Abstract
Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) is an important technique for improving groundwater recharge and maintaining aquifer levels. There are many examples from around the world that demonstrate the advantages of managed aquifer recharge. Despite the numerous benefits and demonstrated advantages of MAR, uptake has been lower than expected. The financial and economic performance of MAR is a key determinant of its global uptake. There are few studies of the financial characteristics and performance of different kinds of MAR schemes. This study contains an analysis of financial data from 21 MAR schemes from five countries. Although MAR schemes are highly heterogeneous, it is possible to draw some conclusions about factors that affect the costs of storing water underground and recovering it for use. The costs of MAR schemes vary substantially. Schemes using infiltration and spreading basins using untreated water are relatively cheap. Schemes using recharge wells, bores and expensive infrastructure are relatively costly. When advanced water treatment is needed, this involves significant extra costs. Other key factors that affect MAR scheme costs include the range of objectives to be met, frequency of use of the scheme, hydrogeological conditions that affect infiltration rates and well yields, and the source and end use of water stored underground. Priorities for further research include additional disaggregation of capital and operating costs and inclusion of a wider range of scheme types, sources of water and countries.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
05 June 2018
The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes.
Notes
A GDP deflator measures the change in price of all domestically produced goods and services by dividing an index of GDP measured in current prices by a constant price index of GDP. A GDP deflator is used instead of CPI because it is assumed that the inflation of MAR construction costs is related more closely to changes in GDP than to consumer price changes. GDP deflator values are taken from IMF website. See the link below. The GDP deflator for India was obtained from the Indian Reserve Bank website. http://data.imf.org/?sk=5DABAFF2-C5AD-4D27-A175-1253419C02D1&ss=1409151240976.
It was not possible to standardise operating costs across the schemes because of incomplete information about the year or years in which operating costs were collected.
A factor of PPP at time of construction of scheme was applied. Data for the factor were obtained from the following Link: https://alfred.stlouisfed.org.
For Scheme 20 ASR-OR-US which has experienced several stages of development, average annual operating costs were used.
An average of costs from 11 MAR schemes in Florida is included and presented as a single scheme.
$0.50 and $2.00 per gallon per day.
References
Alexander KS (2011) Community attitudes towards managed aquifer recharge and storm water use in Adelaide, Australia. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Canberra
ASR Systems (2006) Survey of aquifer storage and recovery capital and operating costs in Florida. ASR Systems, Gainesville
Clark R, Gonzalez D, Dillon P, Charles S, Creswell D, Naumann B (2015) Reliability of water supply from stormwater harvesting and managed aquifer recharge with a brackish aquifer in an urbanising catchment and changing climate. Environ Model Softw 72:117–125
DEMEAU (2014) M 11.1 Characterisation of European managed aquifer recharge (MAR) sites—analysis. In Project DEMEAU. http://www.demeau-fp7.eu. Accessed 29 Dec 2017
Dillon P, Arshad M (2016) Managed aquifer recharge in integrated water resource management. In integrated groundwater management: concepts, approaches and challenges. In: Jakeman A, Barreteau O, Rinaudo J-D, Hunt R, Ross A (eds) Integrated groundwater management. Springer, New York
Dillon P, Pavelic P, Page D, Beringen H, Ward J, (2009) Managed aquifer recharge: an introduction In: Waterlines report Series No 13, ed. National Water Commission, Canberra
Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and Australian Health Ministers Conference (2009) National water quality management strategy australian guidelines for water recycling: managing health and environmental risks (Phase 2) managed aquifer recharge. Australian Government, Canberra
Gleeson T, Wada Y, Bierkens MF, van Beek LP (2012). Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488(7410):197–200. https://search-proquest-com.virtual.anu.edu.au/docview/1034611795?accountid=8330. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
International Groundwater Resource Assessment Centre (2007) Artificial recharge of groundwater in the world. Delft: https://www.un-igrac.org/resource/igrac-global-mar-inventory-report. Accessed 29 Dec 2017
International Groundwater Resource Assessment Centre (2016) Global inventory of managed aquifer recharge schemes. https://www.un-igrac.org/special-project/global-mar-inventory. Accessed 29 Dec 2017
Jakeman A, Barreteau O, Rinaudo J-D, Hunt R, Ross A (2016) Overview concepts, approaches and challenges of integrated groundwater management. In: Jakeman A, Barreteau O, Rinaudo J-D, Hunt R, Ross A (eds) Integrated groundwater management. Springer, New York
Leviston Z, Browne AL, Greenhill M (2013) Domain-based perceptions of risk: a case study of lay and technical community attitudes toward managed aquifer recharge. J Appl Soc Psychol 43:1159–1176
Maliva RG (2014) Economics of managed aquifer recharge. Water 6(5):1257–1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6051257www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/6/5/1257
Megdal S et al (2014) Water banks: using managed aquifer recharge to meet water policy objectives. Water 6:1500–1514
Pyne D (2005) Aquifer storage through wells. ASR Systems, Florida
Ross A (2014) Banking water for the future: prospects for integrated cyclical water management. J Hydrol 519:2493–2500
Ross A (2017) Speeding the transition towards conjunctive water management in Australia. J Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.037
Sandhu C, Grischek T, Musche F, Macheleidt W, Heisler A, Handschak J, Patwal PS, Kimothi PC, Sustain. Water Resource Management (2017) Measures to mitigate direct flood risks at riverbank filtration sites with a focus on India. Sustain Water Resour Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0146-z
Stefan C, Ansems N (2017) Web-GIS global inventory of managed aquifer recharge applications. https://ggis.un-igrac.org/ggis-viewer/viewer/globalmar/public/default. Accessed 29 Dec 2017
Taylor RG, Scanlon B, DÓ§ll P, Rodell M, Beek RV, Wada Y, Longuevergne L, Leblanc M, Famiglietti JS, Edmunds M, Konikow L, Green TR, Chen J, Taniguchi M, Bierkens MFP, MacDonald A, Fan Y, Maxwell RM, Yechieli Y, Gurdak JJ, Allen DM, Shamsudduha M, Hiscock K, Yeh PJF, Holman I, Treidel H (2014) Groundwater and climate change. Nat Clim Change 3(4):322–329
Texas Water Development Board (2011) An Assessment of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Texas. Report by Malcolm Pirnie Inc, ASR systems LLC and Jackson, Schoberg, McCarthy and Wilson, LLP, Austin, Texas
Vanderzalm J, Dillon P, Tapsuwan S, Pickering P, Arold N, Bekele E, Barry K, Donn M, Hepburn P, McFarlane, D. (2015) Economics and experiences of managed aquifer recharge (MAR) with recycled water in Australia, Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Report. http://www.australianwaterrecycling.com.au/research-publications.html. Accessed 27 Mar 2017
Ward J, Dillon P (2011) Robust policy design for managed aquifer recharge. Waterlines report, National Water Commission, Canberra
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors would like to thank Dr Peter Dillon and one other anonymous referee for their comments.
This article is part of the special issue on Managed Aquifer Recharge.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ross, A., Hasnain, S. Factors affecting the cost of managed aquifer recharge (MAR) schemes. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 4, 179–190 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0210-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0210-8