Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting the cost of managed aquifer recharge (MAR) schemes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainable Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 05 June 2018

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 05 June 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes.

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_mth.aspx?SelectDate=2017-03-31&reportType=REP.

  4. 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.

  5. For Scheme 20 ASR-OR-US which has experienced several stages of development, average annual operating costs were used.

  6. An average of costs from 11 MAR schemes in Florida is included and presented as a single scheme.

  7. $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

    Google Scholar 

  • ASR Systems (2006) Survey of aquifer storage and recovery capital and operating costs in Florida. ASR Systems, Gainesville

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megdal S et al (2014) Water banks: using managed aquifer recharge to meet water policy objectives. Water 6:1500–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyne D (2005) Aquifer storage through wells. ASR Systems, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross A (2014) Banking water for the future: prospects for integrated cyclical water management. J Hydrol 519:2493–2500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross A (2017) Speeding the transition towards conjunctive water management in Australia. J Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.037

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Andrew Ross & Sunail Hasnain

Authors
  1. Andrew Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sunail Hasnain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Ross.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0210-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation