Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

An aquifer storage and recovery system with reclaimed wastewater

to preserve native groundwater resources in El Paso, Texas
Zhuping Sheng*
Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1380 A&M Circle, El Paso, TX 79927, USA
Received 16 March 2004; revised 6 May 2004; accepted 28 October 2004

Abstract
The traditional concept of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) has been emphasized and extensively applied for water resources
conservation in arid and semi-arid regions using groundwater systems as introduced in Pyne’s book titled Groundwater Recharge and Wells.
This paper extends the ASR concept to an integrated level in which either treated or untreated surface water or reclaimed wastewater is stored
in a suitable aquifer through a system of spreading basins, infiltration galleries and recharge wells; and part or all of the stored water is
recovered through production wells, dual function recharge wells, or by streams receiving increased discharge from the surrounding
recharged aquifer as needed. In this paper, the author uses the El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) ASR system for injection of reclaimed
wastewater into the Hueco Bolson aquifer as an example to address challenges and resolutions faced during the design and operation of an
ASR system under a new ASR system definition. This new ASR system concept consists of four subsystems: source water, storage space-
aquifer, recharge facilities and recovery facilities. Even though facing challenges, this system has successfully recharged approximately 74.7
million cubic meters (19.7 billion gallons) of reclaimed wastewater into the Hueco Bolson aquifer through 10 recharge wells in the last 18
years. This ASR system has served dual purposes: reuse of reclaimed wastewater to preserve native groundwater, and restoration of
groundwater by artificial recharge of reclaimed wastewater into the Hueco Bolson aquifer.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system; Groundwater; Reclaimed wastewater; Water quality compatibility

1. Introduction 7 billion people in 60 countries will be faced with water

As the world population is expected to grow from the
current 6.1 billion to 9.3 billion by the year 2050 (UNESCO,
2003), water demands are expected to soar. At the same
time, water resources will steadily decline because of
growing demand at an unsustainable rate, rising pollution
levels and expected climate change (UNESCO, 2003).
Between 1960 and 1997, the per capita availability of
freshwater worldwide declined by about 60%. Another 50%
decrease in per capita water supply is projected by the year
2025 (Hinrichsen, 1998). It was reported (Gardner-Outlaw
and Engelman, 1997; UNESCO, 2003) that by the middle of
this century, and depending on factors such as population
growth and policy-making under a worst case scenario
* Tel.: C1 915 859 9111; fax: C1 915 859 1078.
E-mail address: z-sheng@tamu.edu.
0301-4797/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.10.007
scarcity while under a best case scenario 2 billion people in
48 countries will be facing similar circumstances.
The greatest threat to maintaining fresh water supplies is
depletion of surface-water and groundwater resources used
to meet the needs of a rapidly growing human population.
Surface water is not always managed effectively, resulting in
water shortages and pollution which threaten humans and the
aquatic biota that depend on it (Pimentel et al., 1999). The
Colorado River, for example, is used so heavily by Colorado,
California, Arizona, and other states, that by the time the river
reaches Mexico, it is usually no more than a trickle running
into the Sea of Cortes (Sheridan, 1983). Groundwater
resources are also mismanaged and over-drafted, especially
in arid or semi-arid regions. Because of their slow annual
recharge rate, usually ranging between 0.1 and 0.3% (UNEP,
1991; Covich, 1993), groundwater resources must be care-
fully managed to prevent depletion. Yet, humans are not
effectively conserving groundwater resources.
368 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377

Total groundwater pumpage in the United States was

approximately 84.5 billion gallons per day in 2000 (Hutson
et al., 2004). In the United States, aquifer overdraft averages
are over 25% higher than replacement rates (USWRC, 1979;
Hutson et al., 2004). In an extreme case like the Ogallala
aquifer under Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas, the annual
depletion rate is 130–160% above the replacement rate
(Beaumont, 1985). If these overdraft rates continue, the
Ogallala aquifer is expected to become non-productive by the
year 2030 (Soule and Piper, 1992). Although no technology
can double the flow of the Colorado River, or enhance other
surface-water and groundwater resources, improved
environmental management and conservation can increase
the efficient use of available freshwater (Galloway et al.,
2003; Pimentel et al., 1999). Several measures, which
include water conservation, conjunctive uses of surface
water and groundwater, reuse and reclamation of wastewater,
and artificial recharge of the stressed aquifer, could ease the
water crisis in arid or semi-arid regions.
El Paso, Texas is located on the Chihuahua Desert and is
currently experiencing a prolonged river drought that has
stressed remaining groundwater resources. El Paso shares
groundwater from two regional aquifers, the Hueco Bolson
and the Mesilla Basin, and surface water from the Rio
Grande (Fig. 1) with communities in New Mexico and
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. With an average rainfall of 203 mm
(8 in.) per year and an average evaporation of over 2032 mm
(80 in.), water is not an abundant resource in the region. As
a result of long-term pumping started in the early 20th Fig. 1. Regional water resources and location map of the El Paso ASR
century, groundwater resources have steadily become system.
stressed. The groundwater drawdown has exceeded 60 m
(197 ft) in some areas of Ciudad Juarez and El Paso within infiltration basins appear to be a viable alternative to the
the Hueco Bolson aquifer (Heywood and Yager, 2003). use of recharge wells for recharge of the deep aquifer.
