DOCSLIB.ORG

2019 Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2019 Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders 2019 PUMP TEST REQUIREMEN TS FOR GROUNDWATER RIGHT HOLDERS 2019 REVISION Originally printed September 1995, Revised March 2011 STATE OF OREGON Forms: https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/Forms/Pages/default.aspx?wp9511=se:%22pump+test%22 OAR 690-217: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3186 Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders 2019 PUMP TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER RIGHT HOLDERS 2019 REVISION Originally printed September 1995, Revised March 2011 & November 2019 STATE OF OREGON Forms: https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/Forms/Pages/default.aspx?wp9511=se:%22pump+test%22 OAR 690-217: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3186 i Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Oregon Law Regarding Pump Tests .......................................................................................................... 1 What is a Pump Test? ............................................................................................................................... 1 Definitions and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 1 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Definitions Applying to OAR 690, Division 217 (OAR 690-217-0010) ....................................................... 1 Which Wells Need Testing .............................................................................................................. 2 Wells That Need to be Tested ................................................................................................................... 2 Wells That May be Exempted ................................................................................................................... 2 Multiple Well Exemptions ..................................................................................................................... 2 Unreasonable Burden Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 2 Other Exemptions ................................................................................................................................. 3 Relevant Dates and Deadlines ........................................................................................................ 3 Qualifications to Conduct Pump Tests ........................................................................................... 3 Pump Test Specifications and Forms ............................................................................................. 4 Forms and Required Information.............................................................................................................. 4 Test Procedures ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Pre-pumping Phase ............................................................................................................................... 4 Pumping Phase ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Post-pumping (Recovery) Phase ........................................................................................................... 4 Water Level and Flow Rate Measurement Methods ............................................................................ 5 Flowing Artesian Wells .............................................................................................................................. 6 Pre-Pumping Phase ............................................................................................................................... 6 Pumping/Flowing Phase........................................................................................................................ 6 Post-pumping (Recovery) Phase ........................................................................................................... 6 Nearby Wells and Streams ........................................................................................................................ 7 Submitting a Test .............................................................................................................................7 Pre-Submittal Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 7 Submittal ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Technical Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 8 Test Examples ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Bonus Reporting ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Additional Information ..................................................................................................................10 References and Links .............................................................................................................................. 10 Forms: https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/Forms/Pages/default.aspx?wp9511=se:%22pump+test%22 OAR 690-217: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3186 ii Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders Report for the well, can be used to determine Introduction how easily water moves through the ground and how efficiently the well produces water Oregon Law Regarding Pump from the aquifer. When a well develops a Tests problem, a pump test can provide clues as to Oregon law requires permitted well owners in whether the problem is caused by the well the state to conduct pump tests of their wells itself, the pumping and distribution system, or and submit the results to the Water Resources depletion of the aquifer. Department. This law (ORS 537.772) was enacted by the 1987 Legislature to provide A pump test consists of three phases. The pre- important statewide information on pumping phase includes several depth-to-water groundwater resources. Wells which must be measurements made prior to pumping the