EUROPEAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

DISCLAIMER: Although this book of proceedings has been compiled with utmost care, the Editors cannot be held responsible for any misprints and/or omissions. The options expressed by the authors are not necessairily endorsed by the Association. Cite this publication as follows: Tsakiris G., Tsihrintzis V.A, Vangelis H., Tigkas D. (eds.) 2017. Panta Rhei. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of EWRA on Water Resources and Environment, 5-9 July 2017, Athens, Greece © 2017 European Water Resources Association

iv

Tsakiris G. (chairman)

National Technical University of Athens

Karatzas G. Technical University of Crete

Loukas A. University of Thessaly

Safiolea E. National Technical University of Athens

Tigkas D. National Technical University of Athens

Tsihrintzis V.A. National Technical University of Athens

Vangelis H. National Technical University of Athens

Batelaan O. Flinders University, Australia

Boulos P. Innovyze, USA

Cancelliere A. University of Catania, Italy

Canters F. Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Chau K.W. Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Christodoulou S. University of Cyprus, Cyprus

Franchini M. University of Ferrara, Italy

Garrote L. Technical University of Madrid, Spain

Grafton R.Q Australian National University, Australia

Harmancioglu N.B. Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey

Iglesias A. Technical University of Madrid, Spain

Karnib A. Lebanese University, Lebanon

Kavouras M. National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Khalili D. Shiraz University, Iran

Kindler J. Warsaw University of Technology, Poland

Koutsoyiannis D. National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Loucks D.P. Cornell University, USA

Maia R. University of Porto, Portugal

O’Connell P.E. Newcastle University, UK

Pahl-Wostl C. Osnabrück University, Germany

Pereira L.S. University of Lisbon, Portugal

vi

Reddy J. Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India

Savic D. University of Exeter, UK

Sechi G. University of Cagliari, Italy

Schumann A. RUHR – University of Bochum, Germany

Shatanawi M. University of Jordan, Jordan

Shiau J.T. National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

Srivastava P. NASA, USA

Starrett S.K. Kansas State University, USA

Simonović S.P. Western University, Canada

Singh V.P. Texas A & M University, USA

Srdjevic B. University of Novi Sad, Serbia

Tanyimboh T. University of Strathclyde, Scotland/UK

Tayfur G. Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey

Todini E. University of Bologna, Italy

Tortajada C. Institute of Water Policy, Singapore

van Oel P. Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Angelakis A. National Agricultural Research Foundation

Angelides P. Democritus University of Thrace

Antonopoulos V. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Argialas D. National Technical University of Athens

Baltas E. National Technical University of Athens

Bellos C. Democritus University of Thrace

Dercas N. Agricultural University of Athens

Dalezios N. University of Thessaly

Giakoumakis S. National Technical University of Athens

Hrissanthou V. Democritus University of Thrace

Ioannidis Ch. National Technical University of Athens

Kalavrouziotis I. Open University of Greece

Kangalou I. Democritus University of Thrace

Kerkides P. Agricultural University of Athens

Kanakoudis V. University of Thessaly

Katsifarakis K. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Kaleris V. University of Patras

Latinopoulos P. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Laspidou C. University of Thessaly

Loizidou M. National Technical University of Athens

Mantoglou A. National Technical University of Athens

Nalbantis I. National Technical University of Athens

Papadopoulou M. National Technical University of Athens

Papamichael D. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Remoundaki E. National Technical University of Athens

Sakellariou–Makrantonaki M.

University of Thessaly

Stamou A. National Technical University of Athens

Tzimopoulos C. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Yannopoulos St. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Yannopoulos P.C. University of Patras

Zouboulis A. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

viii

This volume of Proceedings includes the papers presented at the 10th World Congress of the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) on Water Resources and Environment “Panta Rhei”. “Panta Rhei” is the saying of the famous Greek philosopher Heraclitus meaning that everything flows. The Congress was held in Athens, Greece, 5-9 July 2017.

The Congress was set under the aegis of the Presidency of the Hellenic Republic, and it is part of the celebrations for the 100 years from the establishment of the School of Rural and Surveying Engineering and the 180 years from the foundation of the National Technical University of Athens. Also, the Congress coincides with the 30-year anniversary of WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, the journal of EWRA published by Springer. Furthermore, for the first time the Congress is co-organized by the Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, in an effort to establish a constructive dialogue between Europe and America on water resources and environmental issues.

The task of the organisation of the Congress was undertaken by the Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards and Proactive Planning and the Laboratory of Reclamation Works and Water Resources Management of the School of Rural and Surveying Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens.

