Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

A top–down approach to characterise aquifer–river interaction processes

Karen M. Ivkovic *
Integrated Catchment Assessment and Management (iCAM) Centre, The Fenner School for Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: The interconnections between groundwater and river systems remain poorly understood in many catch-
Received 12 February 2008 ments throughout the world, and yet they are fundamental to effectively managing the quantity and
Received in revised form 6 November 2008 quality of water resources. Many of the techniques traditionally employed by hydrogeologists and
Accepted 7 November 2008
hydrologists rely on characterising the groundwater flow systems, topography, geology/aquifer systems,
climate and/or the rainfall–runoff processes within a river basin. These studies can provide useful process
characterisations that are fundamental to developing a physical understanding of hydrological processes
Keywords:
within a specified region. However, in many instances the findings are descriptive and the results are dif-
Top–down
Groundwater
ficult to up-scale to the larger sub-catchment/catchment scale at which water is managed and allocated.
Aquifer Moreover, they may have significant time and cost requirements. An alternative approach is to collate a
River range of hydrometric data, that for many catchments may already available, and to then analyse data pat-
Surface water terns and infer processes from the data without being overly concerned about the details of the physical
Interactions processes driving the system taking a top–down approach. In this paper the river reaches in the semi-arid
Namoi River catchment in Australia were characterised according to three levels of information; namely:
(1) presence of aquifer–river hydraulic connection; (2) dominant direction of flux; and (3) the potential
for groundwater extraction to impact on river flows. The methods used to characterise the river reaches
included an analysis of: (1) groundwater and river channel base elevations using a GIS/database; (2)
stream hydrograph data; (3) flow duration data; (4) vertical aquifer connectivity at nested piezometer
sites; and (5) paired river and groundwater hydrographs. The data patterns seen in the stream gauging
station derived data for gaining, losing and variably gaining–losing river reaches were described together
with the general processes that operate in these systems. Subsequently, a map was prepared for the
Namoi River catchment river reaches indicating aquifer–river connectivity and dominant direction of
flux. The potential for groundwater extraction to impact on river flows was also assessed and found to
be a significant issue for the connected aquifer–river systems.
Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction systems have been written by Sophocleous (2002), Winter et al.

The interconnections between groundwater and river systems
remain poorly understood in many catchments throughout the
world, and yet they are fundamental to effectively managing the
quantity and quality of water resources. It has been well docu-
mented that groundwater and surface water systems interact in
a range of geological, topographical, and climatic settings, and that
many surface water features, such as rivers, lakes, dams, and wet-
lands, will have varying degrees of connection with groundwater
systems (Sophocleous, 2002; Toth, 1970; Winter, 1999). Accord-
ingly, water moves as a continuum between surface and ground-
water systems and the use and/or quality of one resource can
impact upon the other.
A number of comprehensive papers regarding the physical
interactions that occur between groundwater and surface water
* Tel.: +61 26282 5061; fax: +61 6125 8395.
E-mail address: karen.ivkovic@anu.edu.au
(1998), Winter (1999) and Woessner (2000), and the ecological
significance of groundwater–surface water interactions has been
discussed in Boulton et al. (1998), Brunke and Gonser (1997) and
Meyer et al. (1997). Groundwater extraction from aquifers that
are connected to river systems have been documented to reduce
river flows (Glennon, 2002; Ivkovic, 2006; Smakhtin, 2001; Soph-
ocleous, 2000; Theis, 1941; Winter et al., 1998) through the pro-
cesses of captured discharges and induced recharge. This has
implications for riverine and groundwater ecosystem health, water
security, aesthetic and cultural values, as well as for water alloca-
tion and water management policies more generally. The decline
in river flows as a consequence of groundwater extractions has
the potential to threaten river basin industries and communities
reliant on water resources. These risks will become greater as
the pressures on river and groundwater resources continue to
grow as a result of drier than average climatic patterns and in-
creased economic development within river basins (Sophocleous,
2007).

