Althanael

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ASSESSMENT IN
THE MAKUTUPORA BASIN, DODOMA

TANZANIA
Rosemary Athanael Rwebugisa

March, 2008
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ASSESSMENT IN THE
MAKUTUPORA BASIN, DODOMA TANZANIA
by
Rosemary Athanael Rwebugisa
Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science
and Earth Observation, Specialisation: (Groundwater Assessment and Modelling)
Thesis Assessment Board
Dr. Ir. M.W. Lubczynski (Chairman, Associate Professor WRS, ITC)

Dr. Ir.P. Droogers (External examiner, Future Water)
Dr. A.S.M. Gieske (1st supervisor, ITC)
Dr. Ing.T.H.M. Tom Rientjes (2nd supervisor, ITC)
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION

ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS
Disclaimer
This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International
Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed
therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of
the institute.
Dedicated to my parents,
my late father Athanael R. Baitila and my mother Blandina K. Kauta.
Abstract
The Makutupora basin is located within Precambrian metasediments and fractured crystalline granitic
rocks in the Dodoma region, central part of Tanzania, and has an area of about 1600 km2. It is
characterized by a semi-arid climate with average annual rainfall of about 550 mm and
evapotranspiration of 2000 mm per annum.
The increase in population growth and improvement of life standards has caused an increase in
demand of the water supply for the Dodoma city. This study was carried out to enhance the
sustainable management of the groundwater resource as the reliable source of water in the region.
The recharge flux estimation within the basin was made by the Chloride Mass Balance method,
WTRBLN model, Earth model and hydrograph analysis. A Conceptual model was developed by
combination of satellite imagery information such as Aster image, STRM DEM combined with field
observation data including pumping test data, drilled borehole logs and geological map. A distributed
single layer model was developed. The aquifer system was modelled using PMWIN as pre and post
processor for MODFLOW. It was assumed that the aquifer is under steady state and confined
conditions. The Thornthwaite and Mather water balance model was used to study the hydrologic
regime of the basin on a monthly basis.
The recharge flux was estimated to be about 5 to 12 mmyr-1 equal to 1 - 2% of annual rainfall.
MODFLOW results indicated the annual water budget of the basin reached equilibrium conditions
with recharge from precipitation 8.9, abstraction 7.3, and discharge at the outlet of the basin 1.6 in
MCM per year. The Thornthwaite and Mather water balance model indicated no moisture surplus for
all dry years with low surplus for the wet years. The water quality assessment indicated that, the
Makutupora basin is characterized by CaHCO3 water type, typical fresh water. The hydrochemical
evolution is from less bicarbonate to more bicarbonate composition and the cation composition is
changing from high concentration of Na + K to higher concentrations of Ca and Mg.
It is expected that this study will provide appreciable contribution in sustenance and management of
groundwater resource in the basin. Despite the data scarcity for monitoring wells in the basin, the
developed groundwater model will provide more insight in understanding hydrologic behaviour of the
system in relation to current imposed stress on the recharge flux.
Keywords: Makutupora basin, Recharge flux, Groundwater modelling
i
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank all organizations and individuals who made it possible for me to complete my studies
in ITC. I am very grateful to the Water Supply Authority management in Shinyanga, Tanzania
(SHUWASA), to have released me to come and further my knowledge here in Netherlands. Special
thanks go to Mr. N. M. Mgozi who introduced ITC to me and encouraged me to apply.
I am deeply indebted to my first supervisor Dr. A. S. M. Gieske for his supervision, encouragement
and guidance he has provided me throughout the research period. He was always willing to listen and
give his opinions to challenges. May God bless you.
I would like to thank my second supervisor Dr. T. H. M. Rientjes for his guidance and encouragement
throughout the entire period of the research work. His critical comments in modelling issues have
really upgraded my knowledge in relation to modelling. My acknowledgement will not be complete
without mentioning Ir. A. M. van Lieshout who allowed me to undertake this research from my home
country. I further extend my acknowledgements to the WREM team in ITC as they all contributed in
one way or another to the completion of my studies.
My field work campaign for data collection could not be fruitful without great help from Prof. A.
Mruma, Mrs. E. Mcharo, Mr. S. Katanga, Mr. E. F. Nahozya, Mr. Frank and all staff of the Regional
Water Office in Dodoma and SHUWASA, special thanks to you all.
My classmates and all friends in the Netherlands have been part of my family during my study period
and they played a big role in this success. I thank you.
Finally I would like to send my sincere gratitude to my family. Special thanks to my husband who has
been taking care of our beloved kids and for encouraging me constantly for the whole period. Special
thanks to my brother Gasper Rwebugisa who encouraged me to knowledge.
Thank you all and be blessed.
ii
Table of contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Water resources development in Dodoma region...................................................................2
1.3 Problem identification and justification of the research.........................................................2
1.4 Research objectives ................................................................................................................5
1.5 Hypotheses..............................................................................................................................5
1.6 Selected Studies and application of GIS, RS, CMB and Modeling........................................5
1.7 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................................................6
2. The study area...................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Location of the study area.......................................................................................................7
2.2 Hydrology and climate............................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Rainfall ...............................................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Temperature........................................................................................................................8
2.2.3 Radiation ............................................................................................................................9
2.3 Evapotranspiration ..................................................................................................................9
2.4 Drainage system....................................................................................................................11
2.5 Hydrogeological setting........................................................................................................11
2.6 Geology.................................................................................................................................12
2.7 Geomorphology ....................................................................................................................14
2.7.1 Soil types ..........................................................................................................................14
2.7.2 Topography.......................................................................................................................14
2.8 Vegetation cover/ land use....................................................................................................17
3. Methodology and data ....................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Methodology.........................................................................................................................18
3.2 Data.......................................................................................................................................19
4. Groundwater resource evaluation...................................................................................... 20
4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................20
4.1.2 Pumping test analysis .......................................................................................................20
4.1.3 Constant discharge pumping test analysis........................................................................22
4.2 Water quality evaluation.......................................................................................................25
4.2.1 Groundwater chemistry ....................................................................................................25
4.2.2 Water quality parameters..................................................................................................26
4.2.3 Sampling points ................................................................................................................26
4.2.4 Field sampling procedure ................................................................................................27
4.2.4 Laboratory determination .................................................................................................27
4.2.5 Chemical analysis results .................................................................................................27
4.2.6 Electrical conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids .........................................................30
4.2.7 Water type deduction........................................................................................................31
4.2.8 Previous hydrochemical studies done on the study area ..................................................32
4.2.9 Hydrochemical evolution of groundwater in the basin ....................................................32
5. Groundwater recharge assessment..................................................................................... 36
5.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................36
5.2 Recharge mechanisms in the basin .......................................................................................36
iii
5.3 Recharge estimation methods .............................................................................................. 37
5.4 Chloride Mass balance method............................................................................................ 38
5.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 38
5.4.2 Data requirement and calculation procedure................................................................... 39
5.4.3 CMB estimation results ................................................................................................... 40
5.5 The Thornthwaite and Mather method ................................................................................ 40
5.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 40
5.5.2 The method calculation procedures................................................................................. 40
5.5.3 WTRBLN: A computer program to calculate water balance .......................................... 42
5.5.4 Preparation of model inputs............................................................................................. 43
5.5.5 Model execution and results............................................................................................ 44
5.6 Analysis of hydrograph of monitoring boreholes ............................................................... 46
5.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 46
5.6.2 Relationship between rainfall and recharge .................................................................... 48
5.7 Recharge modelling by Earth............................................................................................... 49
5.7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 49
5.7.2 Model estimation results.................................................................................................. 50
5.7 General discussion ............................................................................................................... 51
6. Groundwater modeling ......................................................................................................54
6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 54
6.2 Conceptual model ................................................................................................................ 55
6.2.1 Boundary conditions........................................................................................................ 56
6.2.2 Stratigraphic units............................................................................................................ 57
6.2.3 Surface water body .......................................................................................................... 58
6.2.4 Sinks and sources of the modelled area........................................................................... 59
6.2.5 The modelled area ........................................................................................................... 59
6.3 Aquifer geometry ................................................................................................................. 60
6.4 The model code.................................................................................................................... 60
6.5 Data input for the model ...................................................................................................... 60
6.6 Model execution and calibration ......................................................................................... 60
6.7 Uncertainty of the model calibration ................................................................................... 62
6.8 Sensitivity analysis............................................................................................................... 63
6.9 Model results........................................................................................................................ 64
6.9.1 Recharge and transmissivity........................................................................................... 64
6.9.2 Simulated potentiometric levels ...................................................................................... 64
6.9.3 Water balance of the basin .............................................................................................. 68
6.9.4 Scenario analysis ............................................................................................................ 69
6.10 Two layers model development ........................................................................................... 69
7. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................71
7.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 71
7.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 72
References .................................................................................................................................73
Appendices................................................................................................................................77
Appendix A: Meteorological data ..................................................................................................... 77
Appendix B: Hydrogeological data................................................................................................... 79
iv
Appendix C: Hydrochemical data and pumping test data .................................................................82
Appendix D: Recharge estimation data .............................................................................................88
Appendix E: Modelling ......................................................................................................................94
Appendix F: The study area ...............................................................................................................95
v
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Well abstractions against time ............................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.2: Rainfall variation against time.............................................................................................. 4
Figure 1.3: Groundwater fluctuations with time (BH 234/75)................................................................ 4
Figure 2.1: Makutupora basin location map............................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.2: Variation of rainfall in the basin for the period of 1922 - 2006 ........................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Variation of temperature for the period of 2000 to 2006 ................................................... 10
Figure 2.4: Variation of radiation for the period of 2000 to 2006 ........................................................ 10
Figure 2.5: Variation of wind speed for the period of 2000 to 2006 .................................................... 10
Figure 2.6: Variation of PET in the basin for the period 2000 to 2006 ................................................ 11
Figure 2.7: Geological map of the study area (Source: GST Dodoma, Tanzania) ............................... 13
Figure 2.8: Structural map of the basin (Source: GST Dodoma, Tanzania) ......................................... 13
Figure 2.9: Display of red and black clays soils on top of granitic bedrock (Shindo, 1990)................ 15
Figure 2.10: Contour map of the basin (Source: SRTM DEM, 2007) .................................................. 16
Figure 2.11: Geomorphological map of the basin................................................................................. 16
Figure 3.1: Methodology flow chart ..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4.1a: Drawdown against time for BH C5................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.1b: Drawdown against time for BH No. 147/75 ..................................................................... 21
Figure 4.1c: Pumping test analysis graphs for BH147 and BH C3....................................................... 24
Figure 4.2: Relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity................................................ 25
Figure 4.3: Field sampling points.......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.4: Graph of EC/100 against sum of anions (meq/l) ................................................................ 28
Figure 4.5: Graph of EC/100 against sum of cations (meq/l) ............................................................... 28
Figure 4.6: Nitrate concentration variation in different localities (2007 dataset)................................. 29
Figure 4.7: Nitrate concentration variation in the basin for the period 1983 - 2004. ........................... 30
Figure 4.8: TDS (mgl-1) against EC (µScm-1) for 2007 dataset ............................................................ 31
Figure 4. 9: Piper diagram for the 2007 dataset ................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.10: Piper diagram (Source: Shindo, (1989))........................................................................... 34
Figure 4.11: Piper Diagram (Source: Nkotagu, (1997) ......................................................................... 34
Figure 4.12: Variation of TDS in the basin........................................................................................... 35
Figure 5.1: Termite mounds on the pediplain upland (plateau) above the fault scarp of Makutupora. 37
Figure 5.2: One of the termite towers on the mounds within the basin (Source: Shindo, 1990) .......... 37
Figure 5.3: Graphical representation of the water balance calculation results for the year 2000......... 45
Figure 5.4: Graphical representation of the water balance calculation results for the year 2005......... 46
Figure 5.5: Hydrograph of BH 234/75 monitoring borehole ................................................................ 46
Figure 5.6: Rainfall-recharge relationship for monitoring boreholes (BH 234/75) .............................. 49
Figure 5.7: Statistical analysis of recharge in the basin for the period of 1922 up to 2006.................. 49
Figure 5.8: Graph of simulated levels and observed levels against time. ............................................. 50
Figure 5.9: Graphical representation of the Earth modelling results .................................................... 51
Figure 5.10: The situation of the study area in relation to aquifer type distribution ............................ 53
Figure 6.1: Modelling protocol (adopted from Anderson and Woessner, 1992) .................................. 54
Figure 6.2a: Conceptualization of the study area.................................................................................. 55
Figure 6.2b: Considered situation during modelling............................................................................. 56
vi
Figure 6.3: General head boundary condition along the Little Kinyasungwe river...............................57
Figure 6.4: Stratigraphic units in the basin ............................................................................................58
Figure.6.5: Model discretization ............................................................................................................59
Figure 6.6: Graphical representation of measured against simulated heads (meters)............................61
Figure 6.7: Sensitivity analysis of the recharge flux and transmissivity showing effect of change on
the RMSE of the groundwater level.......................................................................................................63
Figure 6.8: Recharge and Transmissivity maps of the model ................................................................64
Figure 6.9: Potentiometric map of the calibrated model........................................................................65
Figure 6.10: Potentiometric map indicating the situation without any well abstraction .......................65
Figure 6.11: Cross section of the simulated heads versus DEM along point A to B.............................67
Figure 6.12: Conceptualization of two layers model with calibration results .......................................70
vii
List of tables
Table 4.1: Pumping test analysis results ............................................................................................... 23
Table 4.2: Aquifer parameters from 1988 pumping test analysis (Shindo, 1989). ............................... 23
Table 4.3: Reliability check of water quality data ................................................................................ 27
Table 5.1: Summarized recharge estimation data with results.............................................................. 40
Table 5.2: Characteristics of the land groups........................................................................................ 44
Table 5.3: Summary of the model results.............................................................................................. 44
Table 5.4: Summary of recharge flux estimation results ...................................................................... 53
Table 6.1: Water balance of the basin during well abstractions situation ............................................ 68
Table 6.2: Water balance of the basin during no well abstractions ...................................................... 68
viii
ix
List of acronyms
CMB Chloride Mass Balance
DEM Digital Elevation Model
EC Electro conductivity
GIS Geographic Information system
GST Geological Survey of Tanzania
m.a.s.l Meters above sea level
PET Potential Evapotranspiration
RS Remote Sensing
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
WHO World Health Organization
x
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ASSESSMENT IN THE MAKUTUPORA BASIN, DODOMA, TANZANIA
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Water resources in the semi-arid areas of Tanzania are under increasing pressure as service is
extended to the increasing population, urbanization and land-use shift to more intensive production of
crops and livestock. Dodoma is the administrative capital city of Tanzania, with a population of
376,530 (2002 population census) and population growth rate of 2.3. Apart from its high population,
it is located in the central part of the country which is semi arid and hence it is vulnerable to water
scarcity. The only alternative is groundwater extraction as surface water sources are increasingly
becoming scarce (Chand et al., 2005). As millions of revenues are invested in water systems to meet
demands and since competition among water users grows, information about groundwater resources is
increasingly important.
Groundwater is a critical resource in much of semi arid or more arid regions, where in recent years,
the use of limited supply has grown year by year in proportion to the improvement of the living
standard (Chand et al., 2005; Shindo, 1990). Optimal management of water resources is difficult,
particularly in a semi arid climate where periods of moderate rainfalls and maximum recharge are
normally followed by periods of drought without significant contribution to groundwater storage
(Gieske, 1992). Forecasting of the amounts of recharge as a function of rainfall events is relatively
important as well as evaluation of long term replenishment of the observed groundwater resources.
Quantification of the rate of natural groundwater recharge is a basic prerequisite for efficient
groundwater resource management. It is particularly important in regions with a large demand for
groundwater supplies where such resources are keys to economic development. Sustainable
management of groundwater resources in undeveloped regions is one of the essential objectives for
the future especially in view of the rising demand for clean water by these fast growing communities
(Kniveton, 2006; Mende et al., 2007).
The sustainability of groundwater resources relies on both quantity and quality. Despite the fact that
the dissolved content in groundwater is normally higher than that of surface water, it is naturally
protected from surface pollution and therefore often potable as the subsurface provides natural
attenuation processes for common contaminants such as bacteria. Groundwater quality study remains
necessary due to continuing change in land use related to human activities.
1
1.2 Water resources development in Dodoma region

In the early period, the water supply in the area was mainly surface water. This was due to the fact
that the groundwater resources were insufficiently known. Imagi dam was built in 1929 at Imagi
stream for Dodoma water supply. In 1943 Imagi reservoir dried up not because of the size of reservoir
but due to increased demand caused by expansion of settlement, cultivation, deforestation,
overgrazing and insufficient rainfall. In 1944 a second reservoir for the Dodoma water supply was
built, the Msalatu dam at the Msalatu stream. An additional reservoir was also constructed at
Mkonze, 7 km south west of Dodoma. It is reported that water demand in the region was growing very
fast in the midfifties. For example water demand for the period of 1950 to 1951 increased by 16%
(Shindo, 1989). This was an indication that surface water source in the semi-arid area of Dodoma
could not meet the permanent water supply of the area.
Since 1948 the Makutupora basin has been the main groundwater supply source for the Dodoma town.
The water demand in the area has increased over time especially after the decision in 1978 to shift the
administrative capital of the country from Dar es Salaam to Dodoma. In order to meet such demand
more boreholes were drilled which resulted in rapid increase in the amount of groundwater extraction
per year.
Relatively few hydrogeological studies have been published in relation to this area. During the period
of 1988 - 1992, the ministry of water, energy and minerals in collaboration with ministry of
Education, government of Japan conducted hydrogeological research in the study area. Three reports
were published; (Shindo, 1989, 1990 & 1991), where hydrological characteristics of the study area
were explained.
1.3 Problem identification and justification of the research

Dodoma is located in the semi desert zone in central Tanzania. The area receives average rainfall of
550mm with an annual potential evapotranspiration of 2000 mm. The area suffers the problem of low
river flows and drying of water reservoirs caused by a long dry period from June to October. The only
reliable water source is the groundwater (Sandstrom, 1995).
Previous hydrogeological and geophysical investigations by Shindo (1989) provided information on

location of predominant recharge areas such as Chenene hills and uplands bordering the faults basin.
The annual recharge was estimated to be 10% of the average annual rainfall. Additionally, from
available well records, refer to Figure 1.3 groundwater level is going down. The drop may be due to
the high abstraction if compared to recharge flux or the climate change factor.
2
In order to optimally manage the groundwater resource, it is highly beneficial to carry out water
balance studies repeatedly. One of the components of the water balance equation that needs to be
determined is the rate of groundwater input as recharge. However, the amounts of abstraction in the
basin seem to be stable for quite some time (Figure 1.1). There are no recent recharge studies done in
the area. It is possible that due to various factors like land use and climate change, the previously
defined recharge flux has changed.
It should be kept in mind that the main replenishment of the aquifer in the study area is predominantly
rainfall, which is generally unreliable (Sandstrom, 1995). From Figures: 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, it is obvious
that the abstraction for the shown period has the same average amount except for the period 2003 up
to 2004 when the amount of abstraction increased. Around the same period there is decrease in
amount of rainfall received in the area which caused a continuous drop of the groundwater level up to
around 2005.
Since reliability of the groundwater resource is determined by both quantity and quality, water quality
study is also important. This is so because the number of residents in the basin has increased along
with several changes in land use which may affect water quality (Kulabako et al., 2007). Increase in
population is always accompanied by increasing waste disposals along with agricultural activities that
may result in contamination of groundwater. This emphasizes the need for periodical groundwater
quality studies in the basin.
In this study, general assessment of water quality can help to indicate the presence of pollution in the
groundwater contributed by the above factors. Nitrate occurs naturally from mineral sources and
animal waste as well as anthropogenic as a by product of agriculture and human waste (Masetti et al.,
2007). In many polluted aquifers, nitrate is among the dominating contaminants, contributed by its
abundance, mobility and persistence in agricultural contaminants in many shallow groundwater
(Bohlke, 2002). Therefore detection of high nitrate content in groundwater with reference to
background concentration will be a good indicator of human pollution.
3
1100
PUMPAGE (10 3)m3/Month
Pumpage
900
700
500
2000
2000 2001
2001 2002
2002 2003
2003 20042004 2005 2005 2006 2006
2007
TimeTime (Years)
(Years)
Figure 1.1 Well abstractions against time
350
300
250
Rainfall (mm)
200
150
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 1.2: Rainfall variation against time

1058
1056
Water levels (m)
1054
1052
1050
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 1.3: Groundwater fluctuations with time (BH 234/75)
4
1.4 Research objectives

The general objective of this study is to estimate groundwater recharge flux and assess groundwater
quality in the basin. The general objective will be met by achieving the following sub objectives:-
(i) Estimate recharge flux;
(ii) Develop groundwater flow model;
(iii) Determine the water balance of the basin;
(iv) Assess groundwater quality of the basin;
For achievement of the above sub objectives, the following research questions have been formulated:
(i) Can hydrochemical data be used to estimate recharge flux in semi arid areas?
(ii) How do geology, geomorphology, soils and topography contribute to recharge in the area?
(iii) What is the chemical composition of groundwater in the study area?
(iv) Is there any evidence of hydrochemical evolution?
(v) How can groundwater modelling with hydrologic field observation data enhance analysis and
assessment of impact of stress in groundwater flow?
1.5 Hypotheses
(i) The groundwater chemical composition is influenced by human and cattle derived pollution in
the area.
(ii) The lowering of groundwater levels is due to decrease in the amount of rainfall.
(iii) High well abstractions are affecting the groundwater inflow into the Little Kinyasungwe and
the Hombolo dam.
1.6 Selected Studies and application of GIS, RS, CMB and Modeling
The applicability of Geographical Information Science (GIS) and RS is increasing steadily especially
in the fields of hydrology and water resource development. Numeric Modelling together with GIS and
RS has been used by scientists in different places to solve different hydrological problems. The
Chloride Mass Balance (CMB) method is widely used to estimate recharge in semi arid areas (Conrad
et al., 2004; Gieske, 1992; Xu and Beekman, 2003).
GIS has emerged as a decision support system with capabilities of efficient data storage and
convergent analysis of spatial data from diverse sources. There is a strong synergy between remote
sensing and GIS, as remote sensing data is a major source of spatial information in GIS analysis. GIS
data can be used as ancillary information to support remote sensing data interpolation. Digital
elevation models (DEM) are extremely valuable in understanding the properties of the terrain (e.g.
slope, aspect, curvature, flow accumulation, stream ordering). Further, DEM can provide a wealth of
information about the geomorphic and hydrological properties of an area.
5
Saraf et al., (2004) used integrated remote sensing and GIS based methodology to demarcate
groundwater potential zones, identify recharge sites and suitable areas for future artificial recharge in
Silai watershed, West Bengal.
A steady state groundwater flow model developed for the lower part of the Walawa basin in Sri Lanka
(Amarasingha, 2007), was used to study the aquifer system behaviour. The author applied Arc View
3.3 and PMWIN as computer codes in the process of modelling. The developed model provided some
understanding on hydrological characteristics which were not known previously.
A shallow groundwater level in fractured aquifer system in Sweden (Rodhe and Bockgard, 2006), was
modelled by simple water balance recharge model using Darcy’s law. The model results supported the
hypothesis that the bedrock-groundwater at the site is fed by local recharge from the overlying soil
aquifer.
The CMB method has been applied in various places to estimate recharge flux from precipitation.
Houston, (2007) applied the method in Turi basin, within the Toconce formation volcanic-
sedimentary sequence and concluded that the recharge was 15,500m3d-1. It was pointed out that
hydrochemical analysis of groundwater and surface water provided valuable insights on sources and
evolution of water in the hydrologic system.
Hamza, (1993) modelled the Makutupora catchment by using Modflow and observed that
groundwater and surface flow direction are mainly influenced by geological structures in the basin.
However, the model was not validated due to time constraints and therefore it was recommended to
carry out another study in order to validate the model and determine recharge rates.
1.7 Outline of the thesis