The aim of the Congress was the presentation of timely scientific research and studies by engineers and scientists on topics concerning Water Resources and the Environment. Other aims were the exchange of information, experiences and achievements in water resources and environmental protection, evaluation of new technologies, and presentation of innovative ideas for the protection of water resources and the environment. The Congress comprised the following nine specialised conferences: I. Advances in Hydrological Processes II. Climate and Water Resources III. Water Resources Management IV. Droughts and Water Scarcity V. Water Quality and Environmental Processes VI. Urban Water Networks VII. Agricultural Water Management VIII. Groundwater Hydrology and Contamination IX. Legislation and Policies

These nine conferences cover a wide range of cutting edge topics on water resources and the

environment. The final papers presented in each of the above conferences will comprise a number of Special Issues of the journal EUROPEAN WATER, which will be published in 2017. There were also 11 invited speeches in various topics of water resources and the environment which are included in the Special Issue of the journal WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT “Facets of Modern Water Resources Management” which was published in June 2017 (Vol. 31, Issue 10). Other presentations, such as those in the Round Table, the session of demonstration papers, and the seminars are not included in this volume.

x

The total number of authors contributing to this volume was 1046 coming from more than 50 countries of the world.

The editors would like to thank: The authors of the papers for contributing and sharing their own expertise. The reviewers of the papers for ensuring high scientific standards for the presentations. The sponsors of the conference for their financial support. All conference participants for their involvement in the exchange of knowledge, which is the

essence of this Congress.

George Tsakiris Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis Harris Vangelis Dimitris Tigkas

Y. Xuan, S. A. Abbas, X. Song and D.E. Reeve

M. Mathlouthi and F. Lebdi

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of EWRA ‘Panta Rhei’, 5-9 July 2017, Athens, Greece © 2017 European Water Resources Association

Vulnerability of groundwater to pollution using three different models in Halabja Saidsadiq basin, Iraq

T.O. Abdullah1, S.S. Ali2, N.A. Al-Ansari3* and S. Knutsson3 1 Department of Geology, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, NE. Iraq and Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources and Engineering, Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2 University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, NE Iraq 3 Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources and Engineering, Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden * e-mail: nadhir.alansari@ltu.se

Abstract: Halabja Saidsadiq Basin (HSB) is one of a major basin of Iraq in terms of groundwater reservoirs. Intensive agricultural practices and economic revolution are widespread and located close to groundwater wells, which pose imminent threats to these resources. Therefore, the most effective and realistic solution is to prevent the contamination of groundwater through. The present study targets the computation of the vulnerability of groundwater reservoirs of the study area. Three methods have been examined, namely DRASTIC, VLDA and COP to model a map of groundwater vulnerability for contamination. The standard DRASTIC vulnerability maps classified the basin of four vulnerability index zones: very low (34%), low (13%), moderate (48%) and high (5%). The VLDA model also classified the area into four categories as well: low (2%), moderate (44%), high (53%) and very high (1%).Four vulnerability classes were recognized based on COP model including very low, low, moderate and high vulnerability classes with coverage areas of (1%, 37%, 2% and 60%) respectively. After constructing every vulnerability map, it required to be confirmed in order to estimate the validity of the theoretical sympathetic of current hydrogeological conditions. In this study, nitrate concentration analysis was selected as a contamination indicator to validate the result. Considerable variations in nitrate concentration on dry to wet seasons had been renowned. Consequently, it points toward that groundwater in the HSB are capable to receive the contaminant due to suitability of overlies strata in terms of geological and hydrogeological conditions. Based on this confirmation, the result exemplifies that the degree and distribution of vulnerability classes acquired using VLDA model is more sensible.

Key words: Vulnerability, DRASTIC, VLDA, COP, Nitrate concentration, Halabja Saidsadiq Basin (HSB)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Halabja and Saidsadiq Basin (HSB) is one of the most important basins in terms of water groundwater aquifers. The concentration of economic, agricultural and social activities within the basin makes it of great importance to the region. The improvement in the economy, its development and comprehensive agricultural activities are extensive and are located near groundwater wells, posing imminent threats to these resources. From the perspective of these developments, there is an expansion of human quantities that make a line to live in this basin and the surrounding areas. This is forcing increasing attention to water, which has placed significant weight on water resources. Therefore, groundwater pollution is of particular concern as groundwater resources are the main source of water for drinking, agriculture, irrigation and industrial activities.