0022-1694/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.11.021
146 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
The identification of stream reaches that interact intensively
with groundwater is fundamental to the protection and manage-
ment of such systems. There are numerous methods (hydrological,
hydrogeological, tracer, GIS-based, and geophysics-based) dis-
cussed in the literature to identify and quantify interactions be-
tween groundwater and surface water systems (Kalbus et al.,
2006; REM, 2002; Smith, 2005). Each method will have its
strengths and limitations. Some methods are better suited to
small-scale studies because of the high cost and/or detailed process
characterisations which may not be easily or readily applied at the
larger scale (REM, 2002). The approach traditionally employed by
hydrogeologists is to characterise groundwater flow systems,
topography, geology/aquifer systems and climate within a river ba-
sin (Toth, 1999; Winter, 1999), and the knowledge of surface
hydrological processes may be limited. Hydrologists on the other
hand rely on characterising the rainfall–runoff processes, and often
have little understanding of groundwater processes. In each case,
significant time and cost may be spent on explicitly characterising
the heterogeneity and complexity of the catchment hydrology.
Whilst such studies may provide fundamental process characteri-
sations for developing a physical understanding of the hydrology
within a specified region, in many instances the findings are
descriptive and difficult to up-scale to the larger sub-catchment/
catchment scale at which water is managed and allocated (McDon-
nell et al., 2007). Consequently, the interconnections between
groundwater and surface water systems remain unassessed over
large areas where detailed studies have yet to be undertaken or
in cases where individual small-scale studies have not been aggre-
gated to form a larger-scale perspective.
An alternative approach to assessing aquifer–river interactions
is to collate a range of hydrometric data, that for many catchments
may be available already (such as stream gauging station and pie-
zometer data), and to then analyse data patterns and infer pro-
cesses from the data without being overly concerned about the
details of the physical processes driving the system. In this way
the use of existing data is the first step in assessing aquifer–river
interactions using a staged approach in which varying techniques
are used at different stages in the assessment, depending on the
scale and study objectives. A data-driven, or top–down, approach
was first introduced to the discipline of hydrology by Klemeš
(1983) and was described in the context of predicting overall
catchment response based on the interpretation of observed re-
sponses at the scale of interest. This style of model building focuses
on attempting to learn from the data about how a system works
without being overly concerned as to the physical processes occur-
ring (Beven, 2000). Such an approach may give insights into the
key driving factors as evidenced by the data itself and the informa-
tion contained within the data alone.
In this paper a data-driven approach that makes use of pre-exist-
ing hydrometric data is used to characterise physical and temporal
aquifer–river interaction processes. The emphasis in this paper is
on rapid assessment approaches to assist water managers identify
the physical and temporal interaction processes. The key objective
of this research was to identify the regions along river reaches in
which significant groundwater and river water exchanges were
occurring and to assess the cumulative effects of those processes
at the larger river reach (20 km) and catchment scales. The
semi-arid Namoi River catchment was selected as a case study area.
Groundwater–river water interaction: basic principles
Rivers generally interact with groundwater in three basic ways
(Winter et al., 1998): (1) rivers gain water from inflow of ground-
water through the streambed (gaining stream); (2) they lose water
to groundwater by outflow through the streambed (losing stream);
or (3) they do both, gaining in some reaches and losing in other
reaches, or both gain and lose in the same reach at different times.
In order for groundwater to discharge into a stream channel, the
elevation of the groundwater surface adjacent to the stream must
be higher than the elevation of the river stage. Conversely, for sur-
face water to seep to groundwater, the elevation of the river stage
must be higher than the adjacent near stream groundwater eleva-
tion. In both cases, there must be permeable material that will al-
low this hydraulic head to move water. The direction of flux
between groundwater and river systems will commonly vary along
a river reach and depend on the timing and the scale of analysis
(Woessner, 2000).
There is a degree of subjectivity in categorising a river reach as a
gaining, variably gaining–losing, or losing type of reach given the
continuum in the hydrological cycle and the dynamic variations
in both groundwater and river stage elevations in response to a
range of factors. The types of interactions observed between
groundwater and river water change temporally and spatially in
response to natural factors such as climate variability, which influ-
ences the rainfall–runoff and recharge–discharge dynamics, and in
response to anthropogenic factors such as river regulation and
groundwater and surface water extraction, which affect the
hydraulic gradients between the two systems.
Groundwater extraction can cause the hydraulic gradients to
fluctuate during the irrigation season by lowering the water table
and reversing flow directions such that a gaining stream becomes
a losing stream. Groundwater extraction can also result in an in-
creased frequency and duration of periods with reduced baseflow
through captured discharges.
Losing streams can be connected to the groundwater system
by a continuous saturated zone or can be disconnected from
the groundwater system by an unsaturated zone. An important
feature of rivers that are not in direct hydraulic connection with
the underlying aquifer is that pumping of shallow groundwater
near the stream generally does not affect the flow of the stream
near the pumped wells (although unsaturated zone storage of
water may play a role in maintaining some degree of connectiv-
ity). Conversely, pumping groundwater from a connected aqui-
fer–river system will impact on the local stream flow hydrology,
reducing water availability for surface water users and riverine
ecosystems.
These broad types of interactions that occur between ground-
water and river systems have been used to derive a qualitative
classification system for river reaches by which to assess the
data.
Classification of river reaches
In order to broadly conceptualise the nature of groundwater–
river interactions, it may be useful in the first instance to classify
the basic types of interactions that occur along river reaches (Table
1). In this study the groundwater–river interaction processes were
classified according to hydraulic connection (Level 1) and the dom-
inant direction of flux, or water exchange, between the groundwa-
ter and river systems (Level 2) based on the descriptions of (Winter
et al., 1998). A connected river reach system in this paper is defined
as having a length of river in direct contact with the underlying
aquifer via a zone of saturated material or by a narrow unsaturated
zone (Bouwer and Maddock, 1997). Further consideration has also
given to the potential impacts of groundwater extraction on a river
system (Level 3). Whilst the Level 3 impacts in Table 1 are some-
what subjective, what is clear is that for the hydraulically con-
nected aquifer–river systems, the potential impacts of
groundwater extraction on surface water resources may be signif-
icant. This classification scheme builds upon the works of Braaten
 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
Table 1
Classification system for aquifer–river interactions (adapted from REM, 2002).
Level 1 Level 2
Hydraulic connection Dominant direction of
river–aquifer flux
Connected Gaining
Connected Losing
Connected (may also be variably Variably gaining/losing
connected–disconnected)
Disconnected Losing
and Gates (2003) and Resource and Environmental Management
(REM, 2002).
The classification system outlined in Table 1 facilitates the
development of a framework that can be used to qualify dominant
types of river–aquifer reaches and has been applied in the Namoi
River catchment.
Case study area
The Namoi River catchment (Fig. 1) covers an area of approx-
imately 42,000 km2 in northeast-central New South Wales, Aus-
tralia. It is arguably Australia’s most developed irrigation area
where the use of surface and groundwater resources support
substantial cotton and lucerne–alfalfa industries, amongst other
various cropping regimes. The Namoi River stretches for over
350 km, flowing from the Great Dividing Range in east to the
topographically flat west. Some of the major tributaries include
the Peel, Manilla and Mooki Rivers, and Cox’s Creek. The princi-
pal water storages are Keepit, Chaffey, and Split Rock dams, be-
low which the rivers are regulated. Average annual rainfall
ranges from 1100 mm at the top of the dividing range in the
east of the catchment to less than 470 mm at Walgett in the
far west. Rainfall is extremely variable between years and sea-
Fig. 1. Namoi River catchment, New South Wales Australia.
147
Level 3
Potential for groundwater extraction to impact on river resources
High as a result of captured discharge and induced recharge
Medium as a result of increases in induced recharge
Medium to high, as per the two categories above
No direct impact along disconnected river reach, although impacts will become evident at
groundwater discharge site(s) as a result of captured discharge
sons, and generally exhibits a summer-dominated pattern. An-
nual average potential evaporation ranges from less than
1000 mm in the eastern portion of the catchment to as much
as 1750 mm in the west (DPMS, 1996).
The Cainozoic alluvial aquifers of the Namoi River catchment
are the primary source of groundwater within the basin and supply
both irrigation, stock, domestic, and town water supplies. In most
areas there are two aquifer systems identified within the alluvium
associated with the river systems, but in some areas there are
three. The two main aquifers are an upper aquifer comprised of
mostly clays and silts and a lower gravel and sand aquifer. The
aquifers tend to being semi-confined, and have varying degrees
of vertical connectivity. The deepest alluvial aquifer is associated
with the Namoi River palaeochannel to the north of the present
day river course.
There has been a significant amount of data collected in the Na-
moi River catchment dating back to the 1960s for both river and
groundwater resources, making this catchment highly suited to a
data-driven study. Despite the large amount of data, no synthesis
of the range of data available had been previously undertaken by
which to assess groundwater–river interaction processes. The key
data sets utilised for this study included river gauging station
and bore hydrograph derived data.
148 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
Methods to classify groundwater–river interactions
The spatial and temporal scales at which the groundwater–river
interaction processes can be assessed will be limited by the avail-
able data (location, number and type of measurements, dates col-
lected, etc.). The aquifer–river interaction classification and
mapping undertaken for this study was primarily conducted with
the objective of providing a rapid assessment of situations where
groundwater and river exchanges were occurring at the larger, riv-
er-reach scale (e.g. about 20 km distance between stream gauging
stations) in order to develop an aggregated view of groundwater–
river interaction processes upstream of a gauging station. Hence,
the localised, small-scale variations in flux along a river reach were
not identified in this type of assessment.
The principle methods used to classify the river reaches accord-
ing to the three levels outlined in Table 1 included: (1) a compar-
ison of groundwater and river channel base elevations using a GIS/
Database; and the analysis of ; (2) flow duration data; (3) stream
hydrograph data; (4) vertical aquifer connectivity from nested
piezometer sites; and (5) paired stream and groundwater
hydrographs.
A comparison of groundwater and river channel base elevations
using a GIS/Database was used to assess hydraulic connectivity be-
tween the groundwater and river systems. Vertical aquifer connec-
tivity was assessed from nested piezometer sites, and these were
used to determine where pumping from a deeper aquifer might
impact upon a shallower aquifer in hydraulic connection with
the river system. The dynamic relationships between the aquifer
and river systems were further assessed through paired stream
and groundwater hydrograph data sets.
The two main methods used to infer the direction of aquifer–
river flux within the unregulated river systems included: (1) the
use of flow duration data and (2) the shape of the stream hydro-
graph, which provided a visual reference to broadly distinguish
baseflow from surface runoff dominated periods within the
streamflow record. The hydrological data used in this analysis were
obtained from 35 stream gauging stations on the unregulated riv-
ers of the Namoi River catchment (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Location of stream gauging stations on the unregulated rivers of the Namoi River catchment.
Flow duration data
Two categories of flow duration data were used in this study
including: (1) the percentage of the streamflow record with river
flows recorded at the stream gauging station and (2) flow duration
curves.
The percentage of time the river flows gives an indication of the
extent to which a stream is perennial, intermittent or ephemeral.
The definitions of these river types vary in the literature and can
be somewhat arbitrary. For the purposes of this research a peren-
nial stream is defined as having streamflows that are measurable
throughout the year, with the exception of drought periods when
flows may temporarily cease. An intermittent river is defined as
having measurable flows throughout most of the streamflow re-
cord, but it may also be dry for some periods of time. An ephemeral
river is one that flows occasionally, and at these times the stream-
flow is predominantly comprised of surface runoff. Assuming a
similar physiographic environment, the longer the duration of
measured flow in a river, the greater the likelihood that baseflows
are maintaining river flows between rainfall events. Conversely,
the shorter the period of measured flow, the more likely it is that
the water table is falling below the level of the stream. Thus some
inferences can be made about groundwater–river interactions
based on flow duration.
The flow duration curve (FDC) for stream gauging station data
in the unregulated river systems provided further information
about the relative contribution of groundwater flow to streamflow
as an aggregate response for the upstream catchment area. FDCs
display the relationship between a given value of streamflow dis-
charge and the percentage of time the given discharge is equalled
or exceeded. Although the use of FDCs in hydrological studies is
relatively commonplace, there is little published in the literature
on their use, and their potential has not yet fully been explored
(Smakhtin, 2001). Although, in a recent study (Winter, 2007) FDCs
were utilised to demonstrate the role of groundwater in generating
streamflow in headwater areas and in maintaining river baseflows.
FDCs can be plotted in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this
research, daily streamflow discharge data and the percentage of
 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155 149

