Geology topics

Research about Mojave River Basin

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Mojave River Basin.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2003

Geologic setting, geohydrology, and ground-water quality near the Helendale Fault in the Mojave River Basin, San Bernardino County, California

The proximity of the Mojave River ground-water basin to the highly urbanized Los Angeles region has resulted in rapid population growth and, consequently, an increase in the demand for water. The Mojave River, the primary source of surface water for the region, normally is dry--except for periods of flow after intense storms; therefore, the region relies almost entirely on ground water to meet its agricultural and municipal needs. The area where the Helendale Fault intersects the Mojave River is of particular hydrogeologic interest because of its importance as a boundary between two water-management subareas of the Mojave Water Agency. The fault is the boundary between the upper Mojave River Basin (Oeste, Alto, and Este subareas) and the lower Mojave River Basin (Centro and Baja subareas); specifically, the fault is the boundary between the Alto and the Centro subareas. To obtain the information necessary to help better understand the hydrogeology of the area near the fault, multiple-well monitoring sites were installed, the surface geology was mapped in detail, and water-level and water-quality data were collected from wells in the study area. Detailed surficial geologic maps and water-level measurements indicate that the Helendale Fault impedes the flow of ground water in the deeper regional aquifer, but not in the overlying floodplain aquifer. Other faults mapped in the area impede the flow of ground water in both aquifers. Evidence of flowing water in the Mojave River upgradient of the Helendale Fault exists in the historical record, suggesting an upward gradient of ground-water flow. However, water-level data from this study indicate that pumping upstream of the Helendale Fault has reversed the vertical gradient of ground-water flow since predevelopment conditions, and the potential now exists for water to flow downward from the floodplain aquifer to the regional aquifer. Sixty-seven ground-water samples were analyzed for major ions, nutrients, and stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen from 34 wells within the study area between May 1990 and November 1999. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from 14 wells in the floodplain aquifer ranged from 339 to 2,330 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with a median concentration of 825 mg/L. Concentrations in water from 11 of these wells exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 500 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentrations of water from nine wells sampled in the regional aquifer ranged from 479 to 946 mg/L with a median concentration of 666 mg/L. Concentrations in at least one sample of water from each of the wells in the regional aquifer exceeded the USEPA SMCL for dissolved solids. Arsenic concentrations in water from 14 wells in the floodplain aquifer ranged from less than the detection limit of 2 micrograms per liter (μg/L) to a maximum of 34 μg/L with a median concentration of 6 μg/L. Concentrations in water from six of the 14 wells exceeded the USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic of 10 μg/L. Arsenic concentrations in water from nine wells in the regional aquifer ranged from less than the detection limit of 2 to 130 μg/L with a median concentration of 11 μg/L. Concentrations in water from five of these nine wells exceeded the USEPA MCL for arsenic. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from seven wells completed in the igneous and metamorphic basement rocks that underlie the floodplain and regional aquifers ranged from 400 to 3,190 mg/L with a median concentration of 1,410 mg/L. Concentrations in water from all but one of the seven wells sampled exceeded the USEPA SMCL for dissolved solids. Concentrations in water from the basement rocks exceeded the USEPA SMCL for arsenic of 10 μg/L in five of the seven wells. The high concentrations of arsenic, dissolved solids, and other constituents probably occur naturally. Stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen indicate that before pumping began in the early 1900s, the floodplain aquifer near Helendale was recharged by infiltration of winter stormflows originating in the headwaters of the Mojave River, and the regional aquifer was recharged by the infiltration of surface flow from small streams near the front of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and (or) by infiltration of runoff from local mountains within the southern Mojave Desert. Tritium, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen, was present in water from every well sampled in the floodplain aquifer indicating that the water was recharged after 1952. Water from most wells in the regional aquifer and the underlying basement rocks did not contain tritium, which indicates that it was recharged prior to 1952. Carbon-14, a naturally occurring isotope of carbon, was used to estimate the approximate age of the water from wells in the regional and underlying basement rocks. In general, uncorrected carbon-14 activities increase with depth and are fairly young near and downgradient from the Helendale Fault. The uncorrected carbon-14 activities indicate that the water in the regional aquifer was recharged between about 6,980 and 17,500 years ago and that the water in the basement rocks was recharged between 8,000 to 10,800 years ago. The great age of the water in the regional aquifer reflects the long flow paths and times of travel from the recharge areas near the northern front of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. It is also possible that a small amount of this recharge may have been from infiltration of runoff from streams draining local mountains within and surrounding the study area during past climatic and hydrologic conditions that were different than those that exist in the present-day Mojave Desert.

