Reductionist Hydrogeology: Ten Fundamental Principles

Home , Hydrogeology

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES Hydrol. Process. 22, 4967–4970 (2008) Published online 10 November 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7139 Reductionist hydrogeology: ten fundamental principles

Donald Siegel* For over three decades, my hydrogeologic career has blended basic science coupled with providing my expertise to private and governmental Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Heroy Geology entities that need to expeditiously answer questions on water supply, Lab, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA wetland, or contaminant problems. In the process, I discovered that much of what I used to teach in my basic hydrogeology courses, including *Correspondence to: rigorous mathematical and geochemical tools, could not be used by my Donald Siegel, Department of Earth students once they left ‘the fold’ unless they became professors who also Sciences, Syracuse University, Heroy do basic research. Geology Lab, Syracuse, New York This is because consulting hydrogeologists and engineers usually 13244, USA. E-mail: [email protected] collect only scant or incomplete data to solve problems, compared to what is collected by academics or United States Geological Survey (USGS) scientists. Regulatory protocols, cost, and the inability of non- hydrogeologists to understand what is done constrain the kinds of analyses done in the ‘real world’. By scant and incomplete data, I mean the installation of fewer than a dozen monitoring wells in a football-field- size contaminated site, drilling only two or three test holes for a water supply system, and not collecting analytical data on major dissolved solids and oxygen content of sampled waters. As a consequence of data limitations outside of academia and the USGS, I have become increasingly reductionist in my philosophy on how hydrogeology should be both taught and practised (Siegel, 1999, 2006). Although the sophisticated tools available to hydrogeologists often cannot be used properly in practice, the fundamental concepts underlying the science remain valuable in figuring out what one can do with scant data, and how to efficiently collect data that will be most useful. I write this essay to present my ‘top ten’ list of what students and practising hydrogeologists fundamentally need to know to be successful—the ten points I want my students to remember even 10 years after they graduate.

Don Siegel’s ‘Top Ten’ List 1. ‘The Hydrogeologist’s Credo’ (paraphrased from Aristotle) needs to be followed ‘Don’t push the data farther than they can be pushed and be honest with respect to what can be done’. Too often, for example, practitioners tell clients that numerical models can forecast contaminant transport and remediation success when there are few, if any, concrete examples, showing that this can be done for typical contaminant sites that have scant data (Siegel and Otz, 2007). Why? Hydraulic conductivity measurements, at best, are only valid to a few factors to an order of magnitude because of scale dependency (e.g. Schulze–Makuch et al., 1991) as well as experimental design. Pushing analysis beyond this error bar provides no bet- ter understanding of the problems being addressed. Furthermore, preferential zones of high permeability refract ﬂow lines both hor- izontally and vertically, and often there are insufﬁcient monitoring wells to evaluate if groundwater actually moves in the direction of Received 18 July 2008 maximum hydraulic gradient (e.g. McDonnell et al., 2007; Otz and Accepted 21 July 2008 Azzolina, 2007). Moreover, the time frame during which we acquire data is usually short compared to the forecasts we have to make.

