Advertisement

Management of Carbonate Aquifers

  • Stephen R. H. WorthingtonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Carbonate aquifers are common globally and are widely utilized due to their high permeability. Advances in recent decades in understanding dissolution kinetics have facilitated the numerical modeling of dissolutional enhancement of permeability. This has shown how the dissolution results in an interconnected network of channels that not only results in high permeability but also in rapid groundwater velocities. The high permeability often results in a lack of surface water and thick unsaturated zones, so utilization of groundwater is often from low-elevation springs, especially in mountainous areas. Groundwater divides may not coincide with surface-water divides, sometimes resulting in jurisdictional issues over exploitation of the groundwater. Contaminant transport in carbonates is more complicated than in porous medium aquifers. Transport through the channels may be several orders of magnitude faster than transport through the matrix of the rock. This results in complicated contaminant plumes and makes carbonate aquifers more susceptible to bacterial contamination than other aquifer types.

Keywords

Hydraulic Conductivity Sewage Treatment Plant Karst Aquifer Channel Network Carbonate Aquifer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Atkinson TC (1977) Diffuse flow and conduit flow in limestone terrain in the Mendip Hills, Somerset (Great Britain). J Hydrol 35:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berner RA, Morse JW (1974) Dissolution kinetics of calcium carbonate in sea water IV: theory of calcite dissolution. Am J Sci 274:108–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Downing RA, Price M, Jones GP (1993) Hydrogeology of the Chalk of North-West Europe. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 300 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Dreybrodt W (1990) The role of dissolution kinetics in the development of karst aquifers in limestone: a model simulation of karst evolution. J Geol 98:639–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreybrodt W (1996) Principles of early development of karst conduits under natural and man-made conditions revealed by mathematical analysis of numerical models. Water Resour Res 32:2923–2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreybrodt W, Gabrovšek F, Romanov D (2005) Processes of speleogenesis: a modeling approach. Karst Research Institute at ZRC SAZU, Postojna – Ljubljana, 376 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenlohr L, Meteva K, Gabrošek F et al (1999) The inhibiting action of intrinsic impurities in natural calcium carbonate minerals to their dissolution kinetics in aqueous H2O-CO2 solutions. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 63:989–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Embrey SS, Runkle DL (2006) Microbial quality of the nation’s ground-water resources, 1993–2004. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5290, 34 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Ford DC, Williams PW (2007) Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester, 562 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 604 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Golder Associates (2000) Report on hydrogeological assessment, bacteriological impacts, Walkerton town wells, Municipality of Brockton, County of Bruce, Ontario, 50p. plus figures, tables and appendices. Walkerton Inquiry, Exhibit 259Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton JM, Johnson S, Esquilan R et al. (2009) Hydrogeologic data report for 2008. Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, report 09–02Google Scholar
  13. Katz BG (2001) A multitracer approach for assessing the susceptibility of groundwater contamination in the Woodville Karst Plain, Northern Florida. In: Kuniansky EL (ed.) U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4011, 167–176Google Scholar
  14. Kiraly L (1975) Report on the present knowledge on the physical characteristics of karstic rocks (Rapport sur l’état actuel des connaissances dans le domaine des charactères physiques des roches karstiques). In: Burger A, Dubertret L (eds.) Hydrogeology of karstic terrains. Internat. Union Geol Sci, Series B, no.3, pp 53–67Google Scholar
  15. Liedl R, Sauter M, Hückinghaus D et al (2003) Simulation of the development of karst aquifers using a coupled continuum pipe flow model. Water Resour Res 39(3):1057. doi: 10.1029/2001WR001206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loper DE, Werner CL, Chicken E, Davies G, Kinkaid T (2005) Carbonate coastal aquifer sensitivity to tides. Eos 86(39):353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maurice LD, Atkinson TC, Barker JA et al (2006) Karstic behaviour of groundwater in the English Chalk. J Hydrol 330:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morin RH, Hess AE, Paillet FL (1988) Determining the distribution of hydraulic conductivity in a fractured limestone aquifer by simultaneous injection and geophysical logging. Ground Water 26(5):587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morse JW, Arvidson RS (2002) The dissolution kinetics of major sedimentary carbonate minerals. Earth Sci Rev 58:51–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Connor DR (2002) Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, Part 1: the events of May 2000 and related issues. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, 188 pGoogle Scholar
  21. Palmer AN (1991) Origin and morphology of limestone caves. Geol Soc Am Bull 103(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quinlan JF (1990) Special problems of ground-water monitoring in karst terranes. In: Nielsen DM, Johnson AI (eds) Ground water and vadose zone monitoring. ASTM STP 1053. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quinlan JF, Ewers RO (1989) Subsurface drainage in the Mammoth Cave area. In: White WB, White EL (eds) Karst hydrology: concepts from the Mammoth Cave area. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 65–103Google Scholar
  24. Quinlan JF, Ray JA (1989) Groundwater basins in the Mammoth Cave region, Kentucky. Occ. Publ. #2, Friends of the karst, Mammoth CaveGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinlan JF, Rowe DR (1977) Hydrology and water quality in the central Kentucky karst: phase I. University of Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, Research Report #101, 93pGoogle Scholar
  26. Ray JA (1997) Overflow conduit systems in Kentucky: a consequence of limited underflow capacity. In: Beck BF, Stephenson JB (eds.) The engineering geology and hydrogeology of karst terranes. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  27. Reimann T, Hill ME (2009) MODFLOW-CFP: a new conduit flow process for MODFLOW-2005. Ground Water 47(3):321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schürch M, Buckley D (2002) Integrating geophysical and hydrochemical borehole-log measurements to characterize the Chalk aquifer, Berkshire, United Kingdom. Hydrogeol J 10:610–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shoemaker WB, Kuniansky EL, Birk S et al (2008) Documentation of a conduit flow process (CFP) for MODFLOW–2005: U.S. geological survey techniques and methods 6-A24. USGS, RestonGoogle Scholar
  30. Weyl PK (1958) The solution kinetics of calcite. J Geol 66(2):163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Worthington SRH (2001) Karst hydrogeological investigations at Walkerton. PowerPoint presentation at the Walkerton Inquiry (Exhibit 417), 19 July 2001, 48 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Worthington SRH (2007) Groundwater residence times in unconfined carbonate aquifers. J Cave Karst Stud 69(1):94–102Google Scholar
  33. Worthington SRH (2009) Diagnostic hydrogeologic characteristics of a karst aquifer (Kentucky, USA). Hydrogeol J 17(7):1665–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Worthington SRH, Ford DC (2009) Self-organized permeability in carbonate aquifers. Ground Water 37(3):326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Worthington SRH, Smart CC, Ruland WW (2002) Assessment of groundwater velocities to the municipal wells at Walkerton. In: Proceedings of the 2002 joint annual conference of the Canadian Geotechnical Society and the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Niagara Falls, Ontario, pp 1081–1086Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Worthington GroundwaterDundasCanada

Personalised recommendations