Resource Management
In the face of increasing populations and global climate change, communities in many parts of the world face difficulties in obtaining a sustainable,
long-term supply of freshwater. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is increasingly being viewed as a way to provide large storage capacity to
capture seasonally or intermittently available excess water for later beneficial use. Potential stored waters include desalted and reclaimed water
(treated sewage effluent) surplus produced during low-demand periods. ASR is a proven technology, but its implementation has problems. ASR
systems vary in their hydrologic value (i.e., the degree to which they achieve useful storage) and, in some instances, have not met expectations or
have failed entirely. It is now clear that ASR hydrogeology systems are more complex than originally envisioned. Excessive regulatory requirements
unnecessarily increase project costs and adversely impact economic viability. However, the advantages of ASR as a water resource management
tool are still compelling. The challenge is to take advantage of lessons learned from recent growth in ASR system construction and research to
improve all aspects of ASR implementation and regulation.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery:
Developing Sustainable Water Supplies
Robert G. Maliva and Thomas M. Missimer
T
oday, water availability and security are critical,
particularly in the Middle East and other arid
areas. Cost-effective integration of two proven
technologies, desalination and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), can secure a reliable, sustainable, high-quality
freshwater supply for the Gulf States and other parts of
the world.
Power generation facilities that meet existing and projected needs typically operate at or close to peak-design
capacity during summer months but have spare capacity
during off-peak times. Using this spare power generation
capacity to desalinate seawater with electrically driven desalination processes can produce cost-effective additional
potable water during several months of the year. To convert a seasonally available supply to a reliable, year-round
water supply requires storage. A combination of advanced
water reuse using membrane technologies and ASR can secure a sustainable, recoverable water supply, which can be
safely injected into natural or artificial aquifers to provide
economical storage and solutions for seawater intrusion.
The advantages of ASR are compelling. Large volumes of water can be stored underground at a fraction
of the cost of other storage options, such as aboveground storage tanks and surface reservoirs. ASR systems
also do not experience the evaporative losses of surface
water reservoirs, have minimal surface footprints and land
74 requirements, and are less vulnerable to intentional and
unintentional contamination from surface activities.
However, ASR is not a panacea for water resource
management. ASR systems do not work everywhere and
vary in their hydrologic benefits. In addition, ASR may
have regulatory and operational challenges, which reduce
usefulness and economic value to system owners and
operators.
ASR Definitions
Pyne (1995) defined ASR as “the storage of water in a
suitable aquifer through a well during times when water
is available, and the recovery of water from the same well
during times when it is needed.” Pyne’s definition has two
components: water is injected, stored, and recovered for
beneficial use and injection and recovery are performed
using the same well (Figure 1). Pyne’s definition has been
adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA, 1999). In addition, USEPA (1999) considers an
aquifer recharge well to be used only to replenish the
water in an aquifer.
In most instances, injection and recovery from the
same well is the preferred option for economic reasons.
It is typically less expensive to construct one dual-use
well than dedicated injection and recovery wells. However, from an operational perspective, it may be more
IDA J o u r n a l | S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 w w w . idad e sa l . o r g
Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.
The first step in an ASR feasibility
investigation is to evaluate current and
projected water supply and demand.
DESTIN WATER USERS
Figure 1. A typical ASR wellhead in Destin, Fla.
desirable to inject and recover
from different wells. For example, when injected freshwater migrates upward because of density differences
or laterally in response to
regional hydraulic gradients,
better system performance
(i.e., greater recovery efficiencies) might be obtained
using separate injection and
recovery wells (Maliva et al,
2006). Using separate injection and recovery wells may
also be desirable to improve
stored water quality by providing additional residence
time and to take advantage
of aquifer filtration. RinckPfeiffer et al (2005) referred
to using separate injection
and recovery wells for the
purpose of chemical and microbial contaminant attenuation as “aquifer storage transfer and recovery” (ASTR), plant or an existing production wellfield) than to pipe
which may prove cost-effective for improving reclaimed water to dual-use ASR wells.
water quality.
