HydroVisions | Fall 2021 by HydroVisions

VOLUME THIRTY FALL 2021

V.30

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

2 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS is the official publication of the Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRA). GRA’s mailing address is 808 R ST STE 209, Sacramento, CA 95811. Any questions or comments concerning this publication should be directed to the newsletter editor at editor@grac. org or faxed to (916) 231-2141. The Groundwater Resources Association of California is dedicated to resource management that protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership Editor Rodney Fricke editor@grac.org Editorial Board Steve Phillips John McHugh Adam Hutchinson David Von Aspern Executive Officers President Abigail Madrone West Yost Associates Tel: 530-756-5905 Vice-President R.T. Van Valer Roscoe Moss Company Tel: 323-263-4111 Secretary John McHugh Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers Tel: 530-207-5750 Treasurer Rodney Fricke GEI Consultants Tel: 916-631-4500 Officer in Charge of Special Projects Christy Kennedy Woodard & Curran Tel: 925-627-4122 Immediate Past President Steven Phillips, Retired U.S. Geological Survey Tel: 916-278-3002 Administrative Director Sarah Erck GRA Tel: 916-446-3626

Directors Jena Acos Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Tel: 805-882-1427 Lyndsey Bloxom Water Replenishment District of Southern CA Tel: 562-921-5521 Erik Cadaret Water Systems Consulting Tel Office: 949-528-0960 x602 Murray Einarson Haley & Aldrich Tel: 530-752-1130 Lisa Porta Montgomery & Associates Tel: 916-661-8389 Bill DeBoer Montgomery & Associates Tel: 925-212-1630 John Xiong Haley & Aldrich Tel: 714-371-1800 Todd Jarvis Institute for Water & Watersheds, Oregon State University Tel: 541-737-4032 James Strandberg Woodard & Curran Tel: 925-627-4122 To contact any GRA Officer or Director by email, go to www.grac.org/board-of-directors

The statements and opinions expressed in GRA’s HydroVisions and other publications are those of the authors and/or contributors, and are not necessarily those of the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members. Further, GRA makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this publication and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents. No warranty of any kind, implied or expressed, or statutory, is given with respect to the contents of this publication or its references to other resources. Reference in this publication to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members.

2021 Fall Issue

V.30

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

President’s Message

Page 6

PFAS Monitoring In Development

Page 18

WGC 2021

Page 8

Wells and Words

Page 22

The Geochemist’s Gallery

Page 10

California Grower Uses VFD Technology

Page 26

So, You’re Interested in ASR?

Page 14

GRA Parting Shot

Page 30

THANK YOU TO OUR GRA DONORS

December 2020 - August 2021 William Sedlak, Thomas Harter, Richard Makdisi, Jason Duda, Eric Reichard, Dean Thomas, David Lipson, Mark Peterson, Julie Johnson, Mike Huggins, Nathan Hatch, Douglas Tolley, Joseph LeClaire, Gordon Osterman, Roger Masuda & Heather Jackson

4 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

We are ready to assist you with your groundwater needs • Hydrogeologic Studies and Monitoring • Geotechnical Studies and Projects • SGMA Plans, Projects and Management Actions • ASR, Production and Monitoring Wells • Managed Aquifer Recharge Planning, Design, and Construction • Aquifer/Basin Characterization • Water Budget Analysis • Groundwater/Surface Water Modeling • GIS/Data Management System • Exchange, Storage and Transfer Agreements • Regulatory Compliance • Groundwater Governance • Outreach and Facilitation • Website Development and Hosting

Contact Us Today. Chris Petersen 530.304.3330 cpetersen@geiconsultants.com Rodney Fricke 916.407.8539 rfricke@geiconsultants.com

geiconsultants.com 2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

President’s Message

ABIGAIL MADRONE

Abigail Madrone, Business Development Director with West Yost. Throughout her 20 year career, Abigail has served and supported groundwater and water resources management through groundwater monitoring and analysis, project and program management and public outreach and education.

GRA and our dedicated members continue to excel in our ability to adapt.

President’s Message

We are facing extraordinary and rapid change due to the ongoing pandemic while constantly defining new rhythms and routines in our lives. Despite living and operating with so many unknowns, GRA remains agile, creative, and innovative in how we advance resource management that protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership. GRA and our dedicated members continue to excel in our ability to adapt. GRA leadership from the Board of Directors to Branch Officers successfully navigated a hybrid board meeting and strategic planning retreat in San Luis Obispo on August 5-6, 2021. We made the most of our virtual meeting tools, practiced patience and reveled in the opportunity to meet with our GRA peers both through the computer screen and in person. The hybrid experiment paid off and we were able to accommodate the needs of our Board members and balance the needs of leading our exceptional organization.

