2015 UN – Water Annual International Zaragoza ConferenceWater and Sustainable Development: From Vision to Action

15–17 January 2015

Emilio CUSTODIO, Dr.I.I., Real Acad. CienciasDepartment of Geo–Engineering / Groundwater Hydrology GroupTechnical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona

2015–Zaragoza UN–12015–Zaragoza UN–1

Contents Intensive groundwater development Intensive groundwater development in Spain The MASE Project Groundwater mining in Spain: the South–east and the Canaries Environmental aspects and consequences Prospective

Intensive use of aquifers and groundwater mining in Spain

Proyecto MASEAQUALOGY–UPC

Side event: The influence of recent technological advances in Spanish and global water policy

14–01–2014 Pre–Conference Side Events and Technical Visits

Effects groundwater development

Time τ to equilibrium

L = system sizeT = transmissivityS = storage coefficientα = coefficient (0,25 to 1)

τ : months (small aquifers, nearby recharge) : years (middle aquifers) : very large (big aquifers)

If B ≥ R groundwater mining B = pumpage R = recharge

In semi–arid zones: it may be difficult toknow if B <=> R

τ α≈2L S

T

Simple aquifer in a depression withonly diffusse recharge

NATURAL CONDITION

DISTURBEDCONDITION

2015–Zaragoza UN–22015–Zaragoza UN–2

Some approximate definitions applied to groundwater

Intensive development: a significant fraction of recharge is abstractedimportant changes in the aquifer flow system

in its relation with other water bodiesdrawdown may be large and increasing along timeresults are quantifiable but do not imply a qualification

Overexploitation: Negative effects observed on groundwater quantity and quality Subjective appreciation It does not consider if the effects are due to hydrynamics In Spain it is a legal term

Its use should be discouraged (although is colloquially used)

Resevable resources: ~ total net rechargeCircumstances should be clearly defined

Exploitable resources: Those that can be abstracted with bearable consequencesDepends on what is bearable

economically, environmental, socially and politically This is not a true technical result

Groundwater mining ≡ sustained use of groundwater reservesIt implies: abstraction > recharge steady state not possibleIt is a long–term evaluationIf aquifer abstraction ceases recovery needs > 50 yearsA large part of freshwater storage is changed into saline water2015–Zaragoza UN–32015–Zaragoza UN–3

Consequences of groundwater intensive use and mining

Positive / benefits Negative / costsWater supplyEconomic and social developmentEmploymentHelp to settle populationLand drainage (if enviromentaly aceptable)

Growing groundwater costs (energy, replacement, …)Discharge reduction (water not available down flow)Water quality loss (not always) and its effectsLoss of abstraction capacityLand subsidence / collapse (in some cases)Decrease of ecological services and environmental damagePollution enhancement (in some cases)

The consequences due to groundwater

may be indistinguishable during the first development stages

intensive usemining

2015–Zaragoza UN–42015–Zaragoza UN–4

Intensive groundwater use in the World

a

b

cd

Average recharge mm/yr Total abstraction mm/yr

Depletion of groundwater reserves, mostly dynamic effectsYear 2000 Values in mm/yearGreen points concentration in SpainWada et al., 2010

Detail

2015–Zaragoza UN–52015–Zaragoza UN–5

Spectacular development of groundwater in Spain

Gro

un

dw

ate

r ab

str

act

ion

(h

m3 /

year

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r a

bs

tra

cti

on

km

3 /ye

ar

Spain ≈ France

Margat & Van der Gunn, 2013

Groundwater abstraction in Spain

2015–Zaragoza UN–62015–Zaragoza UN–6

Non–renewable groundwater exploitation in selected countries, around year 2000. Values in hm3/year

CountryGroundwater / total of water Total, A Non–renewable, B B/A

ArgeriaSaudí ArabiaBahrainEgyptUAELybiaOmanQatarTunisYemen

Spain

0.540.850.630.070.700.950.890.530.590.62

0.35

260021000

258485019004280164418516702800

8000

168017800

9090015703014240150460700

300

* 0.65* 0.85 0.35 0.19* 0.82* 0.70 0.15* 0.81 0.28 0.25

0.04

Foster y Loucks, 2010

2015–Zaragoza UN–72015–Zaragoza UN–7

Legal conditions of groundwater in SpainWater Act 1866 all water in public domain

1879 groundwater in the private domain1985 all water is a public domain

to avoid expropriation of existing groundwater rights: • right holders • could accept public protection by giving their rights

maintain the rights for 50 yearspreference for a concessiongo to a registry

• could preserve their rights foreverbut without changing well characteristics (??)go to a catalogue