well tested under this law are all those which are to determine any natural fluctuations in aquifer listed as a source of water on a groundwater water level. The pumping phase of the test right permit, certificate, or registration consists of pumping the well at a constant rate statement with priority dates on or after for a period of at least four hours. As the well is December 20, 1988. pumped, the water level will drop. During pumping, the depth to water is periodically As a condition of certification, a pump test must measured and recorded. The post-pumping or be submitted before the ten-year anniversary of recovery phase of the test occurs after the the priority date whether or not a certificate is pump is turned off. After pumping stops, depth- issued within that time. No pump tests are to-water measurements continue at periodic required for domestic wells, stock wells, or time intervals as the water rises, or recovers, in other permit exempt wells (see ORS 537.545). the well. Minimum measurement time Requirements for pump tests are outlined in intervals during the pumping and recovery Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, phases are specified in rule. Division 217 (OAR 690-217). This document is intended to act as a guide for Definitions and groundwater right holders in determining which wells need to be tested and how to conduct a Abbreviations test in order to comply with the rules. Abbreviations OAR: Oregon Administrative Rules What is a Pump Test? A pump test, also known as a well test or an ORS: Oregon Revised Statutes aquifer test, provides valuable information on the water-bearing earth materials (or Definitions Applying to OAR groundwater aquifers) penetrated by a well. It 690, Division 217 (OAR 690- also provides information on the performance 217-0010) of the well. A pump test is not really a test of (1) “Air Line”: A tube or pipe installed in a well the pump, but rather a test of the well and specifically for the purpose of determining the aquifer. water level by measuring the air pressure This information, combined with information required to purge it of water. the well driller provides on the associated Well Forms: https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/Forms/Pages/default.aspx?wp9511=se:%22pump+test%22 OAR 690-217: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3186 1 Pump Test Requirements for Groundwater Right Holders (2) “Commission”: Water Resources to these requirements. The pump test Commission. requirements do not apply to domestic wells, stock wells, or any other permit exempt wells (3) “Electric Water Level Measuring Tape” that do not require a water right. Additional [“etape”]: A device manufactured specifically exceptions to the requirements are listed for measuring depth to water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas
    Technical Report Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas by Robert E. Mace Rebecca C. Smyth Liying Xu Jinhuo Liang Robert E. Mace Principal Investigator prepared for Texas Water Development Board under TWDB Contract No. 99-483-279, Part 1 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924 March 2000 Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 5 HYDROGEOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 13 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 14 DATA COMPILATION ...................................................................................................... 14 EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES FROM THE TEST DATA ................. 19 Estimating Transmissivity from Specific Capacity Data.......................................... 19 STATISTICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Method 9100: Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, Saturated Leachate
    METHOD 9100 SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, SATURATED LEACHATE CONDUCTIVITY, AND INTRINSIC PERMEABILITY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope and Application: This section presents methods available to hydrogeologists and and geotechnical engineers for determining the saturated hydraulic conductivity of earth materials and conductivity of soil liners to leachate, as outlined by the Part 264 permitting rules for hazardous-waste disposal facilities. In addition, a general technique to determine intrinsic permeability is provided. A cross reference between the applicable part of the RCRA Guidance Documents and associated Part 264 Standards and these test methods is provided by Table A. 1.1.1 Part 264 Subpart F establishes standards for ground water quality monitoring and environmental performance. To demonstrate compliance with these standards, a permit applicant must have knowledge of certain aspects of the hydrogeology at the disposal facility, such as hydraulic conductivity, in order to determine the compliance point and monitoring well locations and in order to develop remedial action plans when necessary. 1.1.2 In this report, the laboratory and field methods that are considered the most appropriate to meeting the requirements of Part 264 are given in sufficient detail to provide an experienced hydrogeologist or geotechnical engineer with the methodology required to conduct the tests. Additional laboratory and field methods that may be applicable under certain conditions are included by providing references to standard texts and scientific journals. 1.1.3 Included in this report are descriptions of field methods considered appropriate for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity by single well or borehole tests. The determination of hydraulic conductivity by pumping or injection tests is not included because the latter are considered appropriate for well field design purposes but may not be appropriate for economically evaluating hydraulic conductivity for the purposes set forth in Part 264 Subpart F.
