Simulation of groundwater flow and brine discharge to the Dolores River in the Paradox Valley, Montrose County, Colorado

Salinity, or total dissolved solids (TDS), of the Colorado River affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users and is an important concern in the Western United States. In the Paradox Valley of southwestern Colorado, natural discharge of sodium-chloride brine to the Dolores River from the underlying core of a salt-valley anticline accounts for about 6 percent of the salinity load to the Colorado River. Formation of the Paradox Valley began during the Miocene, and subsequent erosion exposed the Pennsylvania Paradox Formation in the core of the anticline where a cap rock, collapse features, breccia, and sodium-chloride saturated brine developed at the top of the exposed salt diapir. The discharge of brine to the Dolores River is affected by these dissolution features, along with seasonal hydrologic conditions and density-dependent flow between older dense brine and the younger fresh groundwater in the overlying alluvial aquifer. To reduce TDS concentrations in the Dolores River through the Paradox Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation has pumped brine from a series of shallow wells adjacent to the river since July 1996. The pumped brine is collected and piped to a deep disposal well where it is injected into the Mississippian Leadville Limestone at a depth of about 4,570-meters below land surface. The pumping and injection operation is collectively known as the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), and by 2015, the PVU had substantially reduced TDS concentrations in the Dolores River by about 70 percent. Since 2019, injection-pressure limits and related seismic activity have constrained deep-well injection and thus brine pumping at the PVU.

In cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey developed a MODFLOW-6 three-dimensional, variable-density groundwater flow and TDS transport model of the Paradox Valley to evaluate the effects of PVU pumping operations on brine discharge to the Dolores River and to guide additional research. The finite-difference model grid consists of 76 rows and 48 columns oriented from northwest to southeast in alignment with valley topography and groundwater-flow directions in the near-surface freshwater alluvial aquifer. A 7-layer hydrogeologic framework was developed from existing datasets to represent the alluvial aquifer, cap rock, collapse breccia, and groundwater flow and TDS transport from the underlying Paradox Formation salt to the Dolores River. The model represents a 33-year transient calibration period from 1987 through 2020 that includes pre-PVU conditions from 1987 through June 1996 and post-PVU conditions from July 1996 through 2020. A 1,000-year simulation of groundwater flow and coupled TDS transport computed the initial conditions for the subsequent 33-year transient simulation. Observations of precipitation, streamflow, evaporation, agricultural land use, and PVU brine pumping rates were used to specify appropriate boundary conditions to the model representing time-varying recharge, tributary streamflow, groundwater underflow, evapotranspiration (ET), and PVU pumping. Values for average monthly streamflow and TDS concentration at the upstream streamgage, the Dolores River at Bedrock (USGS streamgage 09169500), were specified as model input where the Dolores River enters Paradox Valley. Observed pumping from the PVU, water levels and TDS concentrations in groundwater, and streamflow and estimated TDS concentrations at the downstream streamgage, the Dolores River near Bedrock (USGS streamgage 09171100), were calibration targets that constrained the manual calibration of model parameters representing aquifer hydraulic conductivity, storage, streambed conductance, recharge, and (ET).

Two primary model-calibration targets were the match between observed and simulated TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells and the match between estimated and simulated TDS mass flux to the Dolores River. The simulated TDS mass withdrawn by pumping wells is calculated by the model as the product of the assigned pumping rate and simulated groundwater TDS concentrations. Because actual pumping rates were assigned as simulated values, the total simulated PVU pumping for the 33-year calibration is within 0.5 percent of the observed values. However, simulated concentrations and thus mass flux of TDS withdrawn by the PVU pumping wells were consistently about 26 percent less than observed values for all the simulated time periods (33-year simulation, pre-PVU, and post-PVU). The representation of brine inflow was explored through additional modeling to evaluate the effect of the simulated brine source on groundwater TDS concentrations. Results indicated that a saturated-salt constant-flux brine source best replicated the magnitude and transient pattern observed for TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells.

The simulated TDS mass flux to the Dolores River is compared to estimates based on observed streamflow and specific conductance (SC) data for the downstream streamgage. The calibrated model provided a close fit of simulated to measured streamflow at the downstream streamgage, and the calibrated model fit to estimated TDS concentrations at the downstream streamgage was reasonable. The greatest differences between simulated and estimated values occurred during drought periods from June 2000 to March 2003, May 2012 to June 2013, and October 2013 to October 2014, when simulated TDS concentrations in the river were greater than estimated concentrations. In general, simulated TDS mass flux to the river for the pre-PVU period is in good agreement with estimated values (2-percent difference), but the model overestimated TDS mass flux to the river by about 41 percent during the post-PVU period. The model uncertainty with respect to TDS mass flux to the river indicates other processes or model parameters not well represented by the model are affecting the system, especially during drought. During model calibration, the most sensitive parameters were identified as vertical hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial aquifer, conductance of the Dolores River streambed, ET extinction depth and rate, and recharge rate.

Five 5-year scenarios of conditions for 2021–25 were simulated to assist evaluation of alternative strategies to manage the discharge of brine into the Dolores River. The first scenario simulates no PVU pumping and serves as a base case for comparison to the other scenarios. Two scenarios simulate the effects of varying withdrawal timing at an annual rate about one-third less than during 2010 through 2018. During high-flow spring snowmelt runoff periods when brine discharge is naturally minimized, PVU pumping does not substantially affect salinity in the Dolores River, and comparison of these two scenarios indicates that scheduling brine withdrawals during times of low river stage is nearly as effective at reducing TDS mass flux to the river as pumping brine year-round. Cessation of pumping during periods of high river stage may be advantageous for system maintenance, brine injection, and seismic-risk reduction. The fourth scenario tested the effect of reducing irrigation-return flow on brine discharge and predicted a slight reduction of TDS mass flux to the Dolores River, but not as great a reduction as that of using the PVU to remove brine. The fifth scenario simulated 5 years of drought conditions without PVU pumping and indicates brine discharge during drought about 15 percent greater than during average hydrologic conditions. Results from scenario 5 are consistent with the calibrated model results and indicate that aquifer properties and ET processes and parameters may be affecting simulation results during drought.

The Paradox Valley groundwater model provides a reasonable overall match to observed conditions in the Dolores River. The model is useful for evaluating relative differences between brine management scenarios to inform PVU operational decisions and to identify gaps in data and process understanding. Representation of the brine source, hydraulic-conductivity parameters, and recharge and ET processes were identified as potential areas for additional field and modeling research. Additional research in the Paradox Valley might include field-data collection that provides additional information on the hydrogeologic framework, groundwater levels, groundwater TDS concentrations, stream characteristics, and aquifer properties. Additional modeling efforts could benefit from applying advanced tools for model development, calibration, and visualization including parameter-estimation and sensitivity analysis. Statistical evaluation of known model uncertainties such as hydraulic conductivity, streambed conductance, representations of the brine source, recharge, and ET could improve the match between simulated and estimated TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells and to the Dolores River further informing model predictions and system understanding for the Paradox Valley.