Ken Lanfear, Editor of the Journal of AWRA (JAWRA) recently posted on the JAWRA blog about a JAWRA paper by Scott M. Payne and William W. (Bill) Woessner, "An Aquifer Classification System and Geographical Information System-Based Analysis Tool for Watershed Managers in the Western U.S." (you will need to pay or have a subscription to download the paper).
Bill's a friend and colleague and one best of the best hydrogeologists I know. He's now chair of the Department of Geosciences at the University of Montana.
Here is the abstract:
Aquifers and groundwater systems can be classified using a variety of independent methods to
characterize geologic and hydraulic properties, the degree of connection with surface water, and geochemical conditions. In light of a growing global demand for water, an approach for classifying groundwater systems at the watershed scale is needed. A comprehensive classification system is proposed that combines recognized methods and new approaches. The purpose of classification is to provide groundwater professionals, policy makers, and watershed managers with a widely applicable and repeatable system that reduces sometimes cumbersome complex databases and analyzes to straightforward terminology and graphical representations. The proposed classification system uses basin geology, aquifer productivity, water quality, and the degree of groundwater/surface water connection as classification criteria. The approach is based on literature values, reference databases, and fundamental hydrologic and hydrogeologic principles. The proposed classification system treats dataset completeness as a variable and includes a tiered assessment protocol that depends on the quality and quantity of data. In addition, it assembles and catalogs groundwater information using a consistent set of nomenclature. It is designed to analyze and display results using Geographical Information System mapping tools.
Here is what Ken said about the paper (emboldening is mine):
I wish I had a dollar for every classification system ever proposed [Amen!]. This one, however, got my attention because it seems widely applicable, repeatable, and reduces sometimes cumbersome complex databases and analyzes to straightforward terminology and graphical representations. Moreover, it’s based on a watershed scale.
The proposed classification system uses basin geology, aquifer productivity, water quality, and the degree of groundwater/surface water connection as classification criteria. The approach is based on literature values, reference databases, and fundamental hydrologic and hydrogeologic principles. The proposed classification system treats dataset completeness as a variable and includes a tiered assessment protocol that depends on the quality and quantity of data. The hierarchical approach is designed to improve communication between groundwater professionals and natural resource managers, similar to the classification system for natural rivers developed by Rosgen.
Classification systems always seem to involve different opinions over how things should be lumped, split [Ah! The lumpers vs. the splitters!], summarized, inspected, detected, neglected, and selected, and this one is no exception. The paper went through three full rounds of reviews before reaching tentative acceptance. Many thanks go to the reviewers who offered so many helpful comments.
The last paragraph is enlightening but not surprising, given the ubject matter. Three rounds of reviews!
And I liked it, too.
"...splitters see very small, highly differentiated units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers, on the other hand, see only large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat." - -George Gaylord Simpson, originator of the term 'lumpers and splitters'
Recent Comments