From the Proceedings of the 1989 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 15, 1989, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada

From the Proceedings of the 1989 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 15, 1989, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada

From the Proceedings of the 1989 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 15, 1989, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada / Arizona's Groundwater Management Act has changed the perspective that water providers must use when planning to meet growing water demands. The goal of safe-yield in the Active Management Areas and the requirements of both the Second Management Plan and the Assured Water Supply provisions will require all water providers to consider other options besides additional groundwater development when expanding their water supply plans. A simplified process will be presented that stresses the need for well thought-out, cost-effective water resource planning to meet management requirements for both public and private water providers. The process relies on an initial projection of water demand, an analysis of demand reduction potential, an examination of supply alternatives, and a discussion of the characteristics that must be considered when weighing the demand reduction and supply alternatives for implementation. Development of water supply plans that meet existing and future needs for growing service areas will be increasingly important to water providers in Arizona and throughout the and West.

Complete issue of the Proceedings of the 1989 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 15, 1989, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada

From the Proceedings of the 1990 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 21, 1990, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

From the Proceedings of the 1990 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 21, 1990, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona / New regulations concerning the management of underground storage tanks (USTs) have resulted in increased awareness of environmental contamination resulting from leaking USTs. The objective of the typical underground storage tank investigation is to determine if any subsurface contamination has occurred as a result of tank or product line leakage, fuel spills or overfills. Soil contamination at underground storage tank sites is usually discovered during the removal and replacement of USTs. Techniques that can be used to detect the presence of soil contamination adjacent to existing USTs include soil vapor analysis, exploratory boring, and soil and ground water sampling. The lateral and vertical extent of contamination must be determined at any site which contains detectable quantities of contamination. Two common methods for determining the extent of contamination are over-excavation and borehole drilling and sampling. Boring design and location considerations include number of borings, borehole depth and spacing, and site sub -surface conditions. Differentiation between perched sub -surface water and aquifers is critical. Once an appropriate boring plan has been established, then a sampling and analysis plan must be adopted that meets the needs of the particular investigation. The determination of the extent of contamination at an underground storage tank site is the first step leading to site closure and remediation.

From the Proceedings of the 1990 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 21, 1990, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona / Remedial techniques for sub-surface soil and water contamination are dependent on the lateral and vertical extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and the type of petroleum hydrocarbons which have been released into the sub-surface. Specific remedial technologies are required for diesel fuel and heavy oils compared to the more volatile gasoline compounds. Available remedial technologies for vadose zone contamination include excavation and treatment; soil vapor extraction and possible vapor burning; bioremediation; and chemical treatment. Remedial technologies for ground-water contamination include water recovery, contaminant volatilization, carbon adsorption, bioremediation and water reinjection. Specialized apparatuses are utilized when petroleum hydrocarbon product floating on the water table surface must be separated from the ground water. A number of hydrologic considerations must be evaluated prior to any remediation scenario. These considerations include geologic characterization of the sub-surface soil matrix, and aquifer.

From the Proceedings of the 1990 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 21, 1990, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

From the Proceedings of the 1990 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 21, 1990, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

From the Proceedings of the 1990 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science - April 21, 1990, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona / During the summer of 1989, a water balance study was conducted at Lee Valley Reservoir, located approximately 19 miles southwest of the town of Eagar in Apache County, Arizona. The objectives of this study were to quantify evaporation and seepage losses from the lake and substantiate the use of a land-based evaporation pan to estimate lake evaporation. Lake level, inflow, controlled releases, precipitation and evaporation were measured on a twice weekly basis for six months from May 1 to October 31. Evaporation was measured in a Class A evaporation pan designed to float in the reservoir. Evaporation was also measured at a Class A land pan near the town of Eagar. A 1.0 inch difference in the estimated rate and the measured rate for a 147-day period of common record represents a 3.6% error between the land-based pan and the floating pan. Total losses from the lake over the six -month period were 224 acre-feet. Of this loss controlled releases accounted for 8.2 acre-feet, and evaporation was measured at 116 acre-feet. The remaining loss of 100 acre-feet is due to seepage, much of which can be seen as seeps rising within 800 feet downstream from the dam. Using average data from past years, an annual water balance for the lake was also calculated.