During the 1980s, El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) started Infiltration basins are more cost-effective compared to
to explore alternative water resources to augment future recharge wells if geologically adequate and economically
water supply. One of the alternative water resources affordable land is available. Since the ASR concept was first
discovered was the reuse of reclaimed wastewater (Knorr introduced in 1983 by Pyne (1995), the concept has been
and Cliett, 1985), injected through recharge wells into the emphasized and extensively applied for water resources
Hueco Bolson aquifer, and recovered by neighboring wells conservation and conjunctive uses of surface water and
for municipal and industrial water supply as well as for groundwater in arid and semi-arid regions using groundwater
irrigation of a golf course, cooling of a power plant, systems as media (Bouwer, 2002; Dillon, 2002; Johnson and
construction, and other purposes. Most recently, the New Pyne, 1994). In this paper the author further extends the
Mexico–Texas Water Commission (NM-TXWC) explored concept of the ASR system by integrating four subsystems:
the feasibility of new aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) source water, aquifer storage, recharge facilities and
systems to store surplus treated surface water in the regional recovery facilities. This paper then presents a synopsis of
aquifers and recover it as needed to meet water demands, the performance of the EPWU’s ASR system in terms of
which is a new step towards a regional water resources restoring local water levels using reclaimed wastewater, and
management approach (NM-TXWC, 1999). The investi- the unveiling of some of the challenges encountered in the
gation concluded that northeast El Paso appeared to have operation of that ASR system since its startup in 1985.
favorable hydrogeological conditions for implementation of
a large-scale recharge infrastructure. EPWU and the
American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF) have also conducted research to determine the 2. Generic definition of an ASR system
feasibility of utilizing infiltration basins as recharge
facilities, and usage of neighboring wells to recover stored Even though artificial recharge has been studied and
water (Hahn et al., 2003). The study concludes that widely used for water resources management around
 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
the world for almost half a century, the aquifer storage and
recovery concept was introduced about two decades ago
(ASCE, 2001; Bouwer, 2002; Dillon, 2002; Johnson and
Pyne, 1994). This concept was first introduced as a type of
groundwater recharge by Pyne (1995), in which ASR is
defined as the storage of water in a suitable aquifer through a
well during times when water is available, and recovery of
the water from the same well during times when it is needed.
In this paper, the author uses a generic definition for an ASR
system to address issues that Pyne’s definition does not
cover. The author defines an ASR system as a framework in
which treated or untreated surface water as well as
reclaimed wastewater is stored in a suitable aquifer through
spreading basins, infiltration galleries and recharge wells;
and part or all of the stored water is recovered through
recharge wells themselves or neighboring production wells,
or by increasing the base flow in the stream as needed
(Sheng, 2003). An ASR system is a water management tool
that helps sustain economically recoverable water supply by
redistributing available water over a period of time and
through a hydrologically suitable space. An ASR system,
under the definition presented in this paper, consists of four
subsystems: source water to be stored, storage space-
aquifer, recharge facilities accompanied by necessary
delivery pipelines and/or channels, and recovery facilities
with an adequate distribution network. This new ASR
system concept embraces all the above-mentioned sub-
systems as its integrated components, and also includes
more recharge methods besides recharge wells, namely
spreading basins and infiltration galleries, irrigation net-
works, seepage from canals and laterals, infiltration from
agricultural irrigation, and run-off collection ponds (Barnett
et al., 2000; Bouwer, 1991, 2002; Dillon, 2002; Johnson and
Pyne, 1994). Besides dual-functional wells, the recovery
component of the ASR system is also expanded by including
neighboring production wells as recovery wells, and
adjacent streams as receivers of increased discharge from
surrounding aquifers. Such a configuration integrates
production of native groundwater with recovery of stored
water as well as marginal quality water that otherwise may
not be used directly. Under this new approach, all
subsystems interact with each other and depend on each
other. For example, stored source water should be
compatible with native groundwater so that resulting
water does not deteriorate the underground storage space,
and screens of production and recharge wells do not become
clogged by adverse geochemical reactions such as precipi-
tation of calcium carbonate (calcite), iron and manganese
oxide hydrates (ASCE, 2001; Bouwer, 2002; Pyne, 1995).
The stored water may also cause swelling or dispersion of
clay particles in the aquifer, which can reduce the storage
space and the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (ASCE,
2001; Pyne, 1995). The influence of injection on existing
production wells cannot be ignored or overlooked because it
becomes one of the important components in the design,
construction and operation of an ASR system.
369
3. Design of the El Paso reclaimed wastewater
ASR system
The El Paso reclaimed wastewater ASR system was
constructed and put into operation in 1985. Its source water
is reclaimed wastewater treated at the El Paso Water
Utilities Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant. Its storage
space is the Hueco Bolson aquifer in northeast El Paso,
where the geological formation is thick enough for effective
injection, and sufficient land access for effective recovery of
the injected water is available. EPWU’s ASR recharge
facilities include 10 recharge wells and one pilot recharge
basin with a delivery pipeline from the Fred Hervey Water
Reclamation Plant; and its recovery facilities are neighbor-
ing production wells, primarily production wells that are
down gradient of recharge wells, connected with a potable
water distribution network (Fig. 2). These four subsystems
and their interactions will be discussed in detail in the
following sections. This ASR system serves several
purposes: first, storing the excess reclaimed wastewater
and recovering it for future supply or to meet peak demand;
second, partially restoring the depleted aquifer by raising its
water level; and third, slowing down or preventing intrusion
of brackish water.
3.1. Source water
The EPWU ASR system injects reclaimed water from the
Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant into the Hueco
Bolson aquifer. That Plant is designed to receive up to
38,000 cubic meters per day (m3/day) or 10 million gallons
per day (mgd) of influent wastewater from Northeast of El
Paso. Besides adequate quantity of water available for
injection, water quality is another important factor that
should be considered in feasibility analysis and design of an
ASR system. The origin of the wastewater is groundwater
from the Hueco Bolson aquifer. As one of the primary
Fig. 2. Configuration of the El Paso reclamation water ASR system.
370 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
design requirements, reclaimed water should meet safe
drinking water standards prior to injection (Knorr and Cliett,
1985). The National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulation enforced by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), which includes a proposed organic chemical
requirement, and the Texas Department of Health (TDH)
Drinking Water Standards were used as water quality
guidelines.
Wastewater is treated and turned into potable water by
two separate treatment processes. The first process (pri-
mary) removes particulate matter such as trash, sands, and
suspended particles from the wastewater influent through
screening, degritting, and primary settling in sedimentation
tanks. The second process (secondary and tertiary treat-
ments) produces potable water from the primary treated
wastewater by biological treatment, chemical coagulation
and granular medium filtration (ASCE, 2001; Knorr and
Cliett, 1985). This process consists of powdered activated
carbon (PAC) treatment, lime treatment, filtration, disin-
fection and granular activated carbon filtration. A two-stage
PAC treatment removes dissolved pollutants, ammonia, and
even minute concentrations of organic contaminants. The
lime treatment process raises the pH in water to kill viruses
and remove hardness, phosphorus and heavy metals. Carbon
dioxide is added to the water to lower its pH value
afterward. Sand filters are used to reduce turbidity of treated
water. Ozone disinfection is used to sterilize the treated
water. Finally, water is further filtered as it passes over
activated carbon granules to remove any remaining organic
contaminants. The produced potable water is then stored in a
three compartment clear well for 8 h, which allows further
analyses to be made to verify appropriate water quality prior
to injection. To prevent possible biologic growth in the
tanks and recharge system due to storage delay, a small dose
of chlorine residual (0.25 mg/L) is added to the water prior
to storage.
3.2. Storage spaces
The Hueco Bolson aquifer is one of the major regional
water sources, which provided about 1/3 of El Paso’s water
supply in 2002, and is the sole supply source for Ciudad
Juarez and other municipal and rural communities in the
region. The Hueco Bolson aquifer is an unconfined and a
semi-confined aquifer within a long, sediment-filled trough
that lies between the Franklin, Organ, and San Andres
Mountain ranges (west side) and the Quitman, Malone,
Finlay, Hueco, and Sacramento Mountain ranges (east side).
The Hueco Bolson aquifer consists of unconsolidated to
slightly consolidated deposits, composed of fine- to
medium-grained sand with interbedded lenses of clay, silt,
gravel and caliche. Sediments in the Bolson are fluvial,
evaporitic, alluvial fan, and aeolian in origin and have a
maximum thickness of 2743 m (9000 ft) (Cliett, 1969;
Hibbs et al., 1997).
Pilot tests proved that the aquifer is appropriate for
storage of injected water (Knorr and Cliett, 1985). The
water level northeast of El Paso is about 107 m (350 ft)
below the land surface, which allows a sufficient storage
space and an appropriate hydraulic head build-up of
76–91 m (250–300 ft) above the static water level without
overflow. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the
interval averages 8.13 m/day (26.7 ft/day). The coefficient
of transmissivity is about 1242 cubic meters per day per
meter (m3/day/m) (100,000 gal/day/ft) (Knorr and Cliett,
1985). Therefore, the EPWU northeast wellfield was
selected as an injection site since it offered the maximum
potential benefit to the City of El Paso for three primary
reasons. First, that location provides enough underground
storage space and sufficient depth to allow hydraulic head
build up within recharge wells. Secondly, recharge wells are
located in such a way that allows maximum recovery of
injected water to be achieved, thus minimizing costs as
potable water supplies are increased. Thirdly, it allows
adequate aquifer residence time to provide the opportunity
for additional purification of water in the aquifer prior to
being pumped and put into the distribution system for
municipal and/or industrial use.