Groundwater vulnerability is a measure of how easy or how hard it is for pollution at the land surface to reach a productive aquifer. The vulnerability studies can provide valuable information about stakeholder working on preventing further deterioration of the environment (Mendoza & Barmen, 2006). To simplify the identification of the groundwater state and to resist the pollutants in the reservoirs, several methods were recommended such as DRASTIC, VLDA, COP, GOD, SINTACS, etc. These different methods are offered under the form of numerical excerpt systems based on the negotiation of the different factors affecting the hydrogeological system (Attoui and Bousnoubra 2012).

1828

In HSB, different vulnerability models have been applied previously; while it is very important to confirm the calculated vulnerability model reflecting the real vulnerability system in the region. Therefore, the primary objective of the present study is to compare the vulnerability map of three different models, DRASTIC, VLDA and COP, to choose a more reasonable model to be applied in the area to protect groundwater from pollution.

2. STUDY AREA

The study basin is located in the northeastern part of Iraq (Figure 1), geographically it is located between the latitude 35” 00 00" and 35" 36’ 00" N and the longitude 45” 36’ 00" and 46” 12’ 00" E. The entire study area is about 1278 square kilometers and its population of about 190,727 in early 2015. Ali (2007) divided this basin of two sub-basins including Halabja- Khurmal and Said Sadiq sub-basins. Nearly 57% of the studied area is an arable area due to its suitability for agriculture (Statistical Dtectorate, 2014).

Figure 1. Location map of study basin.

2.1 Geology and hydrogeological setting

Geologically, the studied area is located within Western Zagros Fold-Thrust Belt. Structurally, it is located within the High Folded zone, imbricated, and thrusted zone. Different geological formations were exposed to the basin, these formation consists of limestone, dolomitic limestone and conglomerate which have an effective role in the vulnerability system in the basin. Alluvial (Quaternary) deposits are the most important unit in the area in terms of hydrogeological characteristics and water supply. The thickness of these deposits as observed by (Abdullah et al, 2015 a) of about nearly 300 m.

Hydrogeologically, different groundwater aquifers exist in the area based on its geological origin, Table 1. The mountain series, which surround the basin of the northeast and southeast, are characterized by high depth of groundwater, while toward the center and the southeastern part, the groundwater level has a relatively lower depth. A groundwater movement is usually from high elevated areas at the north and northeast and south and southeast towards southwest or generally toward the reservoir of Derbandikhan Dam.

EWRA 2017 - ‘Panta Rhei’ 1829

Table 1. Type of aquifers in the study basin.

Aquifer type Geological formation Thickness (m) References Intergranular Quaternary deposits more than 300 Abdullah 2015 a Fissured Balambo,Kometan 250 Ali,2007

Fissured-Karstic Avroman Jurassic formation

200 From 80 to 200

Jassim and Goff,2006

Non-Aquifer (Aquitard)

Qulqula Shiranish Tanjero

more than 500 225 2000

Jassim and Goff,2006

3. METHODOLOGY

To study groundwater vulnerability in this basin, three different models were applied with the aid of GIS technique. The first applied model is DRASTIC, which is consist of seven physical parameters .The most important parameters that control groundwater contamination comprise to be the depth to water (D), Net recharge (R), Aquifer media (A), Soil media (S), Topography (T), Impact of vadose zone media (I), and Hydraulic conductivity (C).These parameters are weighted from one to five based on their relative significance of contributing to the contamination potential. Each parameter characterized by different rating and weighting to value. The achieving index is a qualified measure of vulnerability to contamination; areas with a higher index value are more vulnerable than those with a lower index. The standard DRASTIC index (DI(w-r)) calculated is based on the following equation, (Aller et al,1987):

DI =DWDr+ RWRr+ AWAr+ SWSr+ TWTr+ IWIr+ CWCr (1)

where: DI is the DRASTIC Index, (D, R, A, S, T, I and C) are the seven parameters w is the weight parameter and r is the rate of the parameter as recommended by (Aller et al, 1987).

The second applied model is VLDA, principally it reflect lithology of vadose zone (V), pattern of land use (L), groundwater depth (D), and aquifer characteristics (A), (Zhou et al, 2012). In addition, consistent weight can be assigned to each of the four indexes depending on its impact on groundwater vulnerability.

The vulnerability comprehensive assessment index (DI) is the sum of the above-mentioned weighted four indexes, as computed conferring to the following formula, (Zhou et al, 2012):

DI= (2)

where DI is the comprehensive assessment index , Wij is the weight of the jth comprehensive assessment index of the ith sub-system, Rij is the value of the jth assessment index of the ith subsystem; 4 is the quantity of indexes.

