MCM

20

Figure 33

 otential depth to groundwater in the deepP
Sandstone aquifer system

57

Figure 9

Three-dimensional groundwater model

21

Figure 34

58

Figure 10 imulated and observed hydraulic heads forS
selected monitoring wells

22

 otential depth to groundwater in the Ram/P
Disi aquifer

Figure 3559 imulated and observed hydraulic heads
Sfor selected monitoring wells in the A7/B2
aquifer for scenarios 1 (orange curves) and 2(blue curves)23

 ifference in groundwater levels of theD
Ram/Disi aquifer between 1995 and 2017

Figure 36

 roundwater levels in the Ram/Disi aquiferGrecorded from 1995 to 2017 at well K1000

60

Figure 37

 imulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquiferS
for 2017-2050 under scenario 1

24

 roundwater levels in the Ram/Disi aquiferGrecorded from 1995 to 2017 at well ED1328

60

Figure 12

Figure 38

 imulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquiferS
for 2017-2050 under scenario 2

25

 chematic representation of the A1/A6 units
S
near the Siwaqa Fault

61

Figure 13

Figure 39

 alculated unmet demands with and wiC
thout coupling for scenario 1 and the supply
requirements for all demand sites in Jordan

26

 roundwater level contour lines for the A1/G
A6 aquifer complex, October 201761

Figure 14

Figure 40

Depth to groundwater in the A4 aquifer62

 nmet irrigation demands at Zarqa andU
Madaba with and without coupling for
scenario 1

27

Figure 41

Depth to the top of the A4 aquifer in confined areas

63

Figure 42

64

Figure 16Groundwater vulnerability map

28

Groundwater levels in the A4 aquifer recorded in 2000-2017 at well AL3522

Figure 17

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

34

Figure 43

Depth to groundwater in the A1/A2 aquifer

64

Figure 18

Overview of faults in Jordan

37

Figure 44

 epth to the top of the A1/A2 aquifer inD
confined areas

65

Figure 19

Simplified hydrogeological units of Jordan

39

Figure 45

Depth to groundwater in the A1/A6 aquifer

66

Figure 20

 quifer classification system (after StruckA
meyer & Margat, 1995)

39

Figure 46

 epth to the top of the A1/A6 aquifer inD
confined areas

67

Figure 21

Overview map with locations of cross-sections

40

Figure 47

 aturated thickness of the A4 aquifer northSof the Siwaqa Fault

68

Figure 22

 ross-section C-C’-C’’ from the Jordan ValleyC
to the southeast

41

Figure 48

 aturated thickness of the A1/A2 aquiferSnorth of the Siwaqa Fault

69

Figure 23Stratigraphic chart of Jordan with hydrogeological classifications (after El-Naser, 1991
and Margane et al., 2000)

42

Figure 49

 aturated thickness of the A1/A6 aquiferSsouth of the Siwaqa Fault

70

Figure 11

Figure 15

List of figures

149

Figure 50

 roundwater level contour lines for the A7/G
B2 aquifer, October 201771

Figure 69

 ischarge measurements from 1960 to 2017
Dat Sarah spring

92

Figure 51

 egional comparison map of the A7/B2
R
aquifer from 1995 to 201772

Figure 70

 ischarge measurements from 1937 to 2017Dat the ‘WADI ES SIR’ spring

93

Figure 52

 otentially unsaturated areas in 1995 (pink)P
and 2017 (brown)

73

Figure 71

 ischarge measurements from 1995 to 2017Dat the ‘WADI ES SIR’ spring

93

Figure 53

Depth to groundwater in the A7/B2 aquifer

74

Figure 72

98

Figure 54

Saturated thickness of the A7/B2 aquifer75 roundwater recharge distribution for theGsteady state calibration

Figure 55

 ifference in groundwater levels of the A7/D
B2 aquifer between 1995 and 2017

77

Figure 73

 ocations of monitoring wells used for theLsteady state calibration

99

Figure 56

 roundwater levels recorded for 1995-2017
Gin the A7/B2 aquifer at well AL1521

78

Figure 74

Locations of springs assigned in the ground- 100
water model

Figure 57

 eft: Abstraction wells according to their voL
lume (MCM), right: groundwater drawdowns
since 1995 and locations of abstraction wells