3.3. Recharge facilities
The injection facility is a key subsystem that controls
overall performance of the ASR system. The recharge
facilities for the El Paso ASR system include 10 wells, 4 of
which have been replaced. One recharge basin was
constructed as a pilot facility for the AWWARF project in
2000 and has been in operation since 2001. Recharge wells
were designed to meet one of the basic objectives of the
project: to increase potable water supplies with the lowest
practical risk. This objective leads to two basic criteria for
the design of recharge facilities: (1) maximum recovery of
stored water to minimize costs, and (2) adequate aquifer
residence time to provide the opportunity for additional
purification of stored water. As shown in Fig. 2, recharge
wells are located between neighboring production wells,
and are designed and constructed in such a way so that water
is injected from the top of the saturated zone to the point
where TDS is less than 1000 mg/L to assure the good
quality of the recovered water. At that zone, well screens are
placed between 107 m (350 ft) and 269 m (881 ft) below
land surface. Such well design assures that reclaimed
wastewater is recharged into the fresh water zone in the
aquifer, and recovered water meets safe drinking water
standards with additional treatment. Even though the
inactivation period of known viruses is usually on the
order of months, an aquifer residence time of 2 years was
required by TDH to assure complete inactivation of viruses
in the recovered water. This can be interpreted as a down-
gradient spacing of 369 m (1210 ft) (Knorr and Cliett, 1985)
based on the estimated velocity in consideration of the local
hydraulic gradient and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
material. The recharge wells were located at a distance
ranging from 782 m (2566 ft) to 1006 m (3300 ft) from the
down-gradient production well, while staying closer to up-
gradient production wells at a distance ranging from 230 m
(755 ft) to 829 m (2720 ft).
3.4. Recovery facilities
Even though the recovery process was not part of the
original design of the ASR system, spacing between
neighboring production wells and recharge wells was
considered to assure a sufficient residence time of stored
water in the aquifer. Well spacing of approximately 782 m
to the down-gradient production wells or recovery wells
allows for a much longer residence time (over 5 years based
on the simulated groundwater velocity) for the stored water
than that required by the TDH (2 years). A major volume of
the injected water will be recovered by four down-gradient
production wells. Some of the injected water can also be
recovered by production wells that are located down
gradient farther from the injection wells.
3.5. Integrated system
The previous concept of the ASR primarily focuses on
the well technology for injection and recovery (Pyne, 1995);
however, the introduced generic ASR system integrates four
subsystems: source water, storage space-aquifer, the
recharge facilities and recovery facilities that interact with
each other and depend on each other. Even though each
subsystem can be constructed independently and serves
different purposes under certain circumstances, to develop
an ASR system as a highly efficient integrated system
requires a thorough evaluation of interactions among
subsystems and a systematic design. First, the interaction
of source water and native groundwater were evaluated to
assure minimum impacts of the ASR system on the native
groundwater. Secondly, impacts of the recharged water on
the storage space and well capacity, such as clogging by
adverse geochemical reactions, were assessed to assure
sufficient storage space and driving heads for injection.
Thirdly, potential impacts of recharge facilities on the
recovery facilities were also estimated to assure that the
recovered water would not pose a potential risk to human
health, and the existing production system might not be
contaminated. Lastly, the most important component in
development of the ASR was to assess impacts of the ASR
system on the aquifer system in terms of restoration of
groundwater availability and protection of native water
quality through water level measurements and water quality
monitoring. The key to success for development of an ASR
system is to treat each subsystem as an essential component
of the ASR system and to integrate all subsystems with
recognition of interactions among these subsystems to
achieve optimal operation effectiveness and cost efficiency.
371
4. Assessment of the El Paso ASR system performance
This ASR system has been in operation for over 18 years,
and has faced several challenges in its operation throughout
this time. Resolutions for those challenges have provided
good guidelines for future development of similar systems
within the region or within other similar arid and semi-arid
environments.
4.1. Injection vs. other uses
Since its startup in 1985, The Fred Hervey Plant has
produced approximately 121.6 million cubic meters (m3)
(32.1 billion gallons) of reclaimed wastewater, of which 2/3
(74.7 million m3) have been injected into the Hueco Bolson
aquifer, and 1/3 has been used for other purposes. The
annual injection peaked at 7 million m3 (1.86 billion
gallons) in 1990; however, the annual injection rate has been
reduced thereafter due to increases in demands for other
uses of reclaimed water, primarily for cooling purposes at El
Paso Electric Company. Injection currently accounts for
only approximately 35–50% of total produced reclaimed
wastewater. It should be noted that the recharge basin has
been in operation since 2001, and accounted for about 40%
of annual injection in 2003. It is expected that the infiltration
basin recharge method may become the most viable method
for recharge, and be expanded due to its low construction
and operation costs as well as its easy maintenance. Fig. 3
shows the total production, volume of water injected into the
Hueco Bolson aquifer, and volume of water used for other
purposes for the last 18 years.