time-probability for the complete length of the streamflow record
were plotted with streamflow discharges in log scale in order to
more clearly display the high and low ends of the curve and its
slope. River reaches that receive a significant input of baseflow will
have a notable period of low flows characterised by a flat slope in
the low-flow portion of the FDC. By contrast, a steep slope suggests
a variable and/or low baseflow contribution.
Hydrograph analysis
A typical stream hydrograph of discharge versus time can be
separated into its component contributions of quickflow and base-
flow. There may also be an interflow component of streamflow
arising from rainfall that has taken a temporary, shallow subsur-
face pathway to the river; however, the interflow component is as-
sumed to be included within the other two pathways and is
generally ignored in hydrograph analysis for reasons of practicality
and identifiability. In this paper the term surface runoff is used to
represent the quickflow response to rainfall that is composed of
water flowing on the land surface. The term baseflow is used to
represent the slower subsurface discharges from catchment sto-
rages such as groundwater. These terms, and the actual detailed
physical processes they represent, are commonly debated by
hydrologists. Nonetheless, these are used in this study to broadly
distinguish between surface water and groundwater processes,
and hence to assist with qualifying river-reach scale groundwa-
ter–river interactions.
The recursive digital baseflow filter described in (Lyne and Hol-
lick, 1979) was applied to 35 gauging stations on the unregulated
river systems in the upper Namoi catchment (Fig. 2) using a filter
parameter value 0.925. This type of filter is based on signal pro-
cessing theory and has the objective of separating high frequency
quick flows, such as surface runoff, from low frequency flows, such
as baseflow. The filter was used to provide a visual reference for
separating baseflow dominated components of the streamflow re-
cord. However, because the filter is synthetic and has no real phys-
ical basis, it was used only as a general guide. It is important to
note that the filter always estimates a baseflow component, even
during surface runoff events, as an artefact of the method of pro-
cessing. Whilst the filter does provide a degree of visual assistance
in separating baseflow components of the stream hydrograph, its
use is not essential since the shape and form of the hydrograph
gives a visual indication of runoff versus baseflow dominated
events.
Some limitations in the use of hydrometric data must be kept in
mind when using these methods. In the first instance, the distance
between gauging stations limits the scale of river reach mapping in
the unregulated systems (refer back to Fig. 2). The runoff and base-
flow events observed in the stream gauging station data represent
an aggregated response of the losses and gains upstream of the
gauge over the available data period. Most river reaches will both
gain and lose water, and consequently any baseflows evidenced in
the stream hydrograph data will represent the net balance be-
tween any gains and losses occurring in the river upstream of
the gauge over the period of data analysed. The total length of
the hydrological data record (Table 2) was evaluated in this study
in order to assess the longest time series response possible since
selecting synchronous stream gauging datasets alone would have
substantially limited the data pool.

Table 2
Flow characteristics of unregulated river gauging stations.

