identifying and quantifying the hidden sources of recharge...
TRANSCRIPT
Identifying and quantifying the hidden sources of
recharge and pollutants that deteriorate the
water ecology along the lower Jordan River
Eilon Adar, Shai Arnon
&
Sylvie Massoth
Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Sede Boqer Campus. Israel 84990
Vienna. April, 13, 2015
Lebanon
Jordan
Syria
Israel
Water Balance: In fluxes and Out fluxes from the Jordan River
Israel:National water carrier
350 MCM
+
80 MCM
Inflows: Upper Jordan river
700 MCM
Jordan
Israel
Inflows: ~700 MCM
Evaporation: 280-300 MCM
The Jordan River basin is a transboundary basin shared by:
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestinian Authority and Israel.
Yarmuk River
450 MCM
Jordan:
Salt springs carrier
20 MCM
Sea of
Galilee
Dead
Sea
480
Yarmouk River ~450Wadi Arab ~28
Zarka River ~65
~1,300
Historical flow rates (MCM/Y)
Western streams ~200
Limited hydrological and chemical information on the active water
sources contributing to the Jordan basin, limits our understanding of
the Lower Jordan River aquatic processes.
Sewage+ Brines
30
Amman waste water 30-40
Irrigation from east60-70 MCM
King Talal dam
Irrigation from west~30 MCM
D. dam
Adasiya D.
King Abdullah Canal (~150)
30
30-200 MCM
35
Sea of
Galilee
Dead Sea Current flow rates (MCM/Y)
From Perennial River to Dry Stream and Puddles - Massive withdrawal of water
from the Upper Jordan Valley dried the lower Jordan River.
Limited UJR discharge, wastewater effluents and agriculture return flowshave degraded the Jordan River water quality and severely damaged theJordan River ecosystem
Without input from the fresh sources, most of the Lower Jordan stream
relies on hidden natural sources, effluents and return flows from
irrigation.
OBJECTIVE
• Identify and quantify the hidden active water fluxes and
pollutants along the lower Jordan River.
for ecological
evaluation,
Lower Jordan River Basin
Sea of
Galilee
Dead Sea
North
South
Central
Each Source of water is
characterized by a unique
hydro-chemical and isotopic composition
(designated by different color)
Lower Jordan River
Cl and So4 concentration variation along the river
May
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from Alumot in km
Con
cent
rati
on i
n m
g/lit
er
Cl_north So4_north Cl_centre So4_centre Cl_south So4_south
North SouthCentral
Conceptual framework of the mixing-cell modeling
VI
VII
VIII
0.30-0.43
0.03-0.04
Flux in-betweencells
Recharge from errat ic f loods
Rateof pumping
Evaporat ion from open lagoons
Outf lux
Pm
0.44-1.57
0.018-0.023
0.67-0.87
1.47-1.59
8.35-8.7
1.46-2.6Leakage from the chalk aquitard
Seepage from springs
Rechargeby contaminated eff luents
Recharge from upper riverbed
sections or tributaries
0.113
0.102
7.501.29-1.98
3.47-5.18
1.2-1.46
3.67-4.47
1.84-2.25
0.0
X
1.35-1.42
0.018
0.6-0.7
1.75-2.3
Fluxes (in 106 m3/year) Within the Shallow
Alluvial DepositsAlong the Riverbed
Gravel quarry
(Lagoon)
0.02.18
0.0
2.23
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
Pm
Yoav Spring
Zealim Spring
0.
0X
V
IV III
II
0.11-0.15
I
0.36-0.47
Legend
Gvulot Horizontal well
Zealim Horizontal well
Data processing
mixing-cell model (MCM)
Water Balance Expression
011 1
)1(
n
J
j
nj
R
r
I
i
inrn WQQSnn n
All potential sources are identified
nn
J
j
nj
R
r
I
i
inrn WQQSnn n
11 1
)2(
Leakage from the clay & marls formations
Wn
Mass Balance Expression
nk
I
i
J
j
nnjnkinink
r
rnrnk WQCQCSCnR
1 11
)3(
rnrkQC
inkC
inkC
nkC
Every source is designated by a unique hydro-chemical composition
River input
Cell
JR-67 –Yarmouk River
JR-70
JR-69
JR-68
JR-68 A
JR-64
Cell-65
JR-62
JR-54
B1
B4
B6
Bore hole
Modeling (north)
River input
Cell
JR-67 –Yarmouk River
JR-70
JR-69
JR-68
JR-66
JR-64
Cell-65
JR-62
JR-54
Cell-63
JR-57
JR-53
B1
B4
B6
Bore hole
May 2000 – Upper Jordan
River
ResultsSources of water to the upper Jordan River (Cell #1) at Alumot dam
Cell Source winter 00-01 summer 01
%Cell inflow % diff. %Cell inflow % diff.
