Peter Martin

The Lucerne Valley is in the southwestern part of the Mojave Desert and is about 75 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. The Lucerne Valley groundwater basin encompasses about 230 square miles and is separated from the Upper Mojave Valley groundwater basin by splays of the Helendale Fault. Since its settlement, groundwater has been the primary source of water for agricultural, industrial, municipal, and domestic uses. Groundwater withdrawal from pumping has exceeded the amount of water recharged to the basin, causing groundwater declines of more than 100 feet between 1917 and 2016 in the center of the basin. The continued withdrawal has resulted in an increase in pumping costs, reduced well efficiency, and land subsidence near Lucerne Lake. Although the volume of pumping has declined in recent years, there is concern that new agricultural growth and limits on imported water will continue to strain the sustainability of the groundwater system.To address these concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey entered into a cooperative agreement with the Mojave Water Agency to develop a better understanding of the Lucerne Valley hydrogeologic system and provide tools to help evaluate and manage the effects of future development in the Lucerne Valley. The objectives of this study were to (1) improve the understanding of the aquifer system, (2) improve the understanding of subsidence in the basin, and (3) incorporate the understanding into a groundwater-flow model that can be used to help manage the groundwater resources in the Lucerne Valley. The model developed for this study covers the period of 1942–2016 and can help evaluate various proposed water-management scenarios during different climatic and hydrologic conditions.The aquifer system consists of a shallow aquifer, a confining unit, and middle and lower aquifers. These layered water-bearing units were identified based on geologic units of the mostly unconsolidated sediments and hydrologic properties. These alluvial deposits consist of clay, silt, sand, and gravel; some places also contain clay and silty clay lacustrine deposits. Several faults act, at least in part, as barriers to groundwater flow on the eastern, southern, and western edges of the basin. Present-day natural recharge is primarily from the infiltration of runoff from the San Bernardino Mountains to the south; however, stable and radioactive isotopes show that groundwater from the middle of the Lucerne Valley was older than about 10,000 years and probably was recharged as infiltration from streams draining the mountains in the Mojave Desert to the north, which probably does not occur under present-day climatic conditions. The annual average natural recharge for 1942–2016, estimated by a Basin Characterization Model, was about 635 acre-feet per year; the average amount of treated wastewater effluent transferred to the Lucerne Valley for artificial recharge annually ranged from about 1,500 to 4,000 acre-feet per year during 1980–2016. Pumpage estimates for 1942–2016 ranged from about 3,000 acre-feet in 1942 to about 18,300 acre-feet in 1984. The total cumulative amount of groundwater removed from the basin by pumping between 1942 and 2016 was estimated to be about 700,000 acre-feet, which was about 10 times greater than the cumulative amount of recharge to the entire Lucerne Valley groundwater basin. Before groundwater development, the direction of groundwater flow was from the southern part of the basin northward to discharge areas near Lucerne Lake, where it discharged through springs along the Helendale Fault and by evapotranspiration. Since the early 1900s, groundwater-level declines have mostly eliminated the areas where natural discharge occurred and exceeded 100 feet in the middle of the basin between the early 1950s and mid-1990s, and as much as 25 feet near the margins from about the mid-1950s to 2000s. A decrease in the rate of pumping after the mid-1990s lessened the hydraulic stress on the middle and lower aquifers and enabled hydraulic heads in the middle of the basin to recover slightly as groundwater near the margins of the basin moved toward the pumping depression. Although trends in groundwater levels in the center of the basin have reversed since the mid-1990s, levels at the basin margins continue to decline as the movement of groundwater from the margins fills the pumping depression and gradually flattens the groundwater table throughout the basin.The long-term extraction of groundwater and associated dewatering of the fine-grained sediments present within the aquifer system has resulted in aquifer compaction and consequently land subsidence, primarily near Lucerne Lake. Analysis of interferometric synthetic aperture radar data shows that almost 11 inches of land subsidence has occurred south of Lucerne Lake between April 1992 and November 2009; less subsidence occurred elsewhere in the basin during this period. This differential land subsidence has caused fissures and cracks in the ground surface, which have buckled the pavement and undercut roads in several locations.The Lucerne Valley Hydrologic Model was developed using the finite-difference groundwater modeling software One Water Hydrologic Model to represent the hydrologic conditions and stresses during 1942–2016. The model has a uniform grid of approximately 92 acres per cell (2,000 feet by 2,000 feet) and has four layers representing the water-bearing units. The results from the calibrated model simulations indicated that groundwater pumpage exceeded recharge, resulting in an estimated net cumulative depletion of groundwater storage (discharge minus recharge) of about 465,000 acre-feet from 1942 to 2016. The model simulated as much as 7.5 feet (90 inches; 2,286 millimeters) of aquifer compaction, which indicates the extensive fine-grained deposits and measured subsidence near Lucerne Lake.