    [Show full text]
  • Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating Wells
    WATERRESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 30,NO. 11,PAGES 2945-2957, NOVEMBER 1994 Slugtests in partially penetratingwells ZafarHyder, JamesJ. Butler, Jr., Carl D. McElwee, and Wenzhi Liu KansasGeological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence Abstract.A semianalyticalsolution is presentedto a mathematicalmodel describing theflow of groundwaterin responseto a slugtest in a confinedor unconfinedporous formation.The modelincorporates the effectsof partialpenetration, anisotropy, finite- radiuswell skins, and upper and lower boundariesof either a constant-heador an impermeableform. This modelis employedto investigatethe error that is introduced intohydraulic conductivity estimates through use of currentlyaccepted practices (i.e., Hvorslev,1951; Cooper et al., 1967)for the analysisof slug-testresponse data. The magnitudeof the error arisingin a varietyof commonlyfaced field configurationsis the basisfor practicalguidelines for the analysisof slug-testdata that can be utilizedby fieldpractitioners. Introduction that the parameter estimatesobtained using this approach must be viewed with considerableskepticism owing to an Theslug test is one of the mostcommonly used techniques error in the analytical solution upon which the model is by hydrogeologistsfor estimatinghydraulic conductivityin based. the field [Kruseman and de Ridder, 1989]. This technique, In terms of slug tests in unconfined aquifers, solutionsto whichis quite simple in practice, consistsof measuringthe the mathematicalmodel describingflow in responseto the recoveryof head in a well after a near instantaneouschange induced disturbance are difficult to obtain because of the in waterlevel at that well. Approachesfor the analysisof the nonlinear nature of the model in its most general form. recovery data collected during a slug test are based on Currently, most field practitioners use the technique of analyticalsolutions to mathematical models describingthe Bouwer and Rice [1976; Bouwer, 1989], which employs flow of groundwater to/from the test well.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Test Report
    PNNL-18732 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Field Test Report: Preliminary Aquifer Test Characterization Results for Well 299-W15-225: Supporting Phase I of the 200-ZP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Remedial Design FA Spane DR Newcomer September 2009 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-ACO5-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576 5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrological Behavior of a Deep Sub-Vertical Fault in Crystalline
    Hydrological behavior of a deep sub-vertical fault in crystalline basement and relationships with surrounding reservoirs Cl´ement Roques, Olivier Bour, Luc Aquilina, Benoit Dewandel, Sarah Leray, Jean Michel Schroetter, Laurent Longuevergne, Tanguy Le Borgne, Rebecca Hochreutener, Thierry Labasque, et al. To cite this version: Cl´ement Roques, Olivier Bour, Luc Aquilina, Benoit Dewandel, Sarah Leray, et al.. Hydrological behavior of a deep sub-vertical fault in crystalline basement and relation- ships with surrounding reservoirs. Journal of Hydrology, Elsevier, 2014, 509, pp.42-54. <10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.023>. <insu-00917278> HAL Id: insu-00917278 https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-00917278 Submitted on 11 Dec 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destin´eeau d´ep^otet `ala diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publi´esou non, lished or not. The documents may come from ´emanant des ´etablissements d'enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche fran¸caisou ´etrangers,des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou priv´es. 1 HYDROLOGICAL BEHAVIOR OF A DEEP SUB-VERTICAL FAULT IN 2 CRYSTALLINE BASEMENT AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH 3 SURROUNDING RESERVOIRS 4 C. ROQUES*(1), O. BOUR(1), L. AQUILINA(1), B. DEWANDEL(2), S. LERAY(1), JM. 5 SCHROETTER(3), L. LONGUEVERGNE(1), T. LE BORGNE(1), R. HOCHREUTENER(1),
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Hydraulic Tests
    Published in Hydrogeology Journal 13, issue 1, 259-262, 2005 1 which should be used for any reference to this work The future of hydraulic tests Philippe Renard Keywords Hydraulic testing · Pumping test · Analytical solutions · Numerical modeling · Heterogeneity · Diagnostic plot · Derivative Introduction aquifer and at the well. After the Second World War many new problems have been solved, improving the understanding of the Perhaps because of the existence of a vast amount of literature, drawdown behavior both in the aquifer and in the pumping well many hydrogeologists believe that well hydraulics is no longer at itself. The most influential steps during this period were the anal- the frontier of our discipline. Well testing is well established both in ysis of the influence of many perturbating factors such as: bound- theory and practice; its techniques have been applied for decades. aries (Theis 1941), non-linear head losses within the pumping well However, despite more than 100 years of theoretical development, during step drawdown tests (Jacob 1947), introduction of the skin the plight of the field hydrogeologist is still not enviable (Williams concept to analyze the performance of a pumping well (van 1985). Often, the data are ambiguous and the model identification Everdingen 1953), the effect of the unsaturated zone in an uncon- is not unique (Al-Bemani et al. 2003). This matter of fact is seldom fined aquifer (Boulton 1954), leakage from an adjacent aquifer emphasized within the literature, which is dominated by the de- (Hantush and Jacob 1955), partially penetrating well (Hantush velopment of new theories, of new testing techniques, of new 1961), large diameter well (Papadopulos and Cooper 1967), dense software and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Well Test Analysis but Were Afraid to Ask