Gauging station Record start Record end % Time river flowing Dominant fluxa
419072 08/05/1981 21/12/2003 44 Variably gaining–losing (mostly losing)
419004 28/04/1915 30/09/1970 94 Gaining
419081 05/07/1991 18/06/2003 100 Gaining
419016 01/07/1936 01/12/2003 95 Gaining
419037 19/06/1965 21/05/1977 99 Gaining
419054 17/05/1974 02/08/2003 90 Gaining
419055 21/05/1974 02/08/1989 91 Gaining
419070 25/06/1980 27/06/2003 99 Gaining
419032 05/06/1965 21/12/2003 38 Variably gaining–losing (mostly losing)
419033 09/06/1965 13/12/2003 83 Variably gaining–losing (mostly gaining)
419052 01/08/1972 21/03/1989 41 Variably gaining–losing (mostly losing)
419085 06/06/1995 13/12/2003 97 Gaining
419086 05/12/1995 15/01/2003 98 Gaining
419035 16/06/1965 05/12/2003 100 Gaining
419046 01/07/1936 20/11/1946 99 Gaining
419051 08/06/1972 14/12/2003 97 Gaining
419010 26/10/2027 10/08/2003 99 Gaining
419028 20/05/1965 03/12/2003 97 Gaining
419042 26/04/1968 27/11/1987 98 Gaining
419027 03/09/1957 21/12/2003 88 Variably gaining–losing (mostly gaining)
419034 10/06/1965 12/12/2003 87 Variably gaining–losing (mostly gaining)
419076 15/06/1982 08/07/2003 97 Gaining
419084 29/06/1994 21/12/2003 53 Variably gaining–losing (mostly losing)
419087 07/12/1995 14/01/2003 75 Variably gaining–losing (mostly gaining)
419031 02/06/1965 30/06/1986 99 Gaining
419008 05/06/1924 16/06/2028 100 Gaining
419038 22/06/1965 30/11/1987 100 Gaining
419030 28/05/1965 21/05/1988 98 Gaining
419047 27/05/1970 21/12/2003 97 Gaining
419050 01/06/1972 11/08/1992 52 Variably gaining–losing (mostly losing)
419053 23/08/1972 30/04/2003 99 Gaining
419005 10/12/1915 19/08/2003 100 Gaining
419011 15/06/1936 30/09/1953 99 Gaining
419029 22/05/1965 30/11/2003 100 Gaining
419036 17/06/1965 05/12/1986 86b Gaining
a
Based on analysis of flow duration data together with the patterns seen in the stream hydrograph.
b
Missing parts of streamflow record which has lowered expected value.
150 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
Hydrological data are best analysed together with physio-
graphic and anthropogenic (e.g. river regulation, dams, drains,
etc.) factors, and with an awareness of the limitations to the meth-
ods. A key assumption in baseflow separation is that baseflow
equates to groundwater discharge, although this is not always
the case. For example, low flow discharges can be maintained
through the drainage of saturated soils, perched groundwater re-
leased by springs, bank storages, surface water bodies, and other
drainage systems in hydraulic connection with rivers, as well as
ice and snow melting. These types of inputs to a stream may influ-
ence the baseflow signal in the steam hydrograph and can some-
times obscure the ‘‘true” contribution of groundwater discharge
alone (Halford and Mayer, 2000). There are also a number of
anthropogenic factors that can impact on low flows, and hence al-
ter the natural baseflow signal. Some of the factors discussed in
(Smakhtin, 2001) include regulated river flow releases from dams
and weirs, land use change such as urbanisation, direct river
extraction, irrigation return flows, and groundwater extraction.
Results and discussion
The groundwater–river interaction processes in the Namoi Riv-
er catchment were classified according to the three levels of infor-
mation outlined in Table 1. The application of the methods and the
associated results are discussed below.
Hydraulic connection – Level 1
The first step in classifying the river reaches outlined in Table 1 is
to determine whether the rivers are in direct hydraulic connection
with the underlying aquifers. This was achieved through the use of
a GIS and groundwater database. Hydraulic connection was assessed
through comparing the differences in the elevation of the base of the
river channel with the elevation of the groundwater observed within
the shallow observation bores (<40 m depth) located within 1 km of
the river. Some extrapolations were also made using data from more
Fig. 3. River–aquifer connectivity and depths to groundwater within the shallow aquifers (<40 m) in the Namoi River catchment.
distant shallow bores where there were no bores located closer to
the river. The potential for hydraulic connection was assumed to ex-
ist where measured groundwater levels were within 10 m from the
surface, which is the estimated difference between the elevation of
the floodplain and that for the base of the river within the Namoi
catchment (Braaten and Gates, 2002). Whilst there are localised spa-
tial differences between riverbed and floodplain elevation through-
out the Namoi catchment, the use of a uniform figure of 10 m was
considered reasonable given the uncertainties involved in using
either a 250 m or 25 m digital elevation model in the absence of de-
tailed surveys of the peri-stream region and because of the lack of
observation bores located immediately adjacent to the river.
Hydraulic connection between the shallow aquifer and river water
was established, with some exceptions, for most of the upper portion
of the Namoi catchment from the town of Wee Waa eastwards
through to the upper headwaters of the catchment, and also towards
the end of the catchment to the west of Walgett (Fig. 3). The remain-
der of the river systems between Wee Waa and Walgett were consid-
ered as being disconnected from the groundwater system (i.e. with
an unsaturated zone between the river and groundwater systems),
although river transmission losses along this disconnected section
play an important role in groundwater recharge as determined by
vertical subsurface hydraulic connectivity assessment through
nested piezometer sites and paired bore and stream hydrograph
data analysis. The veracity of the groundwater–river connectivity
mapping was further cross-validated by the methods used to deter-
mine the dominant direction of flux.
River–aquifer direction of flux – Level 2
The second level of the classification framework outlined in Ta-
ble 1 establishes the dominant direction of flux between the
groundwater and river systems. The general absence of surveyed
stream gauging stations and appropriately located piezometers
transecting the river systems in the Namoi River catchment meant
that detailed groundwater elevation–river stage relationships
 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155 151

Table 3
Summary of hydrometric data and characteristics used in aquifer–river characterisation.

