As populations, agricultural and industrial demands grow with time, increasing attention is placed on developing groundwater resources in a sustainable manner. At the small, local scale, this tends to involve exploration (scientific and otherwise) and test pumping (also subject to more and less scientific methods). While there can be some subjectivity in the analysis of scientific test pumping data (the selection of representative periods of drawdown stability, the inclusion of potential boundary conditions and the estimation of available drawdown), published methodologies such as the FC method (2001) and the Q20 (1959) and R20 (2006) concepts attempt to calculate sustainable abstraction rates based on these tests. At a larger catchment or aquifer scale, water balance estimates of inflows, storage and outflows are also used to estimate the effects of groundwater abstraction within such a “water budget”. This can be done conceptually, but is often also through a numerical model. A drawback of such methods is the difficulty in estimating representative annual inflow volumes, such as groundwater recharge. One such methodology is the Aquifer Firm Yield Model (2012) which assesses sustainable groundwater supplies based on threshold recharge inflows, baseflow and evapotranspiration outflows, and a 5 m aquifer saturated fluctuation limit. While this was intended for use at a preliminary stage of investigations, before sufficient hydrogeological data would be available for a numerical model, it nonetheless provides an estimate of the available groundwater for abstraction based on a water budget concept rather than test pumping data analysis. A comparison of the results of these two approaches is provided for several newly developed municipal production boreholes in the Karoo to compare where the assumptions inherent to each approach may be highlighted by noticeable differences in results.
Presenter Name
Kes
Presenter Surname
Murray
Area
Karoo
Conference year
2021
Keywords