6 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

President’s Message

We look forward to our first in-person event, the 4th Annual Western Groundwater Congress (WGC) on September 13th – 15th, in Burbank, California, chaired by Lyndsey Bloxom, GRA Director. The WGC will be a unique time to celebrate meeting with friends and colleagues after many months and building new industry connections. The WGC is a unique and must attend event for water resource and groundwater professionals featuring diverse tracks and panels to engage and spark interest from water resource professionals of all levels and backgrounds. We are also looking towards the future, and now is the time to consider supporting GRA as our next generation of leaders. Our volunteer leaders guide our strategic vision and serve our organization at the Branch, Committee, or Board level. 3 Ways to Become a GRA Volunteer • Get engaged with your local Branch by contacting your regional Branch President • Explore potential committee opportunities by contacting Committee Chairs • Interested in volunteering, but unsure who to contact, please reach out to me, amadrone@westyost.com If you or someone you know would be an exceptional candidate for consideration to join the GRA Board, please review the minimum criteria below and refer to the online nomination form to learn more about the process and procedures. Board member terms are for three years and will commence service January 1, 2022. GRA believes that diverse representation and participation on the Board adds significant value to the association and GRA’s relevance and effectiveness are enhanced by embracing all backgrounds. GRA Board Nomination Minimum Qualifications • Active member of GRA at the time of nomination • Experience in a groundwater-related field • Prior role(s) in a GRA Branch, committee or other GRA activity, or like experience with a similar organization. Visit our website grac.org , engage with us on social media or check your inbox for upcoming announcements and details on these and other great events. Stay informed to the latest developments and technology though GRACasts and short courses to help advance your career. We are grateful for you, our members, sponsors, affiliates, volunteers, and leaders. See you all at the 4th Annual Western Groundwater Congress! Best Regards,

- Abigail Madrone, 2020 GRA President

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

LYNDSEY BLOXOM Lyndsey Bloxom is a Senior Water Resources Analyst with the Water Replenishment District and joined the GRA Board of Directors in 2020. Lyndsey’s role with the District includes management of water supply and groundwater resiliency planning efforts, strategic planning and new program initiation, and development of project budgets and outside funding streams. Lyndsey has a BS in Geology and Environmental Science from the College of William and Mary and a MS in Hydrogeology from Virginia Tech. When not planning future WRD and GRA efforts, Lyndsey spends her time rock hounding and camping in the desert or flying kites on the beach.

The 2021 Western Groundwater Congress: The Hollywood Sequel! We are so excited to finally see you in person in Hollywood September 13-15, 2021 for the upcoming Fourth Annual Western Groundwater Congress (WGC)! Online registration is closed but onsite registration will be available, space permitting. This year’s WGC will retain many of the engaging and educational aspects of past events with the addition of a bigger, more diverse planning team and an expanded technical program that aims to look forward, focusing on innovation and emerging challenges in our industry. Key Program Components will include: • Water Resources Exploration and Development • Groundwater Management • Contaminant Assessment and Remediation • Unique Challenges and New Opportunities • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Groundwater • Academic & Student Research The WGC will also include numerous opportunities for networking and learning collaboratively!

8 HYDROVISIONS

Optimization of Remediation

The 2021 WGC: A Hollywood Blockbuster Sequel!

2020 Winter Issue

Workshops, panels, receptions, and interactive lunch events will provide opportunity for you to grow your network and expand your professional horizons. Our annual health initiatives, including the Darcy 5K Dash and 7-minute break-time workouts, will keep your energy up and your mind open. Please visit the event page for more information. Workshops Join us for 2 great workshops on Tuesday, September 14th! First, the Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater (CalGW) Update 2020 team will provide an update on the finalization of the report, including summarizing the public comments that were received, and discuss next steps for CalGW. This will be followed by a demonstration of a new CalGW Live website and suite of online tools that allows users to easily explore, access, and interact with current groundwater data in California. Following that is the return of GROUNDWATERx! The GROUNDWATERx workshop provides students and recent graduates (within past 12 months) who are conducting research related to groundwater an opportunity to present their research to a diverse audience of water industry professionals. The presentation portion of GROUNDWATERx is a “TEDx” style event consisting of 3-minute presentations with one – five slides. Following the presentations, there will be individualized and accessible networking and direct access to prospective employers who are actively hiring Health & Safety The WGC Planning Committee has been hard at work to ensure we are following local county and CDC guidelines to make the return to an in-person event safe and responsible, and we’re going above and beyond those protocols to ensure your personal comfort. For more information about our Health & Safety Measures and our COVID policy, please check out the conference web page.

2020 Winter Issue

HYDROVISIONS

The Geochemist’s Gallery WILLIAM E. (BILL) MOTZER William E. (Bill) Motzer, PHD, PG, CHG, is a somewhat retired Forensic Geochemist

Toxic Terra PART FOUR

The Geochemist’s Gallery

In Part 3 (Summer 2021 HydroVisions), I described the continuing problems associated with arsenic in California’s Central Valley groundwater and possible geochemical factors responsible for arsenic accumulation in Central Valley’s sediments. However, arsenic-contaminated groundwater is a worldwide problem, as indicated by a 2007 study that determined that at least 140 million people in more than 50 countries are affected by arsenic, including populations in Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Nepal, Taiwan, and the USA. Significant and serious arsenic-contaminated groundwater exist in countries inhabiting the Ganges Delta (i.e., West Bengal, India, and Bangladesh), because their drinking water was largely supplied from tube wells, which inadvertently supplied arsenic-contaminated shallow groundwater and subsequent poisoning of large populations. In the 1970s, thousands of these affordably priced (about $100 each) shallow tube wells were dug, providing drinking water free of viruses, bacteria, and parasites commonly found in streams and rivers. However, at that time, it was not suspected that the shallow groundwater might contain high arsenic because the “new” water had not been adequately analyzed. This naturally-occurring arsenic was first detected in 1993 by the Bangladesh Department of Public Health Engineering, and it may have been slowly released from sediments by complex geochemical and biogeochemical processes.