River reach classificationa Type of river Established hydraulic Flow duration (% of Flow duration Hydrograph characteristics based
system connection using GIS/ time river flows) curve shape on visual inspection
database
Connected-gaining Unregulated Saturated connection >90% Flat slope Almost constant input of baseflow
dominated by low throughout streamflow record
flows
Variably connected–disconnected, Unregulated Variably saturated 75–90% Flat to steep slope Baseflow dominated flows
gaining–losing (mostly connection interspersed with surface runoff
gaining) events
Variably connected–disconnected, Unregulated Variably saturated 38–75% Steep slope Runoff dominated flows
gaining–losing (mostly losing) connection interspersed with baseflow events
Connected-losing Regulated Saturated connection Not applicable Not applicable Regulated flow releases
Disconnected-losing Can be regulated Unsaturated zone between Not applicable Not applicable Regulated flow releases and/or
or unregulated river and aquifer surface runoff events
a
Cross-validated through assessment of nested piezometers sites together with paired bore and stream hydrographs.

could not be established. Consequently, the direction of flux be- Bundella Creek is a perennial stream with river flows occurring
tween aquifer and river systems had to be inferred though other for over 98% of the record (Table 2). This type of river reach is char-
methods including flow duration and stream hydrograph data acterised by a stream hydrograph which has a constant, or nearly
analysis, as discussed previously in Methods to classify groundwa- constant, baseflow contribution to streamflow that is observed in
ter–river interaction. the filtered stream hydrograph (Fig. 4). Whilst this reach some-
The characterisation of river reaches according to the dominant times behaves as a losing reach during periods of streamflow
river–aquifer interaction processes and how these classes appear recession and, furthermore, the river is dry for brief periods of
in the data are discussed for selected examples. Table 3 provides time, this reach has been categorised as a gaining reach because
a summary of the hydrometric data sets used to characterise and it continues to flow through all but the very driest of periods with
classify river–aquifer interaction processes. low flows being maintained in the river over dry periods. Hence,
the river flows along this reach must be principally derived from
Connected-gaining reach groundwater discharges. The FDC for Bundella Creek is character-
A connected-gaining river reach is in direct hydraulic contact ised by having a flat slope (Fig. 5) that is typical of baseflow-dom-
with the underlying aquifer, and the direction of water flow is pre- inated rivers, with low flows (between 0.8 and 10 ML/day)
dominantly from the groundwater system to the river. The river occurring for over 80% of the streamflow record.
reaches in the Namoi River catchment were classified as gaining
reaches for the purposes of this research where they had river Connected variably gaining–losing reach
flows measured over 90% or more of the streamflow record and A connected, variably gaining–losing river reach is in direct
where connection between the aquifer and river was previously hydraulic connection with the underlying aquifer, although for
established (Fig. 3). The rationale behind selecting an arbitrary some periods of time the aquifer and river may become discon-
cut-off of 90% is that within a semi-arid zone such as the Namoi nected, and the river alternates between being a gaining and losing
River catchment, if river flows are maintained throughout 90% or river system. In a variably gaining–losing type of reach, a river will
more of the record, e.g. the river is perennial, then the size and initially lose water at the start of a rainfall event when runoff pro-
hydraulic properties of the aquifers must be sufficient to maintain cesses dominate. During wet periods and flood events the infiltra-
flows throughout dry periods and hence the gains to the river will tion of rainwater and streamflow provides a source of recharge to
be mostly derived from baseflow discharges. the underlying aquifer. Groundwater elevations will increase as a
An example of this type of river reach is provided using data result of groundwater recharge, and eventually the elevation of
from gauging station 419086 on Bundella Creek, one of the upper, the groundwater system may become higher than that of the river
headwater, tributaries of the Cox’s Creek (Fig. 2). stage. At this point the flow gradient will be reversed in the near
stream area, and seepage to the riverbed will occur in the form

100000
10000
Total Flow
Baseflow 10000
1000
Cox's Ck @ Boggabri (419032)
Streamflow (ML/day)

1000
Streamflow (ML/day)

100
100
Bundella Ck (419086)
10
10

1 1

0.1 0.1

0.01
0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
11/1995

11/2000
1/1995

9/1996

7/1997

5/1998

3/1999

1/2000

9/2001

7/2002

Flow exceedence percentages (%)