Chapter two describes characteristics of the study area including location, hydrology, climate,
evapotranspiration, drainage, hydrogeological setting, geology, geomorphology and land use.
Chapter three describes materials and methodology adopted.
Chapter four describes the groundwater resource evaluation based on pumping test data and
hydrochemical data analysis
Chapter five presents the recharge mechanism, groundwater recharge estimation based on Chloride
Mass Balance, WTRBLN model, Earth model and Hydrograph analysis. Within the same chapter
water balance of the basin is also discussed.
Chapter six describes groundwater modelling starting from conceptualization up to the scenario
analysis and Chapter seven finalizes with the conclusions and recommendations of the study.
6
2. The study area

2.1 Location of the study area
Makutupora basin is located in the Dodoma region. The basin is located between latitudes 50 36’ 59”
and 60 14’ 50”S and longitudes 350 36’ 36” and 360 01’ 54”E. The main Makutupora well field
(depression) and its surroundings have an area of about 120 km2. The pumping station is
approximately 30km North of Dodoma town (Figure. 2.1)
PROJECTION: UTM
ELLIPSOID: WGS 1984
DATUM: WGS 1984
Legend
Topographic low areas
Topographic high areas
Dam
Rivers
Aquifer boundary
Faults
Boreholes
Figure 2.1: Makutupora basin location map
7
2.2 Hydrology and climate
2.2.1 Rainfall
The region has an average annual rainfall of 550 mm. Rain falls in a single rainy season mostly from
November to April, there is virtually no rainfall from May to October (Sandstrom, 1995). Within the
study area, the distribution of rainfall varies locally, where there is a higher amount of rainfall in the
mountainous side, the Chenene hills, and relatively low rainfall in the western part (Shindo, 1990).
Therefore the rainfall distribution is influenced by the topography.
1200
1000
Rainfall intensity (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
1922
1927
1932
1937
1942
1947
1952
1957
1962
1967
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
Time (Years)
Figure 2.2: Variation of rainfall in the basin for the period of 1922 - 2006
In Figure 2.2, it is observed that from the year 2002 there is a decreasing trend in the amount of
rainfall received in the basin annually. The average rainfall for the period 1922 to 1999 is 560mm per
annum. From 2000 to 2006 the average rainfall is about 450mm per annum. This has caused a
reduction of 100mm per annum. This is accompanied by an increase in annual potential
evapotranspiration from 2000mm per annum to 2100mm per annum. It is expected that the variation
of amount of rainfall in the area is affecting the recharge flux rate in the area (Scanlon, 2006). The
recharge increases with increase in precipitation. Rainfall data are attached in Appendix A, Table A-1.
2.2.2 Temperature
The monthly maximum temperature is 260C while the monthly minimum is 210C. Figure.2.3. shows
the monthly temperature variation for the period of 2000 to 2006. The minimum temperature occurs
around July while the maximum temperature occurs around February and it starts to rise in August
8
while it gets to its peak in February. Temperature data for the period of 2000 to 2006 is provided in
the Climate data as Table A-1 in Appendix A.
2.2.3 Radiation
Radiation governs the rate of evaporation. In the study area the radiation increases during the rainy
season with monthly maximum value of 25MJm-2 while the minimum is around 19.5MJm-2. The wind
speed varies from 1.67ms-1 to about 4 ms-1. The maximum wind speed occurs during the dry season
and decreases during the rainy season. Available data is provided in the Appendix A, as Table A-1.
Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5 show variation of radiation and wind speed respectively for the period of
2000 to 2006. Available data is attached in the Appendix A as Table A-1.
From Figures 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 there is a similar trend between temperature and radiation while a weak
trend is observed for wind speed. In some cases it does not vary in the same way with temperature and
radiation.
2.3 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration is the process in which water is returned to the atmosphere by a combination of
evaporation and transpiration (Allen et al., 1998). The principal weather parameters affecting the
evapotranspiration are radiation, air temperature, humidity and wind speed. The evapotranspiration of
an area is of two types: potential evapotranspiration and actual evapotranspiration.
Potential evapotranspiration is the water loss that will occur under given climate condition with no
deficiency of water for the vegetation while actual evapotranspiration is the amount of water that
actually returns to the atmosphere depending on the availability of water. The evapotranspiration is
determined from weather data as it is difficult to measure from the field (Allen et al., 1998). In the
study area the evapotranspiration values are very high, averaging at 2000 mmyr-1 (Shindo, 1990). This
is about four times the annual rainfall. The high potential evapotranspiration values are experienced
during the early months of the year i.e. January and February. The minimum values are experienced
around the month of July. Figure 2.6 shows the variation of PET for the period of 2000 to 2006.
9
28
26
Temperature(0C)
24
22
20
18
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 2.3: Variation of temperature for the period of 2000 to 2006
26
24
Radiation (MJm-2))
22
20
18
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 2.4: Variation of radiation for the period of 2000 to 2006
4
Wind Speed (ms-1)
1
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 2.5: Variation of wind speed for the period of 2000 to 2006
10
220
200.0
200
PET (mm)
180.0
180
160.0
160
140.0
140
120.0
120
2000
2000 2001
2001 2002
2002 2003
2003 2004
2004 2005
2005 2006
2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 2.6: Variation of PET in the basin for the period 2000 to 2006
2.4 Drainage system

Drainage within the mountain range is structurally controlled by the NW and NE trending faults or
shear zones (Figure 2.8). There are no perennial rivers while ephemeral rivers flow only after heavy
rain storms in the rainy season (Hamza, 1993). Little Kinyasungwe is the main river in the area
originating from the NE part of the catchment (Figure 2.1). Its first part flows in the SW direction and
forms a swamp at the Makutupora wellfield which dries up during the dry season. After forming a
swamp at the well field, the river discharges to the Hombolo dam which is located on the SE part of
the basin.
In areas around Meia Meia, Mtungutu and Mkondai villages, streams disappear and reappear in the
alluvial fans and buried stream channels. In the West part of the wellfield, streams flow to the SW
direction and discharge in the swamp area, see Appendix E, Figure E-13.
2.5 Hydrogeological setting

The water table is at a depth of 40m in the well field area and remains at 2.5m depth around Meia
Meia, generally varying according to topography (Hamza, 1993). From Figure 1.3, it shows that the
aquifer is sensitive to rainfall, characterized by abrupt changes in groundwater levels during wet and
dry seasons. The groundwater level fluctuations data are of paramount importance in the
hydrogeological studies as they provide the information on the behaviour of the subsurface in relation
to water input or output into the system
Main formations are mbuga clay, clay, calcrete, sand, red silt, silt, sand gravel, weathered rock and
basement rock. The top most stratum is called mbuga clay with an average thickness of 40m while the
11
water bearing formations are calcrete, sand, gravel, weathered and fractured granite (Hamza, 1993).
Table B-1 in Appendix B shows the groundwater level fluctuations for the period 2001 to 2006 and
Table B-2 in the same Appendix gives the summary of the lithological logs of the boreholes in the
well field.
At the wellfield, the aquifer is leaky and overlain by up to 40 meters of clay and marl while the
aquifer is unconfined on the upland areas underlain by calcrete and granitic rocks (Shindo, 1990).
From the interpretation of the available borehole logs, there are variations in subsurface strata where
some of layers in various bore logs are missing. A good example is that, most of the logs that are on
the periphery of the well field the calcrete formations are missing. Figure 6.5 shows the stratigraphic
units of the area.
2.6 Geology
Dodoma area lies in a groundwater basin known as Hombolo basin. The basin is located in the
fractured crystalline basement area of the Dodoma Craton (Nkotagu, 1997). Chenene Mountains are
interpreted as a fault block. The mountains have the appearance of an uplifted plateau, and their
surface is thought to have been on a level prior to uplift relative to the flat lying country in the south.
The main topographic features of the area are NW trending Chenene Mountains, which exceed about
2000 m in elevation and the gently rolling plains dotted with inselbergs and "mbuga" with an
elevation of about 1100 m. The metasedimentary rocks in the belt are predominantly quartzites,
ferruginous quartzites, ironstones, micaceous quartzites, and quartzo-feldspathic schists. The well
field is formed by two grabens interconnected with each other. In the north, the Kitope graben extends
in NNE direction parallel to the NE part of the Little Kinyasungwe River. It is bounded by Zanka and
Kitope faults. South of this graben there is a Makutupora graben which follows the Mlemu fault
extending in the NNE direction. Both of them are downthrown for about 100m. The geological map
is provided as Figure 2.7 and structural map is provided as Figure 2.8. The base map is attached as
Figure F-13 in Appendix F.
12
Legend
Sheared synorogenic granite

Synorogenic granite
Red soils
Quartz feldspathic schist
Clay soils “mbuga”
Alluvium
Undifferentiated soils
Figure 2.7: Geological map of the study area (Source: GST Dodoma, Tanzania)
Legend
Legend
Hombolo dam
Faults
Rivers
Figure 2.8: Structural map of the basin (Source: GST Dodoma, Tanzania)
13
2.7 Geomorphology
2.7.1 Soil types

There are three principal soil types in the study area: white sandy soil, red loamy soil and black clayey
soil. The dominant soil type is the white sand soil distributed in the upper and lower plateau with
many termite mounds (Shindo, 1989). These are well rounded and finely to coarsely grained. Black
soils cover the seasonal water logged swampy areas while red loam soils are distributed on the hilly
slope of basic rocks such as biotite, gneiss and dolerite dykes (Hamza, 1993). This is typical on some
parts of the upland slopes like Zanka and Mlemu faults. Figure 2.11 shows the geomorphological map
of the study area.
2.7.2 Topography
The topography is dominated by inselbergs and pediment plains underlain by Precambrian basement
rocks, and basin floor. In the area, three main features can be distinguished: mountains and hills,
uplands and lowlands. See Figure 2.10 which displays the contour map of the basin.
The plateau with inselbergs and termite mounds lie at an altitude ranging from 1110 m to 1175 m
around the Chenene hills on the NE part of the study area. The inselbergs are scarce in this basin. The
prominent relief of this region is the termite mounds while the entire surface is covered by termite
mounds. The termite mounds are bare and composed of very fine sands and silt. The diameter of the
termite mounds varies with a diameter of up to 10 m with a height of 2 up to 5m (Shindo, 1989). The
termite mounds are zones of high infiltration.
The uplands are erosional surfaces surrounding the lowlands. Gullies and ephemeral streams are seen
during the rainy season. They are divided into pediplain upland, upland and pediment slopes.
Pediplain upland is characterized by grey sandy soils, low drainage density and termite mounds.
Upland slopes occur as hill slopes (scarps) separating different pediplains and low lands. They are
characterized by granitic outcrop, deep dissecting streams and gullies with thin soil cover. Pediment
slopes are gentle slopes of erosion found on the foot of the feet of residual hills or mountains and
upland areas. They are covered by red loam and grey soils, see Figure. 2.9.
The lowland area has a considerable depth of sediments with depositional characteristics. It is divided
into swampy, alluvial fans and lowland clays. Swamps form during the rainy season on downthrown
sides of faults like at the wellfield area and around the Hombolo dam. Other swamps are found on the
pediplains NW of Meia Meia. Alluvial fans are found around Mtungutu, Mkondai and North of Zenka
covered by fluvial deposits. Alluvial fans consist of sandy and silt soils while silt clay covers most of
stream beds. Termite mounds with flat topography are typical in these areas with dug wells scattered
14
along the buried stream channels. The lowland clay occupies the Kitope graben area around the well
field located between 1060 to 1100 m.a.s.l elevation. It is characterized by mud cracks during the dry
season.
Pediment
Red soils
Black clay soils
Figure 2.9: Display of red and black clays soils on top of granitic bedrock (Shindo, 1990)
15
Figure 2.10: Contour map of the basin (Source: SRTM DEM, 2007)
Legend
Mountaneous areas
Pediments
Red soils
Hombolo dam
Swampy areas
Upland slopes
Faults
Rivers
Figure 2.11: Geomorphological map of the basin
16
2.8 Vegetation cover/ land use

In the study area vegetation can be divided into three major types: woodlands, bush lands and
grassland (Hamza, 1993). About 30% of the Chenene hills on the northern part of the catchment are
covered by natural “miombo” woodland forest. The Upland represents the slightly uplifted low
relieved terrain bounded by slopes from the lowlands. The upland occupies the southern part of the
drainage area. 60% is occupied by bush land, thicket and shrubs, mainly acacia trees which are
combined with grasses during the rainy season. 5% in the lowland is covered by an association of
seasonal swamps with grassland. The remaining 5% is used for subsistence farming. However, due to
intense domestic animal grazing, perennial grasses have been depleted leaving bare grounds during
dry seasons with exception of the woodland forest on the northern part.
17
3. Methodology and data
3.1 Methodology
SECONDARY WATER SAMPLES

WELL LEVELS CLIMATE DATA
HYDROCHEMICAL
DATA
CHLORIDE CHEMICAL
HYDROGRAPH WTRBLN LABORATORY
EARTH MODEL MASS
ANALYSIS MODEL RESULTS
BALANCE
1997 dataset RELIABILITY 1989 dataset

SATELLITE CHECK
IMAGE/ PUMPING TEST RECHARGE DIGITIZED
INFORMATION DATA FLUX MAPS
AQUACHEM
SOFTWARE
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
PIPER DIAGRAM
GROUNDWATER
FLOW STEADY
STATE
COMPARE WITH
NO MODEL CALIBRATION YES HISTORICAL DATA
(TARGET – HEAD) TO GET CHEMICAL
EVOLUTION
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
GROUNDWATER FLOW
MODEL
GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
QUANTITY ASSESSMENT QUALITY ASSESSMENT
GENERAL
GROUNDWATER
ASSESSMENT
Figure 3.1: Methodology flow chart
18
The methodology applied is given in Figure. 3.1 and it is split into two parts. The first part is a
groundwater quantitative part covering the recharge estimation, groundwater modelling and water
balance while the second part deals with water quality. The groundwater recharge flux was
determined by the CMB, analysis of well hydrograph, analysis of relationship between recharge and
rainfall and WTRBLN model by Donker (1987) and recharge modelling by Earth model.
A conceptual model was prepared prior to groundwater model development. All information collected
from the satellite images analyses were incorporated in the conceptualization process. The collected
information includes fault systems and elevations. Field observation data include: pumping test data,
lithological borehole logs and water levels fluctuations. Model calibration was done through trial and
error procedure followed by sensitivity analysis. Imposing scenarios followed, which was done by
changing the amount of well abstractions and observing the water flow behaviour.
A water quality study was made by introducing the chemical analysis laboratory results in to the
AQUACHEM v.5.1 software. The Piper diagram provided the information about water type of the
basin. The (Shindo, 1989) and (Nkotagu, 1997) datasets were imported into Aquachem software to
produce the piper diagrams in order to get insight of the water type of the datasets. Then three datasets
were compared to obtain a hydrochemical evolution trend. Analysis of the 2007 dataset was done to
assess the general water quality status of the basin.
Thornthwaite and Mather (1955) water balance model was used to study the hydrologic regime of the
basin. Monthly climate data were used to calculate the annual water balance of the basin.
3.2 Data
Collection of available information in relation to the present study was done so as to contribute to the
aquifer assessment process. Data collected include Aster image generated on 02/04/2007 at 08:04:27,
SRTM data (90m resolution), climatic data, boreholes elevations, boreholes locations, groundwater
levels fluctuations from 2001 to 2006, pumping test data (constant discharge rate), groundwater
abstractions, boreholes lithological logs, geological map and hydrochemical data (primary and
secondary datasets).
19
4. Groundwater resource evaluation
4.1 Introduction
4.1.2 Pumping test analysis

Evaluation of the groundwater resource is regarded as the second stage after an exploration stage
(Freeze and Cherry, 1979). This stage encompasses the measurement of hydrogeologic parameters,
design and analysis of the wells together with the aquifer yield. This is an important section as it helps
in the sustainability assessment of the groundwater resource or basin under study since it reveals
where wells should be placed, how many, at which pumping rate, under which long term pumping
capabilities of the aquifer and which type of aquifer is present.
In this study, the evaluation of the basin was based on the pumping test data that was collected from
the study area during the field work campaign. Aquifer parameters like transmissivity, hydraulic
conductivity and specific capacity are determined. The aquifer parameters are important as they give
an understanding of groundwater flow in the system. Also it is obvious that one of the objectives of
the resource evaluation is the determination of the maximum possible pumping rates that are
compatible with the hydrogeologic environment where water is taken from. However, the pumping
test data available is based on the wellfield area, which is localized compared to the size of the basin
since boreholes are not equally distributed over the entire basin. Pumping tests were carried out under
a constant discharge rate and for relatively short duration without observation wells. There is no step
drawdown test available. Together with that there is little documentation in relation to the details of
the wells.
This analysis was carried out by AQUIFERTEST V.3.5. The program is designed to analyze data
gathered from pumping tests and slug tests (Rohrich, 2002). The available solution methods cover the
range of all types of aquifers like confined, unconfined and leaky aquifers. Analysis of the drawdown
against time curves for most of the data analyzed indicated the leaky aquifer type except data for BH
147/78 which indicated a more confined aquifer type (Kruseman and Ridder, 1983).
From Figure 4.1a shows that there is a sharp increase of drawdown at the beginning and later
drawdown becomes constant. This may indicate leaky behaviour either from the overlying clay or
from cavity storage. Alternatively the drawdown may have become constant because the water level
was drawn down to the pump position. In the latter case no conclusion can be drawn. From Figure
4.1b, the drawdown continues to increase with time. This behaviour reflects confined aquifer
conditions. From field observations and previous work, it seems that the basin is unconfined in the
20
recharge areas and it's leaky to confined around the wellfield area. This might be enhanced by
presence of course sands in recharge areas and around the wellfield area there is a clay layer of up to
40m overlying the aquifer.
25
20
(min)
15
D/down(m)
Drawdown
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Time (min, log scale)
Time (min)
Figure 4.1a: Drawdown against time for BH C5
10
9
(m)
Drawdown(m)
Drawdown
6
1 10 100 1000
Tim e (m in) (Log scale)
Time (min)
Figure 4.1b: Drawdown against time for BH No. 147/75
21
4.1.3 Constant discharge pumping test analysis
The method used in analyzing the pump test is the Hantush Jacob (Walton). The method was
formulated for leaky aquifers. The assumptions based on the method are;
• The aquifer is leaky and has an apparent infinite extent
• The aquifer and the confining layer are homogeneous, isotropic, and of uniform thickness over
the area influenced by pumping
• The piezometric surface was horizontal prior to pumping
• The well is pumped at constant rate
• The well is fully penetrating
• Water removed from the storage is discharged instantaneously with decline in head
• The well diameter is small and well storage is negligible
• The leakage through the confining layer is vertical and proportional to the drawdown.
The Walton solution of the confined aquifer with leakage is provided as equation 4.1
∞
Q 1  r2 
s=
4πT ∫u y 
exp − y − dy
B 2 y 
(4.1)
where:
Q  r
s= W  u,  (4.2)
4πT  B 
r 2S
u= (4.3)
4πT
r r K'
= (4.4)
B Kbb '
B = Kbc (4.5)
b'
c= (4.6)
K'
where:
B- Leakage factor
c- Hydraulic resistance
K, K'- Vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and leak aquitard respectively
b, b’- Thickness of the aquifer and aquitard respectively
W(u, r/B) is the Leaky well function
22
From equation 4.5, when K = 0 (non -leaky aquitards), then r/B = 0 and the solution reduces to the
Theis solution for a confined system.
This method was chosen as it has an advantage of indicating a confined type of aquifer together with
leaky aquifers after fitting a curve. A sample of analysed data is provided as Figures: 4.1a, 4.1b and
4.1c. Summarized results of the analysis are given in Table 4.1. The 1988 pumping analysis results
were taken from Shindo, (1989) and provided as Table 4.2. All graphs of analysis are provided in the
Appendix C, Figure C-1 to C-2.
AQUIFER PUMPING TRANSMISSIVITY LEAKAGE