10 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

The Geochemist’s Gallery

Figure 1: Arsenic concentrations shallow groundwater in Bangladesh. Source .British Geological Survey, 2001, Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater in Bangladesh.

Evidence of arsenic poisoning soon became apparent. In Bangladesh, the situation was devastating with at least half of the 7 to 11 million hand pumped tube wells supplying groundwater with arsenic concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per liter (µg/L). [The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended maximum contaminant level (MCL) is 10 µg/L.] An estimated 80 million people were affected; additional investigations determined that about 20 of the 80 million people in Bangladesh used tube well pumped contaminated groundwater with arsenic with concentrations greater than 50 µg/L (Figure 1). However, according to the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, groundwater arsenic concentrations may range between 150 and 200 µ/L in districts surrounding West Bengal. A 2003 nationwide survey covering 57,482 villages indicated that of 4.95 million tube wells, 1.44 million had arsenic contaminated groundwater. Additional studies estimated that one in ten persons would probably develop cancer from arsenic-contaminated water consumption. To alleviate this problem, both government and nongovernment organizations capped and/or placed warnings on the tube wells and subsequently installed several hundred thousand deep wells with depths greater than 150 meters. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

Arsenic contamination sources continue to be a hotly debated subject: in the Ganges Delta, where arsenic-containing groundwater occurs in shallow depths ranging from approximately 10 to 70 meters. Groundwater from depths greater than 150 meters usually contains less arsenic and therefore can be used as a sustainable drinking water source. This is because several relatively impermeable clay aquitards separate the shallow aquifer from the deeper aquifers. Arsenic contamination in shallow groundwater may be from three possible sources:

The Geochemist’s Gallery

1) Arsenic-bearing sulfides such as arsenopyrite (FeAsS), which is also suspected to be the contributing contaminant in California’s Central Valley. However, Ganges Delta sediments are largely composed of sand-size particles consisting of quartz (SiO2) with minor amounts of mica. Hydrous ferrous oxides (HFOs) coat these quartz and mica sediment particles, and studies in other regions with similar arsenic-contaminated sediments have shown that arsenic is readily sorbed to such HFOs.

The Geochemist Gallery

Figure 2: Skin lesions caused by chronic arsenic exposure from drinking water. Photo from; http:// www.unicef.org/bangladesh/wes_385.htm.

12 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

2) Release of arsenic from the HFOs may be enhanced by microbial reduction of HFOs because degradable organic carbon is available from peat layers within the sediments. This microbiologically reductive dissolution allows release of the arsenic with production of bicarbonate, which may further exacerbate the arsenic release. 3) Additional studies suggest that massive groundwater irrigation and withdrawal may also lead to surface-derived organic matter being drawn down into the aquifer systems, thereby accelerating arsenic release or the arsenic adsorbed to the HFOs is released by ion exchange of phosphates derived from fertilizer applications. Arsenic speciation analytical studies of tube well groundwater indicated that both As(III) and As(V) occur but As(III) predominates. As indicated in Part 2 (Spring 2021 HydroVisions) As(III) is more toxic than As(V). Ingestion of arsenic-contaminated groundwater results in chronic arsenic exposure and poisoning, also known as arsenocosis, which is associated with many human health problems, including both human non-cancer and human cancer diseases. Non-cancer diseases include skin lesions (Figure 2) and neurological disorders such as impaired cognitive development in children. Other diseases include cardiovascular disorders and disabilities such as atherosclerosis, cerebrovascular diseases, ischemic heart disease, and diabetes. Reproductive outcomes from maternal arsenic exposure are associated with fetal loss, small birth sizes, and infant morbidity and mortality. Cancers of the liver, lung, bladder, and skin are common to such arsenic exposures. In future articles on natural contaminants, I’ll discuss additional elements causing natural soil and groundwater contamination and toxicity.

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

TREVOR KENT GEI Consultants

(530) 844-1659 | tkent@geiconsultants.com

CHRIS PETERSEN GEI Consultants

(530) 304-3330 | Cpetersen@geiconsultants.com

Let’s talk money. Costs are an important consideration when starting an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program as ASR wells are more expensive than standard supply wells and require more oversight and maintenance. However, ASR wells offer the ability to store water and maximize conjunctive use that a standard well doesn’t provide. Furthermore, depending on the groundwater program, they may not differ too much in construction and cost compared to a standard supply well. For this article, we will discuss the costs of construction and developing an ASR program, and focus on:

Recharge Project

So, You’re Interested in ASR? Part III – How Much is This Going to Cost?

1. Required components for an ASR well and their costs, and how these costs compare to standard supply wells.

So, You’re Interested in ASR?

2. General scaling of costs associated with ASR program development. Because there is such variability in well construction and management of groundwater programs across the State, we are going to take a highlevel look at costs. This article will serve to provide a general idea of the magnitude of ASR program costs and how these expenses will change over time. Construction Costs ASR wells are similar in construction and function to standard water supply wells, the difference between the two wells being an ASR wells capacity to push drinking water into the aquifer. Figure 1

14 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

Figure 2

This attribute requires some modifications in both aboveground and belowground construction, but not as many as you might think. Figure 1 illustrates the necessary aboveground modifications for an ASR well. An injection loop, with an additional gate valve, allows operators the flexibility to push water from the distribution system to the well. A bidirectional flow meter, placed on the well-head side of the injection loop, allows for measurement of water both to and from the well. These modifications are both minor costs and range between $5,000 to $10,000 in total.