4.2. Water quality compliance and compatibility with native
groundwater
As required by regulating agencies, water quality should
be in compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation, including proposed organic chemical require-
ments, and the Texas Department of Health Drinking Water
Standards. Table 1 shows some of the water quality
requirements, and the performance of the reclamation
plant. The quality of reclaimed wastewater from the Fred
Hervey Water Treatment Plant has met designed require-
ments except for chloride, which exceeded the TDH water
quality standard of 250 mg/L in February 2003. High
chloride concentration in reclaimed wastewater is naturally
caused by high chloride concentration from some of the
production wells, which consequently affects inflow into the
Reclamation Plant.
In addition to originating in the Hueco Bolson aquifer,
inflow into the Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant
undergoes a strict, advanced treatment process that makes
reclaimed wastewater compatible with the native ground-
water. Fig. 4 shows the comparison of water quality of the
reclaimed wastewater and native groundwater. Both
reclaimed wastewater and native groundwater have high
372 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377

Fig. 3. Annual production and usage of the El Paso reclaimed wastewater.

sodium and chloride concentration ratios. However, the
HCO3CCO3 ratio of reclaimed wastewater is higher than
that found in native groundwater, and its sulfate ratio is
almost the same as that of native groundwater. Both are
sodium-chloride type water.
4.3. Restoring or maintaining local water levels
One of the objectives of this ASR system is to restore
water levels within the stressed Hueco Bolson aquifer. The
Hueco Bolson aquifer groundwater flow model, which was
developed by the USGS using MODFLOW-96 (Heywood
and Yager, 2003; Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996; TWDB
Table 1
Water quality requirements vs. quality of produced reclamation water at Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant
and EPWU, 2004) to evaluate strategies for obtaining the
most beneficial use of the Hueco Bolson aquifer system, was
used to evaluate effects of the ASR system. The active
model area encompasses 5303 km2 (2408 mi2) in Chihua-
hua, Mexico, and New Mexico and Texas in the United
States. The model extends from 37 km north of the New
Mexico–Texas state line to a point on the Rio Grande 3 km
south of Fort Hancock, Texas (Fig. 1). Unconsolidated
deposits ranging from 138 to 693 m thick above an altitude
of 600 m are represented with 10 model layers, each of
which consists of 165 rows and 100 columns of cells with a
width of 500 or 1000 m on either side (Heywood and Yager,
2003). Each of the top 9 layers is 30 m thick and the bottom

Parameters Units EPA Safe Drinking Water Texas Depart- Fred Hervey water reclamation plant production Notes
Standard (MCLG) ment of
Min Max Average
Health
Arsenic mg/L Primary !0.05 0.05 0.002 0.003 !0.0020 New EPA
MCLG is 0.
01 mg/L as of
1/23/2006
Barium mg/L Primary 2.0 2.0 0.06 0.036 0.026
Cadmium mg/L Primary 0.005 0.01 !0.0005 !0.0005 !0.0005
Fluoride mg/L Primary 4.0 1.4–1.8 0.15 0.8 0.64 Treatment
technique
Lead mg/L Primary !0.015 0.05 !0.0005 !0.0005 !0.0005 Treatment
technique
Nitrate mg/L Primary 10 10 0.12 4.98 1.77
Aluminum mg/L Secondary 0.5–0.2 !0.2 !0.2 !0.2
Chloride mg/L Secondary 250 300 170 321 213 In Feb 2003,
chloride
exceeded the
TDH standard
Copper mg/L Secondary 1.0 1.0 !0.1 0.26 0.2
Iron mg/L Secondary 0.3 0.3 !0.02 !0.02
pH Secondary 6.5–8.5 7 7.2 7.6 7.4
Sulfate mg/L Secondary 250 300 63 101 76
TDS mg/L Secondary 500 1000 607 839 693
 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377 373

Fig. 4. Comparison of water quality of the reclaimed wastewater and native groundwater using the Piper diagram. (A) Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant
treated water quality and (B) groundwater quality in the EPWU Well 32 located near the injection zone.

layer (10th) varies in thickness from 0 to 276 m. The model
was calibrated using MODFLOWP (Hill, 1992) and
UCODE (Poeter and Hill, 1998). Parameter values repre-
senting aquifer properties and boundary conditions were
adjusted through non-linear regression in a transient-state
simulation with 96 annual time steps to produce a model
that approximated 4352 water levels and 30 seepage losses
rates along the Rio Grande and canals.
Two pumping scenarios were evaluated: one with the
ASR system fully operational, and one without the ASR
system. Fig. 5 shows water levels in 2000 with the
ASR system in place (solid lines in Fig. 5) and without the
ASR system (dashed lines in Fig. 5). Groundwater flows into
the pumping center with overall flow direction towards the
south even under the pumping scenario with the ASR system
fully operational. By comparing water levels under the two

Fig. 5. Simulated water level contours within the recharge wellfield in 2000.