Fig. 5. Typical flow duration curves representing the probability of flows at gauging
Fig. 4. Typical stream hydrograph for a connected-gaining river reach, Bundella station 419086, Bundella Creek tributary to Cox’s Creek (perennial reach) and at
Creek, Cox’s Creek subcatchment (gauging station 419086). gauging station 419032, the Cox’s Creek at Boggabri (intermittent reach).
152 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
of baseflow and bank storage discharges. When the baseflow com-
ponent ceases, in this situation after the water table returns to a le-
vel that is below the base of the river, the river once again looses
water and the river channel may dry out until the next rainfall–
runoff-recharge event takes place.
The river reaches in the Namoi River catchment were classi-
fied as variably gaining–losing reaches for the purposes of this
research where they had river flows measured between 90%
(the cut-off for a perennial system) and 38% (the minimum flow
duration recorded in connected aquifer–river reaches within the
study area) of the streamflow record and where hydraulic con-
nection between the aquifer and river was previously established
(Fig. 3).
A continuum was observed in these systems between those
rivers that predominantly gain water through to those that
mostly lose water. If river flows were measured between 75%
and 90% of the streamflow record and the streamflow hydrograph
demonstrated baseflow dominated flows with interspersed peri-
ods of surface runoff, then the river reach was classified as a var-
iably gaining–losing river reach with a mostly gaining
subcategory (refer to Tables 2 and 3). If river flows were mea-
sured between 75% and 38% of the streamflow record, and the
streamflow hydrograph demonstrated runoff dominated flows
with interspersed baseflow events, then the river reach was clas-
sified as a variably gaining–losing river reach with a mostly losing
subcategory. The logic behind the arbitrary division in flow dura-
tion of 75% for a mostly gaining versus mostly losing system is
that for a given physiographic environment, the shorter the per-
centage of time the river flows, the more likely it is that the water
table is falling below the level of the stream and hence the river
is more likely to be losing water. Rivers that had flows measure
over less than 75% of the streamflow record demonstrated less
frequent baseflow events in the stream hydrograph and hence
were considered to be mostly losing. The continuum in the vari-
ably gaining–losing category of river classification was also re-
flected in the FDC. The mostly gaining reaches tended towards
having a flatter slope in the low flow component of the FDC
whilst the mostly losing reaches were characterised by having a
steeper slope indicating a reduced probability of low flows and
a more variable discharge.
An example is provided using data from gauging station
419032 on the Cox’s Creek at Boggabri (Fig. 2), which is typical
of a connected, variably gaining–losing reach within the
catchment.
The reach of the Cox’s Creek at Boggabri is an intermittent river
reach where streamflows are recorded over 38% of the record (Table
2) and the FDC has a steep slope (Fig. 5) indicative of a variable dis-
charge. Whilst this river reach mostly loses water, it has been cate-
gorised as a variably gaining–losing reach in order to reflect the
important dynamics in flux which take place between the ground-
water and river systems. The stream hydrograph (Fig. 6) demon-
strates a number of short duration flows that appear as short,
sharp peaks in the record, assumed to be composed primarily of
surface runoff, that are interspersed with wider peaks representing
longer duration flows, assumed to be primarily composed of base-
flow. Whilst for most of the record this river reach is dry and/or los-
ing water (based on the flow duration data) one can see in Fig. 6 that
there are periods within the streamflow hydrograph when baseflow
contributions to streamflow are considerable, lasting for more than
a year. Accordingly, this reach has been categorised as variably
gaining–losing, with a mostly losing subcategory.
Groundwater extractions can have an impact upon the aqui-
fer–river flux dynamics, and some of the observed impacts of
groundwater extraction on baseflows at this site are further dis-
cussed in Potential for groundwater extraction impacts on river
– Level 3.
100000
Total Flow
Baseflow
10000
Streamflow (ML/day)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
11/1990
11/2001
1/1989
9/1992
7/1994
5/1996
3/1998
1/2000
Fig. 6. Typical baseflow hydrograph for a connected-variably gaining–losing river
reach, Cox’s Creek subcatchment at Boggabri (gauging station 419032).
Connected-losing reach
A connected-losing river reach is in direct hydraulic connection
with the underlying aquifer and the main direction of flow is from
the river to the groundwater system. The river reaches in the Na-
moi River catchment were classified as connected-losing reaches
for the purposes of this research where connection between the
aquifer and river was previously established (Fig. 3) and the river
system is regulated. All of the regulated river systems in this study
were classified as losing systems because regulated flows result in
elevated river stages throughout the irrigation season (over the
September–March period). The regulated streamflows thus pro-
vide a source of recharge to the underlying aquifers for most of
the year. Note the distinction for the purposes of this study be-
tween a connected, variably gaining–losing river reach that is
mostly losing, versus a connected-losing reach. In the connected,
variably gaining–losing type of reach baseflow discharges provide
a significant input of water to the overall streamflow volumes de-
spite the fact that over most of the record the river loses water to
the underlying groundwater. In the connected-losing reaches the
artificially high river stage as a consequence of river regulation
drives the flux of water from the river to the underlying aquifer.
Whilst at times connected losing systems may receive a gain of
baseflow, the dominant process is one that primarily encompasses
stream transmission losses. Neither baseflow filtering nor FDC
analysis was of use in classifying connected-losing reaches because
river regulation has altered the natural streamflow characteristics
of these river reaches.
Disconnected-losing reach
A disconnected-losing stream reach is characterised by having
an unsaturated zone between the base of the river and the
underlying aquifer (Fig. 3), and thus there is no direct hydraulic
connection between the two systems. In these river reaches
water will be lost via seepage through the base of the river to
the subsurface and the underlying aquifer. The seepage rate will
be limited by the hydraulic conductivities of the riverbed
material and unsaturated zone sediments. The reaches in the Na-
moi River catchment mapped as disconnected-losing included
river reaches overlying aquifers where the water table for the
shallow bores adjacent to the river were deeper than 10 m.
The depth to groundwater in the regions mapped as being dis-
connected was usually less than 25 m, and so a degree of re-
charge to the semi-confined aquifers as a result of stream
transmission loses would be expected assuming sufficient per-
meability of the river bed and unsaturated zone sediments (con-
firmed through assessments on vertical connectivity from nested
piezometer sites).
 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
Map of aquifer–river reach connectivity and dominant flux
Through the application of the methods discussed above, a map
of aquifer–river reach connectivity and dominant direction of flux
was prepared for the Namoi River catchment (Fig. 7). This map rep-
resents the dominant aquifer–river interaction processes observed
over the data record. The ungauged and unregulated river systems
remain largely unassessed because of a lack of data. Although there
are a number of regionalisation techniques that could be utilised to
employ this framework for ungauged catchments, see for example
Littlewood et al. (2003), it was beyond the scope of this study to
perform such an analysis.
The resulting classification of the river systems, by inference,
also incorporates features of the Namoi river catchment and its
geology consistent with the reporting of Braaten and Gates
(2003) in that:
 Disconnected river reaches tend to occur in the more mature
middle to lower river reaches situated within unconsolidated
sedimentary deposits where the river is separated from the
underlying aquifers by an unsaturated zone (>10 m deep). These
types of reaches provide continual leakage to underlying aqui-
fers where permeable material exists between the base of the
river and the aquifer.
 Connected river reaches commonly occur in the shorter, less
mature reaches in the upper to middle parts of the catchment.
These river reaches are generally gaining or variably gaining–
losing reaches where direct interaction with the fractured rock
or shallow alluvial aquifer occurs. In these reaches the ground-
water system plays a critical role in the generation and mainte-
nance of streamflow.
 Connected river reaches are also found in the lower, more
mature reaches of the major rivers where geological conditions,
such as contrasts in permeability, impose regional groundwater
flows towards surface drainage features.
The roles of catchment geology, topography, geomorphology,
climate, and anthropogenic influences on the observed aquifer–riv-
er dynamics require further investigation. Ideally, it would be
appropriate to work towards identifying definable landscape units
and their influence on aquifer–river exchanges along the lines of
the works of Dahl et al. (2007), Larkin and Sharp (1992), Rosgen
Fig. 7. Aquifer–river reach connectivity and dominant flux in the Namoi River catchment.
153
(1994), Toth (1999), and Winter (2001). Nonetheless, the data-dri-
ven approach employed in this study has rapidly produced an
overview of regional aquifer–river dynamics, which can be com-
bined with additional physically-based descriptive studies to add
further process understanding. For example, some of the smaller-
scale hydrogeological studies previously conducted in the Namoi
River catchment (Coram and Jaycock, 2003; Lavitt, 1999; McLean,
2003; Williams, 1985; Williams, 1997) were assessed in relation
to Fig. 7 and they were found to cross-validate the data-driven out-
put from this research.
The map shown in Fig. 7 can be used to assist water managers
with developing a greater understanding of aquifer–river manage-
ment issues within the Namoi River catchment and may be of
assistance in the prioritisation of integrated water resource man-
agement objectives such as water quality, water quantity and eco-
system function objectives. The perennial river systems that
comprise the connected-gaining river reaches might, for example,
have ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable to altered low
flow characteristics (Brunke and Gonser, 1997). These river reaches
might also have unique salinity or other water quality parameters
due to the proportionally larger baseflow discharges from the
underlying fractured rock aquifers that might also differ in hydro-
chemistry to those waters of the variably gaining–losing reaches.
Each type of river reach would be expected to have its own partic-
ular ecosystem function, water quantity, water quality, and water
security issues and have varying water management priorities.
Potential for groundwater extraction impacts on river – Level 3
In areas with connected aquifer–river systems it is critical to
understand the potential impacts that groundwater extraction
may have on river flows and to better understand the key driving
factors that influence the dynamics of groundwater–river interac-
tion processes. Groundwater extraction bores are commonly lo-
cated within a few kilometres of connected aquifer–river systems
in the Namoi River catchment; especially in the upper, eastern
parts of the catchment. Consequently, the potential for groundwa-
ter extraction to impact on river flows in the Upper Namoi River
catchment is high as a consequence of both captured discharges
and induced recharge (refer to Table 1) and worthy of further
investigation.
154 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155