From a regulatory perspective, the ASTR concept may Water Needs and Sources
not be recognized because of ASR’s overly restrictive defi- ASR is a storage technology rather than a water source.
nition. An injection well might have to be permitted as For an ASR system to be a feasible water management tool,
an aquifer recharge well, and the production well would excess water that can be stored must exist. Excess water
be considered a normal extractive production well. Un- must be available for the projected operational life of an
fortunately, in a regulatory or legal setting, semantics may ASR system, which should be a minimum of 20 years.
supersede common sense. ASR should be redefined based
ASR systems are sized with respect to injection and
on operational considerations, abandoning the mecha- recovery rates and total recoverable volume during an
nistic requirement of a well’s dual-use. A recommended operational cycle. The injection and recovery rates of an
modification of Pyne’s (1995) ASR definition is “the stor- ASR system are a function of the capacity of individual
age of water in a suitable aquifer through a well during wells and the number of wells. The injection and recovtimes when water is available, and the recovery of the ery rate of an ASR system can be increased by constructsame or similar quality water using a well during times ing additional wells. The total recoverable volume is a
when it is needed.”
function of the injection and recovery rate of the system,
Where there is no significant difference between in- the duration of injection, and system recovery efficiency.
jected and ambient (native) water quality in the storage When ASR wells can be operated for relatively long perizone aquifer, the distinction between ASR and aquifer re- ods of time and provide large total recoverable volumes
charge is moot, because it really does not matter whether of water, they have the highest benefit:cost ratio. Thus,
the same water is injected and recovered. In some circum- ASR is ideal for seasonal or inter-year water storage, when
stances, aquifer recharge may be a more practical and eco- excess water is available for a prolonged (at least sevnomic solution. For instance, it may be less expensive to eral months) period. ASR is less economical when excess
recharge an aquifer near a water source (such as a river) water is only intermittently available and there is inadand recover the water at a location closer to the point of equate injection time to emplace a significant volume of
use in the groundwater basin (such as at a water treatment water in the storage zone.
w w w . idad e sa l . o r g S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 | IDA J o u r n a l Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.
75
Resource Management
Figure 2. Conceptual hydrograph of an ASR system
ASR and Monitor Well Water Levels
Injection
A
Static Water Level
B
∆h
Time
For physical storage of water to occur, water levels after injection must
be greater than the preinjection static water level (curve A). No net
storage occurs if the water level returns to the preinjection static level
(curve B). The amount of storage achieved is a function of the increase
in head (∆h) above static water level.
The first step in an ASR feasibility investigation is to
evaluate current and projected water supply and demand.
Ideally, daily water supply and demand data spanning a
5- to 10-year period should be analyzed to determine the
availability of excess water for storage and supply deficiencies. Analysis of daily water excesses and deficiencies can help determine a target system capacity in terms
of daily injection and storage rates. Integration of daily
data can determine a target recoverable storage volume.
ASR systems should not necessarily be designed to meet
all peaks in demand. For example, it may not be costeffective to construct an ASR well to enhance capacity
that might be needed for only a couple of days per year.
Additionally, aboveground storage may be more economical for managing short-term variations in water demand.
In addition, ASR cannot serve some functions, such as
fire flow.
Useful Storage
Injection of freshwater into an aquifer does not necessarily result in a water resources benefit. To be of hydrologic
value, ASR must create a water resource that would not
otherwise be available. In other words, injection of freshwater must result in useful storage of freshwater. An ASR
system can be conceptualized as an underground tank
of water. ASR systems can be subdivided into two types
based on tank walls: physically bounded systems and
chemically bounded systems. In physically bounded systems, tank walls are the aquifer’s boundaries. In a chemically bounded ASR system, tank walls are the boundaries
76 between stored freshwater and ambient water of lesser
quality, commonly of higher salinity.
An ASR system that stores freshwater in an unconfined
aquifer within an intermontane basin is an example of
a physically bounded system. Useful storage occurs by
increasing the water level (head) within the aquifer. For
useful storage to have occurred, water levels in the ASR
well and nearby monitoring wells should be significantly
higher several days or weeks after the end of injection,
compared with water levels before the start of injection. If
the water level does not significantly increase, then useful
storage has not occurred; the injected water leaked out of
the system (Figure 2).
Chemically bounded ASR systems store freshwater
in unused aquifers that contain poor quality or brackish
water. Freshwater injection results in useful storage by
displacing the native water. The injection of freshwater
creates a new freshwater resource that can be exploited
in the future. Technical design issues include achieving
acceptable recovery efficiencies and avoiding fluid-rock
interactions, such as trace element leaching, which can
render stored water unusable or require expensive posttreatment.
The hydrologic benefits of ASR systems that inject
freshwater into freshwater aquifers that are not locally,
physically bounded are more questionable. Injection of
freshwater into a regional freshwater aquifer may not
yield any local hydrologic benefits. Injection of water into
an aquifer locally increases heads in a manner analogous
to a decrease in heads that occur during well pumping.