374 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
Fig. 6. Simulated water levels along two cross-sections in 2000 with a
different distance scale from Fig. 5. (A) Cross-section A–A 0 (North–South)
and (B) cross-section B–B 0 (West–East).
pumping scenarios in Fig. 5, one can conclude that water
levels have been raised locally by the ASR system. Fig. 6
shows water levels along the cross-sections A–A 0 (North–
South) and B–B 0 (West–East) under two different pumping
scenarios. Water levels were raised by about 4 m (13 ft) at the
center of the recharge wellfield as a result of injection of the
reclaimed wastewater. Water levels were raised more on
the down-gradient side of the recharge wells than on the up-
gradient side (Fig. 6A). Water levels were raised mostly at
the center of the recharge wellfield as shown in Fig. 6B. Fig. 7
shows that water levels differ as the total injection increases
Fig. 7. Simulated temporal variation of water levels at the center of the
recharge wellfield.
with time at the center of the recharge wellfield near recharge
well RW6 under two pumping scenarios: one with the ASR
system and the other one without it. It is concluded that local
water levels can be recovered with an ASR system of
sufficient recharge capacity. However, water levels may
continue to drop as the pumping continues without the ASR
system. The more water is recharged, the higher the water
levels rise. The water level rise reached a maximum of about
5 m (16.4 ft). The magnitude of change in water levels was
decreased as the injection rate was further reduced after 1997
(Fig. 3).
4.4. Recharge well design and failure
All the early recharge wells constructed in 1984, RW1
through RW10 except RW8 which was constructed in 1981,
used the same design with different screen lengths and well
depths for each well to fit site-specific hydrogeological
conditions. The recharge wells are constructed with
406.4 mm (16 in.) of galvanized, wire wrapped screen
with an 88.9 mm (3 (1/2) in.) galvanized injection line. The
injection lines were placed about 15 m (50 ft) below the
static water level to reduce the possibility of air entrainment.
Injection rates of recharge wells range from 1.51 to
2.65 m3/min (400–700 gpm) depending on hydraulic prop-
erties and characterization of well screen. Even though these
wells are equipped with 3.79 m3/min (1000 gpm) pumps for
redevelopment, these wells are designed for injection-only
in order to comply with EPA and TDH requirements on
water quality and residence time for recovery. The wells are
scheduled for redevelopment every 6 months.
Four recharge wells (RW1, 2, 3 and 10) have failed. The
reasons for the failure include electrochemical corrosion
caused by the foreign electric potential from existing
cathodically protected gas pipelines, where the galvanized
injection line and pump columns serve as one anode and the
well screen as another. The chemical content of the injected
water (containing both a lower pH with dissolved oxygen,
higher chloride and sulfate concentrations than native
groundwater, and free chlorine), and inadequate well
development have also been the causes of failure for those
wells. The following measures have been taken to prevent
such failure. First, a cathodical protection was installed with
removal of the injection column and replacement of the
existing pump column with a black steel pipe in order to
avoid electrochemical corrosion at some well locations.
After the removal of the injection column, the reclaimed
water will be injected through the pump column rather than
through the injection line. Secondly, recharge wells were
developed regularly to maintain well screens in good
condition and retain a good injection capacity. Thirdly,
PVC or stainless steel well screens were installed in new
wells to avoid corrosion by chemical reaction or other
factors instead of carbon steel screens. With the modifi-
cation to the existing well system and improved design for
 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
new wells, the recharge system maintains a good oper-
ational condition.
5. Discussion
The above section only covered some examples of the
challenges that the El Paso ASR system has experienced.
There are more challenges that we have to face as we further
develop the ASR system as an effective tool in water
resources management besides ASR well technology
(ASCE, 2001; Bouwer, 1991, 2002; Pyne, 1995). Following
are some issues that we have to address in future
development of ASR systems.
5.1. Recharge wells vs. infiltration basin
With the advantages of low cost and easy maintenance
over recharge wells, the infiltration basin appears to be a
viable recharge method for existing and future ASR
systems. According to the AWWARF study (Hahn et al.,
2003), the infiltration basin is a viable alternative to the
recharge wells based on a short-term pilot test. However,
potential contamination of the recharged water in the
infiltration basin, possible clogging of the vadose zone,
long-term water quality impacts and vulnerability of the
infiltration basin have not been assessed. It is recommended
that additional monitoring of the infiltration basin recharge
method be conducted to collect data on its long-term
performance, and risk analysis be carried out to assess
potential vulnerabilities of this recharge method prior to
implementation of additional infiltration basins.
5.2. Microbial transport through a recharge well
vs. an infiltration basin
With recommended new regulations on pathogens and
viruses, potential microbial transport in the water system
becomes a very critical issue to be considered in the design
and operation of an ASR system. Recharge wells and
infiltration basins may have different mechanisms for virus
and pathogen transport into the aquifer because the run-off
into an open infiltration basin may pose higher risks for
virus and pathogen cross-contamination than a recharge
well. On the other hand, the vadose zone may provide
additional filtration while the recharged water flows from
the infiltration basin down to the groundwater surface
(ASCE, 2001; Bouwer, 2002). In addition, a large
temperature variation in the infiltration basin may provide
conditions, which are different from a relatively constant
temperature in a recharge well, for growth of bacteria and
survival of viruses. Such differences could become
important criteria in the selection of either recharge method
for future applications of a similarly designed ASR system
because the recovered water may pose threats to human
health and additional treatments may be required to assure
375
that the quality of the recovered water meets present and
future drinking water standards. Therefore, the author
recommends that base microbial appearance and distri-
bution be evaluated within the storage area. In addition,
water and soil samples should be collected during the
storage and recovery processes to determine risk of potential
transmission of microbes through the ASR system.