California↗

USGS2001

Simulation of ground-water flow in the Mojave River basin, California

The proximity of the Mojave River ground-water basin to the highly urbanized Los Angeles region has led to rapid growth in population and, consequently, to an increase in the demand for water. The Mojave River, the primary source of surface water for the region, normally is dry-except for a small stretch of perennial flow and periods of flow after intense storms. Thus, the region relies almost entirely on ground water to meet its agricultural and municipal needs. Ground-water withdrawal since the late 1800's has resulted in discharge, primarily from pumping wells, that exceeds natural recharge. To better understand the relation between the regional and the floodplain aquifer systems and to develop a management tool that could be used to estimate the effects that future stresses may have on the ground-water system, a numerical ground-water flow model of the Mojave River ground-water basin was developed, in part, on the basis of a previously developed analog model. The ground-water flow model has two horizontal layers; the top layer (layer 1) corresponds to the floodplain aquifer and the bottom layer (layer 2) corresponds to the regional aquifer. There are 161 rows and 200 columns with a horizontal grid spacing of 2,000 by 2,000 feet. Two stress periods (wet and dry) per year are used where the duration of each stress period is a function of the occurrence, quantity of discharge, and length of stormflow from the headwaters each year. A steady-state model provided initial conditions for the transient-state simulation. The model was calibrated to transient-state conditions (1931-94) using a trial-and-error approach. The transient-state simulation results are in good agreement with measured data. Under transient-state conditions, the simulated floodplain aquifer and regional aquifer hydrographs matched the general trends observed for the measured water levels. The simulated streamflow hydrographs matched wet stress period average flow rates and times of no flow at the Barstow and Afton Canyon gages. Steady-state particle-tracking was used to estimate travel times for mountain-front and streamflow recharge. The simulated travel times for mountain-front recharge to reach the area west of Victorville were about 5,000 to 6,000 years; this result is in reasonable agreement with published results. Steady-state particle-tracking results for streamflow recharge indicate that in most subareas along the river, the particles quickly leave and reenter the river. The complaint that resulted in the adjudication of the Mojave River ground-water basin alleged that the cumulative water production upstream of the city of Barstow had overdrafted the ground-water basin. In order to ascertain the effect of pumping on ground-water and surface-water relations along the Mojave River, two pumping simulations were compared with the 1931-90 transient-state simulation (base case). The first simulation assumed 1931-90 pumping in the upper region (Este, Oeste, Alto, and Transition zone model subareas) but with no pumping in the remainder of the basin, and the second assumed 1931-90 pumping in the lower region (Centro, Harper Lake, Baja, Coyote Lake, and Afton Canyon model subareas) but with no pumping in remainder of the basin. In the upper region, assuming pumping only in the upper region, there was no change in storage, recharge from the Mojave River, ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, or evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the lower region, assuming pumping only in the upper region, there was storage accretion, decreased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the upper region, assuming pumping only in the lower region, there was storage accretion, decreased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the lower region, assuming pumping only in the lower region, there was less storage depletion, increased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. Overall, pumping in the lower region does not negatively affect the upper region; however, pumping in the upper region negatively affects the lower region by decreasing recharge from the Mojave River. Streamflow, pumpage, and water-level data from calendar years 1995-99 were used to validate the calibrated ground-water flow model, that is, to test that the ground-water flow model will duplicate measured data for a noncalibration period without modification of the model parameters. In general, the simulated results are in good agreement with the measured data, and the simulated hydrographs for wells in the floodplain and regional aquifers follow the measured water-level trends. Simulated streamflow data for the 1995-99 wet and dry stress periods at the Lower Narrows, Barstow, and Afton Canyon were compared with the measured data for average streamflow for the same periods; in general, the model reflects 1995-99 streamflow conditions. The simulation results also indicate that the streambed conductance values calibrated to the 1931-94 conditions reasonably simulate the 1995-99 conditions and therefore can be used for predictive purposes. To visualize the magnitude, spatial distribution, and timing of water-level changes in the basin through time, simulated hydraulic heads for 1932-99 were compared with simulated hydraulic heads for 1931. Greater than average annual inflows to the Mojave River from the headwaters during the late 1930's and throughout much of the 1940's resulted in simulated hydraulic heads that were higher than the 1931 hydraulic heads along the Mojave River in most model subareas. Parts of the Baja and Harper Lake model subareas had declines in the simulated hydraulic head because of the increase in agricultural pumpage. By 1960, the simulated hydraulic heads were lower than the simulated hydraulic heads for 1931 in all model subareas of the floodplain and the regional aquifers because of pumpage. After 1960, the size and the magnitude of the areas of the regional aquifer for which simulated hydraulic heads were lower than those for 1931 continued to increase until the end of the simulation (1999). Along the Mojave River, hydraulic heads fluctuated in the floodplain aquifer in response to recharge during years with large inflows with little apparent effect on the simulated hydraulic heads in the regional aquifer. Three water-management alternatives were evaluated to determine their effect on ground-water resources using the calibrated ground-water flow model. The water-management alternatives consider the artificial recharge of imported water allocated to the Mojave Water Agency (MWA): the first assumes that zero percent of the MWA allocation is available (alternative 1), the second assumes that 50 percent of the MWA allocation is available (alternative 2), and the third assumes that 100 percent of the MWA allocation is available (alternative 3). Each of the three water-management alternatives were evaluated for a 20-year drought. Streamflow conditions were simulated using the 20-year drought of 1945-64 with associated calibrated stream parameters. Management alternative 1 results in a reduction in ground-water recharge from the Mojave River compared with average recharge for 1995-99; this reduction is reflected in simulated hydraulic-head declines between 1999 and 2019 of as much as 45 feet. Management alternatives 2 and 3 result in no change in recharge from the Mojave River for management alternative 2 and a small increase for management alternative 3 when compared with recharge for management alternative 1. The artificial recharge of imported water causes increases in simulated hydraulic head for both management alternatives at each of the artificial-recharge sites. Some of the increases are related to water that recharges into areas of low transmissivity which implies that the recharge operations may benefit from being distributed over a larger area.

California↗