BH ID SWL DURATION
THICKNESS RATE (WALTON) FACTOR
(m) (m) (m3hr-1) (min) (m2d-1)
BH 325/01 (C1) 50 16.5 94 840 765 0.05
BH 327/01 (C3) 42 19.2 94 1020 720 0.5
BH 341/01 (C5) 45 28.9 77 1080 35 0.01
BH 332/01 (C8) 16 20.4 94 1200 42 0.5 - 1
BH 333/01 (C9) 44 20.8 94 1080 470 0.5 - 1
BH 123/75 10 17.8 52 1020 12 0.5
BH 147/78 40 23.5 73 1140 26 0.5
Table 4.1: Pumping test analysis results
AQUIFER SPECIFIC
SWL YIELD DURATION TRANSMISSIVITY
BH ID THICKNESS CAPACITY
(m) (m3hr-1) (min) (m2d-1)
(m) (m2d-1)
88/75 41 26 16 840 1 93
97/75 32 26 52 840 8 841
169/75 57 23 79 840 10 671
170/75 85 22 28 840 3 490
Table 4.2: Aquifer parameters from 1988 pumping test analysis (Shindo, 1989).
From the two tables above, the analysis indicates that the aquifer has a range of transmissivity values
from low to high values with hydraulic conductivity ranging from 1md-1 to higher than 16md-1.
However, the high variability of transmissivity values is causing heterogeneity in the system.
Transmissivity is controlled by hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness. Therefore, having high
hydraulic conductivity values along faults will be associated with high transmissivity values.
23
BH 147/75
BH C3
Figure 4.1c: Pumping test analysis graphs for BH147 and BH C3
24
Transmissivity is often estimated by using specific capacity data when standard pumping test data are
not available or drawdown is stabilized early (Hamm et al., 2005). Specific capacity is used to
indicate the productivity of the well, defined as the discharge of the well divide by drawdown (Fetter,
2001). Figure 4.2 shows that the transmissivity and specific capacity have linear relationship with R2 =
0.72. The relation is determined by using (Shindo, 1989) dataset due to the low documentation of the
pumping test data collected. This relation has a formula provided as equation 4.7.
Q
T = 65 * + 158 (4.7)
S
where Q = Discharge and S =Drawdown.
1000
1000 y = 65.179x + 158.47
2
d-1) d )
R = 0.722
2 -1
800
800
Transmissivity (m2(m
Transmissivity
600
600
400
400
200
200
0 0
00 55 10
10 15
15
Specific capacity
Specific (m2d-1) (m2d-1)
capacity
Figure 4.2: Relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity
However, the relation above should be applied with caution due to the limited number of samples
available. In this case the relation is valid only where the line exists and extrapolation of the line
should be avoided.
4.2 Water quality evaluation
4.2.1 Groundwater chemistry

Water quality is the composition of water as affected by natural processes and human activities
(Strickland et al., 1997). The major inorganic constituents of water originate when water in the form
of precipitation dissolves atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide and reacts with minerals on the
surface of the earth (Chapman, 1996; Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The quality of groundwater depends
on the composition of the recharge water, the interactions between the water and the soil, soil-gas and
rocks with which it comes into contact in the unsaturated zone, and the residence time and reactions
that take place within the aquifer.
25
4.2.2 Water quality parameters
The following chemical parameters are considered during assessment of water quality. These
parameters include nitrate, Chloride, pH, acidity, alkalinity and electrical conductivity. According to
(WHO, 1993), the water quality parameters concentration range aims at safe guiding the health of
human being as well as other water use like irrigation, industry and domestic use.
4.2.3 Sampling points

Water samples were collected from deep groundwater boreholes and shallow dug wells. Deep
groundwater samples were collected from the well field area and shallow dug wells were collected
from the nearby village. Some samples were collected from private wells which were located outside
the well field area. A number of boreholes were randomly selected according to the sample
availability. Refer to Figure 4.3, showing sample localities and Appendix C, Table C-1: Field
measurements.
BH C5
BH C8
BH C3
DUG WELL P/S BH C7
DUG WELL BH C1
VILLAGE BH C2
BH C1
BH 55/82
BH C9
BH 147/78
PADRES’ COLLEDGE
St. GABRIEL
PRIVATE WELL
GOOD HOPE
CPPS
SALECIAN Hon. SHEKIF

SEMINARY
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
WACAPCHIN
Figure 4.3: Field sampling points
26
4.2.4 Field sampling procedure

Water samples were taken from both productive and non-productive boreholes. For the non
productive boreholes, water was pumped until temperature, pH and electrical conductivity were
stabilized. The shallow groundwater was sampled from dug wells. Parameters which were determined
on the field are temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, TDS and salinity. Duplicate samples were
taken from each point for major ions determination in the laboratory.
4.2.4 Laboratory determination

Water samples were submitted to the Geological Survey of Tanzania (GST) laboratory for chemical
analysis and ten control samples were brought to ITC laboratory to be analyzed. The chemical
laboratory results of ITC control measurements and GST are given in Appendix C, Table A-2 and
Table: A-3 respectively.
4.2.5 Chemical analysis results

• Reliability check
In order to check the quality of measurements done in the laboratory there are various methods used to
indicate the correctness of the results. The following table shows the quality check results according
to Hounslow (1995).
Test Attention Number of Comments
value samples
Anion – Cation balance The average of overall
>5% 16 samples is 12%
% diff = 100 *
∑ cation − ∑ anion
∑ cation + ∑ anion
Measured TDS – Measured EC All samples are averaging at 0.5
TDS meas <0.55&>0.75 -
0.55 < < 0.7
EC meas
K+ >20% 1 All samples are within <20%

Na + + K + except 1 sample with 32%
Na + <50% 7 Except 7 samples,

Na + + Cl − the remaining are above 50%
Ca 2+ <50% - All samples are above 50%

2−
Ca 2+ + SO4
Table 4.3: Reliability check of water quality data
Considering these quality factors in the table above, the quality of measurements is fair.
27
20
y = 0.96x
R2 = 0.68
15
EC (uS/cm)
EC (µS/cm)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Sum anions (meq/l)
Figure 4.4: Graph of EC/100 against sum of anions (meq/l)

20
y = 1.07x
15 R2 = 0.56
(uS/cm)
(µS/cm)
10
ECEC
0
0 5 10 15 20
Sum of cations (meq/l)
Figure 4.5: Graph of EC/100 against sum of cations (meq/l)
• Nitrate content
Regarding to all samples taken within the Makutupora basin, nitrate concentrations range between
0.89 mgl-1 and 31.87 mgl-1 for deep boreholes while for samples from shallow depth like dug wells,
the nitrate concentration is very low ranging from below detection limit to 0.44 mgl-1. However, the
nitrate concentration changes to higher values immediately outside the basin. The variation of nitrate
outside the basin is between 10.18 mgl-1 to 150.08 mgl-1.
The nitrate concentration is related to the activities around the area. A Good example is the St.
Gabriel Technical School’s sample which indicated the nitrate content of 150 mgl-1. Around the area
agricultural activities are conducted which are accompanied by application of fertilizers in the farms.
This is among other factors that are contributing to high concentrations of nitrate in the groundwater.
Some areas which indicated nitrate concentration below detection limit include the dug well in the
28
village. At this location, there are neither agricultural nor residential activities. The well was used by
villagers to get water for domestic use.
Water quality has been monitored, although irregularly, on a monthly basis since 1966. From
December 1988, nitrate concentrations raised from normal groundwater values of between 0.1mgl-1 to
10 mgl-1 up to more than 100mgl-1 in some boreholes. By June 1993 the level of nitrate reached 144
mgl-1 in some boreholes. As some of the production boreholes had a low nitrate concentration,
blending of water from different boreholes produced acceptable concentrations of less than 20 mgl-1.
This is in accordance to Tanzanian and WHO water standards.
In order to protect the Makutupora basin from human source pollution, various steps were taken to
minimize the problem, like prohibiting gardening in the vicinity of production boreholes, restriction of
watering livestock at the production boreholes. Boreholes surroundings were cleaned and maintained
to that status to date and then villagers were shifted to new residential area. Hypothesis number one
which says “The groundwater chemical composition is influenced by animal and human habitation in
the basin” is supported by this analysis. Increasing the number of residents in the basin which was
accompanied by grazing activities caused rising of nitrate content in the aquifer. Figure 4.6 shows the
variation of nitrate in the sampled localities.
160
140
120
(mgl-1-1) )
Concentration(mgl
100
Concentration
80
60
40
20
0
Private well- Veyula
St. Gabriel veyula
Passionist -veyula
Msalato
BH C1
BH C2
BH C3
BH C5
BH C7
BH C8
BH C9
BH MIUJI
BH 117/75
BH 55/82
Church
BH 147/78
Salecian BH
Dug well P/S
CPPS
St Gasper P/S
Dug well (village)
Wakapuchini
Sample localities
Sample localities
Figure 4.6: Nitrate concentration variation in different localities (2007 dataset)
29
Available chemical laboratory results for monthly water monitoring were collected from the regional
water office. Data collected is for the period 1983 – 2004. However there is little documentation in
relation to water quality monitoring. The average periodical variation of nitrate concentration is
plotted in Figure 4.7.
Frequently deterioration of groundwater quality occurs during the wet season (Kulabako et al., 2007).
From Figure 4.7, the groundwater nitrate contamination can be related to the amount of groundwater
recharge which is predominantly rainfall in the basin. The total rainfall received in the year 1990 was
844 mm. The area receives an average rainfall of 550 mm per year with a standard deviation of 294
mm. This reflects the high nitrate concentration for the year 1993 which supports the source of nitrate
to be related to human activities within the area.
75
Nitrate concentration (mgl-1)
60
45
30
15
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Time (Years)
Figure 4.7: Nitrate concentration variation in the basin for the period 1983 - 2004.
(Source: Regional water office-Dodoma)
4.2.6 Electrical conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids

Electrical conductivity is a good estimator of the amount of total dissolved solids (TDS) in water.
TDS in drinking-water originate from natural sources, sewage, urban run-off, and industrial
wastewater. Concentrations of TDS in water vary considerably in different geological regions owing
to differences in the solubility of minerals. The conductivity increases with the concentrations of
TDS and varies as a function of the temperature.
Electrical conductivity is not included in either WHO guidelines or Tanzanian water standards. The
electrical conductivity was ranged from 127.2 to 1582 µScm-1 while TDS ranges from 61.4 to750 mgl-
1
. Figure 4.8 shows the relationship between the two parameters in the area. EC and TDS have a good
correlation R2 = 0.99.
30
The maximum content of TDS in groundwater is 750 mgl-1. This indicates that the Makutupora basin
contains fresh water according to simple groundwater classification based on TDS content by Freeze
and Cherry, (1979).
800
y = 0.47x
R2 = 0.99
600
TDS (mgl-1)
400
200
0
0 500 1000 1500
EC (µScm-1)
Figure 4.8: TDS (mgl-1) against EC (µScm-1) for 2007 dataset
4.2.7 Water type deduction

The chemical laboratory results for all sampled points were imported in to AQUACHEM v.5.1
software. Aquachem is a software package developed specifically for graphical and numerical
analysis and modelling of water quality data. The Piper diagram for 2007 dataset is shown in Figure
4.9. Groundwater in the basin is highly mineralized with calcium and magnesium as cations and
bicarbonate as anion. The water type deduced from the piper plot is CaHCO3 water type, typical of
shallow fresh groundwater.
Figure 4. 9: Piper diagram for the 2007 dataset
31
4.2.8 Previous hydrochemical studies done on the study area
Groundwater quality studies were made by Shindo (1989) and rain water hydrochemical analysis was
made by Shindo, (1990). According to Shindo (1989), the analysis was carried out for both
unconfined and confined groundwater. For samples collected within the well field, the groundwater
composition was between Ca + Mg and Na + K water type while the dominant anion was bicarbonate
with the chloride percent higher than that of soil water.
Groundwater composition indicated that chloride concentration range between 27 and 143.5 mgl-1
with a standard deviation of 28.5 mgl-1. Generally higher concentrations were detected at high depth
and increasing with a direction of groundwater flow. The dataset is attached as Appendix C, Table C-
4.
The 1990 dataset contains rain water chemical laboratory analysis. Samples were collected from
different sites including Meia Meia and Chihanga where all localities are within the Makutupora
basin. The chemical composition is dominated by low magnesium content and high bicarbonate. The
chloride content in rain has a standard deviation of 0.3, ranges between 0.5 and 1.1mgl-1 from the
mean. The average concentration was 0.8mgl-1. The rain water is considerably dilute and the study
area is very far from the Indian Ocean about 400km. Table C-5 in Appendix C shows the dataset.
Another groundwater quality study was done by Nkotagu (1997). Water samples were collected from
dug wells, shallow wells, private wells and boreholes. Most of the analyzed samples indicated to be
highly mineralized and dominated by NaCl water type. The total dissolved salts were over 1500 mgl-1.
The average chloride content in the samples is 332.2 mgl-1 with a minimum content of 16.4 mgl-1 and
the maximum of 1104.2 mgl-1. It is most likely that the groundwater composition reflected the
pollution of the 1993 period. The total dissolved salts were high thus characterizing a brackish water
type.
The increase of chlorides in the groundwater might be caused by human activities around the area
which involved a lot of salts like NaCl to penetrate to the saturated zone which resulted to high
sodium and chloride content associated with high TDS values in the 1997 study. Table C-6 in
Appendix C, shows the 1997 dataset.
4.2.9 Hydrochemical evolution of groundwater in the basin

In this analysis of groundwater chemical evolution, three datasets of Shindo (1989), Nkotagu (1997)
and 2007 dataset collected during field work were analyzed.
32
In recharge areas the soil zone undergoes a net loss of mineral matter to the flowing water (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979). As groundwater moves along flow lines from recharge to discharge zones, its
chemistry is altered by the effect of various geochemical processes. Groundwater chemical evolution
can be attributed mainly by two factors namely flow path and the travel time.
In the study area, the underlying bedrock is a granitic rock which is composed of minerals like Quartz,
Feldspar and Biotite. During weathering processes various cations and silicates are produced which
result in the groundwater hydrochemical evolution.
The general trend of chemical evolution is towards the composition of sea water. Freeze and Cherry
(1979) suggested the following major ion evolution sequence:
Travel along the flow path

HCO3- HCO3- + SO42- SO42- + HCO3- SO42- + Cl- Cl-+ SO42-
Increasing age
According to the Shindo (1989) dataset, the groundwater was dominated by bicarbonate as anion
ranging between 60 and 80% while chloride was 20 and 60%, hence bicarbonate was dominant anion.
Dominant cation was Na + K with water type between Ca + Mg and Na + K.
As per Nkotagu (1997) dataset, the dominant anion was chloride and dominant cation was sodium,
with NaCl water type. The analyzed samples composition has scattered more or less over the entire
diamond grid thus differing from the 1989 dataset compositionally.
The 2007 dataset indicates the dominant anion to be bicarbonate while the dominant cations are
calcium followed by magnesium. The water type is CaHCO3, typical shallow fresh water type.
Chloride is low as it can be seen in the Figure 4.9.
The chemical evolution that took place in the basin might be indicated by the two datasets of 1989 and
2007. The 1997 dataset is disregarded in the evolution analysis as it might reflect the pollution period
of the nineteen nineties. The groundwater of the basin seems to evolve from less bicarbonate to more
bicarbonate composition. The cations composition changes from Na + K to Ca and Mg.
However, in order to get the temporal as well as spatial variation in solute concentrations, the TDS
contents of the two datasets were compared graphically. The two sample datasets indicated the similar
trend of TDS contents, where spatial variation is identified with no temporal variation. In the
localities that indicated low TDS contents, samples were collected at shallow depth like dug well for
33
the 2007 dataset and at a depth of 25m for the 1989 dataset. Figure 4.12 shows the graphical
representation of TDS distribution. Additionally, TDS content increases together with geochemical
evolution Butler, (2007).
The evolution trend of the basin matches with the Freeze and Cherry (1979) evolution sequence.
Therefore it can be concluded that the groundwater of the basin is considerably young within the first
evolution step.
Figure 4.10: Piper diagram (Source: Shindo, (1989))
Figure 4.11: Piper Diagram (Source: Nkotagu, (1997)
34
800 1989_dataset
2007_dataset
TDS (mg/l) 650
500
350
200
50
Sample
Figure 4.12: Variation of TDS in the basin.
35
5. Groundwater recharge assessment
5.1 Introduction
The groundwater recharge as defined by Freeze & Cherry (1979) is the entry into the saturated zone
of water made available at the water table surface, together with the associated flow away from the
water table within the saturated zone. In a broad sense groundwater recharge may be defined as
addition of water to the groundwater reservoir. There are mainly two types of recharge: artificial and
natural groundwater recharge. This study deals with natural groundwater recharge where the source of
recharge is rainfall.
Groundwater recharge in the basin is controlled by various factors like: climate, geomorphology and
geology. Climate plays a major role in controlling recharge as shown by differences in sources and
rates in humid and arid areas (Scanlon et al., 2002). Climate controls hydrological behaviour of an
area especially the rainfall distribution and net evaporation. Geomorphology involves topography,
vegetation and soil types. Variation in geomorphology reflects differences in topography, soils and
vegetations which in turn affect recharge. In the Makutupora area, recharge generally is considered to
occur in topographic high areas while discharge occurs along the river and in the topographic low
areas at the Hombolo dam. Vegetation cover is important in assessing the recharge potential at a site.
In the basin it was discovered that recharge flux was higher in areas covered by shrubs and bushes
than in areas occupied by woodland and grasses (Hamza, 1993). Geology plays an important role in
fractured rock formations where it enhances preferential flows through the interconnected fractures.
5.2 Recharge mechanisms in the basin

In the study area, previous studies done by Shindo (1989, 1990 and 1991) indicated that recharge
takes place in the Chenene hills located on the NE part of the study area. There are various factors
contributing to this conclusion from the field observation point of view and available satellite image
analysis.
On the hills much runoff is created which infiltrate to the ground at the hill slope areas. Due to the
presence of alluvial fans with coarsely grained sands, enhanced high infiltration rate occurs.
Moreover, because of orographic effects occurring around Chenene hills, the hilly areas receive
comparatively high rainfall as compared to the flat part of the basin.
In fractured rock, flow is often localized in a few main flow paths that control most of the
hydrological response of the aquifer (Borgne et al., 2007). On the other hand, the structure system on
the hills contributes to accumulation of runoff from rainwater on the hill slope areas where the Little
Kinyasungwe River originates. The dominant fracture and fault trending direction is NE.
36
Additionally, on the pediment area there is a number of termite mounds (Shindo, 1989). The termite
mounds are enhancing the recharge process by acting as preferential flows of rain water to infiltrate to
the subsurface and therefore escape the evapotranspiration. This is also termed as bypass recharge
(Rushton, 2003). The termite mounds are also found on the upland slopes adjacent to the fault
systems. This reduces the amount of runoff as much water infiltrates to the subsurface.
Figure 5.1: Termite mounds on the pediplain upland (plateau) above the fault scarp of Makutupora
(Source: Shindo, 1990)
Figure 5.2: One of the termite towers on the mounds within the basin (Source: Shindo, 1990)
5.3 Recharge estimation methods

There are many methods available for quantifying recharge depending on different processes and
sources of recharge. A reliable estimation of recharge in hard rock aquifer is difficult in relation to
wide spatial and temporal variation in hydrological and hydrometeorological conditions (Chand et al.,
37
2005). Each method has its own limitations in terms of applicability and reliability. The reliability of
the recharge estimation method will be determined by the objective of the study (Scanlon et al., 2002).
Water resource evaluation requires information on recharge at a large spatial and temporal scale while
assessment of aquifer vulnerability to pollution requires detailed information at a local and short time
scale (Xu and Beekman, 2003).
Traditional ways of studying recharge are observation of water level fluctuations in boreholes and
monitoring climatological factors such as rainfall, sunshine, wind and temperature changes (Gieske,
1992). These methods require a well distributed network of monitoring wells with automated
equipments for recording measurements, which will be efficient without gaps. In most of the
developing countries, groundwater level data availability is a problem. Usually there are a lot of gaps
which make it difficult to get reliable recharge information by using the traditional method. More
recently chemical and physical ways of determining recharge have been developed and employed with
good recharge estimation results. Among the promising recharge estimation methods for the semi arid
areas, is the Chloride Mass Balance (Bekele et al., 2003; Scanlon et al., 2002; Xu and Usher, 2006).
5.4 Chloride Mass balance method
5.4.1 Introduction
The Chloride Mass Balance (CMB) method was developed by Erickson & Kunakasem in 1969. The
method is based on the assumption of conservation of mass between the input of the atmospheric
chloride and the chloride flux in the subsurface (Gieske, 1992; Xu and Beekman, 2003). Since
chloride is a conservative tracer, water evaporation and plant uptake by transpiration concentrate
rainwater derived chloride in the soil. The profile of chloride in the soil varies with land use. In areas
of native vegetation under arid conditions, the concentration of chloride typically forms a bulge in the
root zone or near the surface. The rate of downward solute transport is determined by rainfall intensity
and is accompanied by solute concentration due to evaporation processes. Some of the solutes may be
taken by plants tissues or taken through mineral precipitation and adsorption and others may be added
to the system by decay of plant materials and weathering activities.
Groundwater recharge estimated from the mass balance of chloride assumes steady-state conditions;
therefore, it is most applicable to areas under native vegetation or cleared areas that have reached
equilibrium (Bekele et al., 2003). However, this will be valid only when there are no additions from
external sources like fertilizers or weathering products which might be associated with a significant
amount of chloride.
38
The chloride concentration in groundwater may originate from different flow components in the
unsaturated zone, where the calculation of groundwater recharge rate using chloride concentrations of
groundwater results in total recharge rate.
The formula for calculating recharge is;-

P * Cl ( p ) + D
RT = (5.1)
Cl ( gw)
where;
RT = Areal recharge (mm/year)
P = Average annual precipitation (mm/year)
Cl(p) = Chloride content in precipitation (mg/l)
D = Dry deposition of chloride measured during the dry season (mgm-2year-1)
Cl(Choi et al.) = Harmonic mean of chloride concentrations in groundwater (mg/l)
However, in this study there is no documentation in relation to dry chloride deposition (D) on the
study area. Therefore it is assumed to be zero.
The CMB method for the saturated zone is useful in areas where data on groundwater levels are
lacking. The CMB method has various limitations like being inapplicable in areas underlain by
evaporates or areas where up coning or mixing of saline groundwater occurs (Xu and Beekman,
2003). Additionally, the method should be applied with great caution in areas close to the sea where
chloride content in rainfall is highly variable. In fractured rock system applicability where there is
input of chlorides through weathering products or anthropogenic influences, the CMB may
underestimate the recharge of the area.
5.4.2 Data requirement and calculation procedure