When injection is terminated, pressure buildup dissipates
in the same manner and at the approximate rate as water
levels recover when pumping is terminated.
A lack of useful storage in regional confined aquifers is
illustrated by 3-D groundwater modeling of a hypothetical
ASR system in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of South Florida. The model incorporated hydraulic data from the vicinity of Clewiston, Fla. (Figure 3). After injecting 200 mil
gal (757,000 m3), ASR well water levels were modeled to
have risen 11.30 ft (3.44 m). Water levels returned to near
preinjection levels after 30 days of storage and dropped
to 11.26 ft (3.43 m) below static level after recovering the
200 mil gal. In this modeled scenario, injecting 200 mil
gal did not achieve any benefits as far as water levels.
There was no residual head build-up from injection. If
local or cumulative drawdowns during dry periods are
of concern, operating an ASR system may exacerbate the
problem.
Irrespective of hydrologic benefits, an ASR system may
still be worthwhile to an owner and operator if it results
in regulatory storage. In some regulatory jurisdictions,
IDA J o u r n a l | S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 w w w . idad e sa l . o r g
Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.
It is imperative that all parties involved in an ASR
project agree on project goals, realistic expectations,
and success criteria at the start of the project.
Figure 3. Two-layered model of the Upper Floridan Aquifer
B
A
C
+1
80,000 ft
-1
80,000 ft
80,000 ft
Initial heads in both layers were assigned a value of 0 ft. The model boundary (marked in the dark blue box) is a no-flow model. The contour interval is 1 ft
(0.3 m).
A. Heads after 100 days of injection at 2 mgd (7,571 m3): Maximum head at the ASR well is 11.30 ft (3.44 m).
B. Heads after 30 days of storage: Maximum head at the ASR well is 0.9 ft (0.3 m). The small residual head is due largely to model boundary effects.
C. Heads after 100 days of recovery at 2 mgd (7,571 m3): Maximum drawdown at the ASR well is 11.26 ft (3.43 m). Comparing head build-ups after
injection and drawdowns after an identical recovery period shows that injection had no benefit on water levels during recovery. The ASR system behaved
identically to a purely extractive recovery well. If no water was injected at all, the same impacts would occur during recovery.
water injection into an aquifer confers the right to later
withdraw the water when needed. In an aquifer that is
fully allocated, ASR system operation may be the only
way a utility would be allowed to withdraw additional
water during peak-demand periods, under the concept
that operating the ASR system is neutral within the context of a long-term aquifer water budget (Maliva and Missimer, 2008).
Technical Issues
The fundamental objective of an ASR system is to recover
a high percentage of injected water at a quality that is
ready to be put to beneficial use, or for which posttreatment requirements are minimal. ASR system performance
is usually expressed in terms of recovery efficiency, which
is commonly defined as the volume of water recovered
divided by the volume of water injected for an operational
cycle (injection–storage–recovery cycle). ASR system recovery may proceed until some water quality threshold
is reached, which is commonly a drinking water standard, such as that for chloride or total dissolved solids
(TDS). For systems in which recovered water is put to a
nonpotable use, recovery may continue beyond drinking
water standards, which allows for higher system recovery
efficiencies.
A common misunderstanding is that ASR system recovery efficiency should be close to 100 percent, and
systems that achieve recovery efficiencies less than
100 percent are unsuccessful and waste water. ASR systems that store freshwater in freshwater storage zones
inherently can have recovery efficiencies of 100 percent
because there are typically no technical constraints on
how much water can be pumped out of the system. The
challenge with injecting freshwater into freshwater ASR
systems is achieving useful storage. In ASR systems that
store freshwater in brackish-water or saline-water aquifers, recovery efficiency will usually be less than 100
percent, unless the storage-zone aquifer contains water
that is only marginally brackish (chloride concentration
is less than 500 mg/L). The recovery efficiency of ASR
systems using brackish-water aquifers tends to asymptotically approach a system-specific maximum value
over their operational histories, which depends on local
hydrogeology.
The criteria used to evaluate ASR system success is
whether it provides needed water when demand exceeds
supply at less cost than other storage options. Implicit
in this definition is that ASR system success is not tied to
a universal recovery efficiency standard. An ASR system
with a modest recovery efficiency can still be a success if
it provides needed water at a competitive cost compared
with other options. For example, a system that achieves a
70 percent recovery efficiency may provide cost-effective
supplemental water during peak-demand periods but
still be viewed as a failure if the owner and operator
were incorrectly led to believe the system should have a
w w w . idad e sa l . o r g S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 | IDA J o u r n a l Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.