Remote control of the ASR operation via Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) is also an important aboveground facilities consideration. SCADA allows for increased automation and safety measures to shut off injection based on various metrics such as water levels and well performance. SCADA can be an expensive line item (in the tens of thousands of dollars), but most water supply systems already have some sort of SCADA program established which would require relatively minor modifications for ASR wells.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

For belowground construction, three main components are necessary for an ASR well: stainless steel casing and screen, a flow control device, and a high-quality filter pack (such as silica beads1). Figure 2 illustrates each component, its cost, and role in well design is discussed below. Figure 3 illustrates the comparison in overall construction costs between a standard supply well, a state-of-the-art supply well, and an ASR well. Again, it is difficult to compare costs as standard well designs vary so much between programs. However, if we look mainly at those components necessary for well operations, we see that an ASR well represents a 15% to 20% increase compared to a standard supply well and a 5% increase in costs compared to a stateof-the-art well. The state-of-the-art well would use material such as stainless steel and already have some SCADA integration. These types of wells are becoming more of the standard design and, as we can see, are not much different from an ASR well in cost. Program Development Costs Now that we’ve looked at costs for construction of an individual well, it’s time to assess ASR program development. We will look at the main categories of costs and how they scale over phased program implementation. Costs for an ASR program can be categorized as planning, capital, and operations and maintenance (O&M). Our hypothetical ASR program development will follow these three phases: Phase I: Initial planning, which includes an assessment of aquifer conditions, water supply for recharge, and impacts of ASR on the aquifer system.

So, You’re Interested in ASR?

Phase II: Field testing, CEQA documentation, and reporting to the State Water Resources Control Board for permitting. This phase includes pilot testing for design of an expanded program. Phase III: Program operation and expansion for the construction of ASR wells and development of an operations program including routine O&M. 1 Silica beads in theory improve well performance; however, operators have seen mixed results in comparison to standard filter pack.

16 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

Figure 4

Figure 4 and Table 1 show the relative costs for each phase and cost category (planning, capital, O&M) for buildout of a hypothetical ASR program over 10 years. We have assumed that new wells would be constructed every other year. Again, these costs are simplified for relative comparison.

We see that over the 10-year implementation period, capital costs are by far the greatest. However, capital costs remain consistent and are spread out over program development, ending at buildout. While a large part of program costs, we did observe earlier that they are not vastly greater than a standard supply well. The second greatest cost is O&M, which scale up as the program grows and a standard operations plan is developed. Ideally, these costs will stabilize at buildout but will continue throughout the life of the program. O&M costs include general well operations, regular backwashing maintenance, and well rehabilitation. Finally, planning is the smallest piece of the pie and remain steady through the life of the program and include the initial pilot study, permitting and regulatory activities, and any future ASR studies. Overall, we saw that construction of an ASR will represents approximately a 16% increase over a standard supply well and only a 5% increase over a more state-of-the-art well. During program development, capital costs are the largest incurred while O&M and planning costs are much smaller yet continue throughout ASR implementation. Remember, costs are highly variable by region and groundwater program, and costs presented in this article are for planning purposes only. Come back next quarter for our discussion of ASR regulations, the final article in this series.

Disclaimer: Costs for well construction and program development as discussed in this article were compiled as part of the 2019 ASR Information Study for the Regional Water Authority and may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and drought.

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

PFAS Monitoring In Development: Guidance and Resources ABHISHEK SINGH JIM STRANDBERG CHRISTINE PHAM MARNA PARSLOW

Introduction: The state of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) science, practice, and regulation continues to develop at a rapid pace across the United States and internationally. PFAS compounds present unique challenges for professionals involved in site characterization and monitoring. This article highlights current regulatory standards, guidance, practices, regional efforts, research developments, and data sources to aid in site characterization and monitoring efforts.

PFAS Monitoring

Regulatory Standards and Guidance for PFAS in Aqueous Media The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulatory or guidance initiatives for PFAS in aqueous media. Values for PFAS in groundwater, drinking water, and surface water/effluent (wastewater) were last updated in May 2021. However, EPA has yet to identify PFAS as a hazardous waste or substance and establish Maximum Contaminant Levels. As a result, 27 states developed standards or guidance for PFOA and, in most states, for PFOS in drinking water and/or

18 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

PFAS Monitoring In Development:

groundwater. California has developed its Notification Levels of 0.005 and 0.007 µg/L and Response Levels of 0.010 and 0.040 µg/L, respectively for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, while other states have established lower levels. Regulations are changing frequently with the latest PFAS science available; therefore, it is important to reference resources like the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a valuable clearinghouse of information for public and private sector stakeholders. In 2020, ITRC published PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document and Fact Sheets PFAS-11. Section 8 of the document is particularly useful as it describes established health-based values and evaluation criteria for various federal and state regulatory programs, providing updated tables of PFAS water and soil values and the basis for PFOA and PFOS values in the United States2. Reviewing these types of datasets help inform site characterization and field monitoring. Sampling and Analysis Methods Because PFAS is ubiquitous in the environment, stringent measures must be considered prior to sample collection, and specific methods and equipment must be employed to ensure sample integrity during monitoring efforts. For example, samplers must avoid certain personal care products that might contain PFAS to reduce the risk of sample contamination (i.e., false positives). Guidelines for approved sampling protocols can be found at the EPA and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) websites3,4. Once samples are collected for laboratory analysis, there are several targeted compounds to measure. The first method implemented for quantifying six PFAS compounds was EPA Method 537, utilized during the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) monitoring program between 2013-2015. As more PFAS compounds were identified for use as alternatives to PFOA/PFOS in manufacturing, Method 537 underwent revisions to include analysis of a total of 18 PFAS compounds5. Method 533 was recently developed to target 25 shorter carbon-chain compounds and is being validated across various municipalities as part of the UCMR 5 Federal monitoring program6. Regional Monitoring Efforts Because federal PFAS regulations will take time to develop, many states are initiating their own monitoring of local water supplies. Per SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) orders in California, the Orange County Water District is monitoring 120 wells to measure the extent of PFAS in the Orange County Groundwater Basin and in recharge water supplies7,8. As monitoring expands, the development of new technologies may help to expedite these efforts. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