The data used for chloride content in groundwater is the Shindo dataset (1989). The chloride content
in groundwater has a standard deviation of 28.5 mgl-1 and a mean of 70.78 mgl-1.The rain data source
is from Shindo, (1990). The chloride content in rain has a standard deviation of 0.3 mgl-1 with a mean
of 0.8 mgl-1. All datasets are provided in Appendix C as Table C-5, Shindo (1990) and Table C-4 is
Shindo (1989) dataset. More description on the datasets is given in section 4.2.9. Table D-1 in
Appendix D shows the calculation procedure with a recharge flux estimate. A summarized table is
provided as Table 5.1 below.
A sample column represents the sample source, the depth represents the depth at which the samples
were collected, Cl(rain)min represents the minimum chloride content from the mean value in the rain
sample, Cl(rain)max represents maximum chloride content from the mean value in the rain sample
39
average chloride concentration in the rain samples, Cl(gw.)min represents the min chloride content in
the groundwater sample from the mean while Cl(gw)max represents the maximum chloride content in
a sample from the mean value, P (annual) represents the average annual rainfall in the study area and
Rech_min represents the minimum recharge flux while Rech_max represents the maximum recharge
flux estimated recharge at the particular point.
Cl Cl Cl Rech_ma
Cl (Choi et al.)min (gw)max (rain)min (rain)max P(annual) Rech_min x
mgl-1 mgl-1 mgl-1 mgl-1 mm mmyear-1 mmyear-1
26.6 143.5 0.46 1.14 550 4.49 10.44
Table 5.1: Summarized recharge estimation data with results
5.4.3 CMB estimation results

The estimated recharge flux is ranging from about 5 to 10 mmyear-1, averaging at 1.3% of the annual
rainfall. However the estimation method might underestimate the recharge flux due to various reasons
like neglecting the dry chloride deposition in the study area. In the calculations it was assumed that
the dry chloride deposition is zero due to lack of records on dry chloride deposition from the study
area. In Botswana, a recharge study by Gieske, (1992) discovered that chloride deposition was about
20% of total dry chloride deposition. Moreover, from Figure 4.7 nitrate concentration started to rise in
1985. In most cases the increase of nitrate in groundwater is associated by anthropogenic activities in
the area which rises along with chloride concentrations. As it should be taken in mind that chloride is
a conservative element, it takes a very long time to get rid of it in the hydrologic system. All these
cases could be the factors to elevate the chloride content in the system and hence resulting to
underestimation of the recharge flux.
5.5 The Thornthwaite and Mather method
5.5.1 Introduction
The Thornthwaite-type monthly water balance models are lumped conceptual models that can be used
to simulate steady state seasonal (climatic average) or continuous values of watershed or regional
water input, soil moisture and evapotranspiration (Dingman, 2002). It is a soil moisture budget
approach of estimating water balance. The method allows computation of groundwater recharge
(Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Input for the model includes monthly values for precipitation and
potential evapotranspiration. Important parameters include latitude, crop factor and the water holding
capacity of the depth of soil for which the balance is to be computed (Calvo, 1986).
5.5.2 The method calculation procedures

The water balance model simulates a monthly total water runoff from the catchment and hence
estimates the total runoff accumulated in the catchment (Kumar et al., 2005).
40
The model assumes that certain fixed percent of rainfall leaves the area as direct runoff (DRO). This
percent is used to obtain the direct storm runoff coefficient (C1) where the remaining coefficient of
rainfall is called the effective rainfall (Peff). If Pi is the amount of rainfall received in a particular
month, then
DRO = C i Pi (5.2)
where i = month number.
Peff = Pi − DROi (5.3)
A portion of Peff is returned to the atmosphere in the form of evapotranspiration. The remaining
portion is known as surface recharge (SRECH). The difference of Peff and potential evapotranspiration
is (ETp) is available for infiltration in to the soil, (if Peff>Etp).
SRECH i = Peff − ETi (5.4)
When SRECH is positive and the soil is not yet at its WHC (Water Holding Capacity), SRECH will
be used up to fill up the SM (Soil Moisture), which is defined by the following formula:
SM i = SM i −1 + SRECH i (5.5)
After the SM reaches the WHC, the remaining part is available for runoff either as a groundwater
recharge or as surface runoff. This calculation starts from the first wet month.
When SRECH is negative, i.e Peff is less than ETp water is withdrawn from SM. This results into the
exponential depletion of the SM defined by the following formula:
APWL
SM i = WHC WHC (5.6)
where APWL is the Accumulated Potential Water Loss which is the accumulation of negative values
for the dry season only. It describes the dryness of the soil.
For months with deficit of water (SRECH <0), APWL is calculated by:
APWLi = APWLi −1 − SRECH i (5.7)
While months with surplus of water (SRECH>0), the APWL is equal to zero indicating no dryness in
the soil.
When Peff is higher than ETp, actual evapotranspiration (ETa) is equal to potential evapotranspiration
(ETp), else it is computed through the following formula:
ETai = Peffi − ∆SM i (5.8)
where ∆SM is the difference in SM between the current and the previous month.
The Soil moisture deficit is the difference between the ETp and ETa within the same month.
Deficit = ET p i − ETa i (5.9)
The soil moisture surplus is the difference between the effective rainfall and the sum of ∆SM and
(ETa). This is the excess rainfall when the soil layer under consideration is saturated with water.
41
SURPLUS i = Peffi − [∆SM i + ETai ] (5.10)
The SURPLUS water percolates into the soil layer and is added to DETENTION. The total
SURPLUS water of the current month plus the DETENTION from the previous month constitutes the
total available water for subsurface runoff (TARO).
TAROi = SURPLUSi + DETENTION i (5.11)
The subsurface storage acts as a buffer and causes a delay in groundwater flow (GWF). A fixed
percent of groundwater in the storage will become GWF and the remaining will be detained until next
month the (Meijerink et al., 1994).
5.5.3 WTRBLN: A computer program to calculate water balance

WTRBLN is the computer program that calculates water balance based on the basis of long term
average monthly precipitation, potential evapotranspiration and combined soil and vegetation
characteristics according to the Thornthwaite and Mather method (Donker, 1987).
The following inputs are needed by the WTRBLN model:-

• Direct runoff: which is entered as average monthly figures which will be subtracted from
the monthly rainfall figures
• Reference potential evapotranspiration and the Kc factors: The WTRBLN program uses
Kc factors to convert reference potential evapotranspiration figures to the actual crop
potential evapotranspiration by the following relation;
E a = K c * ET (5.12)
Ea = Actual crop potential evapotranspiration (mm)

Kc = Crop coefficient
ET = reference crop potential evapotranspiration
• Water capacity of root zone in mm
• Precipitation: 12 long term average monthly average precipitation values
• Potential evapotranspiration: 12 long term potential evapotranspiration values
42
5.5.4 Preparation of model inputs

The basin contains three main groups of vegetations: woodland and grasses, shrubs, bushes and crops,
and lastly are grasses which occupies the swampy areas.
• Kc values
Due to scarcity of information in relation to spatial distribution of different vegetations, the crop
factor was assigned based on previous observations and studies. The details on Kc values for various
land cover types are provided by (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986). From previous studies
(Gebreegziabher, 2004; Hamza, 1993) where the study areas have more or less similar climatic
characteristics and vegetation types, an average Kc value of 0.7 was assigned for the catchment.
• Reference potential evapotranspiration
The most reliable method for calculation of reference PET is the Penman Monteith formula. But due
to lack of humidity data, the method could not be applied. The monthly reference PET values were
calculated by the Radiation method. The method is recommended in areas where available climatic
data include measured air temperature, sunshine hours, or radiation (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1984). The
formula is provided as equation 5.13
ETO = c(W .Rs ) (5.13)
where,
ETo = Reference crop evapotranspiration in mm per day for the period considered
Rs = Solar radiation in equivalent evaporation in mm/day
W = Weighing factor which depends on temperature and altitude
c = Adjustment factor which depends on mean humidity and daytime wind conditions
The weighing factor (W) is obtained from the relationship between temperature and altitude. The
values of W as related to temperature and altitude are provided in Appendix D as Table D-2. While
the adjustment factor (c) is given by the relationship between the radiation term (W*Rs) and reference
crop evapotranspiration (Kniveton, 2006). It depends greatly on general levels of mean relative
humidity (RHmean) and daytime wind (07.00-19.00 hours) at 2m height above the soil surface.
Figures showing the relation with values are available in Doorenbos and Pruitt, (1984).
The computed evapotranspiration values are attached in Appendix D, Table D-3.
• Water Holding Capacity
The water holding capacity value was assigned according to the rooting depth and water capacity of
root zone characteristics of the land groups. An average value of 150 mm was assigned for the entire
catchment. General characteristics of land groups are provided as Table 5.2
43
ROOTING FIELD WATER CAPACITY
LAND COVER GROUP SOIL TYPE
DEPTH CAPACITY OF ROOT ZONE
m mm/m mm
SWAMPS CLAY 0.5 150 75
WOODLAND FINE SAND 0.15 200 30
SHRUBS, BUSHES AND
CROPS FINE SAND 0.5 100 50
Table 5.2: Characteristics of the land groups
5.5.5 Model execution and results

The WTRBLN model was run and the results obtained are attached in Appendix D, Table D-3 to
Table D-9. The summarized model results are provided as Table 5.3. The results indicated no
moisture surplus during dry years and surplus was obtained during the wet years. Dry years are
considered to be years with amount of annual rainfall less than average rainfall which is 550mm per
annum. In this case from 2003 to 2005 the amount of annual rainfall was less than the average annual
rainfall. The remaining years had soil moisture surplus.
Year Precipitation Surplus Runoff GWR

mm mm mm mm
2000 739.60 24.00 12.00 12.00
2001 574.70 21.00 10.50 10.50
2002 604.01 61.00 30.50 30.50
2003 445.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
2004 371.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 26.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 609.25 24.00 12.00 12.00
Average 481.57 18.57 9.29 9.29
GWR= Groundwater recharge
Table 5.3: Summary of the model results
Graphical representation of the water balance calculation results is provided for the wettest year i.e
2000 as Figure 5.3 and the extremely dry year 2005 as Figure 5.4. From both Figures it can be seen
that the soil moisture is very low to zero during the dry months starting from around June to October.
But the soil moisture starts to rise one month after the rain season starts depending on the rainfall
intensity. After the maximum soil moisture is reached, the basin receives moisture surplus.
Part of the moisture surplus drains to the groundwater body and eventually to streams and part
remains in the soil and is carried over to the next month. In the study area there is no proper data in
relation to runoff coefficients. According to Thornthwaite and Mather, in case no field data are
available in relation to runoff coefficient, it is recommended that for big catchments 50 percent of the
44
surplus water is available for runoff and the remaining is detained in the subsoil as groundwater
recharge Dunne and Leopold, (1978).
The soil moisture surplus is obtained when the annual rainfall reaches the average annual rainfall
amount. This indicates that it is at such conditions when groundwater recharge takes place. An
example is in the year 2001 and 2002 where the increase in groundwater level was observed, see
Figure 1.2 and 1.3. The remaining period shows a recession of the groundwater level indicating no or
less significant recharge took place in those years. This analysis supports hypothesis number two,
which says “Lowering of water level is due to decrease in the amount of rainfall”. As it shows that
recharge depends on the amount of rainfall received in the basin. As abstraction rate is constant,
decrease in the amount of recharge causes to lowering of groundwater levels. An average recharge is
about 9mm per annum, see Table 5.3.
The Thornthwaite and Mather method accounts for groundwater recharge after the water holding
capacity has been reached. In the basin there is presence of preferential flows created by faults and
termite mounds in the pediment areas. Under such situations the method might under estimate
groundwater recharge. However the method indicates a hydrologic water balance of the basin for
entire period of the year.
300
Precipitation
250
Soil Moisture
200 ETa
150 Moisture surplus
Amount (mm)
100
50
0 Moisture surplus
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Precipitation
Sep
Nov
Time (Months)
Figure 5.3: Graphical representation of the water balance calculation results for the year 2000
45
30
25 Precipitation
20 Soil Moisture
ETa
Amount (mm)
15
Moisture surplus
10
5
0
Moisture surplus
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Precipitation
Sep
Nov
Time (Months)
Figure 5.4: Graphical representation of the water balance calculation results for the year 2005.
5.6 Analysis of hydrograph of monitoring boreholes
5.6.1 Introduction
It was revealed that analysis of groundwater hydrographs can be used to estimate groundwater
recharge (Bredenkamp, 1988). Among the 5 monitoring boreholes, BH 234/75 was used for analysis
as it has more records compared to others.
The analysis involves a recession curve, which represents periods of no groundwater recharge while
effective rise in the water level indicates groundwater recharge. The effective rise was observed in the
first two years i.e year 2001 and year 2002 with a total increase of 4m (refer Figure 5.5). From year
2003 up to the year 2006, there was a recession interrupted by some minor recharge. But from the
year 2004 to the year 2005 there was a continuous recession.
1058
1056
Water levels (m)
1054
1052
1050
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Time (Years)
Figure 5.5: Hydrograph of BH 234/75 monitoring borehole
46
From the relation of recharge, storativity and groundwater level fluctuations, the recharge can be
estimated using Equation 5.14:
dh
R=S* (5.14)
dt
where;
R = Recharge
S = Storativity
dh
= Change in water level per time
dt
∆h1 = 2m → R1 = S∆h1 = 0.012 * 2000 = 24mm
∆h2 = 2m → R2 = S∆h2 = 0.012 * 2000 = 24mm
R = (24 + 24) / 6 = 8mmyr −1
Then from the recession that occurred during the dry period:
dh
= 1000mmyr −1
dt
R = 0.012 *1000 → 12mmyr −1
From the above calculations it shows that the analysis of water level rise in boreholes gives the lower
estimate of recharge flux compared to recession analysis estimate. Estimated recharge from the
recession is influenced by pumping causing steep slope with high dh/dt value. Therefore the recession
method might overestimate.
However, the storativity value in the study area is not known. Previous hydrological studies (Shindo,
1991) used a range of storativity values from 0.00005 to 0.005 as he classified the aquifer to be
confined. A storativity of 0.1 was applied by Hamza (1993). Since the pumping test results indicated
the aquifer type to be leaky around the wellfield. It is possible that the aquifer contains low storativity
value around the wellfield. Probably it might have higher specific yield up around the source area.
Currently the proper value of storativity is not known which makes it difficult to draw concrete
conclusions from this calculation. However, the estimated flux is expected to increase in case the
storativity value is found to be higher than the applied value of 1.2%.
47
5.6.2 Relationship between rainfall and recharge
It has been revealed that annual recharge could be inferred from annual rainfall by means of equation
5.15 (Bredenkamp, 1988).
RE (I ) = A(RF (I ) − B ) (5.15)
where;
RE (I) = Recharge
RF(I) = Rainfall for the year I
A = Fraction of rainfall in excess of the threshold value that represents recharge
B = Threshold value of rainfall
By analysing the available data on rainfall and groundwater level fluctuations, the threshold value was
found to be around 400 mm of rainfall while coefficient A equals to 0.03. The graph was obtained by
plotting change in water levels against annual rainfall for data starting from 2001 to 2006. Figure 5.6
shows the relationship.
Besides the fact that the available data on groundwater level fluctuations was of a short period, the
same trend and similar threshold value was obtained in a groundwater study in South Africa,
Bredenkamp (1988).
By using the relation given as equation 5.15, recharge was calculated from rainfall data from the year
1922 up to 2006. For rainfall values less than the threshold value it gave negative recharge values
which were treated as zero recharge in that particular year. A statistical analysis was made for the
period of about 80 years. An overall average recharge obtained was about 5 mmyr-1 and a histogram is
provided as Figure 5.7. All calculation procedures are attached in Appendix D, Table D-10.
From the statistical analysis it shows that there are years without recharge which are compensated by
few years with high recharge while frequently recharge flux is ranging between 6 to 10 mmyr-1. The
same behaviour was discovered in Botswana (Gieske, 1992) which might be common in many semi
arid areas.
48
2500 y = 7.6893x - 3046

Change in water levels (mm)
2000 R2 = 0.7431
1500
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-500
Annual rainfall (mm)
Figure 5.6: Rainfall-recharge relationship for monitoring boreholes (BH 234/75)
40
35
30
Frequency
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1-5 6-10 S1
11-15
16-20
>20
Recharge (mmyr-1)
Figure 5.7: Statistical analysis of recharge in the basin for the period of 1922 up to 2006
5.7 Recharge modelling by Earth
5.7.1 Introduction
EARTH modelling is a lumped model for simulation of recharge and deep groundwater level
fluctuations (Van der Lee and Gehrels, 1990). It was originally developed for use in the semi arid
climate of Botswana. The model is known to perform well at a time step size of one day. However, in
this study a monthly data time series was used. The model is comprised of four components in which
the first three represent the direct part and the fourth represents the indirect part of the model.
The direct part determines recharge through physical processes above the groundwater table and the
fourth part calculates the groundwater level on the basis of recharge estimates obtained from the
direct part. The model was calibrated by using observed groundwater levels for the period starting
49
from 2001 to 2006. The model input data included rainfall, potential evapotranspiration and
groundwater level fluctuations under monthly time step.
5.7.2 Model estimation results

The model results of the simulated head with observed head are provided as a Figure 5.8, while the a
complete set of the model output graphs is provided Figure 5.9. From Figure 5.9, the top graph
represents actual evapotranspiration, next is the soil moisture in root zone, percolation from root zone
followed by the recharge arriving at the water table. The last figure is the observed with simulated
water levels.
In the same graph, it shows that the actual evapotranspiration and soil moisture in the root zone have
similar trends. Increase in actual evapotranspiration matches with soil moisture as a result high soil
moisture is lost and only the moisture that escapes evapotranspiration will percolate to the subsurface
as groundwater recharge.
The estimated recharge is averaging at about 5 mmyr-1. It can be seen that the model was not able to
simulate the water levels at the beginning i.e year 2001 while the simulation is matching fairly well
with the observed levels thereafter. This might be contributed by the quality of data applied as the
model estimates well under daily time step. Moreover, monthly data are less accurate compared to
daily data.
One of the input parameters to the model is the storativity value of the aquifer. As explained earlier,
the accurate value of this parameter is not known at the moment. This study applied a storativity value
of 1.2%, a list of parameters used is provided in the Appendix D, Table D-11. Figure 5.8 shows a
good match between the simulated and observed water levels. However, the recharge flux might
increase in case it is found that the storativity value is higher than the applied value.
1057
simulated level
1056 Observed level
Water levels (m)
1055
1054
1053
1052
1051
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Time (Years)
Figure 5.8: Graph of simulated levels and observed levels against time.
50
100
80
Actual evapotranspiration
60
mm
40
20
0
400
Soil moisture in the root zone

300
mm
200
100
0
40
percolation
recharge
30
20
mm
10
1057
simulated level
1056 Observed level
1055
1054
mm
1053
1052
1051
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Figure 5.9: Graphical representation of the Earth modelling results
5.7 General discussion

Five different methods were applied to determine recharge flux. Table 5.4 gives a summary of the
applied methods with their estimated recharge flux. The methods applied include CMB, Water
Balance, hydrograph analysis, rainfall-recharge relationship and Earth modelling.
The CMB estimated the recharge flux ranging from 5-10 mmyr-1. But due to the fact that there were
no records on dry chloride deposition in the study area, the deposition was assumed to be zero.
Moreover, there was human pollution which was accompanied by chloride uploading in the aquifer
which may have resulted to increase in chloride content in groundwater. This may cause
underestimation of recharge.
51
In relation to Water Balance method, there are no proper data on crop coefficients for types of
vegetations within the basin. Also the spatial distribution of vegetation in the basin was not known.
All these factors may contribute to uncertainty in the estimation.
The accuracy of the hydrograph analysis methods depends on the accuracy of storativity values. Since
at the moment this value is not yet known it makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions. Moreover,
the recession analysis was affected by pumping which makes the slope to be steeper and therefore
results in high dh/dt value. Therefore the recession analysis is more likely to overestimate the
recharge flux.
However, the rainfall-recharge relationship is based on statistical analysis. The available data was
only for six years. Statistically these are relatively few data, despite the fact that its estimation was not
too far from other estimates.
Lastly is the recharge modelling by Earth model. The model estimates quite well under daily time step
data, but due to data availability limitations the monthly time step data was applied. Also the model
requires storativity value as an input parameter which is not well at moment. The model estimated
recharge to be averaging at 5 mmyr-1.
Therefore it can be concluded that the estimated recharge flux lies between 1 – 2% of the annual
rainfall equal to 5 – 12 mmyr-1. The limitations of this study include data scarcity. For example,
storativity values are not known as yet no good pumping test data are available for use in calculation
of the parameters, datasets were short in a way that it was difficult to draw direct conclusions. The
study area is complex geologically with unconfined aquifer conditions on hill slope areas changing to
leaky/ confined conditions around the wellfield area. Figure 5.10 shows the situation of the area in
relation to specific yield/ storativity distribution.
52
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
METHOD REMARKS
RECHARGE RECHARGE
(approx % of
(mmyr-1) annual rainfall)
May be low because of human pollution in
CMB 5 - 10 1- 2% the area and neglecting the dry chloride
deposition in the calculations.
Water balance 9 2% Crop coefficients are not known and no

proper data on vegetation distribution
Hydrograph Poor data consistence in relation to

8 -12 1.5 - 2% storativity/ specific yield. Also the wells
analysis
are affected by pumping
Rainfall-
recharge 5 1% Only few annual data for reliable statistical
relationship analysis
Monthly time step data were applied which
is less accurate compared to daily data.
Earth model 5 1%
Also it depends on accuracy of storativity/
specific yield.
Table 5.4: Summary of recharge flux estimation results
Enhanced recharge
conditions
Chenene hills
Uncofined
conditions (high Sy)
Leaky/ Confined
conditions (low S)
Low recharge
Unconfined aquifer
Clay layer
Water divide Semi confined aquifer

Unfractured bedrock
Figure 5.10: The situation of the study area in relation to aquifer type distribution
53
6. Groundwater modeling
6.1 Introduction
A model is any device that represents an approximation of the field situation, simulates ground-water
flow and/or solute transport indirectly by means of a set of governing equations thought to represent
the physical processes that occur in the system (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). Groundwater
modelling is used to make predictions about a groundwater system’s response to a stress, to further
our understanding on the hydrological system, to design field studies as well as to be used as a tool for
thinking and analysis.
Good management requires information on the response of the managed system to the proposed
activities. A tool is needed that will provide such information. The model is a tool for understanding
the system and its behaviour and for predicting this response.
The model developed for the Makutupora basin is categorized as an assessive model. The developed
model is aiming at serving as a tool to improve our understanding on the Makutupora basin
groundwater flow system. This includes groundwater quality control and safe yield of the basin.
Figure 6.1 shows the steps that were following during the modelling process.
Figure 6.1: Modelling protocol (adopted from Anderson and Woessner, 1992)
54
6.2 Conceptual model

