Honey Lake Basin is a large, hydrologically closed valley with two playa lakes that are separated by a low elevation sill. The Basin has a complex hydrogeologic setting, with numerous groundwater flow paths that interact with surface waters and three basic aquifers; shallow, deep, and geothermal. Thirteen flow paths; eleven cold and two thermal, are identified and the geochemical evolution of those paths are characterized by integrating solute chemistry and isotopic data. The chemical flow paths include recharge in either granitoid or volcanic terrains in the Sierra Nevada Range and the Modoc Plateau, respectively. The groundwater then flows through alluvial fan and stream sedimentary environments and eventually flows through lacustrine and playa sediments in the closed basin. This investigating characterizes geochemical evolution of groundwater flow from both mafic and granitic terrains to lacustrine sediments with evaporite minerals, in a closed basin environment. Temperature data reveal that thermal waters circulate to 1.6-3.0 km and 2.8-3.8 km along two major fault zones. Shallow groundwaters above 17°C are determined to have a component of thermal water and mixing ratios are presented. δ18O and δD data show that deep groundwater was recharged by cooler, more humid precipitation from the last ice age, whereas shallow groundwaters reflect current meteoric conditions and show extensive evaporation trends. The two thermal flow paths show exchange with silicate minerals at high temperatures (>100°C). δ13C data show interaction with carbonate minerals in basin fill lacustrine sediments. 3H concentrations and 14C ages show that deep groundwaters throughout the Basin and shallower groundwaters in the center of the basin are not greatly affected by post-1952 recharge. Mean 14C ages range from modern to 23,500 years old. NETPATH was used to model geochemical evolution along the flow paths. Groundwater on the west side of the basin (granitic terrain) is typically low TDS (~150 mg/L) calcium-bicarbonate water and evolves into higher TDS (~300 mg/L) sodium-bicarbonate groundwater as it interacts with granitic rocks and then lacustrine sediments. Groundwater on the east side of the basin (mafic terrain) is typically low TDS (~200 mg/L) sodium-bicarbonate water and evolves into high TDS (~300 mg/L) sodium-bicarbonate water groundwater as it interacts with mafic rocks and then lacustrine sediments. Dissolution of silicate minerals and calcite, and ion exchange with clays is responsible for major chemistry changes. As both of these types of groundwaters come into contact with lacustrine sediments with evaporite minerals on the playas, dissolution of halite and gypsum dominate and the groundwater becomes extremely high in TDS (~ 1100 mg/L on the Honey Lake Playa and ~ 43,000 mg/L on the Fish Spring Playa) and strongly sodium-chloride in character.

A geochemical study of major springs and wells in Spring Valley, Nevada, and Snake Valley, Utah-Nevada was initiated in response to the Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project proposed by the South Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). Water budget estimates suggest that interbasin flow accounts for a significant portion (~25%) of the water budgets in Spring and Snake Valleys. Although interbasin flow is possible in some areas, alternative plausible explanations place significant uncertainty on water budget allocations. To examine the plausibility of local and interbasin flow paths the groundwater flow in Spring and Snake Valleys was evaluated using solute and isotopic data. Evidence for local flow paths includes: 1) stable isotope values in local areas which are similar to isotope values in adjacent recharge zones; 2) measurable 3H content and 14C activities ≥ 50 pmc in most samples which suggests short residence times; and 3) plausible geochemical models of local flow paths. Previously defined interbasin flow paths in southern Spring Valley are marked by samples that have low 14C activities (mean = 20.14 pmc), which are consistent with long residence times and can be explained by either interbasin flow from adjacent basins or deep circulation in the basin-fill sediments of Spring Valley. Interbasin flow from southern Spring Valley to southern Snake Valley cannot be confirmed or rejected based on the current data and modeling constraints, which result in plausible models involving both local flow paths and interbasin flow paths. Interbasin flow from northern Spring Valley to northern Snake Valley is unlikely and can be explained by the deep circulation of groundwater that is mixed with modern recharge. The plausibility of alternative explanations to describe previously defined interbasin flow paths suggests that water budget allocations in Spring and Snake Valleys should be redistributed or reevaluated. The use of existing water budgets that allocate large components of water to interbasin flow to determine the distribution of water resources may result in incorrect estimations of available resources.