79

Figure 75

Figure 58

 oogle Earth image of the area W/NW ofG
Irbid (source: Google Earth V 7.1.8.3036,
June 2018, northern Jordan, 32°41’37.02”
N 35°48’13.23” E, Eye alt 23.89 km, Maxar
Technologies 2019, CNES/Airbus 201980

 xtent of the numerical model. The grid cell 101
Esize is 2,000 m x 2,000 m. The colors indicate
the geological units of the model in layer
1 (land surface). The white areas are notmodeledFigure 76

3D groundwater model

102

Figure 77

Water level of the Dead Sea (Nof, 2012)

105

Figure 7880

Groundwater contours for the predevelopment conditions in the A7/B2 aquifer105

 lose up Google Earth image of the red circle
C
indicated in the Figure 58, showing the agricultural activities in this area (source: Google
Earth V 7.1.8.3036, June 2018, northern
Jordan, 32°42’23.95” N 35°47’21.30” E, Eye alt
1.95 km, CNES/Airbus 2019)

Figure 79Groundwater contours for the predevelopment conditions in the Ram/Disi aquifer

106

Figure 80

 patial distribution of monitoring locations
S
with indications of quality measurements.
The red rectangle indicates the Azraq area,
which is analyzed further81 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 108
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the Alluvium in the Jordan Valley

Figure 81

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 109
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the Basalt aquifer

Figure 61

 roundwater level contour lines for theG
Basalt and B4/B5 (light blue) and the A7/B2 (dark blue) aquifers in the Azraq area,
October 201782

Figure 82

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 109
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the B4/B5 aquifer

Figure 83

NNW-SSE cross-section

82

Figure 63 roundwater levels in the B4/B5 aquifer forG
1995-2017 recorded at well F1043

83

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads
Sfor selected monitoring wells in the A7/B2
aquifer

110

Figure 62

Figure 84111

 ocations and classification of springs in
L
Jordan89

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads inSwell G3147

Figure 85

Figure 65

Number of dry springs per year90 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 111
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the A1/A6 Formation

Figure 66

Number of wells drilled per decade according to the WIS. The database contains 8420
wells, but 1966 have no dates and therefore
are not considered

90

Figure 86

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 112
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the Ram/Disi aquifer

Figure 67

 ive-year average discharge of the perennial
Fsprings in MCM

91

Figure 87 imulated discharge [m3/d] of the Azraq
S
springs (left) and wetland outflow (right)

Figure 68

 verage spring discharges per aquifer inA
MCM/yr92

Figure 88

 omparison of groundwater contour maps 115
C
and flow directions (model results on theleft, groundwater resource assessment on theright)

Figure 59

Figure 60

Figure 64

114

150

Groundwater Resource Assessment of Jordan

Figure 89

 omparison of groundwater drawdownCmaps from 1995 to 2017

Figure 90

Irrigated areas according to the WEAP model 117

Figure 91

 imulated groundwater abstractions fromS
1960 to 2050 for all wells

Figure 92

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 119
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the Basalt aquifer

Figure 93

Figure 94

116

118

 imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 120
S
121
selected monitoring wells associated with
the A7/B2 aquifer imulated and observed hydraulic heads for 121
S
selected monitoring wells associated with
the Ram/Disi aquifer

Figure 101 Supply requirements for all groundwater-re- 131
lated demand sites in Jordan and calculated
supply delivered by scenario 1
Figure 102 Pumping reductions for all demand sites in
Jordan under scenario 1

131

Figure 103 Pumping reductions for selected demandsites under scenario 1

132

133
Figure 104 Calculated unmet demands with and without coupling for scenario 1 and the supply
requirements for all demand sites in Jordan
Figure 105 Unmet demands for all irrigation demandsites in Jordan with and without couplingunder scenario 1

133

134

Figure 95

 imulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquiferS
for 2017-2030 under scenario 1

122

Figure 106 Unmet irrigation demands at Zarqa andMadaba with and without coupling underscenario 1

 imulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquiferS
for 2017-2050 under scenario 1

123

Figure 107 O factor classifications for the different
aquifers

138

Figure 96

 imulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquiferS
for 2017-2030 under scenario 2

124

Figure 108 Effects of surface features (top left) andvegetation (top right) on the concentrationof flow (bottom).

139

Figure 97
Figure 98

 imulated drawdown in the A7/B2 aquiferS
for 2017-2050 under scenario 2

125

Figure 99

Schematic of the countrywide WEAP model 129

Figure 100 Implementation of wellfields as transmission links in the master model (left) and as
demand sites in the slave model (right)

130

Figure 109 Effects of precipitation quantity (top left)
140
and intensity (top right) on the precipitation
factor (bottom).
Figure 110 Groundwater vulnerability map

141

List of Tables
Table 1

 ydrogeological units and their classifiH
cation in the groundwater flow model100

 ydraulic conductivities considered forH
the hydrogeological units in the model103

 pecific storage and porosity values
S
used for the hydrogeological units in the
model

103

Table 4

 ateral boundary conditions along theLmodel borders

103

Table 5 istribution of pumping wells (through
D
2017)

104

Table 2
Table 3

Table 6

Water balance for steady state conditions

107

Table 7

 etailed water budget analysis for steadyDstate conditions [MCM]107

Table 8 ater balance for the transient simulatiW
on in 2017

113

Table 9 etailed water budget analysis for 2017
D
[MCM]

113

Table 10

 omparison of irrigation water demands
C
according to the respective sources

117

List of Figures, List of acronyms and units of measurement, List of Tables, List of Annexes

151

List of acronyms and units of measurement
BGR	Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften undRohstoffe (Federal Institute for Geosciences
and Natural Resources)
BRGM	Bureau de Recherches Géologiques etMinières (French Geological Survey)
d
day
DEM
Digital Elevation Model
DGPS
Differential Global Positioning System
DSS
Decision Support System
Kh	horizontal hydraulic conductivity (x- andy-directions)Kv
vertical hydraulic conductivity (z-direction)
m
meter
m3
cubic meter
m asl
meters above sea levelm bgl
meters below ground level
MCM
million cubic meters
MODFLOW
Modeling Groundwater Flow
MWI
Ministry of Water and Irrigation
NRA
Natural Resource Authority
SCM
Structure Contour Map
SRTM
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
SWL
static water level
WAJ
Water Authority of Jordan
WEAP
Water Evaluation And Planning system
WIS
Water Information System
yr
year

List of Annexes
Annex 1
Simplified Hydrogeological Map of Jordan
Annex 2	Cross Sections of the Hydrological Units in
JordanAnnex 3	Groundwater Level Contour Map of the Deep
Sandstone Aquifer System and the Kurnub
Aquifer, 2017
Annex 4	Depth to Groundwater in the Deep Sandstone
Aquifer System, 2017
Annex 5	Groundwater Level Contour Map of the A1/A6
Aquifer Complex, 2017
Annex 6	Depth to Groundwater in the A1/A2, A4 andA1/A6 Aquifer System, 2017
Annex 7	Saturated Thickness of the A1/A2, A4, and A1/
A6 Aquifer Complex, 2017
Annex 8	Groundwater Level Contour Map of the A7/B2
Aquifer, 2017
Annex 9	Depth to Groundwater in the A7/B2 Aquifer,
2017

Annex 10 Saturated Thickness of the A7/B2 Aquifer, 2017
Annex 11	Difference in Groundwater Levels of the A7/B2
Aquifer between 1995 and 2017
Annex 12	Spring Classification and Five-Year Average
Discharge
Annex 13	Groundwater Vulnerability Map of the Ajloun
and Balqa Group Aquifers

The inventory of the Groundwater Resources of Jordan is the first nationwide study since the 1990s. The Ministryof Water and Irrigation (MWI) and the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) jointly
conducted this study, including fieldwork, data analysis, modeling and interpretation. Jordan is one of the mostwater-scarce countries in the world. The Jordanian government and the international donor community are awareof the critical situation; however, to date, data that cover the entire Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan were missing,making management decisions difficult. Based on all available data, the results of this study show the current
conditions in the aquifers and describe different groundwater model scenarios for the future. These tools will
support decision makers in the Jordanian water sector to take the best possible actions to secure a continuous
water supply in Jordan.

ISBN 978-9923-9769-0-6