77
Resource Management
Figure 4. A heterogeneous ASR storage zone
100 percent recovery efficiency.
Therefore, it is imperative that
ASR Well
all parties involved in an ASR
project agree on project goals,
External Confinement
realistic expectations, and success criteria at the start of the
project.
Low-Transmissivity Zone
Water lost to an ASR system
Internal
that achieves less than 100 perConfinement
Mixing Zone
cent recovery efficiency should be
viewed as a normal operational
High-Transmissivity
Stored
expense. In systems that seasonZone
Freshwater
ally store excess surface water
Native Brackish
Water
flows, water lost may have gone to
Groundwater Flow Direction
waste anyway. The actual cost of
water lost to an ASR system is the
External Confinement
incremental operational cost to
treat and pump the water, which
Freshwater will preferentially enter high-transmissivity flow zones. Relatively low transmissivity strata
is typically a small fraction of the
will receive relatively little freshwater and act as internal confining units to the flow zones. Water in the
cost to produce additional water
flow zones will migrate at a more rapid rate under prevailing ambient hydraulic gradients.
during peak-demand periods from
other sources.
The potential recovery efficiency of an ASR system de- storage zone aquifer can result in excessive mixing and
pends on site-specific hydrogeology. The metaphoric ASR migration of stored water.
A major geochemical problem identified in some ASR
bubble has been burst with a realization that ASR systems
are more physically and chemically complex than concep- systems in recent years is leaching of trace elements into
tualized in the past (Vacher et al, 2006; Maliva et al, 2006). stored water, particularly arsenic. Arsenic concentrations
All aquifers are heterogeneous. Aquifers contain zones of reported in some ASR systems have exceeded applicable
relatively high transmissivity, which would receive a dis- water quality standards. Arsenic leaching has become
proportionate volume of injected water, and less trans- more of a regulatory concern with lowering of USEPA’s
missive zones that would receive relatively little water maximum contaminant level (MCL) from 0.050 mg/L to
and provide internal confinement within the storage zone 0.010 mg/L, which resulted in more systems violating
(Figure 4). Rather than being bubble-shaped, stored fresh- MCLs. Increased arsenic concentrations appear to be
water in an heterogeneous aquifer can be more accurately caused primarily by oxidation and dissolution of finely disdescribed as being shaped like an upside-down Christmas seminated arsenic-bearing pyrite, although other sources
may also contribute arsenic (Stuyfzand, 1998; Arthur et al,
tree or bottle brush (Missimer et al, 2002; Vacher et al,
2001, 2002, 2005, and 2007). Exceeding arsenic MCL may
2006).
Aquifer heterogeneity and fluid-rock interactions can result in recovered water not being usable without treatgreatly impact ASR system performance. Groundwater ment to remove the arsenic or blending with water with
modeling studies have been conducted to evaluate the im- lower arsenic concentrations. From a regulatory perspecportance of various hydrogeologic factors on ASR system tive, arsenic leaching in excess of the MCL violates USEPA
performance (Maliva et al, 2005 and 2006). Salinity of the underground injection control rules in that underground
native ambient water and dispersivity of the storage zone injection is causing contamination of potential underaquifer have a great impact on recovery efficiency. As ground sources of drinking water.
salinity increases, lesser amounts of mixing of ambient
and stored water may occur before the stored water ex- Natural AquiferTreatment and Regulatory Requirements
ceeds a water quality threshold. Higher salinities also re- Operational and experimental results indicate that consult in greater convective movement of stored water in centrations of some contaminants [e.g., disinfection byresponse to density gradients. Aquifer heterogeneity can products (DBPs)], nutrients, and microorganisms are
also adversely affect ASR system recovery efficiency. The decreased by natural inorganic and microbiological
presence of high-transmissivity flow zones within the processes during storage (Pyne, 2002; McQuarrie and
78 IDA J o u r n a l | S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 w w w . idad e sa l . o r g
Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.
As water shortages become more common and
severe, it will be more important to improve all aspects
of ASR system implementation and regulation.
Carlson, 2003, Pavelic et al, 2005). This attenuation process has been referred to as natural aquifer treatment. The
occurrence of natural aquifer treatment processes has implications for ASR system regulation and operation. If the
concentration of a water quality parameter will be reduced
quickly during storage, a requirement that the injected
water meet the water quality standard for the parameter
at the ASR wellhead would be unnecessarily restrictive.