Cell_1 Alumot Bridge 2.56% 2.54% Cell_0 Outlet of Sea of Galilee 14.4 * ***
W.Surf.Inflow_121 Bitaniya 12.1 5.0 W.Surf.Inflow_122 Saline carrier 73.4 95.0
95
Relative fluxes vs. real fluxes
ResultsImpact of agriculture (Cell #3)
ResultsJordan River and Yarmuk confluence (Cell #4)
Cell Source winter 00-01 summer 01
% of Cell inflow
% diff.% of Cell
inflow% diff.
Cell_4 Gesher 1.60% 3.32%Cell_3 77.3 97.2
W.Surf.Inflow_125Yarmuok River -
Naharayim 22.7 2.93
ResultsImpact of fish ponds (Cell #10)
Sampling stations (south)
JR-53 -Jordan River Input
River input
Cell
Source
Cell-1
Cell-2
Cell-3
Cell-4
Cell-5
Farber et al. 2004
Modeling (south)
May 2000
River input
Cell
S-spring (Sukot)
JR-53
JR-49
JR-47
JR-42
JR-45
JR-51
Results: Jericho – lower Section
Achievements!
A clearer understanding of the active water resources contributing to
the perennial stream of the Jordan River
Water quality deteriorates along the LJR due to anthropogenic
activities (mainly due to discharge wastewater and agriculture return
flow), and from natural saline water bodies.
Identification the portion of freshwater versus contaminated sources
that contribute to the current poor eco-hydrology of the LJR.
Although the relative contribution from shallow groundwater to the
perennial stream is relatively low in winter time, this inflow component
is the major source for nutrients, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides
into the Jordan River.
In the northern LJR basin, the main sources of marginal water flowing into
the Jordan River are wastewater and agricultural return flow.
In the south, the contribution of saline shallow groundwater increases as
compared to the wastewater and agricultural return flow.
We hope that the ability to define firm hydrological flow pattern of active sources and accurate water fluxes into the Lower Jordan River will help to assess, reclaim, revive and reconstruct the aquatic eco-hydrology of the river.
For FREE COPY of the MCMsf or MCMusf Code send an e-mail to:
Thank You [email protected]
Almost no flux measurements are available in the Lower
Jordan River
A Comprehensive unified cross-borders hydro-chemical
database for the Jordan River Basin was constructed and
used to quantify the different water discharges and their
qualities along the entire lower Jordan River.
The multi-cells Mixing Cells Modeling (MCM) optimization
approach is suggested as a tool for identifying and
quantifying known and hidden sources of fluxes into
streams and rivers.
Summary
Modeling the spatial and temporal dynamics of the Jordan River
Water quality was done by the MCMsf approach for 2 sampling
campaigns
The model we used assumes steady state conditions but MCMusf
version of the model can also deal with non-steady (transient)
conditions
Summary
29
44
42
24
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Seaof Galilee
1Alumot
Dam
4
22
23
26
30
31
39
43
Yarmouk
Shifa
W. Ziqlab
W. El-A
rab
34
38
#
KA
CK
ing A
bdulla
h C
anal
(KA
C)
km0
51
01
52
02
5
Jordan
Isra
el
Palestinian
Authority
Low
er J
ord
an R
iver
Syria
Lebanon
Sea of
Galilee
Dea
d S
ea
Yarmouk
N
25 km
Upper
Jord
an R
iver
320N
35
0E
Issashar
W. Teibeh
Arab
Dam
Yavniel
Salin
e
Carr
ier
Tavor
Nimrod
28
Harod 41
40
45
P46
36
P
P
P
P
P
Dgania
Weir
Bitania
WW
TP2
P
27
#
8
20
18
21
19
Tributary Sampling site
River Sampling site
Legend
Site #
Bridge Crossing
P Pumping station
Groundwater sampling site
Dam/Wier
32
35
37
Sheich-
Hussein Br.
25
32 33
H
Naharaim
Hydrometric st.
#
3
#
5
6
#
9
#
7
10
11
12
1314
1516
17P
Sampling stations (north)
Farber et al. 2004