5.3. Sharing of the recovered water
Under current conditions, El Paso recovers and uses most
of the water, if not all, that has been recharged into the
aquifer because of the location of the ASR system. As
previously mentioned, the Hueco Bolson aquifer is a
transboundary aquifer shared by three states (Chihuahua,
New Mexico and Texas) and two nations (Mexico and the
United States). The Hueco Bolson aquifer is currently the
sole source of drinking water for Ciudad Juarez, Mexico,
while it provides El Paso, Texas with approximately 30–
40% of its annual water supply. Each geopolitical party has
its own regulations and policies for groundwater resources
management and planning. There is neither an international
treaty nor interstate compacts to regulate the current usage
of groundwater from the Hueco Bolson aquifer. A
systematic regional water resource management plan is
needed to address legal and institutional issues that will be
faced in future development of ASR systems in the region as
well as the sharing of remaining fresh and brackish
groundwater resources in the regional aquifers (Sheng
et al., 2001). Therefore, additional studies are recommended
to assess potential barriers and institutional incentives in
future management and planning of transboundary ground-
water resources.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, the ASR system developed in El Paso,
Texas, is an effective water management tool, which stores
either treated or untreated surface water as well as reclaimed
wastewater in a suitable aquifer through spreading basins,
infiltration galleries and recharge wells; and recovers part or
all of the stored water through recharge wells themselves,
neighboring production wells, or by streams with increased
discharge from the surrounding aquifers as needed. This
generic definition of an ASR system includes not only more
aquifer recharge methods besides recharge wells, namely
spreading basins and infiltration galleries, irrigation net-
works such as canals and laterals, infiltration from
agricultural irrigation, and run-off collection ponds, but
also more recovery methods including production wells and
streams.
Under the definition developed in this paper, an ASR
system includes four integrated subsystems, namely the
source of water to be injected, storage space-aquifer,
recharge facilities and recovery facilities. All of those
376 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
subsystems interact with each other. Any changes in one
subsystem can affect other subsystems. All subsystems
should be considered in the design of an ASR system so that
each subsystem can be constructed to interact with the
others more effectively and even more cost-effectively.
The El Paso ASR system proves to be a successful case in
the reuse of reclaimed wastewater, which serves a dual
purpose: reuse of reclamation water and restoration of
groundwater levels locally. Through the use of this system
water levels have been raised up to 5 m at the center of the
recharge wellfield and have allowed sufficient aquifer
residence time (over 5 years) to assure the good quality of
water recovered by neighboring production wells. The
reclaimed wastewater is also compatible with the native
groundwater and meets both EPA primary drinking water
standards and Texas Department of Health Water Standards.
With challenges posed by new EPA recommended
regulations on pathogens and viruses, and risks associated
with implementation of alternative methods for recharge
such as infiltration basins, it is recommended that additional
data collection and risk analysis be conducted to have a
better understanding of the mechanisms of microbial
transport in different recharge facilities, and to assure that
low-risk ASR systems be developed and operated to sustain
adequate water supplies for the growth of local commu-
nities. To secure a systematic management of the trans-
boundary groundwater resources, additional studies are also
recommended to address legal and institutional issues that
may arise as all stakeholders treat the aquifer as an
integrated system.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on work in part supported by EPWU,
Texas Agriculture Experiment Station, Hatch Project of the
US Department of Agriculture, and the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, US Depart-
ment of Agriculture under Agreement No. 2003-34461-
13278. The author is appreciative to Dr Ari Michelsen and
Dr George Di Giovanni of TAMU, Mr Michael P. Fahy, Mr
Javier Hernandez and Mr Roger Sperka of EPWU for their
constructive comments and inputs. The author appreciates
Mr Charles Heywood’s contributions for sharing his
insights into groundwater modeling. The author is thankful
to Mr Luis S. Aristizabal, Mr Omar Alvarado, Mr Joshua
Villalobos and Mr Dong Zhang of TAMU for their
assistance in data processing and mapping, and Ms Karla
F. Peterson of EPWU for her help in data preparation. The
author thanks Dr Ni-Bin Chang and other two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions
for improvement of this paper. The opinions and results
presented in this paper are those of the author and do not
represent those of EPWU.
References
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), 2001. Standard guidelines
for artificial recharge of ground water, EWRI/ASCE 34-01. ASCE,
New York.
Barnett, S.R., Howles, S., Martin, R.R., Gerges, N.Z., 2000. Aquifer storage
and recharge: innovation in water resources management. Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences 47 (1), 13–19.
Beaumont, P., 1985. Irrigated agriculture and groundwater mining on the
high plains of Texas. Environmental Conservation 12, 11.
Bouwer, H., 1991. Groundwater recharge with sewage effluent. Water
Science and Technology 23, 2099–2108.