The emergence of PFAS in groundwater has driven advancements in analytical capabilities to test a greater range of PFAS compounds, lower detection limits, and improve certainty. Technologies are developing for rapid and sensitive detection of PFAS in the field or at the point of use, allowing real-time decision making for remedial actions or advanced detection of PFAS at receptors. Notably, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has developed a patent-pending, electrochemical, lab-on-a-chip sensor for the rapid and specific detection of PFOS at a detection limit of 0.5 ng/L9. Electrochemical sensors can be integrated with microelectronics and configured for telemetry and real-time, remote monitoring. Commercialization of such devices would revolutionize current approaches to PFAS monitoring, vastly improving datasets and the ability to mitigate exposures. Data Sources

PFAS Monitoring

Characterization of PFAS in groundwater and identification of potential sources is a first step toward understanding and mitigating risks to groundwater availability and affordability for public supply. There are a variety of sources for relevant data related to water quality, groundwater levels/ gradients, environmental/ remediation investigations, and facilities known to be associated with current or former uses of PFAS. In California, data are available from multiple public sources such as local groundwater management agencies, water purveyors, United States Geological Survey (USGS)10, SWRCB, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), EPA, and others. The information in these public databases may not be readily accessible or difficult to query and compile. For example, relevant PFAS information is embedded in numerous PDF documents available through the DTSC EnviroStor database11. Techniques for retrieving, searching, and indexing these documents requires considerable effort and time even with the use of scripting and Optical Character Recognition (OCR). There are challenges to harmonizing and organizing these diverse and often overlapping data sets to ensure consistency across locations, facility names, and aliases for various PFAS compounds. Once organized, however, these datasets can provide useful insight and understanding of PFASrelated risks to groundwater resources. Moreover, these organized datasets inform better planning and decision-making related to mitigation of impacts, identification of possible sources, and risk management through strategic monitoring and mutually beneficial data sharing and collaboration. Although PFAS occurrence data are currently limited, data reports are expected to increase in the future. To support effective planning, data collected from public databases needs to be refreshed regularly and new data sources added as they become available.

20 HYDROVISIONS

PFAS Monitoring In Groundwater Management Development:

Advances in PFAS Monitoring

2021 Fall Issue

Conclusion The state of knowledge for PFAS contamination in environmental media and its impact to public health continues to develop rapidly, emphasizing the importance of routinely checking publicly available resources for the most current regulations and guidelines, laboratory methods, and sampling protocols to optimize field monitoring. As regulations continue to evolve, the advancement in sampling, technologies, and standardization of public data will become critical for efficient planning and implementation of PFAS remediation and monitoring efforts. References 1.) https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org 2.) Fact Sheets – PFAS — Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (itrcweb.org) 3.) https://www.epa.gov/water-research/pfas-methodsand-guidance-sampling-and-analyzing-water-and-otherenvironmental-media 4.) https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/sept_2020_pfas_ sampling_guidelines.pdf 5.) PFAS Analytical Methods Development and Sampling Research | Water Research | US EPA 6.) Method 533: Determination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Drinking Water by Isotope Dilution Anion Exchange Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ Tandem Mass Spectrometry | Methods Approved to Analyze Drinking Water Samples to Ensure Compliance with Regulations | US EPA 7.) https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/water-quality/ pfoapfos/ 8.) https://myemail.constantcontact.com/PFAS-News---UpdatesMay-2021.html?soid=1103609832093&aid=Ldpr6HbxS4g

9.) PFAS Sensor: Forever-Chemicals Finder | PNNL

10.) https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/gama/includes/ GAMA_publications.html 11.) https://dtsc.ca.gov/your-envirostor/

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

Wells and Words DAVID W. ABBOTT, P.G., C.HG., CONSULTING GEOLOGIST Mr. Abbott is a Geologist with 45+ years of applied experience in the exploration and development of groundwater supplies; well location services; installation and design of water supply wells; watershed studies; contamination investigations; geotechnical and groundwater problem solving; and protection of groundwater resources.

Are all Groundwater Hydrogeologists created equal: Think twice about this?