Some argue that using random hydraulic conduc- and discharge at lakes, streams, and wetlands (see tivity distributions derived from scant data bases Winter et al., 1998, for an outstanding review). provides mathematical ‘certainty’ that professional When I ask consulting hydrogeologists what they judgement does not (e.g. Neuman and Wierenga, 2003; would like professors to emphasize more in their Neuman, 2007). However, under circumstances of hydrogeologic courses, they often say groundwater scant data, many hydrogeologic conceptual and math- and surface-water interaction. I have seen many ematical models fail because of ‘surprises’ unantici- water-table maps that had contours crossing lakes pated during the analysis, including errors in assumed (impossible unless the lake surface is tipped!) and distributions of hydraulic conductivity (e.g. Bredehoft, showed groundwater unrelated to streams when the 2004). consulting report said groundwater supported stream Fundamentally, I think practising hydrogeology, base flow. similar to practising its close cousin, petroleum geology, constitutes as much of an art as a science, and 5. Groundwater occurs in nested flow systems, that the ‘meta data’ of experience leads to more suc- separated by hydraulic boundaries cess than sophisticated attempts at analysis, unwar- This concept, first presented in detail by Toth (1963) ranted by the field data and is difficult to explain and then expanded by Freeze and Witherspoon (1967), to the non-specialists who make the regulatory and underpins our understanding of hydrogeologic sys- financial decisions regarding the groundwater prob- tems at many scales. But students should also realize, lem being investigated. that multiple-flow systems do not develop in highly permeable systems, compared to those in less perme- 2. Darcy’s law needs to be understood at the ‘gut’ able or layered geologic materials (e.g. Haitjema and level Mitchell–Bruker, 2005), and that nested-flow systems Changing hydraulic gradients on hydrogeologic cross may not always occur at the scale of the problem being sections, water-table maps, and potentiometric surface looked at. maps implies changes in some combination of dis- 6. Groundwater chemistry is predictable from first charge, cross sectional saturated area, or hydraulic principles conductivity. Figuring out why hydraulic gradients change leads to important inference on unknown If I can, I always obtain concentrations of the major sub-surface geology and hydraulic properties. With solutes (calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, respect to Darcy’s Law, the difference between seep- sulfate, and chloride) from groundwater samples col- age and Darcy velocity needs to be so well known lected by either low flow pumping or filtered after that it becomes second nature—the former calculates sampling. This is so that I can evaluate the accu- how fast groundwater moves and the latter how much racy of the laboratory by the charge balance method moves across a unit cross-sectional area. and to make sense out of the chemistry—something that often cannot be done using ‘total’ solute analyses 3. Potentiometric surfaces are different from the that incorporate suspended particulate matter with water table the solutes. Ironically, regulatory quality assurance protocols do not insure quality data from a scientific Too often, I have seen practitioners mix water-level standpoint for many solutes. data from piezometers and water-table monitoring Most of all, the major chemical compositions of wells in preparing maps. Water levels in monitoring natural and many contaminated groundwaters are wells and piezometers measure the hydraulic potential predictable from common reactive minerals and/or energy of the water where it enters the screen of the waste (Piper, 1944; Back, 1960). If what is observed well, much like old thermometers measure tempera- does not fit the hypothesized chemistry, then reasons ture (thermal energy) by how high mercury rises in need to be explored. In the absence of full analyses, the stem. This concept, which encompasses the reason I look at what geochemical data I have within the why water levels in nested piezometers at the same context of what I would expect given the waste stream place may be different. Why the water table is differ- or aquifer mineralogy. ent from a potentiometric surface is the most difficult fluid mechanics concept for students to understand. 7. Chemical oxidation and reduction control many They need to understand it cold. important groundwater and contaminant chemical compositions 4. Surface water is an ‘outcrop’ of the water table The water pH and oxygen content largely dictate Groundwater connects to surface water. Hydro- what happens geochemically in groundwater systems geologists need to know that the way water-tables con- beyond dilution and mixing. Most organic matter tour ‘V’ when they cross streams defines assumed or strips out dissolved oxygen, mobilizes many trace met- known groundwater–surface-water connections. They als, and leads to the biodegradation of many contami- also need to know how to directly measure recharge nants (e.g. chlorinated solvents). Information on both