The slighter the DI signifier to the lower vulnerability of the groundwater system and the better the stability will be. For evaluating the groundwater vulnerability, the new corresponding weights in HSB were proposed using sensitivity analysis method (Abdullah 2015 b). According to the result of sensitivity analysis, the proposed weights used for VLDA model measured as 8.2, 4.8, 5.2 and 4.8, and after normalization, the weight is 0.357, 0.209, 0.226 and 0.209, respectively, (Abdullah 2016a).

The third applied model is COP; its abbreviation comes from the three initials of factors namely flow Concentration (C), Overlying layers (O) and Precipitation (P) (Vias et al., 2006). The hypothetical basis of this strategy, as indicated by the European Approach (Daly et al., 2002) and (Goldscheider and Popescu, 2004), it is to evaluate the ordinary protection for groundwater (O variable) controled by the properties of overlying soils and the unsaturated zone, and also to measure how this assurance can be adjusted by diffuse, infiltration (C factor) and the climatic conditions (P Factor – precipitation). The COP-Index map was computed from equation 3

1830

(Abdullah et al., 2016b; Vias et al., 2006):

COP Index Map= C*O*P (3)

4. RESULT AND CONCLUSIONS

After the weighted scores were attained for all parameters in each model, the GIS technique was used to combine all layers. The Standard DRASTIC models to reveal four zones of vulnerability index to comprise very low, low, moderate and high vulnerability index, Figure 2. The moderate and very low vulnerability zones which covering an area of 48% and 34% of the whole studied area respectively. The moderate vulnerability zone occupies two different areas; the first zone is the area of mountains surrounding the studied basin comprises the fissure and karstic aquifer. While the second area comprise the Quaternary deposits surrounding the area of Derbandikhan Lake in the southwest of the basin. Furthermore, the zone with low vulnerability comes in the third sequence and occupies 13% of the overall surface of the basin. The zone with high vulnerability indexes cover only 5% of the total area and located in the centre of the basin, this area is characterized by the area of high water table level and of fractured limestone type of an aquifer.

Figure 2. DRASTIC Vulnerability Index Map of HSB

The vulnerability outcome based on VLDA model, reveals that a total of four ranges of vulnerability indexes had been distinguished ranging from low to very high, with vulnerability indexes (2.133-4 , >4-6, >6-8 and > 8), Figure 3. The area of low and very high vulnerability zone of 2% and 1% of whole study area respectively. The High vulnerability classes occupied most of the mountains area that surrounding the basin and the central part of HSB. This vulnerability zone covered an area of 53% of whole area. Finally, medium vulnerability zones to cover an area of 44% of all studied area and positioned southeast and northwest. Both high and moderate vulnerability class that occupied most of the studied basins refer to the exhaustive human activities, good water yield property and lithological composition of an aquifers.

EWRA 2017 - ‘Panta Rhei’ 1831

Figure 3. VLDA Vulnerability Index Map of HSB

Four classes of vulnerability ranging from very low to high are branded depending on the COP model, Figure 4. High vulnerability zones which cover an area of 60% of the whole HSB, geologically includes the area of a fissure and slight karstic carbonate rocks. While, low vulnerability class comes in the second order and occupy 37% of the whole area, this area mostly characterized by alluvial deposits. The zone with moderate and very low vulnerability classes cover only 2% and 1% of the total area respectively.

Figure 4. COP Vulnerability Index Map of HSB

1832

4.1 Validation of the result

The significant dissimilarity has been illustrious from all applied models. So validation of vulnerability maps for these three models became obligatory, therefore nitrate concentration analysis has been selected. Nitrate as a pollution indicator can be supportive to distinguish the evolution and changes of groundwater quality. In the particular study case, the nitrate differences between two following seasons (dry and wet) were analyzed from (30) watering wells. The result illustrates considerable variations in nitrate concentration on dry to wet seasons, Figure 5. Based on this validation, it can be confirmed that HSB is capable of receipt the contaminant due to suitability in geological and hydrogeological conditions. Based on this verification, the degree and distribution of level of vulnerability acquired using VLDA model are more sensible than that attained from the standard DRASTIC and COP models. With increasing nitrate concentration the vulnerability rates increased too, because land to use patterns is considered being one of the most effective factors of VLDA model and this parameter dose not included in DRASTIC and COP models.

Figure 5. Comparison of all applied models with nitrate concentration.

5. CONCLUSION

Three different methods particularly standard DRASTIC, VLDA and COP have been applied to assess the potential vulnerability of HSB to groundwater contamination. The values of the standard DRASTIC vulnerability indexes ranged between (63 and 191), the VLDA indexes with values ranging from (2-9), the values of the COP indexes ranged between (1-6). The higher index value for both DRASTIC and VLDA models means higher vulnerability category, while the lower index value of COP model means higher vulnerability class.

