HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)

Published online 16 September 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7447

Analytical model of salinity risk from groundwater discharge

in semi-arid, lowland floodplains
Kate L. Holland,* Ian D. Jolly, Ian C. Overton and Glen R. Walker
CSIRO Land and Water, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia

Abstract:
River regulation and irrigated agricultural developments have increased saline groundwater discharge to semi-arid floodplain
environments, resulting in soil salinization and vegetation dieback. There is a need for rapid assessment tools to identify areas of
floodplain vegetation at risk from salinization. This article describes the development and testing of a simple, one-dimensional
analytical model that distributes floodplain groundwater discharge as seepage at the break of slope, evapotranspiration across
the floodplain and as groundwater flow into and out of the river. The analytical model provided comparable estimates
of groundwater discharge to MODFLOW (R2 D 0Ð998) over a broad range of floodplain scenarios. Using regional scale
geographic information system (GIS) data along an 85-km long reach of the lower River Murray in South Australia, the
model predicted the location of most (66%) of the unhealthy trees affected by seepage and soil salinization near the edge of
the river valley and more than 75% of the unhealthy trees across the broader floodplain. The model predicted 98% of the
observed variance in measured kilometre-by-kilometre river salt loads, identifying ‘hotspots’ of salt input to the river. It can
therefore be used as a rapid assessment tool to assess the potential salinity risk to the floodplain vegetation and river from
irrigation developments and river management. This approach can be applied more broadly, although the impact of wetlands
and oxbows, which may act to intercept groundwater within the floodplain, is not taken into account. Copyright  2009 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS groundwater; modelling; salinity; irrigation; floodplain; discharge; River Murray

Received 9 June 2009; Accepted 17 July 2009

INTRODUCTION Because the groundwater is naturally saline, the increased

evapotranspiration and seepage results in floodplain salin-
In the lower River Murray in South Australia, there are
ization, which consequently affects the health of flood-
natural inflows of saline regional groundwater to the
plain vegetation. These problems are further exacerbated
floodplains, wetlands and river channel. However, these
by less frequent removal of the accumulated salt in the
have greatly increased as a result of the development
floodplain by large floods, the frequency and duration
of large areas of irrigated horticulture (predominantly
of which has been greatly reduced by upstream storages
citrus, grapes, vegetables, stone fruits and nut crops)
and irrigation diversions (Jolly, 1996). Although a num-
immediately adjacent to the river and its floodplain.
ber of other factors such as clearing and coppicing of
High rates of recharge occur in these irrigation areas,
trees, grazing of livestock and feral animals, insect attack
which leads to the formation of groundwater mounds
and parasite infestation can contribute to floodplain veg-
with elevations of up to 20 m above those of the river
etation health decline, these are generally second-order
and the groundwater levels within the floodplain. These
effects in the lower River Murray compared with those
groundwater mounds cause significant increases in the
of salinization (Jolly, 1996).
inflow of groundwater to the river valley.
Estimates derived from Department for Environ-
When combined with river regulation by flow control
ment and Heritage (South Australia) floodplain vege-
weirs/locks that hold the river at higher average levels
tation floristic and tree health mapping in 2002–2003
than under natural conditions, the increased groundwater
(Smith and Kenny, 2005) suggest that approximately
inflows to the river valley have led to raised water tables
40% (40 000 ha) of the floodplain in South Australia
beneath the floodplain. In some areas, the inflows are now
is severely degraded by soil salinization (Walker et al.,
so high that the water table at the break in slope of the
2005), and this is expected to increase in the future.
river valley has reached the floodplain surface causing
groundwater seepage to occur. In response, the South Australian River Murray Salinity
The raised water tables beneath the floodplain have led Strategy (DWR, 2001a) has proposed several manage-
to increased rates of evapotranspiration of groundwater, ment options to ameliorate floodplain salinization, includ-
and in the case of seepage areas, waterlogging as well. ing groundwater lowering, improved flooding and the
establishment of floodplain protection zones to ensure
new irrigation development will not affect floodplains of
* Correspondence to: Kate L. Holland, CSIRO Land and Water, PMB 2, high conservation value. There is a need for decision sup-
Glen Osmond SA 5064, Australia. E-mail: kate.holland@csiro.au port tools that use published regional scale information

Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 FLOODPLAIN SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT
to assist in the development and implementation of these
options. These decision support tools should identify
where floodplain salinization can be minimized by salt
interception schemes or floodplain irrigation protection
zones and where floodplain groundwater levels can be
lowered to protect valuable floodplain communities from
salinization.
ANALYTICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The mathematical development of the model is summa-
rized below and complete derivations can be found in
Holland et al. (2004). The definitions and units of vari-
ables used in the model are described in Table I.
Conceptual model of the floodplain and regional aquifers
The floodplains have been conceptualized in a simple
cross-sectional model, comprising a surface layer of
Coonambidgal Clay overlying a layer of Monoman Sands
(Figure 1). This is based on drilling records (AWE,
1999) and modelling studies around the Bookpurnong
and Loxton Irrigation Areas (Armstrong et al., 1999;
Barnett et al., 2002). The highland area is represented by
the unconfined Upper Loxton (Pliocene) Sands aquifer.
Both the highland and floodplain are underlain by the
Lower Loxton Sands, a relatively impermeable clayey
sand formation.
The arrows in Figure 1 represent groundwater flow
directions and potential groundwater discharge sites.
Groundwater flow in the Upper Loxton Sands is a com-
bination of irrigation recharge and regional groundwater
flow. Groundwater flow into the floodplain is discharged
as either seepage at the break of slope if the groundwater
level is above the floodplain surface, evapotranspiration
through the floodplain when the water table is within
the evapotranspiration extinction depth (vegetation root-
ing depth), or as base flow to or from the river.
Model assumptions
The following assumptions are made:
1. Groundwater flow within the floodplain is one-dimen-
sional, under steady-state conditions with no recharge,
and the floodplain aquifer is homogenous and isotropic;
and
2. Groundwater flow under the floodplain is defined by
Darcy’s Law (Equation 1), where Q is the discharge
of groundwater through a unit width of floodplain [L2
T
1 ]; K is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer [L T
1 ]; b is the aquifer thickness [L]; and
dh/dx is the groundwater hydraulic gradient, where h
is the height of the groundwater above river level [L]
and x is the distance from the edge of the river valley
[L] to a maximum distance L at the river [L];
dh
Q D
Kb ;
1
dx
Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3429
3. Loss of groundwater through evapotranspiration, ET
[L T
1 ] is calculated using the simple linear func-
tion described by Equations (2) and (3); where a is
the maximum rate of groundwater discharge by evapo-
transpiration at the floodplain surface on an areal basis
[L T
1 ]. This maximum groundwater evapotranspira-
tion rate declines to zero at zext , which corresponds to
the average vegetation rooting depth; hf is the height
of the floodplain above river level [L]; and zext is
the evapotranspiration extinction depth [L], or rooting
depth, below which there is no evapotranspiration.
a[h

hf
zext ]
ET D h > hf
zext ,
2
zext
ET D 0 h  hf
zext ; and
3
4. A sharp cliff and a flat floodplain characterize the shape
of the river valley.
Governing equations
Under the above assumptions, the generalizsed flow
Equation (1) can be simplified by considering groundwa-
ter flow in terms of changes in the slope of the water
table between the edge of the floodplain and the river.
1. When the groundwater level is below the extinction
depth, groundwater flow is controlled by the hydraulic
gradient between the edge of the floodplain and the
river and therefore the slope of the water table is
constant, i.e.
d2 h
Kb h 
hf
zext 
4
dx 2
2. When the groundwater level is above the extinction
depth, groundwater flow is controlled by the hydraulic
gradient and evapotranspiration across the floodplain
and therefore the slope of the water table changes with
evapotranspiration across the floodplain, i.e.
d2 h a
zext
hf C h
Kb 2
D h >
hf
zext .
5
dx zext
Non-dimensional equations
The above equations can be written in non-dimensional
form to minimize the number of variables, and to
put into perspective the balance between the different
floodplain groundwater discharge processes. To do this,
we substitute the following:
h Ł x zext
hŁ D , x D and zŁ D 1
.
hf L hf
The non-dimensional variables hŁ and x Ł normalize
water table elevation, location between the edge of the
floodplain and the river to values between 0 and 1,
respectively (Figure 2). The non-dimensional variable zŁ
expresses evapotranspiration extinction depth in relation
to the river level, with the extinction depth above river
level when 0 < zŁ < 1 and below river level when
1 <
zŁ < 0.
Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3430 K. L. HOLLAND ET AL.

Table I. Definition and dimensions of model parameters

Parameter Definition Dimensions

Q Discharge of groundwater through a unit width of floodplain L2 T
1

K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer L T
1
b Floodplain aquifer thickness L
dh/dx Groundwater hydraulic gradient dimensionless
h Height of the groundwater above river level L
x Distance from the edge of the river valley L
L Maximum distance from the edge of the river valley to the river L
ET Evapotranspiration L T
1
a Maximum rate of groundwater discharge by evapotranspiration L T
1
hf Height of the floodplain surface above river level L
zext Evapotranspiration extinction depth below which there is no evapotranspiration L
hŁ Height of the water table above river level relative to the evapotranspiration dimensionless
extinction depth
xŁ Distance from the edge of the river valley relative to the maximum distance from dimensionless
the edge of the river valley to the river (0–1)
zŁ Evapotranspiration extinction depth relative to river level (
1 < zŁ < 1) dimensionless
WŁ Ratio between the volume of groundwater that the floodplain aquifer can transmit dimensionless
and the volume of groundwater that can be discharged as evapotranspiration
Qin Volume of groundwater discharge entering the floodplain aquifer L2 T
1
qin Volume of groundwater discharge to the floodplain aquifer relative to the volume of dimensionless
groundwater that the floodplain aquifer can transmit
Qs Volume of groundwater discharged as seepage at the edge of the floodplain L2 T
1
qs Volume of groundwater discharged as seepage relative to the volume of groundwater dimensionless
that the floodplain aquifer can transmit
QET Volume of groundwater discharged as evapotranspiration through the floodplain L2 T
1
surface
qET Volume of groundwater discharged as evapotranspiration relative to the volume of dimensionless
groundwater that the floodplain aquifer can transmit
Qr Volume of groundwater discharged to the river as base flow L2 T
1
qr Volume of groundwater discharged to the river as base flow relative to the volume dimensionless
of groundwater that the floodplain aquifer can transmit
Ł
xcrit Point on the floodplain where the floodplain groundwater level equals the dimensionless
evapotranspiration extinction depth
h0Ł Height of the water table above river level at the break of slope where x Ł D 0 dimensionless
relative to the evapotranspiration extinction depth
Wedge Width of the floodplain at the edge of the river valley L
Cgw Floodplain groundwater salinities M L
3

In non-dimensional form, the generalized flow Equa- Boundary conditions

tions (4) and (5) become: The river represents a constant head boundary condi-
tion, therefore:
1. Groundwater level below the extinction depth hŁ D 0 at x Ł D 1
8

d2 h2 At the edge of the floodplain (x Ł D 0) when there is

D 0 hŁ  z Ł
6
dx Ł2 no seepage, i.e. the water table is below the floodplain
surface, the boundary condition is given by:
2. Groundwater level above the extinction depth, i.e.
within the rooting zone dhŁ
D
qin when hŁ < 1,
9
dx Ł
d2 hŁ hŁ
z Ł
D hŁ > z Ł
7 where the non-dimensional variable, qin , is the ground-
dx Ł2 WŁ
water discharge to the floodplain normalized with respect
Kbhf to the volume of groundwater that the floodplain aquifer
where WŁ D
1
zŁ . Qin L ), and Q is defined as the
can transmit (i.e. qin D Kbh
aL 2 f
in
volume of groundwater discharge entering the floodplain
WŁ is the ratio between the volume of
groundwater
 aquifer [L2 T
1 ].
Kbhf When the volume of groundwater entering the flood-
that the floodplain aquifer can transmit L and
plain is greater than the floodplain aquifer can transmit,
the volume of groundwater
  that can be discharged as seepage occurs so that the water table is at the flood-
evapotranspiration aL .
1
zŁ plain surface. When seepage occurs, the dimensionless

Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 FLOODPLAIN SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT 3431

Figure 1. Conceptual model of groundwater inputs to the floodplain and potential groundwater discharge pathways within the floodplain. Groundwater
entering the river valley can be discharged as either seepage at the break of slope, evapotranspiration through the floodplain, or as base flow to the
river