The purpose of model conceptualization is to create a theoretical model of the system to be simulated,
by simplifying a system to an extent that a logical model approach with appropriate model algorithms
can be defined (Rientjes, 2007). Conceptual models describe how water enters an aquifer system,
flows through the aquifer system and leaves the aquifer system. Briefly a conceptual model describes
the hydrologic system with respect to aquifer properties, flow characteristics and boundary conditions.
In this study the following assumptions were made in the conceptualization process:
(i) The model consists of a single layer.
(ii) The model is two dimensional.
(iii) The aquifer is confined under steady state condition.
(iv) The aquifer has a constant thickness.
Vertical movement of water is considered on the recharge areas. The Chenene hills and the southern
part of the model area were regarded as sources of high recharge, see Figure 6.2a. The aquifer is leaky
around the wellfield but it was assumed that the high amount of recharge enters the aquifer by
horizontal movement by enhanced infiltration from topographic high areas surrounding the basin
while small contribution is from the top clay layer, see Figure 5.9.
Figure 6.2a: Conceptualization of the study area
55
For modelling simplicity purpose the aquifer was conceptualized as Figure 6.2b. The aquifer was
assumed to have a constant thickness of 40m under confined conditions.
Figure 6.2b: Considered situation during modelling
6.2.1 Boundary conditions

Boundary conditions as defined by Anderson and Woessner (1992) are mathematical statements
specifying the dependent variable (head) or the derivative of the dependent variable (flux) at the
boundaries of the problem domain. In steady state simulation, the boundaries largely determine the
flow pattern. Therefore correct selection of boundary conditions is a critical step in model design.
During conceptualization, the model boundary conditions were justified. On the topographic high part
of the basin, the Chenene hills were regarded as the main recharge area. About 40% of total recharge
was assigned on the top cells along the hill slopes. The assigned values were calculated on the bases
of size of the source area and assumption made was that, the surface is rocky which generates high
runoff. Other factors include:
• Orographic effect
• Presence of alluvial fans which are coarse facilitating high infiltration rate
The same boundary is set on the SE part of the lower corner of the model area. About 10% of the
amount of recharge flux that was assigned on the Chenene hills was assigned on this part of the basin.
This is because enhanced local recharge occurs due to runoff created from the adjacent hills.
56
On the left hand side of the model, the no-flow boundary (Q = 0) was assigned. It was assumed that
the boundary of the model coincides with the water divides as they are located along topographic high
areas. The same boundary condition is set on the opposite side of the model domain except for one
cell at the outlet area of the Hombolo dam with the specified head boundary condition. At the bottom
of the layer, the no-flow boundary was assigned assuming that the boundary coincides with the fresh
granite rock.
The little Kinyasungwe River, which is the main river in the basin, was assigned a general head
boundary condition, see Figure 6.3. This river carries a lot of water during rainy season and it forms a
swamp at the Makutupora wellfield area before it discharges into the Hombolo dam. During dry
season, the river becomes dry.
General Head boundary
Figure 6.3: General head boundary condition along the Little Kinyasungwe river.
6.2.2 Stratigraphic units

Stratigraphic units comprise geologic units of similar hydrogeologic properties (Anderson and
Woessner, 1992). This information can be derived from the borehole logs obtained during drilling.
More explanations on the Stratigraphic units of the area are available in section 2.5. On the model, all
layers on top of clay were regarded as clay. Due to low permeability of clay, it was assumed that this
57
layer contributes low amount of recharge to the aquifer. The bottom layer is assumed to be underlain
by fresh unfractured granitic rocks which are completely impermeable. Therefore in the model design
the aquifer is simulated as a single layer. Figure 6.4 displays the Stratigraphic units of one of the
boreholes in the wellfield area. The summary of all borehole lithologies is attached in Appendix B,
Table 2.5.
0masl
Mbuga clay
Red silt
Silt
Red silt
Clay
Sand
Clay
Sand
Gravel
120masl
Figure 6.4: Stratigraphic units in the basin
6.2.3 Surface water body

In the Makutupora basin there are surface water body like swamps and river flows which exist only
during rainy periods and the Hombolo dam which is permanent. The Makutupora well field becomes
flooded during the rainy season which starts around the end of November up to the end of May. This
is attributed by the big river flow, the Kinyasungwe River, which originates from the Chenene hills to
the Hombolo dam. After flooding of the wellfield area, the river discharges to the Hombolo dam.
Another river is the Madihi River located on the west part of the well field. All rivers are ephemeral.
The Little Kinyasungwe River was proved to be longest river in the basin through DEM hydro
processing. Therefore it was assigned a general head boundary during no pumping situation, reflecting
the natural conditions, see Figure 6.3.
58
6.2.4 Sinks and sources of the modelled area

Rainfall is the only source of water input into the basin. Recharge processes are explained in section
5.2. Through application of recharge package in Modflow, average recharge flux determined by CMB
method was assigned to the model domain. The annual recharge value was converted into daily
values. Evapotranspiration and well abstractions are major sinks of the model. Evapotranspiration
values were not considered through the evapotranspiration package as it was accounted for by the
CMB. The well abstractions were assigned into the model through well package.
6.2.5 The modelled area

The catchment boundary was delineated by the application of DEM hydro processing package in
ILWIS software. The extraction operation constructs catchments: these are calculated for each stream
found in the output map of the drainage network ordering operation (ITC, 2001). However in the
northern boundary it was assumed that the aquifer starts at the foot of the Chenene hills, see Figure
6.5.
Source area
(Chenene hills)
Aquifer boundary
Aquifer area
Figure.6.5: Model discretization
The model domain has 93 columns and 106 rows with 500m grid size. 4763 is the total number of
active cells and 5095 inactive cells, with a total of 9858 cells, see Figure 6.5. Normally small grid
resolutions are preferred at the problem domain. But due to data scarcity and limitations on computer
memory, same size of grid was applied. The model area is about 1184km2. The background map was
georeferenced with a UTM projection system.
59
6.3 Aquifer geometry
The demarcation of the aquifer extent was made based on the available technical details of the
boreholes. Top of aquifer elevation was assigned based on the datum level of the area. The bottom
elevation of the aquifer was obtained by deducting the aquifer thickness from the TOP elevation.
Aquifer thickness was obtained from the drilled borehole logs data and found to have an average
thickness of 40m.
6.4 The model code

The code selected for this model is the MODFLOW PMWIN two dimensions. The computer code
was developed by the USGS, United State Geological Survey (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). This
is the distributed mathematical model. The governing equation for groundwater flow is the Law of
mass balance and Darcy’s law. The governing equation for 2D model is provided as equation 6.1.
d  dh  d  dh 
Kx  +  K y  = −R* (6.1)
dx  dx  dy  dy 
where Kx, Ky and are components of the hydraulic conductivity, is the specific storage and R* is the
source/sink term.
6.5 Data input for the model

Information from the geological map like structures, lithologies and stratigraphic units were combined
together with DEM data to create background map. Structures indicate areas of no flow areas while
DEM indicates areas of topographic divides, surface water bodies and elevation of the surface.
Stratigraphic units are necessary in indicating the extent of the aquifer thickness.
All physical data were collected during field work campaign. Data accuracy is a problem as most of
the available data is of poor quality as explained earlier. Therefore to get a good picture of the study
area, various data collected were analysed in combination. For example, to get the boundary of the
aquifer, the satellite images analysis was coupled to the pumping test evaluation and in some areas
where data were incomplete; some values of transmissivity were assumed when necessary. Available
pumping test data were only from the wellfield area as there is no documentation on boreholes
existing away from the wellfield area. Therefore, parameter like and transmissivity was assigned on a
zone basis.
6.6 Model execution and calibration

The execution of the model was accompanied by the entry of prepared data input into the selected
computer code and interpretation of the model results. A number of runs were performed until good
results were obtained. This step was followed by the model calibration.
60
This process involved adjustment of the model input like parameters, boundary values and stresses in
order to make a good match between the simulated and observed state variables. In order for the
developed model to be a good representative of the real world simulated, the difference between the
simulated and observed state variables should be as minimal as possible. This procedure requires the
calibration target which is referred to as goodness of fit criterion. The calibration target is defined as
calibration value with its associated error (Rientjes, 2007). The error is determined by various
modelling aspects like accuracy of measurements, complexity of the system being modelled and the
applied model resolution.
The present study area is complex in terms of geologic setting thus posing difficulties in delineating
model boundaries. The groundwater level data is not well distributed to the entire model area. Even
the five monitoring wells might not represent the real groundwater levels as they are located very
close to the pumped wells which are under operation for 24 hours. With these challenges, setting the
calibration criterion is a tedious task. Besides the real situation of the field, the calibration was done
manually by trial and error method until the minimum difference between the simulated and observed
groundwater heads was obtained. The changed parameters are transmissivity and recharge flux. The
evaluation of the calibration process was done qualitatively and quantitatively. The plot of measured
heads against simulated heads was produced, which shows good results. The RMSE was calculated
and determined to be 2.2%.
Simulated heads (m)
Observed heads (m)
Figure 6.6: Graphical representation of measured against simulated heads (meters)
61
6.7 Uncertainty of the model calibration
Uncertainty in hydrologic modelling may be due to model conceptualization, input parameters and/or
inherited in natural processes. Simply, model uncertainty arises from incomplete understanding of the
system being modelled or inability to accurately reproduce hydrological processes with mathematical
and statistical techniques (Harmel and Smith, 2007). The study area is complex in terms of geological
setting and hydrometeorological processes which give rise to significant heterogeneities and
anisotropy. Additionally, field observed data scarcity is a major problem which makes clarification of
the discontinuities of the aquifer parameters a rather difficult job.
The wellfield located in the graben, is localized on a small area with an approximate area of 120 km2
out of about 1500 km2 total area of the basin. In fractured rock, flow is mainly localized to a few main
flow paths that control most of the hydrological response of the aquifer (Borgne et al., 2007; Saraf et
al., 2004). Due to the fracturing system in the basin, it is expected that there is significant
heterogeneity in the aquifer parameters. Because there is not enough data to adequately describe these
heterogeneities, it is not possible to fully understand the hydrologic behaviour of the system at
present.
Since granitic aquifers are of tectonic origin, the fault systems might extend up to great depth. This
may enhance water withdrawal from the aquifer which is not considered in the conceptualization of
the model. This might contribute to the model uncertainty.
Many digital elevation models (DEMs) have difficulties in replicating hydrological patterns in flat
landscapes (Callow et al., 2007). Errors due to averaging ground surface elevations available on 90m
grid to 500m grid are significant, especially on topographically high areas.
From the calibrated model results, the model shows good calibration results with residual error being
equally distributed at the wellfield but it is not clear on the remaining part of the model area as there
is no measured data to compare with the simulated results. However, in order to check the reliability
of the developed model, a sensitivity analysis was made which is explained in section 6.8 below.
62
6.8 Sensitivity analysis

The purpose of sensitivity analysis is to quantify the uncertainty in the calibrated model caused by
uncertainty in the estimates of aquifer parameters, stresses and boundary conditions (Anderson and
Woessner, 1992). This is an essential step in modelling as it enables the modeller to evaluate the
reliability of the developed model. The sensitivity analysis process is associated with stressing and
parameterizing the calibrated model differently from the calibrated conditions. In this case, the model
indicated to predict well in the wellfield area where a number of monitoring wells are located. In areas
where monitoring wells are scarce, it is not possible to check the quality of prediction by using the
graph of simulated heads against observed heads. Then the sensitivity analysis can help in examining
the reliability of the developed model.
During the sensitivity analysis, the recharge and transmissivity values were changed from the
calibrated values one at a time and the variation of the RMSE was noted. The recharge and
transmissivity values were changed by multiplying with factors. Multiplying factor ranged from 0.2 to
1.4, see Figure 6.7.
From Figure 6.7 the model shows to be sensitive to both recharge and transmissivity. With
transmissivity the model shows to be more sensitive at the low percentage and becomes less sensitive
as the transmissivity values increases, while with recharge the model shows to be highly sensitive
with both low and high percentage values. Recharge and transmissivity maps for the model are
provided as Figure 6.8.
100
Recharge
RMSE in water level (m)
80 Transmissivity
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Multiplier factor
Figure 6.7: Sensitivity analysis of the recharge flux and transmissivity showing effect of change on
the RMSE of the groundwater level
63
6.9 Model results
6.9.1 Recharge and transmissivity

Figure 6.9a shows recharge map of the area with spatial variability. High recharge is in the elevated
areas surrounding the basin while small recharge is in the flat areas of the basin. Transmissivity is also
varying spatially. Figure 6.9b shows a transmissivity map. There is no clear trend of spatial variability
of transmissivity. But it is expected to be high along the faults since the basin is of granitic origin.
Transmissivity(m2d-
100
150
Recharge(m3d-1)
400
52.500 500
22.965
3.275
i) Recharge map ii) Transmissivity map

Figure 6.8: Recharge and Transmissivity maps of the model
6.9.2 Simulated potentiometric levels

A potentiometric map is a contour map that represents the top of the ground water surface in an
aquifer. The potentiometric surface is generally the potential energy available to move the
groundwater in the confined aquifer (Strickland et al., 2005). A potentiometric map of an aquifer
provides an indication of the directions of groundwater flow in the aquifer, indicate groundwater
recharge and discharge areas. It should be kept in mind that the potentiometric maps are important
tools in preparing water resource management plans as they assists in technical studies like indicating
high stress areas as well as possible groundwater diversion points. The water levels in wells vary
according to seasonal variations in rainfall, abstraction and recharge rate.
The potentiometric map is provided as a raster map, see Figure 6.9 and 6.10. Contour maps are
provided in the Appendix E as Figures E-1 and E-2. Since water flows from high hydraulic head to
low hydraulic head, the recharge and discharge areas can be obviously seen from the provided maps.
64
Heads (m)
Figure 6.9: Potentiometric map of the calibrated model
Heads (m)
Figure 6.10: Potentiometric map indicating the situation without any well abstraction
65
Recharge area is around the lower part of the Chenene hills and on the hill slopes in the south east.
The discharge is along the river as well as in the Hombolo dam. In Figure E-1, Appendix E, the
stressed areas due to well abstractions are also seen, characterized by relatively wide spaced contours
along the well field area.
However, from the same map it shows that previous groundwater flow direction was following the
longest path from the Chenene hills through the well field area to Hombolo dam, along the
Kinyasungwe River. But under pumping situation the flow path is not followed as it ends around the
wellfield. This is due to the cone of depression created by high pumping rate at the well field area.
Therefore groundwater coming from the lower part of the Chenene hills is trapped in to the well field
area instead of discharging in to the Hombolo dam. The local recharge from the Southern part of the
basin is also trapped in the wellfield area. Due to the huge cone of depression, water fails to flow out
of the well field to the Hombolo dam. As a result the Hombolo dam receives water from nearby hills,
the Mohanga hills located on the ENE side of the basin instead of receiving from the well field area as
well, see Figure F-13 in Appendix F for localities of the area. This proves the second hypothesis to be
true.
Previously Shindo (1991) developed the groundwater model by using Modflow under transient state
conditions. The model boundary coincided with the well field area. The discharge point was located
along the Kinyasungwe River around Chihanga. However the modelled area was too small to get a
clear picture of the groundwater flow.
Hydrogeologic studies coupled with steady state groundwater modelling were carried out by Hamza
(1993) on the same area, which provided the groundwater flow direction. The assumption was; the
recharge takes place out of the model domain. The simulated groundwater flow was from the Chenene
hills towards Hombolo dam.
The groundwater level in the BH 234/75 was 1055.75 m in 2001 and it decreased to 1053.34 m in
2005 year. The difference in water level between 2001 and 2005 is 2.41 m. The difference in water
level between the maximum and the minimum is 1.47 m. This might explain the change of
groundwater flow direction. As due to the drop in water level, there is no enough potential energy to
push water to flow out of the well field area.
It can be realized that under natural conditions the groundwater flows from the Chenene hills to the
Hombolo dam, along the Kinyasungwe River. The current observed cone of depression on the
wellfield area is due to the high amount of abstraction compared to recharge flux. In order to restore
66
the natural groundwater flow, the amount of abstraction should be reduced or the recharge flux should
be increased by practicing artificial recharge. This will contribute to sustainable management of the
basin. Due to the increase in amount of abstractions over time to accommodate increasing water
demand, the input seems to be lower than output hence depletion of the groundwater storage.
An attempt was made to make a 2D view of both situations; no abstraction and with abstraction.
DEM, groundwater levels during no abstraction and groundwater levels with abstraction were
overlaid against distance, see Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11. From Figure 6.11, around the wellfield
area indicated by dashed cycle shows. The levels representing pumping situation, show a narrow cone
of depression which implies the effect the pumping. From the potentiometric map analysis it was
expected that the cone of depression at the wellfield area could be wide in the cross section which was
not the case. This can be explained by the effect of the size of the grid applied i.e. 500m. It might be
due to a difference between the land surface elevation and the elevation obtained from the SRTM –
DEM. Errors due to averaging ground surface elevations available in 90m resolution grid to 500m
resolution grid are significant that resulting to narrow cone of depression along the wellfield area.
1200
A
A elev_natural Without
Levels without pumping
elev_pumping pumping
Levels during pumping B
altitude_dem During pumping B
DEM levels
1150 DEM
Elevation (m)
1100
Wellfield
area
1050
00
00
00
11 0
0
13 0
16 0
18 0
20 0
23 0
25 0
27 0
29 0
32 0
34 0
36 0
39 0
41 0
43 0
46 0
48 0
50 0
0
0
50
80
10
40
70
00
30
60
90
20
50
80
10
40
70
00
30
60
23
46
69
92
Distance from North to south(m)
Figure 6.11: Cross section of the simulated heads versus DEM along point A to B
67
6.9.3 Water balance of the basin
One of the most basic ways to quantitatively evaluate the movement of groundwater through an
aquifer system is through the water budget for the system. The fundamental equation for a water
budget (or water balance) is that sum of inputs minus the sum of outputs equals the change in storage
of the system:
∑ Input − ∑ Output = ∆Storage (6.1)
If the system is assumed to be at a steady state, then the change in storage is zero and the water budget
becomes:
∑ inputs = ∑ Outputs (6.2)
For a groundwater system, inputs may include direct recharge from precipitation, indirect recharge of
precipitation from surface water runoff, groundwater inflow from outside the system boundary, or
recharge from anthropogenic sources (Lundmark et al., 2007). Groundwater outputs may include
discharge as springs, discharge to surface water bodies and loss to the atmosphere by
evapotranspiration (ET), groundwater outflow to outside the system boundary, and pumping for
domestic, agricultural and industrial uses. The water balance is established based on the modelling
water budget tool in Modflow.
The water balance was established for both situations: with no well abstraction and under well
abstraction situation. Table 6.1 shows the water balance under well abstraction situation while the
water balance at no well abstraction situation is summarized in a table provided in the Appendix E as
Table E-2.
In the Makutupora basin the primary groundwater inputs are recharge from precipitation and the
primary outputs are well abstractions and discharge as groundwater outflow and ET.
Input term Amount(m3/year) Output term Amount(m3/year)
Recharge 8,900,000 Well abstractions 7,300,000
Specified head 1,600,000
Total 8,900,000 8,900,000

Table 6.1: Water balance of the basin during well abstractions situation
Input term Amount (m3year-1) Output term Amount (m3year-1)

Recharge 8,900,000 Head dep. boundary 8,100,000
Specified head 800,000
Total 8,900,000 8,900,000
Table 6.2: Water balance of the basin during no well abstractions
68
6.9.4 Scenario analysis

Scenarios are archetypal descriptions of alternative images of the future, created from mental maps or
models that reflect different perspectives on past, present and future developments (Greeuw et al.,
2000). Scenarios are used to answer the "what if" questions.
In the process of scenario analysis, the situation before the well abstractions was considered. In that
period only natural conditions were referred where the basin was recharged and discharging in the
Hombolo dam. The simulated heads reflecting the situation where no well abstraction is taking place
is provided as Figure 6.10.
Secondly, the abstraction phase reflecting the current situation is represented by the simulated heads
provided as Figure 6.9. In order to see the effect of current abstraction rate, the amount of well
abstractions was changed from low abstraction rates and increased to high rates and the simulated
heads were analyzed.
Generally, the increased abstraction resulted in the widening of the cone of depression around the well
field area resulting in deviation of discharge point for groundwater water from the hills; hence
decrease in the input into the Hombolo dam. Meanwhile the reduction in amount of abstraction
favoured high groundwater flow into the Hombolo dam.
6.10 Two layers model development

An attempt has been made to develop a two layers model. The top layer consists of clay soils with
average thickness 40m lying on top of the aquifer. The bottom layer was regarded as an aquifer with
the same characteristics as applied to the single layer model. The underlying layer was considered to
be fresh unfractured granitic rock which is completely impermeable and therefore not included in the
model.
However, model calibration was not as good as the single layer model calibration. The variation
between the simulated heads and observed heads were 7.4m2 while the single layer had variance of
4.6m2. This is due to the lack of enough data for proper characterization of clay layer. Figure 6.12
shows the model conceptualization and the model calibration results.
69
From simulation results it can be concluded that, for detailed modelling of the basin more pumping
test data equally distributed over the entire basin should be collected in order for the model to reflect
field situation.
Rainfall
(550mm/year)
Calculated heads (m)

Recharge in Chenene
PET (2000mm/year) hills
Abstractions
Well
field
Top Clay layer (40m)
Aquifer layer Observed heads (m)
Figure 6.12: Conceptualization of two layers model with calibration results
70
7. Conclusions and recommendations