The vulnerability classes are elucidated in Table 2, all models to clarify four vulnerability classes. DRASTIC and COP models comprises (very low to high), while VLDA model embraces (low to very high).The significant dissimilarity has been illustrious from all applied models. Therefore, validation of achieved vulnerability maps becomes compulsory. Nitrate as a pollution indicator from agricultural processes can be supportive to distinguish the evolution and changes of groundwater quality. The result illustrates considerable variations in nitrate concentration on dry to wet seasons. So it can be concluded that groundwater in HSB is capable of receiving the contaminant. Based on this verification, Figure 5 demonstrates that the degree and distribution of level of vulnerability acquired using the VLDA method is more sensible than that attained from

EWRA 2017 - ‘Panta Rhei’ 1833

both standard DRASTIC and COP methods.

Table 2. Result of index ratio for all applied models. Vulnerability class DRASTIC rate % VLDA rate % COP rate % Very low 34 0 1 Low 13 2 37 Medium 48 44 2 High 5 53 60

REFERENCES

Aller L., Bennett T., Lehr JH., Petty RH, and Hackett G.,1987. DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic setting. USEPA report 600/2-87/035, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma74820, 252 p.

Ali S. S.,2007. Geology and hydrogeology of Sharazoor - Piramagroon basin in Sulaimani area, northeastern Iraq. Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Serbia. 317P.

Attoui B, Kherci N, Bousnoubra H.,2012. State of vulnerability to pollution of the big reservoirs of groundwater in the region of Annaba-Bouteldja (NE Algeria). Geographia Technica. 2:1-13.

Abdullah T. O. , Ali S.S., Al-Ansari N.A. and Knutsson S.,2015a. Effect of agricultural activities on groundwater vulnerability: Case study of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq. Journal of Environmental Hydrology 23(10).The open access electronic journal found at http://www.hydroweb.com/protect/pubs/jeh/jeh2015/AnsariGW.pdf

Abdullah, T.O., Ali, S.S., Al-Ansari, N.A. and Knutsson, S.,2015b. Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping using Lineament Density on Standard DRASTIC Model: Case Study in Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Engineering, 7, 644-667. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2015.710057.

Abdullah, T.O., Ali, S.S., Al-Ansari, N.A. and Knutsson, S.,2016a. Assessing the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution using DRASTIC and VLDA models in Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, NE - Iraq.. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 10 (2016) 1144-1159, doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2016.10.006.

Abdullah, T.O., Ali, S.S., Al-Ansari, N.A. and Knutsson, S.,2016b. Groundwater Vulnerability Using DRASTIC and COP Models: Case Study of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq. Engineering, 8, 741-760. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=71681.

Daly D, Dassargues A, Drew D, Dunne S, Goldscheider N, Neale S, Popescu C, Zwhalen F .,2002. Main concepts of the “European Approach” for (karst) groundwater vulnerability assessment and mapping. Hydrogeol J 10(2):340–345.

Goldscheider, N. and Popescu, C.,2004. The European Approach. In: Zwahlen F (ed) Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers. European Commission, Brussels, pp 17–21.

Huang T, Pang Z, Edmunds W.,2012. Soil profile evolution following land-use change: Implications for groundwater quantity and quality. Hydrol. Process 27(8):1238-1252.

Jassim S.Z. and Guff J.C.,2006. Geology of Iraq. Jassim (Eds) D. G. Geo Survey. Min. Invest. Publication. 340p. Mendoza JA, and Barmen G., (2006): Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in the Rio Artiguas Basin, Nicaragua. Environmental

Geology 50: 569_580. Statistical Directorate in Sulaimaniyah,2014.Archive Department. Vias J.M.,Andreo B., Perles M.J. , Carrasco I., Vadillo P. and Jim'enez P.,2006. Proposed method for groundwater vulnerability

mapping in carbonate (karstic) aquifers: the COP method. Application in two pilot sites in Southern Spain. Hydrogeology Journal (2006) 14: 912–925. DOI 10.1007/s10040-006-0023-6.

Zhou J. , Li Q. ,Guo Y. , Guo X. , Li X., Zhoa Y. and Jia R.,2012. VLDA model and its application in assessing phreatic groundwater vulnerability: a case study of phreatic groundwater in the plain area of Yanji County, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Earth Science Journal Vol.67 .pp. 1789-1799.