Hi‐Desert Water District (HDWD), the primary water‐management agency in the Warren Groundwater Basin, California, plans to construct a waste water treatment plant to reduce future septic‐tank effluent from reaching the groundwater system. The treated waste water will be reclaimed by recharging the groundwater basin via recharge ponds as part of a larger conjunctive‐use strategy. HDWD wishes to identify the least‐cost conjunctive‐use strategies for managing imported surface water, reclaimed water, and local groundwater. As formulated, the mixed‐integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) groundwater‐management problem seeks to minimize water‐delivery costs subject to constraints including potential locations of the new pumping wells, California State regulations, groundwater‐level constraints, water‐supply demand, available imported water, and pump/recharge capacities. In this study, a hybrid‐optimization algorithm, which couples a genetic algorithm and successive‐linear programming, is developed to solve the MINLP problem. The algorithm was tested by comparing results to the enumerative solution for a simplified version of the HDWD groundwater‐management problem. The results indicate that the hybrid‐optimization algorithm can identify the global optimum. The hybrid‐optimization algorithm is then applied to solve a complex groundwater‐management problem. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the impact of varying the new recharge pond orientation, varying the mixing ratio of reclaimed water and pumped water, and varying the amount of imported water available. The developed conjunctive management model can provide HDWD water managers with information that will improve their ability to manage their surface water, reclaimed water, and groundwater resources.

California's Central Valley has been one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world for more than 50 years. To better understand the groundwater availability in the valley, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed the Central Valley hydrologic model (CVHM). Because of recent water-level declines and renewed subsidence, the CVHM is being updated to better simulate the geohydrologic system. The CVHM updates and refinements can be grouped into two general categories: (1) model code changes and (2) data updates. The CVHM updates and refinements will require that the model be recalibrated. The updated CVHM will provide a detailed transient analysis of changes in groundwater availability and flow paths in relation to climatic variability, urbanization, stream flow, and changes in irrigated agricultural practices and crops. The updated CVHM is particularly focused on more accurately simulating the locations and magnitudes of land subsidence. The intent of the updated CVHM is to help scientists better understand the availability and sustainability of water resources and the interaction of groundwater levels with land subsidence.

This digital data set contains the locations, water-level altitude, and water-level differences of 70 wells selected to document water-level changes between fall 2004 and spring 2005 in the Anza-Terwilliger area of Riverside County, California. The winter of 2005 was one of the wettest periods on record. Links to the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information Systems Website (NWISWeb) have been established to interactively view recent water-level information via the internet by clicking on a specific well.

The proximity of the Mojave River ground-water basin to the highly urbanized Los Angeles region has led to rapid growth in population and, consequently, to an increase in the demand for water. The Mojave River, the primary source of surface water for the region, normally is dry-except for a small stretch of perennial flow and periods of flow after intense storms. Thus, the region relies almost entirely on ground water to meet its agricultural and municipal needs. Ground-water withdrawal since the late 1800's has resulted in discharge, primarily from pumping wells, that exceeds natural recharge. To better understand the relation between the regional and the floodplain aquifer systems and to develop a management tool that could be used to estimate the effects that future stresses may have on the ground-water system, a numerical ground-water flow model of the Mojave River ground-water basin was developed, in part, on the basis of a previously developed analog model. The ground-water flow model has two horizontal layers; the top layer (layer 1) corresponds to the floodplain aquifer and the bottom layer (layer 2) corresponds to the regional aquifer. There are 161 rows and 200 columns with a horizontal grid spacing of 2,000 by 2,000 feet. Two stress periods (wet and dry) per year are used where the duration of each stress period is a function of the occurrence, quantity of discharge, and length of stormflow from the headwaters each year. A steady-state model provided initial conditions for the transient-state simulation. The model was calibrated to transient-state conditions (1931-94) using a trial-and-error approach. The transient-state simulation results are in good agreement with measured data. Under transient-state conditions, the simulated floodplain aquifer and regional aquifer hydrographs matched the general trends observed for the measured water levels. The simulated streamflow hydrographs matched wet stress period average flow rates and times of no flow at the Barstow and Afton Canyon gages. Steady-state particle-tracking was used to estimate travel times for mountain-front and streamflow recharge. The simulated travel times for mountain-front recharge to reach the area west of Victorville were about 5,000 to 6,000 years; this result is in reasonable agreement with published results. Steady-state particle-tracking results for streamflow recharge indicate that in most subareas along the river, the particles quickly leave and reenter the river. The complaint that resulted in the adjudication of the Mojave River ground-water basin alleged that the cumulative water production upstream of the city of Barstow had overdrafted the ground-water basin. In order to ascertain the effect of pumping on ground-water and surface-water relations along the Mojave River, two pumping simulations were compared with the 1931-90 transient-state simulation (base case). The first simulation assumed 1931-90 pumping in the upper region (Este, Oeste, Alto, and Transition zone model subareas) but with no pumping in the remainder of the basin, and the second assumed 1931-90 pumping in the lower region (Centro, Harper Lake, Baja, Coyote Lake, and Afton Canyon model subareas) but with no pumping in remainder of the basin. In the upper region, assuming pumping only in the upper region, there was no change in storage, recharge from the Mojave River, ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, or evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the lower region, assuming pumping only in the upper region, there was storage accretion, decreased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the upper region, assuming pumping only in the lower region, there was storage accretion, decreased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the

USGS: Mojave River Basin, recharge, ground water, surface water, overdraft, ground-water flow model, water supply, water use, aquifer system