7.1 Conclusion
The estimated recharge flux ranges between 1 to 2% of annual rainfall equal to 5 to 12 mmyr-1. This
recharge flux is regarded as the minimum recharge as the period under study was regarded to be dry
period due to significant decrease in the amount of annual rainfall. Also considering the CMB
method, there were human – cattle related pollution that increased the chloride content in groundwater
which contributed to underestimation of recharge flux. Moreover, from statistical analysis it was
concluded that there are number of years with zero recharge which are compensated by few years with
high recharge while frequently moderate recharge is dominant.
The developed regional groundwater model of the basin was capable to indicate the impact of well
abstractions to the groundwater flow. The potentiometric map indicates no groundwater outflow from
the basin to the Hombolo dam under stressed conditions. The cone of depression caused by high stress
at the well field area prevents groundwater from the Chenene hills to flow out of the well field and
discharge to the Hombolo dam. This results into a reduction in the amount of water input into the
Hombolo dam. Therefore the hypothesis for the well abstractions being the major cause for the
dropping of groundwater levels is supported by the modelling results.
Hydrochemical analyses of groundwater can provide valuable insight into the type, sources and
evolution of groundwater in the hydrologic system. It has been observed that the Makutupora basin
consists of HCO3- water type: young groundwater within the first stages of hydrochemical evolution.
Moreover, the groundwater has evolved from less bicarbonate to more bicarbonate composition. The
cations composition changes from Na + K to Ca and Mg content.
Water balance calculations of the basin based on the Thornthwaite and Mather (1955) indicated low
soil moisture surplus for wet years with no surplus for dry years. The decrease in soil moisture surplus
for longer period is contributing to low recharge flux in the basin. It was concluded that the annual
groundwater recharge in the basin is fluctuating depending to the amount of rainfall received in a
particular year. Since no data with regard to aquifer storage seem to exist yet, this limits sound long
term planning.
71
7.2 Recommendations
Since it has been realized that the recharge flux is changing depending on the amount of rainfall
received per year. It is therefore recommended that recharge flux studies should be carried out
frequently for the monitoring purposes. This will enhance sustainability management of the resource
by maintaining the amount of well abstractions less or equal to the input amount.
Future studies will benefit from more monitoring wells which are distant from production wells and
evenly spread which will enhance more effective calibration, and reduce pumping influence from
monitoring wells.
It is important to develop a detailed transient simulation of the aquifer under current research
boundary considerations in order to get more insight into inflows and outflows of the system. Because
recharge, well abstractions and groundwater outflow are natural processes that are strongly time
dependent, their transience influence is felt most under unsteady state modelling.
Due to hydraulic properties discontinuities in the fractured rock aquifers that results into
heterogeneities in aquifer parameters, it is important to undertake well test analysis with monitoring
wells for transmissivity and storativity determination. Moreover, modern geophysics for siting new
holes in the vicinity is highly recommended.
72
References
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome.
Amarasingha, A.A.K.K.S., 2007. Development of steady state groundwater flow model in lower
Walawa basin : Sri Lanka, integrating GIS, remote sensing and numeric groundwater
modelling, ITC, Enschede.
Anderson, M.P. and Woessner, W.W., 1992. Applied groundwater modeling: Simulation of flow and
advection transport. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
Bekele, E.B., Salama, R.B., Commander, D.P., Otto, C.J., Hick, W.P., Watson, G.D., Pollock, D.W.
and Lambert, P.A., 2003. Estimation of Groundwater Recharge to the
Parmelia Aquifer in the Northern Perth Basin 2001–2002, CSIRO, Australia.
Bohlke, J.K., 2002. Groundwater recharge and agricultural contamination. Hydrogeology Journal, 10:
153-179.
Borgne, T.L., Bour, O., Riley, M.S., Gouze, P., Pezard, P.A., Belghoul, A., Lods, G., Provost, R.L.,
Greswell, R.B., Ellis, P.A., Isakov, E. and Last, B.J., 2007. Comparison of alternative
methodologies for identifying and characterizing preferential flow paths in heterogeneous
aquifers. Journal of Hydrology, 345: 134-148.
Bredenkamp, D.B., 1988. Quantitative estimation of groundwater recharge in the Pretoria - Rietondale
area. In: I. Simmers (Editor), Estimation of natural groundwater recharge. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, Dordrecht, pp. 461-476.
Butler, T.W., 2007. Application of multiple geochemical indicators, including the stable isotopes of
water, to differentiate water quality evolution in a region influenced by various agricultural
practices and domestic wastewater treatment and disposal. Science of the Total Environment.
Callow, J.N., Nie, K.P.V. and Boggs, G.S., 2007. How does modifying a DEM to reflect known
hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis? Journal of Hydrology, 332: 30-39.
Calvo, J.C., 1986. An evaluation of Thornthwaite's water balance technique in predicting stream
runoff in Costa Rica. Hydrological Sciences.
Chand, R., Hodlur, G.K., Prakash, M.R., Mondal, N.C. and Singh, V.S., 2005. Reliable natural
recharge estimates in granitic terrain. Current science, 88(5).
Chapman, D. (Editor), 1996. Water quality monitoring: a practical guide to the design and
implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programmes.
73
Choi, W.-J., Han, G.-H., Lee, S.-M., Lee, G.-T., Yoon, K.-S., Choi, S.-M. and Ro, H.-M., 2007.
Impact of land-use types on nitrate concentration and d15N in unconfined groundwater in
rural areas of Korea. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 120: 259–268.
Conrad, J., Nel, J. and Wentzel, J., 2004. The challenges and implications of assessing groundwater
recharge: A case study – northern Sandveld, Western Cape, South Africa. Water SA, 5.
Dingman, S.L., 2002. Physical hydrology. Prentice Hall, Inc, New Jersey.
Donker, N.H.W., 1987. WTRBLN: A computer program to calculate wter balance, Computers &
Geosciences. Pergamon Journals Ltd, pp. 95-122.
Doorenbos, J. and Kassam, A.H., 1986. Yield response to water. FAO, Rome.
Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W.O., 1984. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. 24.
Dunne, T. and Leopold, L.B., 1978. Water in Environmental planning. W. H. Freeman and Company,
San Francisco, California.
Fetter, C.W., 2001. Applied hydrogeology. Pearson education.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jessey.
Gebreegziabher, Y., 2004. Assessment of the Water balance of the Lake Awassa catchment, Ethiopia,
ITC, Enschede, 103 pp.
Gieske, A.S.M., 1992. “Dynamic of groundwater recharge” case study in Semi arid, Botswana, Free
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Greeuw, S.C.H., Asselt, M.B.A.v., Grosskurth, J., Storms, C.A.M.H., Rijkens-Klomp, N., Rothman,
D.S. and Rotmans, J., 2000. Crystal clear balls: An assessment of recent European and global
scenario studies and models
Hamm, S.Y., Y.Cheong, J., Jang, S., Jung, C.Y. and Kim, B.S., 2005. Relationship between
transmissivity and specific capacity in the volcanic aquifers of Jeju Island, Korea. Journal of
Hydrology 310: 111-121.
Hamza, S., 1993. Hydrogeological study of Makutupora basin Dodoma Tanzania, supported by
groundwater flow modelling, ITC, Enschede.
Harmel, R.D. and Smith, P.K., 2007. Consideration of measurement uncertainty in the evaluation of
goodness-of-fit in hydrologic and water quality modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 337: 326-
336.
Houston, J., 2007. Recharge to groundwater in the Turi Basin, northern Chile: An evaluation based on
tritium and chloride mass balance techniques. Journal of Hydrology, 334: 534-544.
ITC, 2001. ILWIS 3.0 Academic: User's guide, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Kniveton, D.R., 2006. Water resources in regional development: The Okavango river. Journal of
Hydrology, 331: 1-2.
Kruseman, G.P. and Ridder, N.A., 1983. Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. International
Institute for land reclamation and improvement/ ILRI, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
74
Kulabako, N.R., Nalubega, M. and Thunvik, R., 2007. Study of the impact of land use and
hydrogeological settings on the shallow groundwater quality in a peri-urban area of Kampala,
Uganda. Science of the Total Environment, 381: 180-199.
Kumar, P., Sen and Gieske, A., 2005. Use of GIS and remote sensing in identifying recharge zones in
an arid catchment: A case study of Roxo River basin, Portugal. Journal of Nepal Geological
Society, 31: 25-32.
Lundmark, K.W., Pohll, G.M. and Carroll, R.W.H., 2007. A Steady-State Water Budget Accounting
Model for the Carbonate Aquifer System in White Pine County, Nevada, and Adjacent Areas
in Nevada and Utah. DHS Publication no. 41235.
Masetti, M., Poli, S., Sterlacchini, S., Beretta, G.P. and Facchi, A., 2007. Spatial and statistical
assessment of factors influencing nitrate contamination in groundwater. . Journal of
Environmental Management.
Meijerink, A.M.J., deBrouwer, H.A.M., Mannaerts, C.M. and Valenzuela, C.R., 1994. Introduction to
the use of geographic information systems for practical hydrology. ITC, Enschede.
Mende, A., Astorga, A. and Neumann, D., 2007. Strategy for groundwater management in developing
countries: A case study in northern Costa Rica. Journal of Hydrology, 334: 119-124.
Nkotagu, H., 1997. The groundwater geochemistry in a semi arid, fractured crystalline basement, area.
Journal of African Earth Sciences, 23(4).
Rientjes, T.H.M., 2007. Modelling in hydrology :Lecturing materials. ITC, Enschede.
Rodhe, A. and Bockgard, N., 2006. Groundwater recharge in a hard rock aquifer: A conceptual model
including surface-loading effects. Journal of Hydrology, 330: 389-401.
Rohrich, T., 2002. AquiferTest v.3.5: Advanced pumping test and slug test analysis software.
Rushton, K.R., 2003. Groundwater hydrology: Conceptual and computational models. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, England.
Sandstrom, K., 1995. Modellling the effects of rainfall variability on groundwater recharge in Semi
arid Tanzania. International Journal Nordic association for hydrology, 26: 313-330.
Saraf, Choudhory, P.R., Roy, B., Sarma, B., Vijay, S. and Choudhury, S., 2004. GIS based surface
hydrological modeling in identification of groundwater recharge zones. International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 25: 5759-5770.
Scanlon, B.R., Healy, R.W. and Cook, P.G., 2002. Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying
groundwater recharge. Hydrogeology Journal, 10: 18 -39.
Scanlon, B.R., Keese, K.E., Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., Gaye, C.B., Edmunds, W.M. and Simmers, I.,
2006. Global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions. Hydrological
process, 20: 3335-3370.
75
Shindo, S. (Editor), 1989. Study on the recharge mechanism and development of groundwater in the
inland area of Tanzania. Progress report of Japan-Tanzania joint research-1. Chiba University,
Chiba.
inland area of Tanzania. Progress report of Japan-Tanzania joint research-2. Chiba University,
Japan.
inland area of Tanzania. Progress report of Japan-Tanzania joint research -3. Chiba
University,, Japan.
Strickland, T., Logan, S.D. and Hoffman, D., 1997. Ground Water Quality, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources Division of Water Fact Sheet.
Strickland, T., Logan, S.D. and Hoffman, D., 2005. Potentiometric Surface Mapping in Ohio. 05-65,
Ohio Department of Natural Resources- Division of water
Van der Lee. J and Gehrels. J. C, 1990. Modelling Aquifer recharge. MSc. Thesis, VU, Amsterdam.
WHO, 1993. Guidelines for drinking water quality, Geneva.
Xu, Y. and Beekman, H.E. (Editors), 2003. Groundwater Recharge Estimation in Southern Africa.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Cape Town.
Xu, Y. and Usher, B. (Editors), 2006. Groundwater pollution in Africa. Taylor & Francis Group plc.
London UK.
76
Appendices
Appendix A: Meteorological data
0 -1
Year Month Temp mean( C) Rs(MJm-2) Wind speed(ms ) Rainfall(mm)
2000 Jan 24.7 23.37 1.94 87.0
2000 Feb 25.1 23.71 2.22 84.8
2000 Mar 23.4 22.68 1.94 141.9
2000 Apr 23.1 22.05 2.50 0.0
2000 May 23.7 21.31 2.78 0.0
2000 Jun 21.1 20.65 3.33 0.0
2000 Jul 20.0 20.91 3.06 0.0
2000 Aug 21.0 21.49 3.33 0.0
2000 Sep 22.1 22.95 3.61 0.0
2000 Oct 24.0 23.42 3.89 0.0
2000 Nov 24.9 22.47 3.33 131.5
2000 Dec 23.3 20.87 3.06 294.4
2001 Jan 23.1 22.11 2.78 285.7
2001 Feb 23.7 25.15 2.22 72.5
2001 Mar 24.4 23.28 2.50 57.9
2001 Apr 23.2 22.31 1.94 64.7
2001 May 22.3 20.85 2.50 0.0
2001 Jun 20.3 20.23 3.06 0.0
2001 Jul 20.2 20.56 3.33 0.0
2001 Aug 20.8 22.53 3.33 0.0
2001 Sep 22.5 23.14 3.61 0.0
2001 Oct 24.5 23.38 3.33 0.0
2001 Nov 25.1 24.09 3.06 0.0
2001 Dec 25.7 23.06 2.50 93.9
2002 Jan 23.1 21.72 2.22 323.8
2002 Feb 23.4 23.54 2.50 75.2
2002 Mar 23.8 23.73 1.94 95.7
2002 Apr 23.0 21.62 2.50 16.6
2002 May 22.7 22.09 2.78 0.0
2002 Jun 20.8 22.49 3.06 0.0
2002 Jul 21.0 22.73 3.33 0.0
2002 Aug 20.8 21.35 3.33 0.0
2002 Sep 22.4 23.31 3.61 0.0
2002 Oct 23.8 24.00 3.33 0.0
2002 Nov 25.4 23.95 3.06 0.0
2002 Dec 25.2 21.33 2.22 92.7
2003 Jan 24.5 22.98 2.50 116.1
2003 Feb 24.7 22.51 1.94 85.1
2003 Mar 25.4 22.07 2.22 43.5
2003 Apr 24.3 21.84 2.22 2.5
2003 May 23.6 20.94 2.50 0.0
2003 Jun 21.5 21.79 2.78 0.0
2003 Jul 20.3 21.89 3.06 0.0
2003 Aug 21.4 23.04 3.33 0.0
2003 Sep 22.6 22.91 3.61 0.0
2003 Oct 24.0 24.20 3.33 25.5
2003 Nov 25.7 24.73 3.61 54.0
2003 Dec 25.3 24.59 2.50 118.9
2004 Jan 25.0 23.82 1.94 61.0
2004 Feb 24.1 22.07 1.67 82.0
2004 Mar 24.0 21.41 2.22 162.3
Table A-1: Climate data for the period of 2000 to 2006
77
Table A-1 Continues
2004 Apr 23.1 20.11 2.50 0.0
2004 May 22.4 20.02 2.50 0.0
2004 Jun 20.3 22.04 3.06 0.0
2004 Jul 20.0 21.65 2.78 0.0
2004 Aug 21.0 22.20 3.06 0.0
2004 Sep 22.8 22.54 3.33 0.0
2004 Oct 23.9 23.30 3.61 13.0
2004 Nov 24.9 23.47 3.33 53.0
2004 Dec 25.2 21.35 2.78 0.0
2005 Jan 24.3 21.35 2.22 0.0
2005 Feb 24.5 22.29 1.94 0.0
2005 Mar 24.2 21.27 2.22 0.0
2005 Apr 23.8 20.04 2.50 13.5
2005 May 22.8 20.69 2.78 0.0
2005 Jun 21.6 20.21 3.06 13.0
2005 Jul 20.2 20.37 3.06 0.0
2005 Aug 20.9 21.25 3.06 0.0
2005 Sep 22.6 22.57 3.61 0.0
2005 Oct 23.6 24.10 3.33 0.0
2005 Nov 25.2 24.12 3.33 0.0
2005 Dec 26.0 24.18 2.78 0.0
2006 Jan 25.8 22.73 2.50 35.5
2006 Feb 26.0 21.80 2.22 14.0
2006 Mar 23.9 21.40 1.67 228.3
2006 Apr 23.4 20.73 2.22 18.0
2006 May 23.0 20.39 2.50 0.0
2006 Jun 21.2 20.86 2.78 8.0
2006 Jul 20.4 21.59 3.33 0.0
2006 Aug 21.7 21.52 3.33 0.0
2006 Sep 22.5 22.08 3.33 0.0
2006 Oct 24.0 23.64 3.61 0.0
2006 Nov 25.1 22.90 3.06 40.0
2006 Dec 23.8 19.26 1.39 265.5
78
Appendix B: Hydrogeological data
WATER LEVEL (m) -BH 234/75

2001 Level 2002 Level 2003 Level 2004 Level 2005 Level 2006 Level
1/15/2001 1054.29 1/1/2002 1056 1/1/2003 1056 1/1/2004 1051.82 1/1/2005 1053.64 1/1/2006 1052.34
2/1/2001 1054.29 1/15/2002 1/15/2003 1056 1/15/2004 1054.62 1/15/2005 1055.56 1/15/2006 1052.3
2/15/2001 1054.22 1/31/2002 1/31/2003 1056 1/31/2004 1054.6 2/1/2005 1053.72 1/31/2006 1052.24
2/28/2001 1054.98 2/1/2002 2/1/2003 1056 2/1/2004 1054.58 2/15/2005 1053.57 2/1/2006 1052.24
3/1/2001 1055.24 2/15/2002 2/15/2003 1056 2/15/2004 1054.57 2/28/2005 2/15/2006 1052.82
3/15/2001 1055.25 2/28/2002 2/28/2003 1056 2/28/2004 1054.59 3/1/2005 1053.58 2/28/2006 1052.37
3/30/2001 1055.25 3/1/2002 3/1/2003 1056 3/1/2004 1054.63 3/15/2005 1053.43 3/1/2006 1052.37
4/1/2001 1055.74 3/15/2002 3/15/2003 1056 3/15/2004 1054.56 3/31/2005 3/15/2006 1052.42
4/15/2001 1055.75 3/31/2002 3/31/2003 1055 3/31/2004 1054.84 4/1/2005 3/31/2006 1052.44
4/30/2001 1055.26 4/1/2002 1056 4/1/2003 1055 4/1/2004 1054.6 4/15/2005 1053.34 4/1/2006 1053.21
5/1/2001 1055.33 4/15/2002 1056 4/15/2003 1055 4/15/2004 1054.48 4/30/2005 4/15/2006 1052.35
5/15/2001 1055.33 4/30/2002 4/30/2003 1055 4/30/2004 1054.56 5/1/2005 1053.32 4/30/2006 1052.32
5/31/2001 1055.27 5/1/2002 5/1/2003 1055 5/1/2004 1054.55 5/15/2005 1053.22 5/1/2006 1052.35
6/4/2001 1055.39 5/15/2002 5/15/2003 5/15/2004 1054.59 5/31/2005 5/15/2006 1052.33
6/18/2001 1055.39 5/31/2002 5/31/2003 5/31/2004 6/1/2005 1053.06 5/31/2006 1052.26
7/2/2001 1055.36 6/1/2002 1056 6/1/2003 1055 6/1/2004 6/15/2005 1052.95 6/1/2006 1052.07
7/16/2001 1055.18 6/15/2002 1057 6/15/2003 1055 6/15/2007 1054.38 6/30/2005 6/15/2006 1052.11
7/31/2001 1055.24 6/30/2002 1056 6/30/2003 1055 6/30/2004 1054.35 7/1/2005 6/30/2006 1051.98
8/1/2001 1055.17 7/1/2002 1056 7/1/2003 1055 7/1/2004 1054.37 7/15/2005 7/1/2006 1052.33
8/15/2001 1055.25 7/15/2002 1056 7/15/2003 1055 7/15/2004 1054.39 7/31/2005 7/15/2006 1051.78
8/31/2001 1055.22 7/31/2002 1056 7/31/2003 1056 7/31/2004 1054.34 8/1/2005 1052.84 7/31/2006 1051.77
9/1/2001 1055.17 8/1/2002 1056 8/1/2003 1055 8/1/2004 1054.35 8/15/2005 1052.82
9/15/2001 1055.16 8/15/2002 1056 8/15/2003 1055 8/15/2004 1054.15 8/31/2005
9/30/2001 1054.99 8/31/2002 1056 8/31/2003 1055 8/31/2004 1054.08 9/1/2005 1052.69
10/8/2001 1054.96 9/1/2002 1056 9/1/2003 1055 9/1/2004 1054.2 9/15/2005 1052.17
10/15/2001 1054.88 9/15/2002 1056 9/15/2003 1055 9/15/2004 1054.11
10/31/2001 1054.89 9/30/2002 1056 9/30/2003 1055 9/30/2004 1054.12
11/1/2001 1054.88 10/1/2002 1056 10/1/2003 1055 10/1/2004 1054.04
11/15/2001 10/15/2002 1056 10/15/2003 1055 10/15/2004 1053.95
11/30/2001 10/31/2002 10/31/2003 1055 10/31/2004 1053.91
12/1/2001 11/1/2002 1056 11/1/2003 1055 11/1/2004 1053.89
12/15/01 1054.86 11/15/2002 1056 11/15/2003 1055 11/15/2004 1053.76
12/31/01 1054.85 11/30/2002 1056 11/30/2003 1054 11/30/2004 1053.67
12/1/2002 1056 12/1/2003 1055 12/1/2004 1053.69
12/15/2002 1056 12/15/2003 12/15/2004 1052.75
12/31/2002 1056 12/31/2003 1052 12/31/2004 1052.81
Table B-1: Groundwater level fluctuations for BH 234/75 (Source: Regional water office, Dodoma)
79
S/ BH DEPTH IN METRES BELOW THE SURFACE
N ID
CLAY SAND GRAVEL CALCRETE WEATHERED FRACTURED BED WS SWL
BEDROCK BEDROCK ROCK
1. 12/48 0-68 63-71 47.56 22.25
2. 34/51 0-24 24-39 39-54 54-56 25.0 25.0
55.18
3. 17/53 0-44 44-50 50-61? 61?-75 46.04 23.78
4. 24/53 0-21 21-22 41-56 31-37 37-64 30.49 23.48
22-24 24-29 58-76
29-31
5. 30/53 0-41 57-58 82-87 36.6 24.09
42.7
50.3
6. 31/53 0-61 6-13 Dry
7. 32/53 0-50 50-61 61-69 42.7 22.9
50.3
8. 35/53 0-35 35-60 36.6 23.8
42.7
50.3
9. 39/53 0-40 40-47 47-57 57-60 32. 24.4
38.1
10. 43/53 0-34 34-37 41-44 63-67 35.7 24.09
38-41 70-72 55-63 48.8
44-55 67-70
72-76
11. 44/53 0-44 44-55 48.8 25.3
55-64 64-75
12. 4/54 0-4 4-43 43-53 36.6 31.7
13. 8/54 0-47 47-66 69-75 76-87 48.8 23.8
75-76 69-75
75-76
14. 36/57 0-55 55-65 73-89 51.8 23.5
65-73
15. 37/57 0-44 64-67 44-64 73-90 50.3 23.5
71-73
16. 10/59 0-37 66-88 37-66 88-92 49.7
17. 16/64 0-55 79-84 55-79 64.9 18.2
18. 21/64 0-47 47-61 47.3 21
19. 22/64 0-41 41-61
20. 26/64 0-44 44-61 45.7 20.9
21. 9/65 0-9 9-15 55-89 41.2 29.3
15-55
22. 30/65 0-8 8-9 20-27 18.9 15.2
8-18 19-20
23. 3/71 0-29 29-34 34-55 35-40 40-61 34.5 31.1
24. 43/65 0-32 35.38 32-35 40-47 47-61 32.6 21.0
38-40
25. 14/68 0-6 6-7 7-70 25 19
26. 34/68 0-59 59-60 61-81 93-99 12.2
60-61 81-91
91-92 92-93
27. 97/70 0-63 76-82 63-76 82-85 85-99 65.6 17.7
28. 108/7 0-60 79-85 69-79 60-69 62.5 17.7
0
29. 2/71 0-61 78-84 61-78 84-93 93-97 22
30. 107/7 0-9 9-26 44-63 64-73 73-91 17.4 14.63
2 26-44 23-64
31. 217/7 0-67 79-85 66.5 18.4
3 67-85 81.7
85-92 97
32 151/7 0-63 63-82 82-89 15.3 22.3
4
33. 188/7 0-4 4-13 24-27 45-73 24.4 14.5
Table B-2: Summary of lithological logs of the boreholes in the basin (Source: Hamza, 1993)
80
Table 2.5 continues