• reality few owners have changed their status pre–law development was already intensive

most groundwater is private in practice the inventory of groundwater rights is very incomplete

overexploitation areas can be declared by water authorities a complex and poorly effective procedure

owners in overexploited areas have to

reality is mostly a failure groundwater users are public entities some effective ones formed bottom–up2001 incorporation of the European Water Framework Directive successive modifications European “Groundwater Directive” the main problems are not properly addressed

adapt their abstractionform an users’ association (top–down)

2015–Zaragoza UN–82015–Zaragoza UN–8

Spanish aquifers in which “overexplotation” problems were officially identified in 1996 according to the Water Act and its Regulations.DGOH–ITGE, 1987 2015–Zaragoza UN–92015–Zaragoza UN–9

(Custodio, 2004)

Idealized representation of

• agricultural production• water consumption• crop value

Shadowed plans: surfaces of equal ratio:

water cost / crop value

Groundwater cost influences its use silent revolution

Low ratio high pressure for groundwater developmenteven illegally/allegally

2015–Zaragoza UN–102015–Zaragoza UN–10

The MASE project

MASE = Minería del agua subterránea en España Groundwater mining in SpainExecuted: Department of Geo – Engineering, Technical University of Catalonia (UPC)Prepared by : E. CustodioFinantial support: AQUALOGYSupervision: CETaqua

Considered aspects

No specific studies. Use of data in

Areas considered: South–eastern Spain (Levante): southern Alacant, Murcia and Almeria The Canary Islands: Gran Canaria, Tenerife

Results: evaluation of groundwater intensive use and its consequences importance for development and prospective groundwater mining: 12–15 km3 in south–eastern Spain

1–3 km3 in Gran Canaria and Tenerife partial volume recovery is possible after ceasing abstraction

– there is some significant recharge– from some decades to some centuries (?)– in Tenerife a part of the mid–to–top island is permanently drained

by water galleries (long water tunnels)

existing reports and studies (non–exhaustive)

information from experts contributionsquestionnaire

hydrology / hydrogeologyenvironmenteconomicssocial issuesadministrative issuesethic issues

2015–Zaragoza UN–2015–Zaragoza UN–1111

Piezometric level evolution in some of the more intensively exploited aquifers(Cabezas, 2011, García–Aróstegui, 2013)

Average piezometric drawdown from the start of monitoring of the main intensively exploited aquifers(PHS, 2013)

Segura basin.Intensity of piezometric

drawdown

2015–Zaragoza UN–122015–Zaragoza UN–12

  Groundwater reserves, hm3  

ÁreaConsumed, 1980–1995

Existing Usable Consumptionrate hm3/a

Time todepletion, years

Almería 800 1100 750 50 15 (10–75)Murcia 2000 10000 7100 125 60 (10–80)Alacant 1000 7000 6000 50 120 (10–400)Valencia 100 2500 200 15 130 (20–350)

Preliminary estimation of groundwater reserve consumption.South–eastern Spain. Period 1980–1995(DOGH–ITGE, 1997)

(DOGH – ITGE, 1997)

2015–Zaragoza UN–132015–Zaragoza UN–13

South–eastern Spain and the Canary IslandsGroundwater use(modified from De Stephano et al., 2013)

hm3/yearÁrea Spain Xúquer Segura CMA Canaries

Urban 1500 320 ––– 140 125Irrigation (C) 5000 1180 450 377 210Industry 300 100 ––– 3 8Recreation 65 10 ––– 20 12Total groundwater(A) 7000 1610 485 540 355Total water (B) 31500 3156 1850 1225 510A/B groundw/total 0,22 0,51 0,26 0,44 0,70C/A irrig/groundwater

0,71 0,73 0,93 0,70 0,59

Use and economic value of groundwater for agriculture(modified from De Stephano et al., 2013)

Main water courses desalinization plants and aquifers in South–eastern Spain

Área Spain Xúquer Segura CMA CanariesTotal irrigated surface, 103haGroundwater irrigated surface, 103ha

3345945

490160

20070

21085

2525

Total use, hm3/aGW use hm3/a

120003220

1655535

800270

755310

170170

Production, M€/yr, for totalProduction, M€/yr, for GW

153004730

2260410

1450585

24601385

340340

GW / total use 0,31 0,18 0,40 0,56 1,0

Prod. / surface for total €/ha 4600 4600 7200 11700 13600

Prod. / surface for GW €/ha 5000 2600 8400 16300 13600

Prod. / use for total €/m3 1.3 1.4 1.8 3.3 2.0Prod. / use GW €/m3 1.5 0.8 2.2 4.5 2.0