    Everything you always wanted to know about well test analysis but were afraid to ask Alain C. Gringarten Imperial College London Content • WTA: what, why, how • Challenges • Milestones • Other applications • Conclusion: a very powerful tool - use it or lose it 2/44 What is well test analysis (WTA)? • It is the extraction of information from pressure and rate data measured in a producing well 10000 6000 q BUILD UP 9000 PIPELINE 8000 ) 5000 7000 6000 (psia) (STB/D p WELL 4000 5000 q 4000 DRAWDOWN 3000 Pressure 3000 Oil Rate RESERVOIR 2000 1000 p 2000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 Time from the start of production (hrs) 3/44 Pressure History Why do we do well test analysis? • To obtain information on the well • Permeability • Well damage or stimulation (skin effect) • To obtain information on the reservoir • Fluid • Average reservoir pressure • Reservoir heterogeneities • Reservoir hydraulic connectivity • Distances to boundaries 4/44 How do we do well test analysis? • We select a period at constant rate (usually, a build up) 6000 10000 FP4 FP76 8000 5000 6000 4000 4000 3000 2000 Pressure (psia) Pressure Oil Rate (STB/D) Rate Oil 2000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 Time from the start of production (hrs) • We plot some function of pressure vs. some function of time • We try to identify flow regimes (radial, linear, spherical,…) • We include these flow regimes into an interpretation model which can reproduce the pressure given the rate (or vice-versa) • We verify that the interpretation model is consistent with all other information (geology, seismic, cores, logs, completion, etc…).
    [Show full text]
  • Slug Test Characterization Results for Multi-Test/Depth Intervals Conducted During the Drilling of CERCLA Operable Unit OU ZP-1 Wells 299- W10-33 and 299-W11-48
    PNNL-16945 Slug Test Characterization Results for Multi-Test/Depth Intervals Conducted During the Drilling of CERCLA Operable Unit OU ZP-1 Wells 299- W10-33 and 299-W11-48 D. R. Newcomer September 2007 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NOTICE This document copy, since it is transmitted in advance of patent clearance, is made available in confidence solely for use in performance of work under contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy. This document is not to be published nor its contents otherwise disseminated or used for purposes other than specified above before patent approval for such release or use has been secured, upon request, from Intellectual Property Services, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352. PNNL-16945 Slug Test Characterization Results for Multi- Test/Depth Intervals Conducted During the Drilling of CERCLA Operable Unit OU ZP-1 Wells 299-W10-33 and 299-W11-48 D. R. Newcomer September 2007 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Summary Slug-test results obtained from single and multiple, stress-level slug tests conducted during drilling and borehole advancement provide detailed hydraulic conductivity information at two Hanford Site Operable Unit (OU) ZP-1 test well locations. The individual test/depth intervals were generally sited to provide hydraulic-property information within the upper ~10 m of the unconfined aquifer (i.e., Ringold Formation, Unit 5). These characterization results complement previous and ongoing drill-and-test characterization programs at surrounding 200-West and -East Area locations (see Figure S.1).(a) An analysis of the slug-test results indicates calculated average test-interval estimates of hydraulic conductivities ranging between 1.24 and 15.7 m/day.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquifer Test Report Introduction Hydrogeologic Setting
    Application: 41H 30127867 T01S, R05E, Section 26 Applicant: FLIR Systems Inc. Gallatin County Author(s): Melissa Schaar, Groundwater Hydrologist; Evan Norman, Groundwater Hydrologist Montana Department of Natural Resources Water Management Bureau January 29, 2021 Aquifer Test Report Introduction The applicant requests three points of diversion (extraction wells), a flow rate of 700 gallons per minute (gpm) and a volume of 831 acre-feet (AF) per year for an open loop geothermal system that will discharge back into the same source aquifer via four injection wells. Submersible pumps within the wells will be interfaced with variable-frequency controllers that will receive a flow- demand signal from the heat-exchange system in the building. The submersible pumps' flow rates will be variable throughout the year and will provide a combined flow up to a peak of 700 gpm. This investigation examines the details of a 72-hour aquifer test performed on the middle extraction well identified as the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Groundwater Information Center (GWIC) # 304056. The aquifer test included measuring drawdown and recovery in the test and two nearby observation wells. Two 8-hour drawdown and yield tests were performed on the east and west extraction wells (GWIC #s 304057 and 303698, respectively). This report will analyze the aquifer test data collected. Extended analysis of these test data involves matching analytical groundwater solutions to observed drawdown data. Aquifer test analyses provides a basis for evaluating adequacy of diversion, physical availability of groundwater, and adverse effect to existing groundwater and surface water users The FLIR Systems Inc. proposed geothermal system and wells are located within the Bozeman Solvent Site Controlled Groundwater Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Well Guidelines