2. Evapotranspiration across the floodplain:

QET L
qET D ; and
14
Kbhf
3. Base flow to the river (x Ł D 1):
Qr L dhŁ
qr D D
Ł when hŁ D 0,
15
Kbhf dx

where Qs is the volume of seepage at the edge of

the floodplain, QET is the volume of groundwater dis-
charged by evapotranspiration, and Qr is the volume of
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the floodplain cross-section showing groundwater discharged to the river as base flow. The
Ł occurs where the floodplain groundwater
dimensions (xŁ , hŁ and zŁ ). xcrit non-dimensional groundwater discharges express seepage
level equals the evapotranspiration extinction depth (i.e. hŁ D zŁ )
(qs ,), evapotranspiration (qET ) and base flow (qr ) relative
to the volume
of groundwater
 that the floodplain aquifer
discharge at the edge of the floodplain (x Ł D 0) is defined Kbhf
as: can transmit L .
qin D 1 when hŁ ½ 1,
10
Floodplain scenarios
where qin is the maximum possible dimensionless dis- There are several scenarios that may arise within the
charge through the floodplain aquifer, defined thus: floodplain: (i) groundwater level completely below the
dhŁ rooting depth across the entire floodplain; (ii) ground-
qin D
when hŁ D 1 at x Ł D 0.
11 water level completely within the rooting depth across
dx Ł
the entire floodplain but no seepage occurs; (iii) ground-
When seepage does not occur, the dimensionless dis- water level completely within the rooting depth across
charge at the edge of the floodplain is defined as: the entire floodplain and seepage occurs; (iv) groundwa-
ter level below the rooting depth at the river but above
Qin L
qin D when hŁ < 1.
12 the rooting depth at the floodplain edge but no seepage
Kbhf occurs; (v) groundwater level below the rooting depth
We are interested in determining the proportion of at the river but above the rooting depth at the flood-
groundwater discharged as seepage, evapotranspiration plain edge and seepage occurs; and (vi) groundwater level
and base flow. We define the possible discharges through above the rooting depth at the river but below the rooting
a unit width of floodplain as: depth at the floodplain edge. Mathematically, we con-
sider two general situations that are used individually or
1. Seepage at the edge of the floodplain (x Ł D 0): in combination, depending on the particular scenario, to
solve for the river and seepage discharges. The evap-
Qs L otranspiration discharge is determined from the differ-
qs D when hŁ ½ 1;
13
Kbhf ence between these and the discharge into the floodplain.

Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3432 K. L. HOLLAND ET AL.

The following generalized solutions are used to solve The height of the water table at the edge of the floodplain
Ł
Equations

(4) hD Ax C B
for hŁ zŁ and (5) hŁ D zŁ C can be calculated from:
Ł Ł

C cos h px Ł C D sin h px Ł for hŁ > zŁ , respec- p 1
W W qin WŁ sin h p
zŁ
tively. Values A, B, C and D are solved by substituting W Ł
h0Ł D
 C zŁ .
22
the boundary conditions for each scenario. 1
cos h p
WŁ
(a) River level below rooting depth (zŁ > 0). We define
Ł Ł Therefore, when h0Ł D 1, i.e. the water table is at the
a point on the floodplain xcrit
0 < xcrit < 1 where the
floodplain surface, qin can be calculated from zŁ and WŁ :
floodplain groundwater level equals the evapotranspira-


tion extinction depth (i.e. hŁ D zŁ ). At any point between p 1
Ł
xcrit and the river, the groundwater level is below the
Ł
qin W sin h p
zŁ
W Ł
extinction depth, i.e.: 1
z D Ł
 .
23
1
cos h p
hŁ D qr
1
x Ł  when xcrit
Ł
< x Ł < 1.
16 WŁ
When seepage does not occur, qr can be calculated
Ł
Substituting hŁ D zŁ and x Ł D xcrit into (16) allows us to from (21) with qin defined by (12). When seepage occurs,
Ł
quantify qr for known values of zŁ and xcrit , i.e.: qin can be determined from (23), and then qr can be
calculated from (21).
zŁ
qr D Ł .
17 Check of the analytical model solutions against an

1
xcrit 
equivalent numerical model
Using the generalized solution for (5), qr can be calcu- The analytical model was compared to the numerical
lated iteratively from values of qin , zŁ and WŁ , i.e.: groundwater flow model, MODFLOW, over a wide
  range of possible scenarios. Both models simulated a
qr
zŁ simple cross-sectional area of highland and floodplain
qin D qr cos h p .
18
qr WŁ (Figure 1). Steady-state modelling scenarios representing
up and downstream of a weir; uncleared, cleared and
To determine whether seepage occurs, the non-dimen- irrigated highland recharge rates; five floodplain widths
sional height of the water table at the edge of the (L); and two maximum floodplain evapotranspiration
floodplain is defined as hŁ D h0Ł at x Ł D 0, and can be rates (a) were used. Details of the model configurations
calculated using the generalized solution for (5) from: and parameterizations can be found in Holland et al.
  (2004).
Ł
p qr
zŁ Analytical model estimates of floodplain groundwater
Ł
h0 D qr W sin h p C zŁ .
19
qr WŁ discharge patterns were compared to those predicted
by MODFLOW for each of the 30 scenarios. The
Therefore, when h0Ł D 1, i.e. the water table is at the analytical model estimates of seepage, evapotranspiration
floodplain surface, the discharge to the river can be and base flow discharge per unit width of aquifer [L3
calculated from zŁ and WŁ : T
1 ] were consistent with those of MODFLOW over
  a broad range of floodplain physical and hydraulic
p Ł
Ł qr
z parameters. The regression was statistically significant
1
z D qr WŁ sin h p .
20 (n D 90, R2 D 0Ð998, P < 0Ð001) and described by the
qr WŁ
following equation:
Ł
When seepage does not occur, the value of xcrit can
MODFLOW D 0Ð99Analytical C 0Ð23.
24
be determined when (17) is substituted into (18) and qin
Ł
is defined by (12). This value of xcrit is then used to Seepage was predicted in six scenarios, characterized
calculate qr from (17). When seepage occurs, qr can by large groundwater inputs from irrigation, wide flood-
be determined from (20), and then qin can be calculated plains and low evapotranspiration rates.
from (18). The MODFLOW model was sensitive to starting
heads, despite steady-state conditions. Generally, initial
(b) River level within rooting depth (zŁ < hŁ ). Using conditions are not important for steady-state simulations;
the generalized solution for (5), the discharge to the river, however, they can be important in certain non-linear
qr , is determined from: situations where discharge, transmissivity or saturation

 are a function of head (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988).
p 1
Ł Ł
qin W C z sin h p A traditional sensitivity analysis to model parameters
qr D
WŁ .