32 151/7 0-63 63-82 82-89 15.3 22.3
4
33. 188/7 0-4 4-13 24-27 45-73 24.4 14.5
4 20-23 23-24 44.5
27-45
34. 223/7 0-29 29-38 38-51 9.5 19.2
4 18.9
35. 264/7 0-2 2-4 4-6 20-24 24-46 45.8 12.5
4 6-18 18-20
36. 53/75 0-9 9-15 79-85
15-17 17-61
70-79
37. 77/75 0-66 66-77 53.4 19.3
38. 88/75 0-46 50-67 46-50 67-73 73-96 70.1 19.7
88.4
39. 89/75 0-52 52-55 52-55 69-76 96-107
64-69 52-64 92-96 79-88
76-79 88-92
40. 97/75 0-43 43-47 56-78 84-108 80.8 22.8
47-53 53-56
78-75 79-84
41. 117/7 0-32 32-61 66-76 89-122 49.7 22
5 61-66 76-90
42. 118/7 0-41 41-61 61-64 64-78 78-122 76.2 26.9
5
43. 119/7 0-9 9-12 61-122 53.4 28.1
5 12-14 14-15
15-31 31-61
44. 122/7 0-26 26-31 50-55 55-105 23.7
5 31-34 34-50
45. 123/7 0-60 60-61 64-76 76-92 91-100 93.9 21.65
5 61-64
46. 131/7 0-60 60-61 61-75 76-85 85-113 85.4 20.5
5 75-76
47. 147/7 0-5 5-32 32-86 29.8 85.4
5
48. 163/7 0-29 29-31 31-34 34-41 41-107 29 17.45
5
49. 169/7 0-29 41-44 44-47 47-104 85.4 20.9
5 37-41
50. 170/7 0-18 18-37 37-44 44-122 36.6 19.4
5
51. 182/7 0-12 12-23 24-35
5 23-24 35-56
52. 193/7 0-17 17-35 35-93 45.7 30.12
5 54
53. 196/7 0-24 24-29 29.50 50-122 36 24.5
5
54. 197/7 0-6 6-18 18-56 56-61 39.7 28.7
5
55. 207/7 0-53 53-56 67-111 111-116 70.1 28.7
5 56-67 85.4
56. 220/7 0-11 11-24 60-122 85.4 31.7
5 24-37 37-60
57. 234/7 56-61 0-15 15-56 61-98 98-143 89.9
5
58. 142/7 0-71 71-73 92-102 102-122
6 73-98
81
Appendix C: Hydrochemical data and pumping test data
BOREHOLE ID UTM_X UTM_Y pH TEMP (0c) EC (uS/cm) TDS(mg/l)

BH-147.78 800516 9338920 8.2 24.7 844.0 411.0
BH_C1 802081 9339850 9.5 26.5 870.0 414.0
BH_C2 803267 9340848 9.1 29.3 913.0 410.0
BH 117/75 804213 9341694 9.9 28.3 980.0 453.0
BH_C5 807755 9345584 9.9 28.8 920.0 417.0
BH_C7 807469 9342882 9.9 29.0 910.0 410.0
BH_C8 806824 9343126 9.5 28.0 895.0 411.0
BH_C3 806288 9342938 9.0 24.2 913.0 409.0
Dug_W_PS 802876 9341702 8.5 25.7 127.2 61.4
BHC9 801619 9339652 9.7 28.0 880.0 404.0
Dug_W_V 802365 9340684 7.5 27.5 233.0 105.9
BH_55.82 804009 9339288 9.8 25.6 910.0 440.0
Padri_colledge 805332 9332676 7.0 25.6 1048.0 509.0
St_Gabriel 805044 9332520 7.0 28.6 1222.0 561.0
Private_well 805895 9331840 9.0 26.0 913.0 438.0
Good_Hope 804016 9325286 9.4 26.1 879.0 420.0
CPPS 804713 9323598 9.2 27.3 1582.0 750.0
St Gasper 804610 9323638 8.3 26.4 1548.0 745.0
Hon_Shekif 804534 9323312 8.2 25.7 1387.0 677.0
Salecian_seminary 803662 9322612 8.3 27.5 815.0 378.0
St.Frans_Wakap 803421 9322058 8.7 26.0 1061.0 510.0
Assmbl._God 804439 9321782 9.1 26.0 780.0 373.0
C-1: Field measured parameters with sample localities
SAMPLE ID LOCATION Ca K Mg Na Cl- SO4 NO3

UTM_X UTM_Y meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l
DugWell (V) 804068 9340684 0.4283 0.0952 0.2393 0.8620 0.1070 0.0000 0.0016
BH C2 803267 9340848 2.9645 0.0002 1.9180 3.9751 0.6394 1.3542 0.0000
BH C3 806288 9342938 2.8631 0.0000 1.8875 3.9338 1.3803 1.4583 0.0048
BH C5 807755 9345584 3.0013 0.0000 1.9555 4.4840 0.8732 1.3958 0.0000
BH147/78-B 800516 9338920 2.9743 0.0000 1.9305 3.9904 2.8169 2.5000 0.0548
Table C-2: ITC laboratory results
82
Sample source K+ Na+ Mg2+ Ca2+ SO4 HCO3 Cl No3 pH* Temp* TDS* EC*
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ^0C mg/l uS/cm
BH C1 4.5 44.0 36.2 68.2 14.3 200.0 150.0 22.1 9.5 26.5 414.0 810.0
BH C2 3.7 55.0 34.0 79.0 1.4 366.0 35.5 10.8 9.1 29.3 410.0 913.0
BH C3 4.0 46.0 40.9 83.6 7.2 488.0 71.0 8.9 10.4 24.2 409.0 913.0
BH C5 4.3 52.0 55.0 84.0 12.1 366.0 35.1 0.9 9.9 28.8 417.0 920.0
BH C7 4.0 49.0 64.0 64.0 3.9 732.0 35.5 7.5 9.9 29.0 410.0 910.0
BH C8 4.4 51.0 78.0 60.0 9.9 654.0 35.5 7.5 10.7 28.0 411.0 895.0
BH C9 4.4 48.0 28.0 49.0 5.5 488.0 35.5 19.5 9.7 28.0 404.0 880.0
PW/V 4.8 26.0 39.0 33.0 5.5 488.0 71.0 9.0 26.0 438.0 913.0
St. Gabriel veyula 6.5 41.0 45.0 69.0 12.6 400.0 71.0 150.1 7.0 28.6 561.0 1222.0
Padre colledge 6.5 40.0 79.0 12.0 5.0 300.0 71.0 92.5 7.0 25.6 509.0 1048.0
Assemblies of God 8.4 62.0 78.0 11.0 9.4 610.0 71.0 9.1 26.0 373.0 780.0
Dug well (village) 6.5 20.0 8.5 11.1 11.0 160.0 25.0 0.0 7.5 27.5 105.9 233.0
Dug well P/S 6.4 8.0 8.1 13.0 6.9 105.0 35.5 0.4 8.5 25.7 61.4 127.2
CPPS 13.6 58.0 55.6 81.6 20.2 688.0 71.0 117.3 9.2 27.3 750.0 1582.0
Wakapuchini 3.9 94.0 14.0 57.1 7.7 610.0 35.5 8.7 26.0 510.0 1061.0
Good Hope 3.1 37.0 27.0 60.4 12.6 366.0 71.0 19.9 9.4 26.1 420.0 879.0
St Gasper P/S 12.4 46.0 61.0 83.1 29.5 666.0 35.5 127.5 8.3 26.4 745.0 1548.0
BH 117/75 2.6 9.2 77.0 80.4 17.0 366.0 106.5 31.5 9.9 28.3 453.0 980.0
BH 55/82 1.6 47.0 47.0 68.6 15.3 366.0 35.5 21.7 10.7 25.6 440.0 910.0
Salecian BH 11.9 54.0 3.2 54.0 20.2 366.0 35.5 10.2 8.3 27.5 378.0 815.0
Padre colledge 5.5 30.0 1.8 72.0 23.5 310.0 30.0 9.1 26.0 373.0 780.0
BH 147/78 5.9 27.0 0.9 68.9 25.7 244.0 35.5 31.9 8.2 24.7 411.0 844.0
Table C-3: Chemical laboratory results, GST- Tanzania

* Indicates measurements taken in the field
83
SAMPLE DEPTH DATE Na K Ca Mg Fe Al Si P Cl SiO4 HCO3 NO3 Temp EC PH
Units m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l (C ) (uS/cm)
BH 30A/53 24.5 23/12/88 689.81 13.29 5.07 10.42 0.03 0.11 0.5 0.1 52.2 125.8 ND 23.9 9.01 9
BH 35/53 30 24/11/88 102.4 7.14 46.09 20.1 0.01 0.09 11.85 0.37 78.5 45.6 347.7 ND 27.8 832 7.2
BH 35/53 40 24/11/88 100.71 7.77 47.2 19.9 0.02 0.09 11.71 0.39 77.7 42.7 348.9 ND 27.8 838 7.4
BH 35/53 47 24/11/88 101.12 7.89 47.52 20.4 0.03 0.09 11.6 0.46 78.4 45.6 344 ND 28 811 7.3
BH 39/53 40 26/12/88 595.21 12.77 140.7 94.66 0.11 0.51 8.91 1.94 370.3 1154 ND 27.9 4040 7.2
BH 8/54 40 23/12/88 333.91 13.77 95.78 45.13 0.03 0.18 nd nd 217.9 204.9 646.6 14.6 27.5 2130 7.2
BH 97/70 P 23/12/88 118.44 8.04 53.54 22.83 nd 0.1 26.67 0.47 84 66.4 350.1 2.8 28.1 973 7.5
BH 88/75 30 23/12/88 48.13 9.03 19.89 9.57 0.02 0.05 0.7 0.26 27.4 20.1 187.9 ND 28 424 8.7
BH 88/75 40 23/11/88 47.09 8.22 19.03 9.26 0.01 0.07 0.78 0.26 26.6 19.8 170.8 ND 26.2 391 8.6
BH 88/75 50 23/11/88 51.08 9.8 29.44 10.65 nd 0.03 2.23 0.15 30.9 23.2 235.5 ND 26.4 491 80
BH 88/75 60 23/11/88 55.89 12.94 45.06 12.19 0.03 0.07 6.02 0.26 39.6 29.2 308.7 ND 27.4 959 7.6
BH 88/75 70 23/11/88 58.5 11.46 45.78 12.38 0.02 0.04 6.47 0.22 41.2 30.5 402.6 0.2 26.9 788 7.3
BH 88/75 80 23/11/88 88.23 10.88 48.32 17.56 0.03 0.08 13.44 0.34 54.7 45 291.6 0.5 26.3 592 7.6
BH 88/75 90 23/11/88 97.69 9.53 51.32 20.02 0.01 0.07 17.19 0.4 58.2 53.5 420.9 0.2 26.9 866 7.3
BH 88/75 94 23/11/88 89.3 10.86 49.65 11.45 0.02 0.08 13.18 0.35 54.9 45.3 356.2 0.6 26.1 877 7.8
BH 97/75 40 23/11/88 74.5 5.89 32.32 19.15 0.01 0.06 8.97 0.27 43.5 39.1 ND 27 563 7.9
BH 118/75 P 20/12/88 94.93 6.06 57.05 25.07 0.02 0.1 21.91 0.43 84.3 63.3 308.7 7.3 28.9 1047 7.8
BH 119/75 P 26/12/88 100.66 6.83 57.48 26.42 nd 0.11 23.87 0.52 88.3 77.4 278.2 3.8 28.5 819 7.4
BH 123/75 28 22/12/88 82.1 12.9 19.29 14.6 0.02 0.1 5.23 0.34 63.8 12 0.9 26.8 768
BH 163/75 25 22/12/88 5.26 5.92 17.67 3.21 0.24 0.06 17.7 0.08 5 nd 102.5 ND 27.5 201 7.6
BH 169/75 P 26/12/88 112.36 7.69 15.99 25.85 nd 0.09 10.01 0.45 58.3 60.2 308.7 ND 816 8.5
BH 169/75 40 20/12/88 114.38 8.04 34.17 25.18 nd 0.09 9.07 0.47 63.3 63.8 391.6 ND 27.4 920 7.7
BH 170/75 P 20/12/88 94.37 8.09 33.36 23.41 nd 0.09 8.91 0.43 48.9 48.4 372.1 ND 29.2 801 8.2
BH 182/75 40 26/12/88 93.46 5.54 34.82 23.47 nd 0.06 6.38 0.34 77.8 40.3 ND 26.7 847 8.1
BH 193/75 40 22/12/88 107.74 5.54 57.36 24.41 0.01 0.07 20.84 0.36 54.3 45 ND 27.9 899 7.4
BH 86/78 30 23/12/88 126.09 10.71 35.98 21.01 nd 0.09 9.88 0.38 105.9 46.8 359.9 ND 26 883 7.7
BH 86/78 40 23/12/88 125.47 11.06 36.46 21.99 nd 0.1 10.59 0.44 105.9 48.8 353.8 0.1 26.2 919 7.7
BH 86/78 50 23/12/88 123.04 11.54 38.08 22.1 0.02 0.1 11.22 0.44 104.1 50.1 345.3 ND 27 906 7.7
BH 86/78 60 23/12/88 124.19 10.83 39.25 23 nd 0.09 12.08 0.49 104.7 52 362.3 ND 28.3 912 7.8
BH 86/78 70 23/12/88 123.99 11.06 38.56 22.45 0.01 0.1 12 0.46 103.7 53.8 357.5 ND 28.2 926 7.6
BH 103/78 35 14/11/88 133.15 11.08 27.71 27.91 0.01 0.11 3.87 0.54 143.5 23.7 401.4 0.5 25.7 909 7.7
BH 103/78 40 14/11/88 113.93 10.56 39.84 30.07 0.02 0.12 6.9 0.62 149.6 27.2 302.6 0.3 25.8 962 7.7
BH 103/78 50 14/11/88 129.84 7.87 79.48 38.15 0.03 0.16 18.05 0.77 193.6 61.9 377 1.2 28.6 1295 8
BH 103/78 64 14/11/88 98.13 8.29 59.47 26.41 0.03 0.11 25.66 0.53 98.1 80 290.4 3.9 29.3 914 8.1
BH 26/79 P 26/12/88 95.16 4.89 55.91 25.4 0.06 0.21 23.03 0.37 84.2 78.2 3.7 28.4 887 7.5
BH 55/82 P 23/12/88 119.15 9.67 48.94 28.51 0.07 0.23 17.19 0.48 115.3 61.5 339.2 4.4 27.1 1018 7.7
ND = Not detected
P= Pumped
Table C-4: Hydrochemical data, 1989 dataset (Source: Shindo, 1989)
84
SAMPLE ID DATE TEMP EC Na K Ca Mg Fe Al Si Cl SO4 HCO3 NO3