A more appropriate approach would be to set a water
quality compliance point at monitoring wells located at
the perimeter of a zone of discharge (ZOD) for the ASR
wellfield (Pyne, 2002).
Natural aquifer treatment could be used as an integral
component of treatment processes for reclaimed or surface water. Water could be stored in an ASR system with
the intended purpose of improving water quality by, for
example, removing nutrients, DBPs and DBP precursors,
and pathogenic microorganisms. Experimental and field
studies have shown that many emerging contaminants
are removed in a groundwater environment (Khan and
Rorije, 2002). However, consideration should be given to
the political ramifications of natural aquifer treatment.
Strong public and political opposition may arise to injecting contaminated water in what is perceived to be pristine
potable water sources. Therefore, it is recommended that
natural aquifer treatment not be pursued in aquifers used
locally for potable water supply.
From a technical perspective, the concept of natural
aquifer treatment makes good sense; however, it is contrary to US regulatory policy—virtually all aquifers containing less than 10,000 mg/L of TDS are considered to
be underground sources of drinking water, irrespective
of whether there is a realistic prospect of the aquifer ever
being used for potable water supply without desalination.
Australia has adopted a more enlightened approach in
that the level of protection of each groundwater resource
is related to actual potential beneficial uses of the ambient
groundwater (Dillon and Pavelic, 1996, 1998), which may
be other than potable supply.
The assumption of potable use for all aquifers containing brackish water may greatly increase the costs of
implementing ASR projects that store nonpotable water by
requiring additional pretreatment to meet MCLs. There is
no valid technical reason for injected water to be required
to meet drinking water standards for microorganisms and
DBPs when there is no prospect for the injected water
to enter the potable supply and contaminant concentrations in most ASR systems are naturally attenuated during
storage. The need to meet DBP MCLs may necessitate expensive pretreatment of surface water for organic carbon
removal and ultraviolet disinfection (CH2M HILL, 2003),
when only a hypochlorite feed may otherwise be sufficient.
Ever-increasing regulatory requirements for ASR systems are making the technology less cost-effective, with
the potential of its benefits to provide a sustainable longterm water supply lost to society. A more practical solution would be to adopt the concept of aquifer zoning, in
which it is recognized that in some geographic locations
the best use of an aquifer may be as an ASR storage zone
and in other areas an aquifer should be reserved for potable supply (Missimer, 2004). In areas zoned for ASR, ASR
system pretreatment and monitoring requirements would
be modest, because there are no public health concerns.
In other areas zoned for potable supply, aquifers would
receive a much higher level of protection.
Enhancing System Success
The potential contributions of ASR toward developing a
sustainable global water supply are compelling because
no other technology can provide large-scale storage at a
comparable cost and minimal land requirement. ASR can
be used to capture and store seasonally available fresh
surface water and desalted and reclaimed water during
low-demand periods. ASR can optimize the construction
and operation of desalination facilities by providing freshwater to meet peaks in demand and thus avoid construction of desalination capacity that may be used for only a
short time each year.
However, ASR has limitations. ASR systems differ in
their water resources benefits (i.e., degree of useful storage) and do not always work as anticipated. For any ASR
project, there is a definite, difficult-to-quantify risk that
a system may not meet expectations. The risk element
stems from ASR system performance depending on sitespecific hydrogeologic conditions, which often cannot be
characterized adequately in advance of construction and
testing of a pilot ASR system. Risks can be reduced by more
thorough investigation early in an ASR project, such as
during an exploratory well program.
Explosive growth in the number of ASR systems
constructed during the past 15 years and ASR-related
research projects provide a wealth of information that can
enhance the probability of new system success. Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency to trumpet successes
and bury failures. A well-known engineering adage says
that one learns more from failures than successes. As
water shortages become more common and severe, it will
be more important to improve all aspects of ASR system
implementation and regulation to obtain maximum value
from technology toward providing a sustainable long-term
water supply.
w w w . idad e sa l . o r g S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 | IDA J o u r n a l Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.
79
Resource Management
About the Authors
Maliva, R.G. and Missimer, T.M., 2008. ASR, useful storage, and the myth
of residual pressure. Ground Water, 46:171.
Missimer, T.M., 2004. Future use of the Floridan Aquifer System: the
concept of aquifer zoning. Proc of the Florida Section, AWWA. St.
Cloud, Fla.
Missimer, T.M.; Guo, W.; Walker, C.W.; and Maliva, R.G., 2002. Hydraulic
and density considerations in the design of aquifer storage and
recovery systems. Florida Water Resources Journal, 55:2:30–36.