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department of Environmental Protection Marty Suuberg Commissioner Bureau of Water Resources Doug Fine Assistant Commissioner PRIVATE WELL GUIDELINES Updated July 2018 Drinking Water Program ii CONTENTS FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... III TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ III INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ..................................................................................... 6 PERMITS AND REPORTS ............................................................................................................ 9 WELL LOCATION ........................................................................................................................ 17 GENERAL WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 20 WELL CASING ............................................................................................................................ 32 WELL SCREEN ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flow Modeling of Well Test Analysis for Porous–Vuggy Carbonate Reservoirs
    Transp Porous Med (2013) 97:253–279 DOI 10.1007/s11242-012-0121-y Flow Modeling of Well Test Analysis for Porous–Vuggy Carbonate Reservoirs Ying-Lan Jia · Xiang-Yu Fan · Ren-Shi Nie · Quan-Hua Huang · Yong-Lu Jia Received: 26 June 2012 / Accepted: 27 December 2012 / Published online: 15 January 2013 © The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Porous–vuggy carbonate reservoirs consist of both matrix and vug systems. This paper represents the first study of flow issues within a porous–vuggy carbonate reservoir that does not introduce a fracture system. The physical properties of matrix and vug systems are quite different in that vugs are dispersed throughout a reservoir. Assuming spherical vugs, symmetrically distributed pressure, centrifugal flow of fluids and considering media that is directly connected with wellbore as the matrix system, we established and solved a model of well testing and rate decline analysis for porous–vuggy carbonate reservoirs, which consists of a dual porosity flow behavior. Standard log–log type curves are drawn up by numerical simulation and the characteristics of type curves are analyzed thoroughly. Numerical simulations showed that concave type curves are dominated by interporosity flow factor, external boundary conditions, and are the typical response of porous–vuggy carbonate reservoirs. Field data interpretation from Tahe oilfield of China were successfully made and some useful reservoir parameters (e.g., permeability and interporosity flow factor) are obtained from well test interpretation. Keywords Flow modeling · Porous–vuggy carbonate reservoir · Well test analysis · Type curves · Unsteady interporosity flow 1 Introduction Carbonate reservoirs have complex structures and have generated great scientific interest and significant challenges (Rawnsley et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconfined Aquifer Flow Theory
    Unconfined Aquifer Flow Theory - from Dupuit to present Phoolendra K. Mishra and Kristopher L. Kuhlman 1 1.1 Introduction 2 Pumping tests are widely used to obtain estimates of hydraulic parameters characterizing flow 3 and transport processes in subsurface (e.g., Kruseman and de Ridder (1990); Batu (1998)). 4 Hydraulic parameter estimates are often used in planning or engineering applications to predict 5 flow and design of aquifer extraction or recharge systems. During a typical pumping test in a 6 horizontally extensive aquifer, a well is pumped at constant volumetric flow rate and head ob- 7 servations are made through time at one or more locations. Pumping test data are presented as 8 time-drawdown or distance-drawdown curves, which are fitted to idealized models to estimate 9 hydraulic properties of the aquifer. For unconfined aquifers properties of interest include hy- 10 draulic conductivity, specific storage, specific yield, and possibly unsaturated flow parameters. 11 When estimating aquifer properties using pumping test drawdown data, one can use a variety of 12 analytical solutions involving different conceptualizations and simplifiying assumptions. Analyt- 13 ical solutions are impacted by their simplifiying assumptions, which limit their applicability to 14 characterize certain types of unconfined aquifers. This review presents the historical evolution of 15 the scientific and engineering thoughts concerning groundwater flow towards a pumping well in 16 unconfined aquifers (also referred to variously as gravity, phreatic, or water table aquifers) from 17 the steady-state solutions of Dupuit to the coupled transient saturated-unsaturated solutions 18 of the present. Although simulation using gridded numerical models is sometimes necessary 19 in highly irregular or heterogeneous systems, here we limit our consideration to analytically 20 derived solutions.
    [Show full text]