Endowment for total m3/ha/a 3590 3380 4000 3600 6800

Endowment for GW m3/ha/a 3410 3345 3860 3650 6800

2015–Zaragoza UN–142015–Zaragoza UN–14

Gran Canaria Tenerife

2015–Zaragoza UN–152015–Zaragoza UN–15

Evolution of the Gran Canaria Island aquifer

Variación anual

Evolución de la reserva de agua subterránea

1972 SPA15 2006

2125 hm³

814 hm³

Consejo Insular de Aguas de Gran Canaria, 2009

Evolution of groundwater reserves

Annual changes of groundwater reserves

Water table drawdown in a high–altitude, deep borehole

Effect of groundwater abstraction reduction due to the high cost of getting it

2015–Zaragoza UN–162015–Zaragoza UN–16

Groundwater balances

Tenerife Island

Decade 1971–1980 1981–1990 1991–2000 2001–2005Input, hm3/aRecharge 338 321 235 279Irrig. return flows 93 55 38 27

TOTAL 431 376 273 306Output, hm3/aAbstraction 218 213 205 188To the sea 399 342 294 266

TOTAL 617 555 498 456Reserve decrease 186 179 225 148

Evolution of groundwater balance components(ETITF, 2008)

(PHTF, 2010)

Desalination; Wastewater reclamation; Surface water; Springs; Wells; Water galleries

Large water table drawdownImportant groundwater outflow to the oceanLarge rock volume drained by mid– and high–altitude water galleries non–recoverable

2015–Zaragoza UN–172015–Zaragoza UN–17

Júcar River flow decrease due to development of the La Mancha Oriental aquifer for agricultural irrigation at the upstream part of the basin.MIMAM, 2000

Environmental effects: on rivers

2015–Zaragoza UN–182015–Zaragoza UN–18

Evolution of spring flow, Bco. Azuaje

Effects of intensive groundwater exploitation in northern Gran Canaria IslandBarrancos (gullies) de Moya y Azuaje

Hernández–Quesada et al., 2011Cabrera et al., 2014

Evolution between 1970 y 2008

springsenvironmentother GW developers

Large effects in

2015–Zaragoza UN–192015–Zaragoza UN–19

Environmental effects: Doñana National Park

Groundwater discharge flow evolution to La Rocina ravine and to La Vera ecotone Calculated by groundwater flow numerical modelling. Dramatic situation of 1994 combined effect of: 1) accumulated water level lowering due to pumping, 2) a 4 years–long drought

Groundwater level above mean sea level (m)

Natural conditionsOctober 1992

Disturbed conditionsOctober 1996

Groundwater flow pattern

modified from UPC, 1999

2015–Zaragoza UN–202015–Zaragoza UN–20

TABLAS DE DAIMIEL NATIONAL PARK

NATURAL STATE

Significant decrease in

piezometric levels; more than 30 m

DISTURBED STATE

Environmental impacts: Las Tablas de Daimiel wetlands

2015–Zaragoza UN–212015–Zaragoza UN–21

• Groundwater abstraction cost is high in areas with groundwater mining: 0,4 to 0,5 €/m3

but it is still cheaper than other water put in the areasubsidies distort the concurrence

• Farmers and suppliers will continue using groundwater, beyond regulationsregularlyin droughtsas a security

• Water trading is appearing, highly controlled by water authoritiesowners are reluctant to sell since they fear losing their rights

but trading exist between private owners• Water trading is a well–established fact since one century in Gran Canaria and Tenerife

a king of water markets functions, approaching free marketsthe water authorities sell and buy water in marketspublic intervention tame the prices but decreases public investment

• Groundwater mining is a fact and will continue if subsidized water is not provided•The main deterrent to groundwater mining are not regulations but • the increasing control of energy

in some cases groundwater quality deterioration• Environmental effects are poorly known and valued and mostly happened decades ago

is difficultrecovery may be at a disproportional cost

may produce damage in some areas• Ethical aspects are tamed by the fact that some slow recovery is possible

involve the need of a change of paradigm a difficult task monitoring

groundwater users have to be involved in surveyance decision making

civil society should recover from current poor activity and concernpoliticians should not overcontrol groundwater affairs

Some additional considerations

2015–Zaragoza UN–222015–Zaragoza UN–22

Prospective

A more flexible Water Act is needed the poor flexibility of water rights and concessions need to be solved

A water pact is needed among all interested actors and especially political parties the seed is on the mind

Groundwater mining is not necessarily a devil and in some cases it is goodit should be controlled

benefits should be used to compensatefor current and future damageit has to be considered a transient situation with some dead end

Groundwater mining experience has to be improved study experience in other parts of the World develop the GWM project to compile worldwide existing experience

2015–Zaragoza UN–232015–Zaragoza UN–23