1 / 16

Assessing the effect of Land use on the Edward’s aquifer water quality

Assessing the effect of Land use on the Edward’s aquifer water quality. Julien Villard University of Texas CE 394k. Facts about the Edward’s aquifer 22 to 55 million acre-feet Head drop > 1 foot/day Increased environmental concerns: Urban sprawl Overdrafting.

peri
Télécharger la présentation

Assessing the effect of Land use on the Edward’s aquifer water quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing the effect of Land use on the Edward’s aquifer water quality Julien Villard University of Texas CE 394k

  2. Facts about the Edward’s aquifer • 22 to 55 million acre-feet • Head drop > 1 foot/day • Increased environmental concerns: Urban sprawl Overdrafting Municipal wells in San Antonio, 1895

  3. Contamination sources 85% 15% • Agricultural areas • Fertilizers, farming, animal dejections • Urban areas • Domestic sewage, storm water runoff • Industrial areas • Organic industrial wastes

  4. Well location shapefile Selection by location Selection by attribute “Water_Qual”=“Y” My new shapefile

  5. Water quality data Sulfate, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate, TDS Travis, Hays, Comal, Bexar, Medina, Uvalde, Kinney

  6. Sulfate 2003 Nitrate 2003 Fluoride 2003 Chloride 2003

  7. USGS Land use data • Land cover classification system • Urban • Low residential • High residential • Industrial • Commercial Industrial • Agricultural • Pasture • Row crops • Small grains • Fallow

  8. Density rasters Urban density % Agricultural density%

  9. Results • Urban areas

  10. Results • Agricultural areas

  11. Crop density

  12. Results • Crop areas

  13. Results Selection of points at less than +/- 5% off the straight line

  14. Conclusion • No apparent correlation between land use and fluoride, sulfate. • Small trend between nitrate concentration and land use in the recharge area. • Recharge area more sensitive to land use?

  15. Any Questions? My brother was having fun while I was preparing my slides

More Related