Units 0C uS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
SITE_A 27/12/1988 0.69 1.90 3.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.20 0.70 0.00
SITE_A 6/1/1989 0.27 0.47 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.90
SITE_M 12/1/1989 0.16 1.80 0.50 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.00 2.40 0.00
SITE_M 14/01/1989 22.40 0.14 0.70 3.60 0.14 0.10 0.01 0.42 0.20 0.00 12.70 0.00
SITE_M 19/01/1989 20.30 0.00 4.80 0.91 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.81 0.80 2.10 0.00 1.50
SITE_M 20/01/1989 19.11 2.30 1.90 2.40 0.32 0.02 0.06 1.20 1.10 0.00 6.80 2.00
SITE_M 22/01/1989 0.90 2.90 0.80 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.07 2.10 1.10 1.80
SITE_M 26/01/1989 20.80 2.00 0.47 2.20 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.62 1.10 1.50 5.90 2.00
SITE_M 29/01/1989 14.12 1.90 0.55 3.10 0.32 0.21 0.36 1.60 0.70 0.00 11.70 0.50
SITE_M 30/01/1989 22.50 2.90 7.80 1.30 0.20 0.01 0.04 0.70 2.20 0.90 2.40 4.90
SITE_M 6/2/1989 20.90 16.65 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.50 0.00 2.00 0.00
SITE_M 14/04/1989 15.20 0.69 7.10 2.20 0.00 0.00 3.10 12.50 9.70 29.80 10.70
SITE_M 20/04/1989 7.30 1.10 3.30 0.95 0.01 0.00 0.62 4.40 3.10 16.10 4.60
RAIN_ZENKA 9/2/1989 0.53 0.30 0.49 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.70 0.00 2.40 0.30
SITE_M 3/12/1989 0.02 0.44 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.50 0.25
SITE_M 5/12/1989 0.15 0.48 0.37 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.58 0.55
SITE_M 6/12/1989 0.24 0.56 0.38 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.22 2.00 0.75
SITE_M 7/12/1989 0.33 0.64 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.68 0.51 0.68
SITE_M 14/12/1989 0.12 0.23 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.02 1.50 0.02
SITE_M 15/12/1989 0.12 0.40 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.15 1.50 0.52
SITE_M/1 16/12/1989 0.36 1.37 1.10 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.34 0.02 0.01
SITE_M/2 16/12/1989 0.75 0.68 0.70 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.09 1.10 0.15 0.97
SITE_M 22/12/1989 0.24 19.10 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.02 0.00
SITE_M 23/12/1989 0.36 3.10 0.28 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 13.60 0.58 0.44
SITE_M 30/12/1989 25.90 17.55 0.18 0.36 0.58 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.49 0.43
SITE_M 1/1/1990 0.51 4.30 0.33 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.75 0.12 1.50 0.04
SITE_M 4/1/1990 0.15 3.50 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 3.60 0.26 2.90 0.78
SITE_M 5/1/1990 0.09 0.50 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.33 2.40 0.59
SITE_M 13/01/1990 0.21 0.00 0.32 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.43 0.36 0.45
SITE_M 16/01/1990 0.21 0.20 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.48 0.40
SITE_M 10/2/1990 0.30 14.60 1.50 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.57 0.32 0.62
SITE_M 12/2/1990 0.87 3.60 1.60 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.13 11.10 0.42 1.00
SITE_M 15/02/1990 35.00 107.40 0.45 0.30 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.09 3.60 0.11 3.40 0.73
SITE_M 17/02/1990 0.15 0.00 0.90 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.43 0.90 0.53
SITE_M 18/02/1990 21.90 8.03 0.09 2.90 0.56 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.13 0.76 0.00 5.90 0.70
SITE_M 22/02/1990 30.80 25.60 0.48 7.80 1.20 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.03 2.90 0.18 1.50 0.35
SITE_M 25/02/1990 20.50 10.78 0.48 0.75 0.54 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.11 6.40 0.88 2.40 0.87
SITE_M 26/02/1990 20.10 0.15 1.30 0.32 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.31
SITE_M 28/02/1990 18.80 0.03 2.60 0.58 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.42 0.33
SITE_M 1/3/1990 0.27 1.50 0.37 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.71 0.22 0.47
SITE_M 3/3/1990 0.09 0.00 1.90 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.01 0.52
SITE MEIA MEIA18/12/1989 0.42 0.32 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.74 0.02 4.90 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA19/12/1989 25.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 4.40
SITE MEIA MEIA26/12/1989 0.71 0.39 1.90 0.31 0.02 0.00 0.13 1.10 0.62 6.80 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA5/1/1990 0.42 0.00 1.40 0.16 0.01 0.14 0.59 1.20 4.90 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA19/01/1990 25.50 0.51 0.00 1.00 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.77 0.58 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA26/01/1990 26.40 0.57 0.00 1.50 0.21 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.97 0.04 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA2/2/1990 0.11 0.00 1.20 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.55 0.12 0.01
SITE MEIA MEIA12/2/1990 1.90 1.60 3.20 0.54 0.01 0.27 2.20 2.90 10.20 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA20/02/1990 23.50 68.60 0.81 1.20 1.50 0.21 0.00 0.03 0.45 1.10 0.72 0.00
SITE MEIA MEIA27/02/1990 29.10 33.00 0.36 0.24 0.87 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.80 0.56 2.90 0.00
SITE CHIHANGA23/12/1990 1.50 0.94 2.60 0.26 0.01 0.17 0.76 2.00 0.58 8.30 0.01
SITE MKONDAI23/12/1990 0.57 2.30 4.70 0.71 0.02 0.02 0.88 0.96 0.30 24.90 0.02
SITE CHENENE 24/02/1990 25.90 131.50 1.00 1.40 4.00 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.25 1.50 0.02 15.60 0.03
Table C-5: Rainfall dataset (Source: Shindo, 1990)
85
SAMPLE_ID Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl NO3 HCO3 SiO2
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
NZUGUNI POLICE 114.3 57.0 329.0 10.0 240.5 442.1 219.2 592.7 100.4
NZUGUNI VILLAGE 53.9 15.7 74.9 7.5 35.5 98.0 35.7 226.6 95.2
MAHOMA MAKULU 260.3 72.4 391.3 7.8 118.4 1104.2 130.3 435.8 112.4
IPALA VILLAGE 61.4 29.3 123.7 5.3 51.8 131.1 57.5 549.2 61.4
HOMBOLO OUTLET 56.5 17.9 93.4 4.5 86.2 105.2 103.1 283.3 90.7
HOMBOLO VILLAGE 31.2 35.4 419.7 22.6 324.1 505.0 0.0 370.5 43.4
HOMBOLO SPRING 61.6 22.9 29.8 9.8 70.0 59.6 0.0 283.3 52.6
HOMBOLO MAKULU VILLAGE 19.7 33.7 172.1 1.0 61.3 273.8 0.0 544.8 83.7
HOMBOLO MAKULU SEEPAGE 32.2 9.4 64.6 1.0 20.3 108.9 0.0 260.5 69.8
ZEPISA_DCT 7.5 1.9 1315.0 3.2 748.6 1090.2 0.0 1307.5 71.9
MAHOMANYIKA 24/75 161.8 113.3 300.6 13.5 435.7 815.5 85.3 501.2 51.7
MAHOMANYIKA 263/73 2.4 2.3 102.2 7.2 6.7 61.5 0.0 252.8 0.0
MAHOMANYIKA VILLAGE 104.1 115.1 582.0 14.7 650.7 982.4 33.2 571.0 58.0
MAHOMANYIKA 234/74 19.2 26.0 253.1 17.4 156.3 277.1 0.0 488.1 15.2
NZASA BH 33.5 66.0 239.2 8.3 217.6 372.6 40.6 640.7 70.4
NZASA VILLAGE 121.2 118.0 298.9 98.0 450.5 571.7 0.0 745.3 94.4
MAHOMANYIKA 2KM 44.1 137.5 372.5 60.1 383.7 675.5 36.5 632.0 70.4
KITELELA 115/75 80.1 150.0 324.2 9.4 119.7 1098.8 85.9 318.2 0.0
KITELELA SHALLOW WELL 183.4 127.5 63.1 15.0 130.8 501.7 67.6 544.8 102.1
MAHOMANYIKA PORT 1.5 4.8 7.8 5.0 18.8 21.7 15.9 65.4 314.6
ZEPISA_300m NW of VILLAGE BH 19.2 7.6 101.8 14.4 83.1 125.2 39.5 152.5 113.9
ZEPISA_500m WEST OF VILLAGE BH 30.2 30.0 141.0 8.7 62.0 239.2 0.0 418.4 6.9
HOMBOLO_163/75 52.5 21.5 122.8 7.2 98.4 112.5 31.0 435.8 55.4
RAIN_RWE 1.8 0.4 0.8 8.9 2.2 5.4 0.0 34.9 0.0
ZEPISA_BH 92/93 14.1 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.0 16.4 0.0 69.7 0.0
IMMACULATE_27.91 41.9 17.6 60.5 9.8 39.5 130.2 174.5 100.2 92.5
SHEKIFBH 77.9 25.7 115.9 12.3 77.6 237.8 286.0 82.8 96.1
DONBOSCO_BH 51.4 31.5 40.8 8.6 23.3 137.3 115.8 192.8 87.7
SALECIAN BH 33.6 13.1 52.2 14.1 62.1 83.2 88.0 113.3 85.7
MADINI 46.7 19.0 113.6 5.9 70.0 176.5 48.1 248.8 65.5
SIST IVREA_BH 105.8 54.4 103.2 11.0 69.0 279.2 449.1 109.1 89.9
TEDDYS CAMPUS 57.4 20.5 107.3 20.0 114.3 194.3 224.5 87.2 92.0
ST_JEMA 7.1 3.3 103.7 7.8 83.3 126.7 40.5 183.1 55.2
PRECIOUS BLOOD MISSION 21.1 9.6 94.6 19.8 87.6 125.3 89.3 91.5 67.2
ADORES OF BLOOD 70.5 42.0 76.2 4.2 69.6 117.9 160.4 383.5 68.7
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD 41.7 17.5 63.7 8.4 45.9 118.2 143.6 200.5 99.9
MAKOLE 88.0 56.0 220.6 9.5 80.8 593.3 132.8 435.8 64.6
FAHARI_BOTTLERS BH 93 136.3 44.6 235.6 21.2 153.4 551.3 331.2 139.5 80.7
FAHARI_BH 66.4 21.0 124.1 14.8 97.7 226.9 258.2 109.0 102.5
FAHARI BH 103/93 49.5 20.5 195.9 7.4 100.0 368.2 63.3 333.0 74.9
FAHARI_50M 55.9 23.0 331.5 10.7 196.2 553.8 39.0 322.5 24.8
HURUMA HOMECRAFT 84.2 31.8 296.0 6.1 93.6 327.7 138.1 693.0 80.9
SHALLOW WELL_200M 96.5 31.0 291.9 24.7 263.2 442.3 0.0 527.4 35.5
SHALLOW WELL_300M 161.7 60.5 492.7 46.3 563.8 814.8 33.0 614.5 29.8
MAZENGO SEC SCHOOL OLD BH 73.3 26.6 394.8 4.7 180.3 241.3 206.1 871.7 86.9
MAZENGO_NEW BH 67.4 33.5 145.1 9.1 73.8 282.5 33.4 422.8 6.0
RETIRED_PRES LODGE 5.6 3.7 31.9 18.2 39.6 31.2 0.0 183.1 0.0
RWE_BH 42.4 26.8 138.4 7.3 43.8 302.2 40.1 296.4 13.7
ZEPISA DCT 2.1 0.5 3.3 1.4 19.3 19.8 7.6 21.8 0.02
Table C-6: Hydrochemical data, 1997 dataset (Source: Nkotagu 1997)
86
Figure C-1: Pumping test analysis (Walton)
Figure C-2: Graphs of drawdown against time for some boreholes
87
Appendix D: Recharge estimation data
SAMPLE DEPTH Cl (gw)min Cl (gw)max Cl (rain)min Cl (rain)min P(annual) Rech_min Rech_max
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
m mgl mgl mgl mgl mm mmyear mmyear
BH 30A/53 24.5 23.69 80.71 0.46 1.14 550.00 10.72 7.76
BH 35/53 30 78.50 78.50 3.23 7.98
BH 35/53 40 77.70 77.70 3.27 8.06
BH 35/53 47 78.40 78.40 3.24 7.99
BH 97/70 P 84.00 84.00 3.02 7.45
BH 88/75 30 27.40 27.40 9.26 22.85
BH 88/75 40 26.60 26.60 9.54 23.54
BH 88/75 50 30.90 30.90 8.21 20.27
BH 88/75 60 39.60 39.60 6.41 15.81
BH 88/75 70 41.20 41.20 6.16 15.20
BH 88/75 80 54.70 54.70 4.64 11.45
BH 88/75 90 58.20 58.20 4.36 10.76
BH 88/75 94 54.90 54.90 4.62 11.41
BH 97/75 40 43.50 43.50 5.83 14.40
BH 118/75 P 84.30 84.30 3.01 7.43
BH 119/75 P 88.30 88.30 2.87 7.09
BH 123/75 28 63.80 63.80 3.98 9.81
BH 169/75 P 58.30 58.30 4.35 10.74
BH 169/75 40 63.30 63.30 4.01 9.89
BH 170/75 P 48.90 48.90 5.19 12.81
BH 182/75 40 77.80 77.80 3.26 8.05
BH 193/75 40 54.30 54.30 4.67 11.53
BH 86/78 30 105.90 105.90 2.40 5.91
BH 86/78 40 105.90 105.90 2.40 5.91
BH 86/78 50 104.10 104.10 2.44 6.02
BH 86/78 60 104.70 104.70 2.42 5.98
BH 86/78 70 103.70 103.70 2.45 6.04
BH 103/78 35 143.50 143.50 1.77 4.36
BH 103/78 64 98.10 98.10 2.59 6.38
4.49 10.44
ND = Not detected
P= Pumped average
Table D-1: Recharge flux determination
Temp (0C) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
W at Altitude (m)
0 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.8 0.8 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85
500 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.6 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.8 0.8 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86
1000 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87
2000 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.8 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88
3000 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.8 0.8 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.89
Table D-2: Values of weighing factor (W) for the effect of Radiation on ETo at different temperature
and altitudes (Source: (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1984)
88
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Jan 167 164 161 173 171 161 175
Feb 180 188 175 161 157 159 168
Mar 159 176 168 169 161 160 151
Apr 163 156 160 164 149 150 154
May 178 171 182 174 164 171 169
Jun 166 161 180 176 176 164 168
Jul 166 164 183 174 171 162 172
Aug 173 181 169 186 179 171 175
Sep 187 190 191 188 186 186 181
Oct 196 197 200 203 195 201 198
Nov 190 205 204 212 199 205 195
Dec 173 198 182 210 182 208 151
Total 2100 2149 2155 2191 2088 2096 2056
Table D-3: PET values in mm
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
P rain 87 85 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 294 740
DRO direct runoff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P-DRO prec - direct roff 87 85 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 294 740
REF POTEVP 167 180 159 163 178 166 166 173 187 196 190 173 2098
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CROPPOTEVP 117 126 111 114 125 116 116 121 131 137 133 121 1469
P"-PET" (3)-(6) -30 -41 31 -114 -125 -116 -116 -121 -131 -137 -2 173 -729
AC POT Wloss -30 -71 0 -114 -239 -355 -471 -592 -723 -860 -862 0 0
SM soil moisture 123 93 124 70 31 14 6 3 1 0 0 150
dSM change soil m -27 -30 31 -54 -40 -16 -8 -4 -2 -1 0 150
AET actual evap 114 114 111 54 40 16 8 4 2 1 132 121 716
D soil mst. deficit 3 12 0 60 85 100 109 118 129 136 1 0 753
S soil mst. surplus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24
TL AVAIL wat. avail. runoff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RO runoff without dir. roff 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 22
DET detention 15 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 19 0
ROTL total runoff (mm) 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 22
ROTL total runoff (m3s-1) 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
WARN=0 WHC not reached 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table D-3: WTRBLN simulation results for the year 2000
P rain 286 73 58 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 575
REF POTEVP 164 188 176 156 171 161 164 181 190 197 205 198 2151
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CROPPOTEVP 115 132 123 109 120 113 115 127 133 138 144 139 1506
P"-PET" (3)-(6) 171 -59 -65 -45 -120 -113 -115 -127 -133 -138 -144 -45 -931
AC POT Wloss 0 -59 -124 -169 -289 -401 -516 -643 -776 -914 -1057 -1102 0
SM soil moisture 150 101 65 49 22 10 5 2 1 0 0 0
dSM change soil m 150 -49 -36 -17 -27 -12 -6 -3 -1 -1 0 0
AET actual evap 115 121 94 82 27 12 6 3 1 1 0 94 554
DET detention 17 13 11 9 7 6 4 4 3 2 2 1 0
ROTL total runoff (m3s-1) 2.39 1.91 1.53 1.22 0.98 0.78 0.63 0.50 0.40 0.32 0.26 0.21
89
P rain 324 75 96 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 604
REF POTEVP 161 175 168 160 182 180 183 169 200 204 182 0 1964
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
CROPPOTEVP 113 123 118 112 127 126 128 118 140 143 127 0 1375
P"-PET" (3)-(6) 211 -47 -22 -95 -127 -126 -128 -118 -140 -143 -35 0 -771
AC POT Wloss 0 -47 -69 -165 -292 -418 -546 -664 -804 -947 -982 0 0
SM soil moisture 150 109 95 50 21 9 4 2 1 0 0 0
dSM change soil m 150 -41 -15 -45 -29 -12 -5 -2 -1 0 0 0
AET actual evap 113 116 111 61 29 12 5 2 1 0 93 0 543
DET detention 49 39 31 25 20 16 13 10 8 7 5 4 0
P rain 116 85 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 26 54 119 446
REF POTEVP 173 161 169 164 174 176 174 186 188 203 212 210 2190
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CROPPOTEVP 121 113 118 115 122 123 122 130 132 142 148 147 1533
P"-PET" (3)-(6) -5 -28 -75 -112 -122 -123 -122 -130 -132 -117 -94 -28 -1087
AC POT Wloss -1092 -1120 -1195 -1307 -1429 -1552 -1674 -1804 -1936 -2052 -2147 -2175 0
SM soil moisture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dSM change soil m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AET actual evap 116 85 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 26 54 119 446
DET detention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P rain 61 82 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 53 0 371
REF POTEVP 171 157 161 149 164 176 171 179 186 195 199 182 2090
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CROPPOTEVP 120 110 113 104 115 123 120 125 130 137 139 127 1463
P"-PET" (3)-(6) -59 -28 50 -104 -115 -123 -120 -125 -130 -124 -86 -127 -1092
AC POT Wloss -1113 -1141 0 -104 -219 -342 -462 -587 -718 -841 -927 -1055 0
SM soil moisture 0 0 50 75 35 15 7 3 1 1 0 0
dSM change soil m 0 0 50 25 -40 -20 -8 -4 -2 -1 0 0
AET actual evap 61 82 113 25 40 20 8 4 2 14 53 0 422
DET detention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90
P rain 0 0 0 14 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
REF POTEVP 161 159 160 150 171 164 162 171 186 201 205 208 2098
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CROPPOTEVP 113 111 112 105 120 115 113 120 130 141 144 146 1469
P"-PET" (3)-(6) -113 -111 -112 -92 -120 -102 -113 -120 -130 -141 -144 -146 -1442
AC POT Wloss -1555 -1666 -1778 -1870 -1989 -2091 -2204 -2324 -2454 -2595 -2739 -2884 0
SM soil moisture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dSM change soil m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AET actual evap 0 0 0 14 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
DET detention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P rain 36 14 228 18 0 8 0 0 0 0 40 265 609
REF POTEVP 175 168 151 154 169 168 172 175 181 198 195 151 2057
Kc crop factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CROPPOTEVP 123 118 106 108 118 118 120 123 127 139 137 106 1440
P"-PET" (3)-(6) -87 -104 123 -90 -118 -110 -120 -123 -127 -139 -97 159 -831
AC POT Wloss -87 -191 0 -90 -208 -318 -438 -561 -687 -826 -922 0 0
SM soil moisture 84 42 150 82 37 18 8 4 2 1 0 150
dSM change soil m -66 -42 108 -68 -45 -19 -10 -5 -2 -1 0 150
AET actual evap 102 56 106 86 45 27 10 5 2 1 40 106 584
DET detention 7 6 12 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 9 0
91
Year precipitation Recharge Recharge 1964 630.00 6.90 6.90
mm mm/year mm/year 1965 609.00 6.27 6.27
1922 304.00 -2.88 0.00 1966 349.00 -1.53 0.00
1923 716.00 9.48 9.48 1967 621.00 6.63 6.63
1924 220.00 -5.40 9.00 1968 638.00 7.14 7.14
1925 593.00 5.79 5.79 1969 284.00 -3.48 0.00
1926 603.00 6.09 6.09 1970 541.00 4.23 4.23
1927 531.00 3.93 3.93 1971 610.00 6.30 6.30
1928 384.00 -0.48 0.00 1972 699.00 8.97 8.97
1929 591.00 5.73 5.73 1973 534.00 4.02 4.02
1930 721.00 9.63 9.63 1974 424.00 0.72 0.72
1931 612.00 6.36 6.36 1975 430.00 0.90 0.90
1932 413.00 0.39 0.39 1976 482.00 2.46 2.46
1933 598.00 5.94 5.94 1977 396.00 -0.12 0.00
1934 520.00 3.60 3.60 1978 597.00 5.91 5.91
1935 626.00 6.78 6.78 1979 529.00 3.87 3.87
1936 786.00 11.58 11.58 1980 614.00 6.42 6.42
1937 511.00 3.33 3.33 1981 355.00 -1.35 0.00
1938 578.00 5.34 5.34 1982 642.00 7.26 7.26
1939 508.00 3.24 3.24 1983 349.00 -1.53 0.00
1940 621.00 6.63 6.63 1984 479.00 2.37 2.37
1941 742.00 10.26 10.26 1985 622.00 6.66 6.66
1942 713.00 9.39 9.39 1986 543.00 4.29 4.29
1943 393.00 -0.21 0.00 1987 423.00 0.69 0.69
1944 886.00 14.58 14.58 1988 571.00 5.13 5.13
1945 521.00 3.63 3.63 1989 917.00 15.51 15.51
1946 308.00 -2.76 0.00 1990 623.00 6.69 6.69
1947 1083.00 20.49 20.49 1991 555.00 4.65 4.65
1948 363.00 -1.11 0.00 1992 592.90 5.79 5.79
1949 500.00 3.00 3.00 1993 356.00 -1.32 0.00
1950 480.00 2.40 2.40 1994 645.60 7.37 7.37
1951 668.00 8.04 8.04 1995 773.50 11.21 11.21
1952 449.00 1.47 1.47 1996 701.90 9.06 9.06
1953 411.00 0.33 0.33 1997 932.40 15.97 15.97
1954 364.00 -1.08 0.00 1998 321.60 -2.35 0.00
1955 521.00 3.63 3.63 1999 527.90 3.84 3.84
1956 532.00 3.96 3.96 2000 739.60 10.19 10.19
1957 541.00 4.23 4.23 2001 574.70 5.24 5.24
1958 722.00 9.66 9.66 2002 604.01 6.12 6.12
1959 644.00 7.32 7.32 2003 445.65 1.37 1.37
1960 632.00 6.96 6.96 2004 371.30 -0.86 0.00
1961 647.00 7.41 7.41 2005 26.50 -11.21 0.00
1962 565.00 4.95 4.95 2006 609.25 6.28 6.28
1963 436.00 1.08 1.08 Average 551.13 5.08
Table D-10: Recharge calculations from rainfall data (1922 - 2006)
92
Earth model parameters:

Soil moisture max (mm) 500
Soil moisture min (mm) 10
Soil moisture init(mm) 250
Soil moisture fld (mm) 360
Max surf stor (mm) 0
Max intc loss (mm) 0
Ksat (mm/d) 1
Unsaturated recession (d) 0
Number of reservoirs 2
Saturated recession constant (d) 3500
storage coefficient 0.012
Initial gw level (m) 0
Time step (d) 0
Reductor 0
Time shift (d) 0
Table D-11: Applied parameters for the Earth modelling
93
Appendix E: Modelling
Figure E-1: Contour map of the piezometric levels during well abstraction
Figure E-2: Contour map of the piezometric levels during no well abstraction
Arrows: indicated direction of groundwater flow
94
Appendix F: The study area
Plate F-1: At BH 119/75 Plate F-2: Near BH 119/75
Plate F-3: The basin during dry period Plate F-4: Series of “Mibuyu” trees along the
Zanka fault
Plate F-5: Production well opposite to the Pump

Plate F-6: The Pump house
house
95
Plate F-8: Dug well in the village
Plate F-7: View of the basin from an
elevated point
Plate F-9: The biggest storage tank

Plate F-10: One of the pump house in the
before water is pumped to town
Eastern side
Plate F-11: The Kinyasungwe River path Plate F-12: Dug well near the Primary
during the dry season school in the village
96
Legend
Pump House
Production wells
Monitoring wells
Main roads
Rivers
Figure F-13: Base map of the study area
97

Althanael

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Althanael

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ASSESSMENT IN

THE MAKUTUPORA BASIN, DODOMA

Rosemary Athanael Rwebugisa

Rosemary Athanael Rwebugisa

Thesis Assessment Board

Dr. Ir. M.W. Lubczynski (Chairman, Associate Professor WRS, ITC)

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION

Keywords: Makutupora basin, Recharge flux, Groundwater modelling

Thank you all and be blessed.

1.2 Water resources development in Dodoma region

1.3 Problem identification and justification of the research

Previous hydrogeological and geophysical investigations by Shindo (1989) provided information on

Figure 1.2: Rainfall variation against time

Figure 1.3: Groundwater fluctuations with time (BH 234/75)

1.4 Research objectives

1.7 Outline of the thesis

2. The study area

Figure 2.1: Makutupora basin location map

Figure 2.3: Variation of temperature for the period of 2000 to 2006

Figure 2.4: Variation of radiation for the period of 2000 to 2006

2.4 Drainage system

2.5 Hydrogeological setting

Sheared synorogenic granite

2.7.1 Soil types

Black clay soils

Figure 2.11: Geomorphological map of the basin

2.8 Vegetation cover/ land use

SECONDARY WATER SAMPLES

1997 dataset RELIABILITY 1989 dataset

Figure 3.1: Methodology flow chart

4.1.2 Pumping test analysis

Figure 4.1b: Drawdown against time for BH No. 147/75

AQUIFER PUMPING TRANSMISSIVITY LEAKAGE

Table 4.1: Pumping test analysis results

Figure 4.1c: Pumping test analysis graphs for BH147 and BH C3

4.2 Water quality evaluation

4.2.1 Groundwater chemistry

4.2.3 Sampling points

SALECIAN Hon. SHEKIF

Figure 4.3: Field sampling points

4.2.4 Field sampling procedure

4.2.4 Laboratory determination

4.2.5 Chemical analysis results

K+ >20% 1 All samples are within <20%

Na + <50% 7 Except 7 samples,

Ca 2+ <50% - All samples are above 50%

Table 4.3: Reliability check of water quality data

Figure 4.4: Graph of EC/100 against sum of anions (meq/l)

Sum of cations (meq/l)

Figure 4.5: Graph of EC/100 against sum of cations (meq/l)

St. Gabriel veyula

Figure 4.6: Nitrate concentration variation in different localities (2007 dataset)

4.2.6 Electrical conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids

4.2.7 Water type deduction

Figure 4. 9: Piper diagram for the 2007 dataset

4.2.9 Hydrochemical evolution of groundwater in the basin

Travel along the flow path

Figure 4.10: Piper diagram (Source: Shindo, (1989))

Figure 4.11: Piper Diagram (Source: Nkotagu, (1997)

Figure 4.12: Variation of TDS in the basin.

5.2 Recharge mechanisms in the basin

5.3 Recharge estimation methods