Bouwer, H., 2002. Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and
engineering. IAH Hydrogeology Journal 10, 121–142.
Cliett, T.E., 1969. Groundwater Occurrence of the El Paso Area and its
Related Geology, in Guidebook 20th Field Conference, New Mexico
Geological Society, Border Region, Chihuahua, Mexico, and United
States, pp. 209–214.
Covich, A.P., 1993. Water and ecosystems, in: Gleick, P.H. (Ed.), Water in
Crisis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 40–55.
Dillon, P.J., 2002. Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability,
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Artificial Recharge
of Groundwater, Adelaide, Australia. Balkema.
Galloway, D.L., Alley, W.M., Barlow, P.M., Reilly, T.E., Tucci, P., 2003.
Evolving issues and practices in managing ground-water resources:
case studies on the role of science. US Geolgoical Survey Circular
1247.
Gardner-Outlaw, T., Engelman, R., 1997. Sustaining Water, Easing
Scarcity: a Second Update. Population Action International, Washing-
ton DC; also available at http://www.populationaction.org/resources/
publications/water/water97.pdf.
Hahn, W., Thompson, H., Forbes, J., Ankeny, M., 2003. Comparison of
Alternative Methods for Recharge of a Deep Aquifer. AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
Harbaugh, A.W., McDonald, M.G., 1996. User’s Documentation for
MODFLOW-96, an Update to the US Geological Survey Modular
Finite-difference Ground-water Flow Model. US Geological Survey
Open File Report 96-485 Reston, VA.
Heywood, C.E., Yager, R.M., 2003. Simulated Ground-water Flow in the
Hueco Bolson, an Alluvial-basin Aquifer System Near El Paso, Texas.
US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 02-4108,
Albuquerque, NM.
Hibbs, B.J., Ashworth, J.B., Boghici, R.N., Hayes, M.E., Creel, B.J.,
Hanson, A.T., Samani, B.A., Kennedy, J.F., 1997. Trans-boundary
Aquifers of the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez/Las Cruces Region. Texas Water
Development Board, Austin, TX.
Hill, M.C., 1992. A Computer Program (MODFLOWP) for Estimating
Parameters of a Transient, Three-dimensional Ground-water Flow
Model using Nonlinear Regression. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 91-484, Reston, VA.
Hinrichsen, D., 1998. Feeding a future world. People and the Planet 7 (1), 6–9.
Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, D.S.,
Maupin, M.A., 2004. Estimated use of water in the United States in
2000. US Geolgoical Survey Circular 1268.
Johnson, A.I., Pyne, R.D.G., 1994. Artificial Recharge of Ground Water-II,
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Artificial
Recharge of Ground Water, Walt Disney World Swan, Florida. ASCE,
New York.
Knorr, D., Cliett, T., 1985. Proposed groundwater recharge at El Paso,
Texas, in: Asano, T. (Ed.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, MA, pp. 425–480.
NM-TXWC (New Mexico–Texas Water Commission), 1999. Concept
Design of ASR Wellfield and Collection Facilities (Final Report).
http://www.nm-txwatercomm.org/library.html, accessed in March
2004.
 Z. Sheng / Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 367–377
Pimentel, D., Bailey, O., Kim, P., Mullaney, E., Calabrese, J., Walman, L.,
Nelson, F., Yao, X., 1999. Will Limits of the Earth Resources Control
Human Numbers. http://dieoff.org/page174.htm, accessed in April,
2004.
Poeter, E.P., Hill, M.C., 1998. Documentation of UCODE, a Computer
Code for Universal Inverse Modeling. US Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigation Report 98-4080, Reston, VA.
Pyne, R.D.G., 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells. Lewis, Boca Raton,
FL.
Sheng, Z., 2003. On Recovery Efficiency of Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Systems, Proceedings American Water Resources Association, San
Diego, CA, CD-ROM, AWRA.
Sheng, Z., Fahy, M.P., Devere, J., 2001. Management Strategies for the
Hueco Bolson in the El Paso, Texas, USA and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
Region, in Bridging the Gap, Proceedings of the World Water and
Environmental Resources Congress, Orlando, FL, CD-ROM, ASCE.
377
Sheridan, D., 1983. The Colorado—an engineering wonder without enough
water. Smithsonian February, 45–54.
Soule, J.D., Piper, D., 1992. Farming in Nature’s Image: An Ecological
Approach to Agriculture. Island Press, Washington, DC.
TWDB (Texas Water Development Board) and EPWU, Hueco Bolson
Groundwater Availability Model (GAM), http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/
gam/hmbl/hueco.htm, accessed in March 2004.
UNEP, 1991. Global Environment Monitoring System, Nairobi, Kenya:
Freshwater Pollution, United Nations Environment Programme.
UNESCO, 2003. Water for people—water for life—The United Nations
World Water Development Report. UNESCO Publishing/Berghahn
Books; also available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/water/
WWDR-english-129556e.pdf.
USWRC, 1979. The Nation’s Water Resources 1975–2000: Second
National Water Assessment, vols. 1–4. US Water Resources Council,
Washington, DC.