McQuarrie, J.P. and Carlson, K., 2003. Secondary benefits of aquifer
storage and recovery: disinfection by-product control. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 129:412–418.
Pavelic, P.; Nicholson, B.C.; Dillon, P.J.; and Barry, K.E., 2005. Fate
of disinfection by-products in groundwater aquifer storage and
recovery with reclaimed water. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,
77:351–373.
Pyne, R.D.G., 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Fla.
Pyne, R.D.G., 2002. Aquifer storage recovery wells: the path ahead.
Florida Water Resources Journal, February 2002:19-27.
Rinck-Pfeiffer, S.; Pitman, C.; and Dillon, P., 2005. Stormwater ASR in
practice and ASTR (aquifer storage transfer and recovery) under
investigation in Salisbury, South Australia. Proc. Fifth International
Symposium on Management of Aquifer Recharge, United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, IHP-VI, Series of
Groundwater, Berlin.
Stuyfzand, P.J., 1998. Quality Changes Upon Injection into Anoxic
Aquifers in The Netherlands: Evaluation of 11 Experiments (J.H.
Peters et al, editors). Artificial Recharge in Groundwater, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. The Class V Underground
Injection Control Study, Volume 21, Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer
Storage and Recovery Wells. Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, EPA/816-R-99-014u, p. 71.
Vacher, H.L.; Hutchings, W.C.; and Budd, D.A., 2006. Metaphors and
Models: The ASR bubble in the Floridan Aquifer. Ground Water,
44:144–154.
Robert G. Maliva ([email protected]) and Thomas M.
Missimer are with Schlumberger Water Services USA, Fort Myers, Fla.
Missimer is also a member of IDA Journal’s Peer-Review Editorial Board.
References
Arthur, J.D.; Cowart, J.B.; Dabous, A.A., 2001. Florida Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Geochemical Study: Year Three Progress Report. Florida Geol.
Surv., Open File Report 83.
Arthur, J.D.; Dabous, A.A.; and Cowart, J.B., 2005. Water-Rock Geochemical
Considerations for Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Florida Case Studies in
Underground Injection Science and Technology, Developments in Water
Sciences (C.-F. Tsang and J.A. Apps, editors). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Arthur, J.D.; Dabous, A.A.; and Cowart, J.B., 2002. Mobilization of
Arsenic and Other Trace Elements During Aquifer Storage and
Recovery, Southwest Florida. US Geological Survey Artificial Recharge
Workshop Proceedings (G.R. Aiken and E.L. Kuniansky, editors). USGS,
Sacramento, Calif.
Arthur, J.D.; Dabous, A.A.; and Fischler, C., 2007. Aquifer storage and
recovery in Florida: geochemical assessment of potential storage
zones (P. Fox, editor). Proc. Sixth International Symposium of Managed
Artificial Recharge of Groundwater (ISMAR6), Phoenix, Ariz.
CH2M HILL, 2003. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot Project Surface
Water Facilities Design for Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Canal Sites.
Technical Memorandum prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Dillon, P. and Pavelic, P., 1996. Guidelines on the quality of stormwater
and treated wastewater for injection into aquifers for storage and
reuse. Urban Water Resource Association of Australia Research Report
No. 109:48.
Dillon, P.J. and Pavelic, P., 1998. Environmental guidelines for aquifer
storage and recovery: Australian experience (J.H. Peters et al, editors).
Artificial Recharge of Groundwater: Balkema, Rotterdam.
Khan, S.J. and Rorije, E., 2002. Pharmaceutically active compounds
in aquifer storage and recovery (P.J. Dillon, editor). Management of
Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability, Balkema, Lisse.
Maliva, R.G.; Guo, W.; and Missimer, T.M., 2005. Hydrogeology of Aquifer
Storage and Recovery System Performance. Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, 55:474–485.
Maliva, R.G.; Guo, W.; and Missimer, T.M., 2006. Aquifer Storage and
Recovery: Recent Hydrogeological Advances and System Performance.
Water Environment Research, 78:2428–2435.
80 Editor’s Note
This article is a peer-reviewed version of a paper presented at AWWA’s
Sustainable Water Sources: Conservation and Resource Planning
Conference and Exposition, Feb. 10–13 2008, Reno, Nev.
IDA J o u r n a l | S e c o n d Q u a r t e r 2010 w w w . idad e sa l . o r g
Copyright © 2010 by IDA and AWWA. All rights reserved.