Comparing Global Violations of Environmentally Critical Groundwater Discharge Thresholds

Abstract

Groundwater is a crucial resource to support surface water bodies via groundwater discharge. In this study, we applied two methods of estimating global environmentally critical groundwater discharge, defined as the flux of groundwater to streamflow necessary to maintain a healthy environment, from 1960 to 2010: the Presumptive Standard stipulates that a standard proportion of groundwater discharge should be maintained at all timesteps, while the Q* is a low-flow index that focuses on critical periods. We calculated these critical flow thresholds using simulated natural groundwater discharge, and estimated violations of the thresholds when human-impacted groundwater discharge dropped too low. Our global assessment of the frequency and severity of violations over all timesteps in our study period showed that the Presumptive Standard estimated more frequent and severe violations than the Q*, but that the spatial patterns were similar for both methods. During low-flow periods, when the relative importance of groundwater to support streamflow is greatest, both methods estimated similar magnitudes of violation frequency and severity. We further compared our results to a method of estimating environmentally critical streamflow, Variable Monthly Flow, which does not explicitly consider groundwater. From the differences in violation frequency between these groundwater-centric and surface water-centric methods, we evaluated the influence of including groundwater contributions to streamflow in environmental flow assessments. Our results show that including groundwater in such assessments is particularly important for regions with high groundwater demands in the drier climates of the world, while it is less important for regions with low groundwater demands and more humid climates.