21 was not performed for the MODFLOW model. How-
p 1 ever, the analytical model provides the means for analysis
Ł
W cos h p
WŁ of the sensitivity of both models to final groundwater

Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 FLOODPLAIN SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT
discharge estimates. This analysis was carried out by
comparing the discharge to the river relative to the dis-
charge entering the floodplain normalized with respect to
the evapotranspiration extinction depth. This showed that
both models were sensitive to situations where discharge
to the floodplain was greater than aquifer transmissiv-
ity normalized with respect to evapotranspiration extinc-
tion depth (i.e. high discharge into the floodplain relative
to floodplain aquifer transmissivity) and where potential
evapotranspiration rates greatly exceed floodplain aquifer
transmissivity (i.e. wide floodplains, high discharge into
the floodplain and river levels within the evapotranspira-
tion extinction depth). Conversely, they were insensitive
when the floodplain aquifer transmissivity was greater
than the potential evapotranspiration rate (i.e. groundwa-
ter below the evapotranspiration extinction depth) and
so all discharges were transmitted to the river and no
seepage or evapotranspiration occurred.
APPLICATION TO LOWER RIVER MURRAY
FLOODPLAINS
Site description
The study area (Figure 3) represents 85 km of River
Murray floodplains in South Australia, located upstream
of Overland Corner between Locks 4 and 3 (flow con-
trol weirs, 516 and 431 km upstream of the River Mur-
ray mouth, respectively). The River Murray valley is
incised into the Pliocene Sands in this region, and com-
prises 21 600 ha of floodplains. There are approximately
7700 ha of highland irrigated horticulture along the edge
of the river valley in the study area. The geology of the
River Murray valley in this region consists of an upper
layer of heavy Coonambidgal clay, underlain by Mono-
man Sands.
Methodology
The floodplain was divided into 447 divisions of
approximately 250 m width based on floodplain ground-
water flow paths between the edge of the river valley and
the river. Within the study area, the following simulations
allowed the model to be tested and validated against field
data:
1. A range of possible river regulation effects from
immediately upstream of Lock 3 to downstream of
Lock 4;
2. Irrigated and non-irrigated highland areas;
3. Floodplain widths up to 5700 m and
4. Measured river salt loads at kilometre intervals and
detailed floodplain tree health maps.
Model input parameters. Groundwater inflows were
calculated from highland groundwater gradients, and
regional aquifer hydraulic conductivity and thickness.
Highland groundwater gradients were estimated from
groundwater contours, which were interpolated from
Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3433
Figure 3. Study area between Locks 4 and 3 in the Riverland region of
the River Murray
measured groundwater depths in regional bores. High-
land groundwater gradients ranged between 0Ð0003 and
0Ð0364. Reported regional hydraulic conductivity values
ranged between 1 and 5 m d
1 (Barnett 1991; Doble
et al., 2006), a value of 2 m d
1 was used in this study.
The total discharge to each floodplain division was cal-
culated from the discharge per unit width (Qin ) and the
width of the floodplain at the edge of the river valley
(Wedge ).
The distance between the edge of the river valley
and the river (L) was calculated from an average of
the two division sides. A 100 GL d
1 flood extends
across most of the floodplain and is a good approximation
of the elevation at the break of slope and the average
floodplain surface. The difference between the elevation
of a 100 GL d
1 flood (modelled floodplain surface) and
the river elevation at entitlement flow (hf ) was calculated
from GIS elevation data (Overton et al., 1999) for each
division.
Evapotranspiration parameters were set to constant val-
ues based on measured lower River Murray floodplain
soil- and vegetation-limited groundwater discharge rates.
A maximum evapotranspiration rate (a) of 0Ð1 mm d
1
was used. This value lies between the soil limited ground-
water discharge rate of 0Ð02–0Ð03 mm d
1 measured by
Jolly et al. (1993) and the vegetation-limited groundwater
discharge rate of 0Ð03–2Ð0 mm d
1 measured by Thor-
burn et al. (1993). An evapotranspiration extinction depth
(zext ) of 2 m was used as this represents a combina-
tion of the shallow (0Ð5–1Ð5 m) soil limited and deeper
(1Ð5–5 m) vegetation-limited evapotranspiration extinc-
tion depths (Doble et al., 2006).
The horizontal floodplain hydraulic conductivity (K)
was set to a constant value of 10 m d
1 . It is know to vary
Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3434 K. L. HOLLAND ET AL.
between 10 and 35 m d
1 , however, the value used by
Doble et al. (2006) to model the Bookpurnong floodplain
was adopted in this study. Floodplain aquifer thickness
(b) was set to a constant value of 7 m following Doble
et al. (2006). Floodplain groundwater salinities (Cgw )
were interpolated from measured values in highland bores
along the edge of the river valley (MDBC, 2005). These
values represent the long-term spatial distribution of
natural salt loads to the river valley. Modelled salinities
range from 10 650 to 42 450 mg L
1 .
Ideally, model estimates of groundwater discharge
would be compared to measured, field validated ground-
water discharge. However, field measurements of seep-
age, groundwater losses by evapotranspiration and base
flow groundwater discharge are not available or easily
measured at a regional scale. Instead, surrogate measures
of groundwater discharge: observed seepage areas, tree
health and river salt loads, were used to evaluate model
predictions.
Groundwater inflows from interpolated contours were
calibrated against known conditions to assist in determin-
ing accurate groundwater inflows. In many areas, ground-
water depths were missing, so groundwater inflows were
estimated from irrigation history and by matching the
observed patterns and magnitude of salt loads. These cur-
rent groundwater inflows represent the best estimate for
the study area.
Floodplain vegetation health. Floodplain vegetation
health was mapped in approximately 40% of the study
area (PPK, 1997, 1998; AWE, 2000). This GIS coverage
includes approximately 3500 ha of trees and approxi-
mately 5000 ha of other vegetation, including shrubs,
ground covers and wetland species.
The vegetation mapping was completed over all of the
floodplain to the south of the river and several flood-
plains on the northern side of the river. Predominant
tree communities in the study area include black box
(Eucalyptus largiflorens, F. Muell.), red gum (E. camald-
ulensis, Dehnh.) and cooba (Acacia stenophylla, A.Cunn.
ex Benth.). Tree communities were mapped as healthy
(>75% canopy cover), poor health (25–75% canopy
cover) and dead (<25% canopy cover) from ground sur-
veys and aerial photography. Because of the complexity
of floodplain vegetation associations, only tree health was
used in this analysis.
Areas where seepage was observed, including seep-
age faces and areas of emergent aquatic vegetation were
mapped from ground surveys and aerial photography.
Observed seepage areas were compared to predicted seep-
age areas for a range of groundwater inflow scenarios.
Seepage assessments of tree health were limited to within
100 m of the edge of the river valley. Areas where the
floodplain was <100 m wide were considered separately
due to possible bank recharge influences on vegetation
health.
Ł
The parameter xcrit was used to assess when vegetation
was at risk of salinization associated with groundwater
Ł
discharge. For divisions where xcrit > 0, the floodplain
Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
aquifer cannot transmit incoming groundwater and evapo-
transpiration occurs, causing the floodplain water table
to rise to within 2 m (zext ) of the surface. Evapotrans-
piration predictions were compared to tree health in the
middle of the floodplain, excluding a buffer within 100 m
of the river and 100 m from the edge of the river valley.
These buffer zones represent areas where floodplain tree
health is influenced by proximity to the river or edge of
the river valley, rather than salinization associated with
groundwater discharge by evapotranspiration.
River salt loads. Model estimates of base flow were
converted from the volume of groundwater discharged
to the river per division (m3 d
1 ) to tons of salt using
interpolated floodplain groundwater salinities (mg L
1 ).
These salt loads were assigned to the nearest river
kilometre for each division as tons of salt entering the
river per kilometre per day for each river kilometre.
Modelled salt loads were compared to measured ‘Run
of River’ salt loads determined from river flow rates and
in-stream salinity measurements taken over 5 years at
low flows (DWR, unpublished data, 2001b; Porter, 2001).
An average of five ‘Run of River’ salt loads was used
to estimate long-term salt accessions. The variability of
salt loads measured depended on recent (6–18 months)
flow history, particularly in areas with large permanently
inundated wetlands upstream of Lock 3.
Sensitivity analysis. Model sensitivity to input param-
eters was tested by varying groundwater inflows to
the river valley. Equation (12) shows that changes to
groundwater inflows (Qin ) are proportional to changes
to other important model parameters: aquifer hydraulic
conductivity (K), aquifer thickness (b) and height of
the floodplain surface above river level (hf ). It is also
inversely proportional to the length of the groundwater
flow path (L), which can be accurately estimated in the
GIS model. Therefore, model sensitivity was tested by
varying groundwater inflows, which is the same as vary-
ing K, or b or hf by the same amount.
RESULTS
Model results for different groundwater inflow scenarios
were compared to observed seepage areas, mapped tree
health and measured river salt loads between Locks 4 and
3 in the lower River Murray.
Seepage
Seepage was observed in 68 floodplain divisions near
irrigation areas over a total distance of 17Ð6 km at the
edge of the river valley. Seepage predictions were sen-
sitive to changes in groundwater inflows, hydraulic con-
ductivity, aquifer thickness and height of the floodplain
surface above river level. The number of divisions where
seepage was observed and predicted rose with increas-
ing inflows, as did erroneous predictions where seepage
was modelled, but not observed (Table II). Increasing
Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 FLOODPLAIN SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT 3435