Copyright  2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 4968 Hydrol. Process. 22, 4967–4970 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/hyp INVITED COMMENTARY pH and oxidation state of water is needed to address But in all cases, I use bivariate plotting to test almost any water quality problem, even qualitatively, hypotheses on what happens geochemically or by inference from dissolved solute species present (e.g. hydrologically—never as a purely empirical tool with Berner, 1981). Dissolved oxygen content of ground- which I search for possible relationships. I always use water can always be taken in the field. It is a trivial the scientific method in my application-based hydro- measurement with inexpensive field kits now avail- geology, just like when I study basic research ques- able, and provides critical information on groundwa- tions. ter chemistry, and contaminant mobility and trans- Now that I have presented my ‘top ten,’ I look formations (e.g. McMahon and Chapelle, 2008). forward to seeing what differences, additions, or subtractions colleagues may have. 8. As a working approximation, contaminant plumes should be considered narrow and no wider than a few Acknowledgements times the width of the source at their heads I thank Bill Simpkins, Nick Azzolina, Guy Swenson, Contaminant issues remain the ‘bread and butter’ and Jim Buttle for their helpful comments and sug- of applied hydrogeology. ‘Amoeba-like’ or very wide gestions. plumes suggest multiple contaminant sources, preferential flow paths, changing seasonal water table configurations, bad data, or bad contouring. Plumes can References also plunge below the water table and extend farther than anticipated from scant monitoring of well Back W. 1960. Origin of hydrochemical facies of groundwater in data (Simmons et al., 2001). In the case of contamina- the Atlantic Coastal Plain: International Geologic Congress, 21st, Copenhagen 1960, Reports, pt. 1, 87–95. tion issues, theory ‘trumps’ data sets which suggest Berner R. 1981. A new geochemical classification of sedimentary outlandish transport conditions unless they can be environments. Journal of Sedimentary Research 51(2): 359–365. proved. Bredehoft JD. 2004. The conceptualization model problem—surprise. Hydrogeology Journal 13: 37–46. 9. Contour using your head, and not your computer Freeze RA, Witherspoon PA. 1967. Theoretical analysis of regional groundwater flow. 2. Effect of water-table configuration and subsur- Several years ago, I visited the famous Exxon Mobil face permeability variation. Water Resources Research 3: 623–634. labs in Houston. There I saw petroleum geologists con- Haitjema HM, Mitchell-Bruker S. 2005. Are water tables a subdued tour thickness and elevation data and then digitize replica of the topography? Ground Water 43: 781–786. the contours. I asked why they did not have com- Hem JD. 1989. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Character- puter programs do the contouring for them. Their istics of Natural Water, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2254, 263. answer—computers do not know geology. The same McDonnell JJ, Sivapalan M, Vache´ K, Dunn S, Grant S, Haggerty R, principle applies to hydrogeology. Contouring scant Hinz C, Hooper R, Kirchner J, Roderick ML, Selker J, Weiler M. data by hand leads to thinking about what happens 2007. Moving beyond heterogeneity and process complexity: A in the sub-surface, and avoids making regrettable mis- new vision for watershed hydrology. Water Resources Research 43: W07 301, DOI:10·1029/2006WR005467. takes regarding groundwater–surface-water interac- McMahon PB, Chapelle FH. 2008. Redox processes and water qual- tion and assumed lateral boundaries conditions to the ity of selected principal aquifer systems. Ground Water 46: 259–271. flow system. If contouring programs have to be used Neuman SP. 2007. Why Model Subsurface Solute Transport Stochas- (I know of one regulatory agency that forces them tically? GSA Denver Annual Meeting (28–31 October 2007), Paper on scientists and engineers to ‘avoid subjectivity’), No. 128-4. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007AM/finalprogram/ then how these programs interpolate and extrapo- abstract 124 436.htm. late should be carefully investigated to avoid gross Neuman SP, Wierenga PJ. 2003. A comprehensive strategy of hydrogeologic modeling and uncertainty analysis for nuclear facilities and interpretive errors, forced by scant data distributions. sites, NUREG/CR-6805, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash- Sometimes, ‘fake’ data will have to be inserted hid- ington, 307. den in the data field to force contours to scientifically Otz MH, Azzolina N. 2007. Preferential ground-water flow: evidence reasonable configurations. from decades of fluorescent dye-tracing, GSA Denver Annual Meet- ing (28–31 October 2007), Paper No. 128-5, http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/ 2007AM/finalprogram/abstract 126 509.htm. 10. Explore simple bivariate plots as an analysis tool Piper AM. 1944. A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses. American Geophysical Union Transactions 25: I successfully use bivariate plots (X vs Y ) all the time 914–923. to determine where mixtures of water occur, inves- Schulze-Makuch D, Carlson DA, Cherkauer DS, Malik P. 1991. tigate fingerprint contamination, determine whether Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity in heterogeneous media. contaminants or other solutes are naturally removed Ground Water 37: 904–919. along flow paths, and evaluate recharge and discharge Siegel DI. 1999. Effective teaching of hydrogeology: how to make the relationships from water level data, to name only a few best use of scant “Real World Data,” short course, geol. In Society of America, Annual Meeting, Denver. applications. Bivariate plots, when used creatively can Siegel DI. 2006. Teaching the top ten principles of hydrogeology in provide insight in a manner that even lay people can the context of summer geological camp field activities. In National understand. Meeting Geological Society of America, Philadelphia.

Siegel DI, Otz MH. 2007. The Forgotten Anisotropy: Is There Toth J. 1963. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small Scale-Dependency for Plume Migration in the Horizontal Plane? drainage basins. Journal of Geophysical Research 68: 4795–4812. 2007 GSA Denver Annual Meeting (28–31 October 2007) Paper Winter TC, Harvey JW, Franke OL, Alley WM. 1998. Ground No. 51-1 http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007AM/finalprogram/abstract Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource, U.S. Geological Survey 127 556.htm. Circular 1139, 179. Simmons CT, Fenstemaker TR, Sharp JM Jr. 2001. Variable-density groundwater flow and solute transport in heterogeneous porous media: approaches, resolutions and future challenges. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 52: 245–275.