Wells and Words

The fundamental academic training is the same (i.e., Darcy’s Law, hydraulic conductivity, Transmissivity, Storativity, specific yield, groundwater gradients, etc.) for all groundwater (GW) hydrologists; but onthe-job training, applications, and goals are different between “dirty-water” and “clean-water” projects. Most pre-1980 introductory GW textbooks1 contain a chapter on contamination that focuses more on inorganic contaminants. However, some GW textbooks (especially after 1980) tend to be focused on organic contaminants.2 My training in the 1970s was in the development/ acquisition of GW supplies (clean-water)3 for municipal wells which was prior to the full implementation of USEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA rules that prompted the explosion of the GW consulting industry into sitecharacterization and remediation of soil/GW pollution (dirty-water) at many industrial (and other) sites in the 1980s. There are distinct and different hydrogeologic strategies, goals, and characteristics between cleanwater and dirty-water projects; and among the most important is economics which is not related to the physics of GW. Because of the significantly larger legal and economic liabilities (hundreds of thousands of dollars - $$$$) of properties and their owners with environmental contamination, the monetary requirements for site characterization and clean-up are orders of magnitude greater than for a simple

22 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

Wells and Words

Figure 1 – One of eight Geophysical logs that were used to evaluate the local stratigraphy beneath an environmental contamination site.

water supply well project - $; and, consequently, the methods and extremely detailed investigations for dirty-water projects are not economically realistic for the siting and installation of a water supply well; especially for relatively low-yield domestic wells.

On the plus-side, dirty-water projects have significantly increased the awareness and the importance of GW to the general public and have provided additional investigative tools for clean-water projects. I had the opportunity to conduct several dirty-water projects in the pre-government regulation era; two that come to mind were: (1) a large Naval Base modernization/retrofit project in the Pacific Northwest that necessitated the installation/development of high-capacity production wells and review of historical waste-disposal practices (including burn-pits) in order to evaluate any existing soil/GW contamination that could pollute the production wells; and (2) two feuding, competing, and neighboring lumber companies, one of which maliciously disposed a full tanker truck of Phenol (carbolic acid) in a ditch on the other’s property which also happened to be close to a municipal water supply well. In October 1986, I (Consultant 3) became involved in a high-profile superfund site in San Jose, California. The project lasted about 14 years and was one of the lengthier GW projects that I worked on during my career. The residential-size property (3.2-acres – approximately in the shape of a square) was located about 7 miles from San Francisco Bay on a flat fluvial flood plain that was in the central portion of the Santa Clara Valley. The facility, which was founded in 1973, was used to recycle spent solvents from the high-tech and other industries. Soil/ GW investigations began in 1983 with Consultant 1 installing over 70 borings (ranging in depth from 3 to 145 feet) which included the installation of 57 “permanent” small diameter monitoring wells (MW) and one trench to control the pollution. Eight of the MWs were installed on an adjacent down-gradient property. Consultant 2 was hired in 1986 and installed an additional 10 MWs and five recovery wells, ranging in depth from 17 to 75 feet, and two trenches (25 feet deep) to capture and contain the shallow pollution. After a complete review and comprehensive analysis of the data in early 1987, Consultant 3 installed an additional 28 MWs ranging in depth from 21 to 75 feet to fill in data gaps; and destroyed 15 MWs. Extensive water quality monitoring between 1983 and 1988 detected a mixture of at least four basic chemical groups in the soil/GW: four forms of Ketones, ten forms of Benzenes, six forms of -Ethenes, and five forms of -Ethanes and several tentatively identified compounds (TIC), including 1-4 Dioxane4. Acetone had the highest concentration of all the pollutants in the soil (1,650 ppm) and in GW (662 ppm). CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

Aquifer A East

(March 1987)

Revised

North

Initial

West st

South

Aquifer B and Aquifer C

≈50 ft

Sea Level

Silt

Sand

≈190 ft

Aquifer D

Clay

Figure 2: Modified Fence Diagram surrounding a 3.2-acre (square shaped property) chemical recycling facility in lower Santa Clara Valley, CA. The Cross section is based on eight mud-rotary drilled borings and associated downhole geophysical logs (1 boring at each corner and 1 boring at the midpoint of each side of the property).

In 1986, Consultant 1 had the insight to install mud-rotary borings at each corner of the property and at the mid-point of each side of the property to depths ranging between 150 and 180 feet. The stratigraphy of the eight borings was defined by a suite of downhole geophysical logs (Spontaneous Potential, Short and Long Resistivity, and Natural Gamma Radiation – see Figure 1) using the same contractor/tools. The eight borings provided an unbiased and consistent set of logs that correlated extremely well. The average horizontal distance between these key borings was about 80 feet. Prior to the collection of these eight geophysical logs, Consultant 1 prepared several cross sections and identified “five” aquifers contaminated with this mixture of solvents: Aquifers A, B, C, D, and E. Detailed examination of the geophysical logs and application of the principles of Sequence Stratigraphy by Consultant 3 refined the stratigraphic units into three aquifers: Aquifer A; Zone B/C; and Aquifer D/E (Figure 2).

Wells and Words Wells and Words

Stratigraphy

Silt-Sand with sand lenses (discontinuous Aquifers B and C?)