Table II. Number of divisions where seepage was observed and

modelled for different groundwater inflows

Groundwater inflow scenarios

ð0Ð5 ð1Ð0 ð1Ð5 ð2Ð0

Observed and modelled 1 33 46 51

Observed, not modelled 67 35 22 17
Not observed, modelled 0 14 28 67

Table III. Seepage as a predictor of area of trees classed as good

health, poor health or dead within 100 m of the highland edge of
the floodplain

Good Poor Dead

Observed seepage area (ha)

Not observed 87 18 11
Observed 25 12 15
Total area 112 30 26
Groundwater inflow scenario ð1Ð0
Not modelled 105 24 14
Modelled 7 6 12
Groundwater inflow scenario ð1Ð5
Not modelled 97 20 13
Modelled 15 10 13
Groundwater inflow scenario ð2Ð0
Not modelled 78 19 8
Modelled 34 11 18

groundwater inflows by 50% (ð1Ð5) increased the num-

ber of divisions correctly predicted by the model (from
33 to 46), but doubled the number of divisions where
seepage was erroneously predicted (from 14 to 28). This
shows that modelled seepage predictions are sensitive to
estimates of groundwater inflows, hydraulic conductiv-
ity, aquifer thickness and height of the floodplain surface
above river level. Observed seepage may also be asso-
ciated with aquifer thinning at the break of slope due to
deposition of thick clay layers, i.e. a reduction in aquifer
transmissivity at the break of slope. The model cannot
account for these spatial variations.
Seepage estimates were compared to tree health within
100 m of the edge of the river valley. Seepage was
not observed or predicted in any divisions where the
floodplain was <100 m wide. In areas where seep-
age was observed, approximately half of the treed area
was classed as unhealthy (either poor health or dead,
Table III). Similarly, most of the unhealthy trees (66%)
were in areas where the model predicted seepage under
current groundwater inflows (ð1Ð0). This was not statisti-
cally significant [one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA),
P D 0Ð13].
Seepage predictions matched observed seepage areas
where groundwater inflows were well characterized, e.g.
Bookpurnong Irrigation Area downstream of Lock 4
(Figure 4). Within 100 m of the edge of the river valley,
seepage was predicted in four of the five divisions where
it was observed. In this area, more than 97% of the
Figure 4. Evapotranspiration and seepage predictions (a) and observed
tree health (b) near the Bookpurnong Irrigation Area, showing that
most of the unhealthy trees were in areas where seepage and/or
evapotranspiration were predicted
trees where seepage was observed and predicted were
unhealthy.
Evapotranspiration
Floodplain divisions were grouped into those where the
floodplain aquifer could transmit all incoming groundwa-
ter discharge without evapotranspiration (ET D 0) and
where evapotranspiration was predicted to occur (ET
>0). More than 75% of the unhealthy trees in the study
area were in divisions where evapotranspiration was pre-
dicted for the ð1Ð0, ð1Ð5 and ð2Ð0 groundwater inflow
scenarios. The area of unhealthy or dead trees in divi-
sions where evapotranspiration was predicted was three
times greater than the area of unhealthy or dead trees
in divisions where no evapotranspiration was predicted
for the ð1Ð0, ð1Ð5 and ð2Ð0 groundwater inflow scenar-
ios (Table IV). This was statistically significant (one-way
ANOVA, P D 0Ð03).

Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3436 K. L. HOLLAND ET AL.

Table IV. Evapotranspiration (ET) as a predictor of area of trees

classed as good health, poor health or dead in the middle of the
floodplain (>100 m from the highland and river’s edge)

Good Poor Dead

Observed tree health (ha)

Total area 1689 323 532
Groundwater inflow scenario ð0Ð5
ET D 0 1040 155 186
ET >0 648 168 346
Groundwater inflow scenario ð1Ð0
ET D 0 841 87 121
ET >0 847 236 411
Groundwater inflow scenario ð1Ð5
ET D 0 816 80 120
ET >0 872 243 412
Groundwater inflow scenario ð2Ð0
ET D 0 802 78 119
ET >0 886 245 413

Almost half (45%) of the area of unhealthy trees in

divisions where evapotranspiration was predicted under
current groundwater inflows were on Pyap floodplain
(Figure 5). Pyap floodplain lies mid-reach (river km
480–466) near a small irrigation area and includes
approximately 290 ha of unhealthy and approximately
480 ha of healthy trees. The results from Pyap flood-
plain show that the model predicts where the greatest
probability of poor tree health occurs at a sub-regional
scale. However, the model does not predict the small-
scale variations in tree health associated with differences
in flooding frequency, soils and salinity.

River salt loads

River salt loads measured over 5 years (1987, 1991,
1997, 1998 and 2001) between Locks 4 and 3 were Figure 5. Evapotranspiration predictions (a) and observed tree health
used to refine groundwater inflow estimates during initial (b) on Pyap floodplain, showing that most of the unhealthy trees were
testing. Average measured total salt loads over the reach observed in areas where evapotranspiration was predicted
were 205Ð0 š 14Ð0 SE tonnes d
1 (DWR, unpublished
data, 2001b; Porter, 2001). This is comparable to model 95% of the variance in measured salt loads. However,
values under current groundwater inflows (Table V). model predictions of floodplain attenuation vary with
The ability of the model to describe groundwater dis- groundwater inflow scenario (i.e. ð0Ð5 and ð1Ð0 < 30%,
charge patterns was also tested against common assump- ð1Ð5–30% and ð2Ð0 > 30%; Table V). In addition, this
tions of no attenuation and 30% attenuation of inflows simple approximation does not indicate where saliniza-
by the floodplain (e.g. Barnett et al., 2002). The assump- tion associated with seepage or high rates of evapotran-
tion of 30% attenuation by the floodplain explained spiration occurs, or how these patterns change with the
magnitude of groundwater inflows.
Table V. Total river salt loads (tonnes d
1 ) between Locks 4
The cumulative discharge of salt to the river (tonnes
and 3 predicted by the model and assuming either 0 or 30% d
1 ) under current groundwater inflows was plotted
attenuation by the floodplain against distance from the mouth of the river (river km)
between Lock 4 (516 km) and Lock 3 (431 km). The
Groundwater inflow scenarios regression of modelled and measured salt loads was
Salt loads
(tonnes d
1 ) ð0Ð5 ð1Ð0 ð1Ð5 ð2Ð0 statistically significant (n D 85, R2 D 0Ð979, P < 0Ð001;
Figure 6)
Measured 205Ð0 š 14Ð0
Modelled 120Ð7 219Ð0 297Ð1 364Ð5 Modelled D 0Ð987Measured C 9Ð45,
25
0% Attenuation 141Ð3 251Ð2 423Ð9 565Ð2
30% Attenuation 98Ð9 175Ð8 296Ð7 395Ð6 indicating good prediction of the patterns of salt input.
Salt loads were highest near the large irrigation areas

Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 FLOODPLAIN SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT
Figure 6. Cumulative salt loads from Lock 4 (516 km) to Lock 3
(431 km) showing measured and modelled salt loads under current
groundwater inflows (R2 D 0Ð979)
(river km 516–480), with smaller peaks near smaller irri-
gation areas (river kms 460, 450 and 440). There is some
off set between the locations of peak inputs, with model
predictions 1–5 km upstream of observed salt loads. This
variability may be due to the in-stream sampling tech-
nique, where salt loads are not measured until the dense,
saline groundwater mixes with river water. This mixing
may occur several kilometres downstream of groundwa-
ter inflows. It may also arise from variations in recent
flow history or the dynamic nature of the groundwater
flow system. The steady-state conditions assumed by the
model do not attempt to simulate this temporal variability
between measurement periods, but provide an estimate of
long-term conditions.
Sensitivity analysis
Surrogate measures of groundwater discharge were
used to assess model sensitivity to parameterization. The
sensitivity analysis showed that calculation of groundwa-
ter discharge entering the river valley (Qin ), particularly
near irrigation areas was critical. Those floodplains where
groundwater contours were well documented (particu-
larly near large irrigation areas) were predicted well. In
contrast, estimates of Qin near smaller irrigation areas
where regional bores were absent relied on estimates from
irrigation area history and observations of floodplain veg-
etation and salt loads.
Seepage predictions suggested that groundwater
inflows, hydraulic conductivity or floodplain aquifer
thickness was over-estimated by 50–100%. The presence
of backwaters near many of the observed seepage areas
and bore logs (AWE, 1999) in some of these areas sug-
gest that seepage often occurs when groundwater flow is
impeded by a thickening of the clay layer near the edge
Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3437
of the river valley. The model does not simulate pos-
sible thinning of the floodplain aquifer associated with
geomorphologic features.
Evapotranspiration predictions were relatively insensi-
tive to groundwater inflows, being similar for groundwa-
ter inflow scenarios at or above current conditions (ð1Ð0,
ð1Ð5 and ð2Ð0). In these three scenarios, divisions where
evapotranspiration was predicted contained three times as
much area of unhealthy trees.
Salt loads were sensitive to estimates of groundwater
inflows and groundwater salinity. The model estimates of
current salt loads exceeded measured salt loads in down-
stream portions of the study area (river km 460–431).
This part of the study area is characterized by perma-
nently inundated wetlands and greater variability of the
kilometre-by-kilometre river salinity data (Figure 6). It is
likely that these wetlands act as salt stores, intercepting
groundwater discharge and thereby minimizing salt loads
in the river channel during low flows.
DISCUSSION
The scenarios used to compare the analytical and MOD-
FLOW models are representative of the conditions expe-
rienced in the lower River Murray in South Australia.
They are based on previously reported regional values
for the area and represent a broad range of likely mod-
elling scenarios. Therefore, the analytical model can also
be applied to other scenarios where the basic conceptual
model of a gaining stream holds, but recharge rates and
aquifer properties differ.
The analytical model also gives an indication of the
sensitivity of groundwater modelling to the selection of
modelling parameters. It indicates that modelling param-
eters should be chosen carefully for scenarios where
discharge to the floodplain is greater than the volume
of groundwater that the floodplain aquifer can transmit
normalized with respect to evapotranspiration extinction
depth and where potential evapotranspiration rates greatly
exceed the volume of groundwater that the floodplain
aquifer can transmit. Modelling parameters with these
conditions result in significant proportions of groundwa-
ter being discharged as seepage and evapotranspiration,
affecting base flow estimates.
When the analytical model was applied to floodplains
in the lower River Murray, the accuracy of seepage pre-
dictions was strongly dependent on the estimates of cur-
rent groundwater inflows and aquifer thickness. Higher
groundwater discharge to the river valley resulted in
greater success in predicting seepage areas, but increased
errors, i.e. seepage modelled, but not observed. Model
predictions of seepage areas encompassed most of the
unhealthy trees (66%) under current groundwater inflows
(ð1Ð0); however, this was not statistically significant.
It is suggested that thinning of the floodplain aquifer
might contribute to observed but not predicted seepage in
areas near backwaters under current groundwater inflows.
Thick clay lenses were observed in bore logs from seep-
age areas near backwaters in the study area. Another
Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3438 K. L. HOLLAND ET AL.
source of error arises from the model assumption that
the floodplain surface is horizontal and flat. If the flood-
plain is sloping then the model will not accurately predict
whether or not seepage will occur at the break of slope.
Similarly, the model is unable to predict seepage areas
which, in part, may be due to topographical low points in
the vicinity of the break in slope, i.e. ephemeral wetlands
and oxbows.
More than 75% of the unhealthy trees in the study
area were in divisions where evapotranspiration was pre-
dicted. These divisions contained a significantly greater
area of unhealthy or dead trees compared to divisions
where no evapotranspiration was predicted. The model
predicts evapotranspiration when floodplain water levels
are within the extinction depth (zext ). This occurs when
groundwater inflows exceed the volume of groundwa-
ter that the floodplain aquifer can transmit without dis-
charge by evapotranspiration. In both situations, soil lim-
ited groundwater discharge becomes a significant compo-
nent of the water balance. This suggests that salinization
associated with groundwater discharge by evapotranspira-
tion is the principal process driving floodplain vegetation
health (along with salinization and waterlogging due to
seepage) despite the complex interactions between flood-
plain geomorphology, flooding and land use history on
vegetation health. This result indicates the usefulness of
this modelling approach for predicting floodplain vegeta-
tion responses to management.
The overall pattern and magnitude of modelled salt
load predictions are comparable to the measured values,
which is more accurate than simply assuming that 30%
of groundwater inflows are attenuated by the floodplain.
This means that the model can be used to predict future
salt loads from new irrigation developments and can
also be used as a planning tool to identify the impact
of proposed developments on floodplain and wetland
health and river salinity. However, accurate estimates of
groundwater inflows are crucial.
In areas upstream from locks, where the river level
is within the evapotranspiration extinction depth, high
evapotranspiration rates across the floodplain are pre-
dicted. Not surprisingly, in these scenarios the model is
sensitive to small changes in parameterization and con-
ceptualization. Small changes to model parameters (hf ,
zext , L, and a) can change model predictions from small
discharges to the river, to large discharges from the river
into the floodplain. Therefore, model predictions need
to be tested against independently measured field data
(observed seepage, tree health and river salt loads) to
ensure that accurate predictions are made.
The model presented in this article does not attempt
to simulate floodplain wetlands, backwaters or oxbows,
which occur as the river meanders across the floodplain.
This is because the role that these water bodies play
in intercepting saline groundwater flowing towards the
river is still unknown. The analysis of seepage predic-
tions under current groundwater inflows also highlighted
the need to determine the role that aquifer thinning near
backwaters and local topographical low points play in
Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
groundwater being discharged as seepage. This is an
area of future research, and has the potential to refine
the model’s estimates of seepage, salt loads and evapo-
transpiration discharge through the floodplains. Airborne
geophysics could play an important role in mapping sub-
surface geological features within the floodplains, as has
been shown for the highland areas of the lower River
Murray.
CONCLUSIONS
A simple, one-dimensional, cross-sectional analytical
model of a low land river floodplain was comparable to
MODFLOW numerical estimates of patterns of ground-
water discharge. The models predicted groundwater dis-
charge as seepage at the break of slope, evapotranspira-
tion through the floodplain and base flow to the river.
However, the analytical model computing requirements
were lower and the required data inputs could be obtained
from published regional scale information.
The model was applied to a study area compris-
ing 85 km of floodplains in the lower River Murray.
The model’s predictions provided good correlations with
observed seepage areas, vegetation health data and mea-
sured salt loads to the river. Model predictions of seep-
age areas were sensitive to estimates of groundwater
inflows. Observations of floodplain geomorphology and
poor prediction of some seepage areas suggested that
seepage might be associated with floodplain aquifer thin-
ning near backwaters and local topographical low points.
This requires further investigation and conceptualization.
Airborne geophysics could play an important role in
mapping sub-surface geological features within the flood-
plains.
More than 75% of the unhealthy trees in the study area
were in divisions where evapotranspiration was predicted.
This suggests that salinization associated with ground-
water discharge by evapotranspiration is the principal
process driving floodplain vegetation health, despite the
complex interactions between floodplain geomorphology,
flooding and land use history on vegetation health.
The model has shown that with good groundwater
inflow data, it is capable of predicting kilometre-by-
kilometre salt loads to identify ‘hotspots’ of salt input
to the river. Model predictions of salt loads are more
accurate under a range of groundwater inflow scenarios
than simply assuming that 30% of groundwater inflows
are attenuated by the floodplain.
The model highlights the physical relationships that
exist between floodplain variables in the calculation of
interception of groundwater by the floodplain. The model
is sensitive to parameterization when the river level or
floodplain water level is within the evapotranspiration
extinction depth. This is typical of conditions upstream
of weirs and near irrigation areas.
The approach described in this article can be applied
more broadly, although the impact of wetlands and
oxbows, which may act to intercept groundwater within
Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 FLOODPLAIN SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT
the floodplain, is not taken into account. The model
provides a tool to address the management of floodplain
and wetland health and river salinity. It can also be used
to identify environmental protection zones for a range of
groundwater inflow scenarios.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author was supported by an Australian Post-
graduate Award scholarship and Centre for Ground-
water Studies bursary at the time of the project,
under the supervision of Glen Walker, Steve Tyerman,
Craig Simmons, Lisa Mensforth and Andrew Telfer.
Land and Water Australia (Project CWS8-Guidelines
for Managing Groundwater for Vegetation Health in
Saline Areas), the River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board, and the South Australian Salin-
ity Mapping and Management Support Project provided
funding towards this project. Craig Simmons, Neville
Robinson, Anthony Barr and David Rassam provided
useful suggestions and comments that improved this
article.
REFERENCES
Armstrong D, Yan W, Barnett SR. 1999. Loxton Irrigation Area—
Groundwater Modelling of Groundwater/River Interaction. Department
of Primary Industries and Resources: Adelaide.
AWE 1999. Clarks Floodplain Investigations. Prepared for the Loxton
to Bookpurnong Local Action Planning Committee. Australian Water
Environments Report No. 98Ð031-2, Adelaide.
AWE. 2000. Pyap to Overland Corner Floodplain Assessment Report.
Prepared for the Loxton to Bookpurnong Local Action Planning
Committee, Australian Water Environments Report No. 98027,
Adelaide.
Barnett SR. SA Department of Mines and Energy. 1991. Renmark
Hydrogeological Map (1 : 250000 Scale), Bureau of Mineral Resources,
Geology and Geophysics: Canberra.
Barnett SR, Yan Y, Watkins NR, Woods JA, Hyde KM. 2002. Murray
Darling Basin Salinity Audit: Groundwater Modelling to Predict Future
Salt Loads to the River Murray in South Australia. Department for
Water Resources Report DWR 2001/017, Adelaide.
Doble RC, Simmons CT, Jolly ID, Walker GR. 2006. Spatial relation-
ships between vegetation cover and irrigation-induced groundwater
discharge on a semi-arid floodplain, Australia. Journal of Hydrology
329: 75–97.
Copyright  2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3439
DWR. 2001a. South Australian River Murray Salinity Strategy 2001-
2015 . Department for Water Resources, Government of South
Australia: Adelaide.
Holland KL, Overton IC, Jolly ID, Walker GR. 2004. An Analyt-
ical Model to Predict Regional Groundwater Discharge Pat-
terns on the Floodplains of a Semi-Arid Lowland River , CSIRO
Land and Water Technical Report 06/04. CSIRO: Adelaide.
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/technical2004/tr6-04.pdf.
Jolly ID. 1996. The effects of river management on the hydrology
and hydroecology of arid and semi-arid floodplains. In Floodplain
Processes, Anderson MG, Walling DE, Bates PD (eds). John Wiley
& Sons: New York; 577–609.
Jolly ID, Walker GR, Thorburn PJ. 1993. Salt accumulation in semi-
arid floodplain soils with implications for forest health. Journal of
Hydrology 150: 589– 614.
McDonald MC, Harbaugh AW. 1988. A Modular Three-Dimensional
Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model , Chapter A1, Book
6, United States Geological Survey Technical Water Resources
Investestigation: Washington, DC.
MDBC. 2005. Basin Salinity Management Strategy, SIMRAT v2Ð0Ð1
Final Report. Murray-Darling Basin Commission: Canberra.
Overton IC, Newman B, Erdmann B, Sykora N, Slegers S. 1999.
Modelling floodplain inundation under natural and regulated flows in
the Lower River Murray. Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Stream
Management Conference, Adelaide, February, 1999.
Porter B. 2001. Run of River Salinity Surveys. A method of measuring
salt load accessions to the River Murray on a kilometre by
kilometre basis. Proceedings of the Murray Darling Basin Groundwater
Workshop, Victor Harbour, September, 2001.
PPK. 1997. Assessment of the Impact of the Loxton Irrigation
District on Floodplain Health and Implications for Future Options,
PPK Environment and Infrastructure Report No. 27J121A 97–542,
Adelaide.
PPK. 1998. Assessment of the Impact of the Bookpurnong/Lock 4
Irrigation District on Floodplain Health and Implications for Future
Options, PPK Environment and Infrastructure Report No. 27K055A
98– 422, Adelaide.
Smith F, Kenny S. 2005. Floristic vegetation and tree health mapping,
River Murray floodplain, South Australia. Department for Environment
and Heritage Internal Report, Adelaide.
Thorburn PJ, Hatton TJ, Walker GR. 1993. Combining measurements of
transpiration and stable isotopes of water to determine groundwater
discharge from forests. Journal of Hydrology 150: 563– 587.
Walker GR, Doble RC, Mech T, Lavis T, Bluml M, MacEwan R, Sten-
son M, Wang E, Jolly ID, Miles M, McEwan KM, Bryan B, Ward J,
Rassam D, Connor J, Smith C, Munday TJ, Nancarrow B, Williams S.
2005. Lower Murray Landscape Futures Phase One Report . CSIRO
Land and Water Final Year 1 Technical Report to the Centre
for Natural Resource Management, the Victorian NAP Office and
the CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Program, Ade-
laide. http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2005/LMLF
Project Phase One report.pdf.
Hydrol. Process. 23, 3428– 3439 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp