benefits and economic costs of managed aquifer recharge in california

Clicks: 270
ID: 208570
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #12 of 50 articles by views in applied mathematics and computation

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss2art4

Groundwater management is important and challenging, and nowhere is this more evident than in California. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) projects can play an important role in ensuring California manages its groundwater sustainably. Although the benefits and economic costs of surface water storage have been researched extensively, the benefits and economic costs of MAR have been little researched. Historical groundwater data are sparse or proprietary within the state, often impairing groundwater analyses. General obligation bonds from ballot propositions offer a strategic means of mining information about MAR projects, because the information is available publicly. We used bond-funding applications to identify anticipated MAR project benefits and proposed economic costs. We then compared these costs with actual project costs collected from a survey, and identified factors that promote or limit MAR. Our analysis indicates that the median proposed economic cost for MAR projects in California is $410 per acre-foot per year ($0.33 per cubic meter per year). Increasing Water Supply, Conjunctive Use, and Flood Protection are the most common benefits reported. Additionally, the survey indicates that (1) there are many reported reasons for differences between proposed and actual costs ($US 2015) and (2) there is one primary reason for differences between proposed recharge volumes and actual recharge volumes (AFY): availability of source water for recharge. Although there are differences between proposed and actual costs per recharge volume ($US 2015/AFY), the ranges for proposed costs per recharge volume and actual costs per recharge volume for the projects surveyed generally agree. The two most important contributions to the success of a MAR project are financial support and good communication with stakeholders.

Reference Key
perrone2016sanbenefits Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Debra Perrone;Melissa Merri Rohde
Journal applied mathematics and computation
Year 2016
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.