Wells and Words

Furthermore, ongoing water quality monitoring indicated that contamination existed in “Aquifers B through E” but the concentrations decreased with time suggesting that the drilling phase (and/or monitoring well designs) carried (or leaked) the highly contaminated Aquifer A fluids to the underlying systems. Clearly, a dirty-water project requires refined, detailed, and careful collection of data to evaluate the subsurface stratigraphy and to develop remediation plans compared to a clean-water project. In contrast, if the owner of this property had requested a hydrogeologic investigation for a water supply well, a typical clean-water project would review existing production wells in the vicinity of the property and install one exploratory mud-rotary boring to 500 or 1,000 feet depending upon the amount and quality of GW that is needed for the project. The suite of geophysical logs and lithologic samples would be evaluated and then the boring would be converted to a relatively small diameter test well (TW) to evaluate aquifer responses and water quality. If deemed appropriate from the TW data, a full-scale production well would be installed about 20 or 30 feet (horizontal distance) from the TW; and the TW would serve as an observation well during a formal pumping test to determine Transmissivity and Storativity: note that an observation well is required for the determination of Storativity. These aquifer parameters can then be used

24 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

to describe the shape of the cone of depression at any pumping rate. The extensive site-specific soil/GW data for the dirty-water project are not needed for most clean-water projects. Hence, investigation costs are significantly reduced for clean-water projects, which cannot afford nor need the high-resolution details that are so often required for dirty-water projects. I have collaborated with many colleagues on both dirty-water and clean-water projects, and, for some time, have been puzzled that dirty-water (more $$$$) hydrogeologists tend to get bogged-down in the finerdetails and find it difficult to transition to clean-water projects (less $). In contrast, clean-water hydrologist ($) can usually and easily transition to dirty-water projects ($$$$). The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has increased GW consulting activities in the mediumand high-priority groundwater basins to address negative impacts on these groundwater systems, including subsidence, seawater intrusion, steeply declining water levels, and reduction in groundwater storage. SGMA regulations require each basin to implement a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) which is mostly focused on clean-water, but the GSP has a content that resembles the effort and resolution of the other type of projects ($$$).

1 Todd, David Keith, 1959 and 1980, Ground Water Hydrology (first and second editions), John Wiley and Sons, NY, 535p. Walton, William C., 1970, Groundwater Resource Evaluation, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY, 664p. Freeze, R. Allen and John A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604p. Fetter Jr., C.W., 1980, Applied Hydrogeology (first edition), Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, OH, 488p. 2 Fetter, C.W., 1993, Contaminant Hydrogeology, Macmillan Publishing Company, NY, 458p. Domenico, Patrick A. and Franklin W. Schwartz, 1990, Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 824p. 3 UOP Johnson, 1966, Ground Water and Wells, Published by Edward E. Johnson, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 440p. Campbell, Michael D. and Jay H. Lehr, 1973, Water Well Technology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY, 681p. 4 Mohr, Thomas K.G., 2010, Environmental Investigation and Remediation: 1,4- Dioxane and other Solvent Stabilizers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 520p (see page 373)..

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

California Grower Uses VFD Technology to Optimize Pump Operation, Reduce Energy Costs SCOTT MCDONNELL Scott McDonnell is a technical sales manager with Xylem, Inc. located in Orange County, California.

Well development programs and their importance: Part 2 Aquavar IPC with NEMA 3R enclosure helps improve irrigation efficiency For years, Eat Sweet Farms, an agricultural operation in Santa Maria, California, focused on growing different varieties of berries like strawberries, blueberries and blackberries. In 2019, the local grower, which is part of Central West Produce, decided to expand its crops to include avocados in order to capitalize on 20 previously unused acres of uncultivated hillside. The multi-level terrain, while ideal for avocado farming, posed a challenge for effectively irrigating the crops. At the steepest elevation, water had to travel 500 feet uphill, but only 100 feet at its lowest elevation.

California Grower Uses VFD Technology

As water needs change, irrigation systems don’t always require a constant flow rate or constant pressure. Variable frequency drives (VFDs) are electric controllers that vary the speed of the pump, allowing the pump to respond smoothly and efficiently to fluctuations in demand. When full flow is not required, VFDs reduce motor speed and power consumption, saving agricultural operations energy and money. For example, at 80% nominal flow, power consumption is reduced by approximately 50% with a VFD.

26 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

California Grower Uses VFD Technology 2021 Fall Issue

A solution with system flexibility Seeking to boost energy efficiency without increasing costs, Eat Sweet Farms consulted with Coast Water Solutions, a local irrigation equipment supplier in Oxnard, California, to design and install a VFD solution that could easily handle the field elevation changes. Adding a VFD to an irrigation pump is ideal when running multiple irrigation systems, especially if they require different pressures and/or flow rates. Because a VFD maintains a constant discharge pressure regardless of the irrigation demand, a VFD enables the operation of one, some, or all irrigation systems depending on irrigation needs and pump capacity. The Coast Water Solutions team selected and installed a Xylem brand Aquavar Intelligent Pump Controller (IPC) variable speed drive in a NEMA 3R enclosure with a hand-off-auto switch and potentiometer, as well as a built-in fused disconnect. It’s optimized for pumps in submersible and above ground applications, and adds capabilities including multi-pump configuration and remote monitoring. The Aquavar IPC, which can be configured for up to four pumps, controls a 75 HP, 3-phase, 480V Goulds Water Technology e-SV multistage pump doing 200 GPM at 220 PSI for the first setpoint and 200 GPM at 150 PSI for the second setpoint. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

HYDROVISIONS

According to Jeff Hirashima, a design and sales representative with Coast Water Solutions, installing a VFD on a single pump serving multiple irrigation lines provides the flexibility to change pressures for different pumping requirements. Eat Sweet Farm’s irrigation system uses flooded suction to draw water from a reservoir on the property and installing the IPC in the NEMA 3R enclosure helped protect the system in the remote location. The VFD enables the pump to vary the flow of water while maintaining a constant operating pressure. With the high elevation of the avocados, a pressure-ondemand system is ideal.

California Grower Uses VFD Technology

In other words, when cutting back on the flow, the pump will reduce in speed and the flow will reduce, but still keep as close as possible to the best efficiency point on the pump curve. As the system calls for a larger volume of water, the pump will supply more but still keep constant pressure. This controller eliminates the need for throttling devices such as pressure-reducing valves or flow-control valves. Additionally, the Aquavar IPC variable speed controller brings the latest in pump drive technology and programming. The drive and interface are designed to give advanced capabilities that help effectively and efficiently operate your system. The Aquavar IPC also is equipped with the Start-Up Genie to ensure easy startup and programming. “The Aquavar IPC is the easiest VFD to navigate,” said Hirashima.

28 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

Added protection from environmental elements In agricultural settings, dust, rodent damage and heat are the leading causes of VFD failure. VFDs themselves generate significant heat that must be removed. An increase in temperature will see a dramatic drop in VFD efficiency and typically requires a cooling mechanism. Cool, clean electrical components last longer and perform better. Irrigation systems are typically located outside so they are close to the water pumps and wells they receive their water supply from. For outdoor applications like that, it is important that the VFD system is protected from exposure to weather, dust, heat or other environmental factors. Eat Sweet Farms’ Aquavar IPC is housed in an optional NEMA 3R steel enclosure featuring thermostatically controlled ventilation fans. The air intake of the fans are equipped with filters. As the fans pull in outside air and exhaust internal air, the internal enclosure temperature is kept reasonably close to ambient. The enclosed cabinet also keeps components out of direct contact with the elements, allowing the Aquavar IPC to be used in a broader range of geographical regions and applications. The lockable cabinet protects the equipment inside from being easily exposed to damage for security and peace of mind. For added protection, Coast Water Solutions also installed a stand-alone shade structure over the Aquavar IPC. Since installing the Aquavar IPC, Eat Sweet Farms has successfully optimized its pump operations and realized energy cost savings of 43%.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

GRA Parting Shot JOHN KARACHEWSKI

John Karachewski is a geologist for the California EPA (DTSC) in Berkeley. He is an avid photographer and often teaches geology as an instructor and field trip leader. The nation’s first urban national wildlife refuge, a 30,000-acre oasis for millions of migratory birds and endangered species, is located near Silicon Valley along the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1972, largely because of conservation efforts by the local community. The Refuge protects the San Francisco Bay ecosystem and includes open bay, salt pond, salt marsh, mudflat, upland, and vernal pool habitats. Major changes occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area following the California gold rush in 1849, creating a population boom, explosive growth, and development on sensitive lands surrounding the bay. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the Bay’s original wetlands have been diked and filled for farming, grazing, salt extraction, building and other development, which continued well into the 20th century. This loss of wetlands has greatly reduced the amount of habitat available to many species of fish and wildlife. About 9,000 acres of salt ponds within the refuge are managed by Cargill Salt. Using the sun and wind, Cargill’s salt ponds are capable of crystallizing 500,000 tons of sea salt each year. Cargill uses the salt ponds to concentrate brines as part of its solar salt operation, which produces salt for food, agriculture, medical, and industrial uses. Photographed by John Karachewski, PhD, along the Newark Slough Trail near Fremont on May 1, 2021. The GPS coordinates for the photograph are 37.517437° and -122.082624°. For additional information refer to: https://

www.fws.gov/refuge/don_edwards_ san_francisco_bay/

30 HYDROVISIONS

2021 Fall Issue

HYDROVISIONS

HYDROVISIONS ADVERTISING & ARTICLE SPECIFICATIONS

Logo & Ad Specs: Your ad must be in the requested dimensions (no rotating) and sent as a 300dpi PDF. You must send your logo in an EPS or AI vector format with outlined fonts. If you do not have an EPS version of your logo, please ensure what you send is a high-resolution transparent PDF. Logos pulled from websites are not suitable for printing. Design or logo questions? Contact David Garrison, GRA Creative Director at dgarrison@smithmooreassoc.com Vertical Ad: 4.25w X 11h Full Page Ad: 8.5w X 11h Do you need help designing your ad? GRA is happy to help in designing a simple ad for you using your company logo for a nominal fee. Please email dgarrison@smithmooreassoc.com for more information. Sponsored Article Sponsored Articles in HydroVisions are an ad in article-form. They are clearly marked to readers as sponsored. In these articles you can broadcast the message of your organization’s mission or product.

RATES

Authors (Both Sponsored and Non-Sponsored): • Please provide an unformatted Word document of your story without embedded images. You can signify where you’d like a submitted image using brackets. • Images you wish to be included with your article must not be embedded in the Word document; send them separately and labeled with names corresponding to where you’d like them used in the Word document. • Articles must have a brief title and a byline. • Supply a 300dpi headshot of the author. • Article length must be between 500 - 1000 words. • Please include an “About the Author” post script, to provide our audience with the context of your perspectives. • Avoid using diagrams or graphs in your article, words are preferable.

HALF PAGE AD:

1= $250 | 2= 15% Off | 4= 20% Off

FULL PAGE AD:

ARTWORK FILE IS DUE THREE WEEKS BEFORE PUBLISHING

1= $400 | 2= 15% Off | 4= 20% Off