In general, only the shallowest aquifers in an alluvial aquifer with a period of rapid increase in the number of properties using
system will be in direct hydraulic connection with a river. How- groundwater during the 1994–1995 drought, as well as the intro-
ever, if vertical flow components exist between a connected shal- duction of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Cap which placed
low aquifer–river system and a deeper underlying aquifer, then an upper limit on the volumes of surface water that could be ex-
there is the potential for the river and the deeper aquifer to interact tracted and resulted in increased groundwater use for irrigation.
with each other. For example, pumping from a deeper aquifer may The stream hydrograph during this period is characterised by hav-
result in a downward hydraulic gradient that reduces the water le- ing interspersed spikes of short duration flows, composed of sur-
vel in the shallow aquifer. Reduced groundwater levels in the shal- face runoff lasting only days, instead of the lengthier flows
low aquifer may alter the nature of the groundwater–river previously observed lasting months. The baseflow contributions
interactions by causing a gaining reach to become a losing reach to flow over this period are significantly reduced.
or by causing a connected aquifer-river system to become discon- From 1998 to 2000, groundwater pressures begin to recover
nected through the creation of an unsaturated zone. Hence, when during the post-irrigation season due to a return to wetter climatic
assessing the potential impacts of groundwater extraction on a riv- conditions together with a reduction in the volumes of groundwa-
er system, it is also important to assess vertical aquifer connectiv- ter extracted compared to the previous period. The stream hydro-
ity within a river system. graph during this period once again shows the streamflow events
The vertical connectivity between aquifers was assessed for 184 are of longer duration due to the increased baseflow contributions
nested piezometers sites and 140 paired stream and bore hydro- to streamflow.
graphs in order to further assess the potential impact of groundwa- The aquifers in this site demonstrate good vertical connectivity,
ter extraction on river flows. In the areas mapped as having with the shallower aquifers responding to the pressure variations
connected aquifer–river systems (Fig. 2), the nested piezometer arising from groundwater extraction in the deep aquifer. A more
and paired hydrograph sites also gave evidence of aquifer–river detailed study focusing on the climate, hydrology and groundwater
interaction. The regions mapped as having disconnected aquifer– extraction patterns provided a greater understanding of the rela-
river systems generally had hydrographs that demonstrated poor tionship observed between reduced groundwater levels and the
evidence of aquifer–river interaction. There were some exceptions, association with reduced baseflow events (Ivkovic et al., 2009).
however, within the disconnected reaches in the area between It is evident from this example, that in regions where aquifers
Wee Waa and Walgett where the hydrographs suggest that exhibit vertical connectivity, groundwater extraction from a deep
stream–aquifer interactions are occurring, and that river leakage aquifer can impact on the connectivity between the shallow aqui-
is recharging the underlying aquifers (evidenced from nested pie- fer and river system and result in reduced baseflow volumes. Thus,
zometer site data). Hence these data also validated the aquifer–riv- in the connected aquifer–river reaches of the Namoi River catch-
er characterisation mapping in Fig. 7. ment it will be important to quantify the temporal dynamics of
Fig. 8 provides an example of data for a connected-variably water flux between groundwater and river systems arising as a
gaining–losing river reach using the hydrograph for the gauging consequence of groundwater extraction, and to elucidate manage-
station on Cox’s Creek at Boggabri with a paired observation bore ment priorities for water allocation.
(GW036602) with three aquifer nests. The aquifers screened at this
site demonstrate good vertical hydraulic connectivity, with the
shallower aquifers responding to the pressure variations from Conclusions
groundwater extraction in the deepest aquifer. The groundwater
levels fluctuate in response to seasonal irrigation pumping, with One way to develop a relatively quick overview of large scale
the lowest groundwater levels found in late February, towards aquifer–river system interaction processes is to collate the range
the end of the irrigation season. Groundwater levels subsequently of hydrometric data that may already be available for a catchment,
recover to varying extents after the irrigation season, when the and to take a top–down approach to data analysis in which data
aquifers are recharged during periods with notable streamflow patterns are assessed and processes inferred from the data without
events (and the associated rainfall–runoff-recharge processes), as being concerned about the physical processes driving the system.
well as through equilibration of aquifer pressures post the pump- Then, once the aquifer–river interaction processes have been char-
ing season. acterised based primarily on data patterns, further detailed, more
The period 1993–1997 shows a pattern of groundwater levels physically-based studies can be undertaken targeting key areas re-
being increasingly drawn down over time, with less post-irrigation quired to meet scientific, policy or other environmental manage-
season water level recoveries evident. This period of time coincides ment objectives. This data-driven approach is particularly useful
in data rich catchments such as the Namoi River catchment where
pre-existing data may not have been synthesised to provide a
catchment scale perspective of basic aquifer–river interaction
Total Flow
Baseflow
processes.
Pipe 1 (15-19 m) In this paper the river reaches in the semi-arid Namoi River
Pipe 2 (55-60 m) catchment in Australia were characterised according to three levels
Pipe 3 (86-91 m)
100000 237 of information; namely: (1) presence of aquifer–river hydraulic
10000 236 connection; (2) dominant direction of flux; and (3) the potential
235
1000 for groundwater extraction to impact on river flows. A comparison
ML/day

mAHD

234
100
233 of groundwater and river channel base elevations using a GIS/data-
10
232 base was used to make an initial assessment of the connectivity be-
1 231
tween the shallow aquifer and river systems. The use of two types
0.1 230
0.01 229
of flow duration data, percentage of time with measurable flows in
the river and flow duration curves, were found to be particularly
2/9/1988

3/9/1989

4/9/1990

5/9/1991

5/9/1992

6/9/1993

7/9/1994

8/9/1995

8/9/1996

9/9/1997

10/9/1998

11/9/1999

useful in assessing the dominant direction of flux over the whole

of the data record. From an operational point of view, these data
Fig. 8. Paired bore and stream hydrograph for gauging station 419032 on the Cox’s are commonly available and it would make sense to see greater
Creek at Boggabri with nested observation bore GW036602. use made of them given the insights they provided in this case
 K.M. Ivkovic / Journal of Hydrology 365 (2009) 145–155
study. The analysis of stream hydrograph data provided a visual
reference to broadly distinguish baseflow from surface runoff dom-
inated periods within the streamflow record so that further infer-
ences could be made on temporal dynamics of aquifer–river
interaction processes. Paired stream and bore hydrographs (in-
cluded nested piezometer sites) allowed for the potential impacts
of groundwater extraction on the river system be further evaluated
and the patterns observed were also useful in cross-validating
inferences made about aquifer–river dynamics based on stream
hydrograph data alone.
The data-driven approach utilised in this investigation provides
an efficient and effective way of characterising aquifer–river inter-
action processes at the regional scale, and has utility for use in
other catchments with sufficient data. It would be interesting to
see how this simple, data-driven approach might be used to char-
acterise aquifer–river interaction processes in a range of catchment
settings, and to gain insights into the possibility of generalising and
extrapolating observations from one catchment setting to another.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded through an Australian Postgraduate
Award scholarship with top-up scholarship funds from CSIRO Land
& Water and the Cotton Research Development Corporation. Data
sets were supplied by the New South Wales Department of Water
Resources. The programs used for data analysis were written by
Barry Croke. The concepts discussed in this paper benefited from
the insightful comments provided by an anonymous reviewer from
the Journal of Hydrology, as well as from Barry Croke and Ray
Evans.
References
Beven, K.J., 2000. Rainfall–Runoff Modelling: The Primer. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, England.
Boulton, A.J., Findlay, S., Marmonier, P., Stanley, E.H., Valett, H.M., 1998. The
functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual
Review of Ecological Systems 29, 59–81.
Bouwer, H., Maddock, T., 1997. Making sense of the interactions between
groundwater and streamflow: lessons for water masters and adjudicators.
Rivers 6 (1), 19–31.
Braaten, R., Gates, G., 2002. Groundwater–Surface Water Interaction in NSW: A
Discussion Paper. NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Braaten, R., Gates, G., 2003. Groundwater–surface water interaction in inland New
South Wales: a scoping study. Water Science and Technology 48 (7), 215–
224.
Brunke, M., Gonser, T., 1997. The ecological significance of exchange processes
between rivers and groundwater. Freshwater Biology 37 (1), 1–33.
Coram, J., Jaycock, J., 2003. Groundwater recharge in the Mooki River catchment,
Northern New South Wales, draft report. Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Dahl, M., Nilsson, B., Langhoff, J.H., Refsgaard, J.C., 2007. Review of classification
systems and new multi-scale typology of groundwater–surface water
interaction. Journal of Hydrology 344, 1–16.
DPMS, 1996. Namoi Community Catchment Plan Situation Statement. Donaldson
Planning and Management Services for the Namoi Catchment Planning
Taskforce.
Glennon, R.J., 2002. Water Follies, Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America’s
Fresh Water. Island Publisher, Washington, DC.
Halford, J.K., Mayer, G.C., 2000. Problems associated with estimating ground water
discharge and recharge from stream–discharge records. Ground water 38 (3),
331–342.
155
Ivkovic, K.M., 2006. Modelling groundwater–river interactions for assessing water
allocation options. Ph.D. Thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra,
229 pp.
Ivkovic, K.M., Letcher, R.A., Croke, B.F.W., 2009. Use of a simple surface–
groundwater interaction model to inform water management. Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 61–70.
Kalbus, E., Reinstorf, F., Schirmer, M., 2006. Measuring methods for groundwater–
surface water interactions: a review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 10
(6), 873–887.
Klemeš, V., 1983. Conceptualization and scale in hydrology. Journal of Hydrology
65, 1–23.
Larkin, R.G., Sharp, J.M., 1992. On the relationship between river-basin
geomorphology, aquifer hydraulics, and ground-water flow direction in
alluvial aquifers. Geological Society of America Bulletin 104, 1608–1620.
Lavitt, N., 1999. Integrated approach to geology, hydrogeology and hydrochemistry
in the lower Mooki River catchment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, 388 pp.
Littlewood, I., Croke, B.F.W., Jakeman, A.J., Sivapalan, M., 2003. The role of ‘‘top–
down” modelling for prediction in ungauged basins (PUB). Journal of Hydrology
17, 1673–1679.
Lyne, V., Hollick, M., 1979. Stochastic time variable rainfall–runoff modelling. In:
Institution of Engineers Australia, I.E. Aust. Natl. Conf. Publ. 79/10, pp. 89–93.
McDonnell, J.J., Sivapalan, M., Vache, K., Dunn, S., Grant, G., Haggerty, R., Hinz, C.,
Hooper, R., Kirchner, J., Roderick, M.L., Selker, J., Weiler, M., 2007. Moving
beyond heterogeneity and process complexity: a new vision for watershed
hydrology. Water Resources Research 43 (W07301).
McLean, W.A., 2003. Hydrogeochemical evolution and variability in a stressed
alluvial aquifer system: lower Namoi River catchment, NSW. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Meyer, J.L., Strayer, D.L., Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Helfman, G.S., Leonard, N.E., 1997.
The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43 (1), 86–103.
REM, 2002. Watermark: sustainable groundwater use within irrigated regions.
Project 2: conjunctive resource management, milestone 2 final report. A review
of stream–aquifer interaction assessment methods. Resource & Environmental
Management, Prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22 (3), 169–199.
Smakhtin, V.U., 2001. Low flow hydrology: a review. Journal of Hydrology 240, 147–
186.
Smith, J.W.N., 2005. Groundwater–surface water interactions in the hyporheic zone.
Science report SC030155/SR1. Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Sophocleous, M., 2000. From safe yield to sustainable development of water
resources – the Kansas experience. Journal of Hydrology 235, 27–43.
Sophocleous, M., 2002. Interactions between groundwater and surface water: the
state of the science. Hydrogeology Journal 10, 52–67.
Sophocleous, M., 2007. The science and practice of environmental flows and the role
of hydrogeologists. Ground Water 45 (4), 393–401.
Theis, C.V., 1941. The effect of a well on the flow of a nearby stream. American
Geophysical Union Transactions 22 (3), 734–738.
Toth, J., 1970. A conceptual model of the groundwater regime and the
hydrogeologic environment. Journal of Hydrology 10, 164–176.
Toth, J., 1999. Groundwater as a geologic agent: an overview of the causes,
processes, and manifestations. Hydrogeology Journal 7, 1–14.
Williams, R.M., 1985. Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of natural induced
recharge of the unconsolidated sediments of the Lower Namoi valley with
references to the effects of artificial recharge. In: 21st IAHR Congress,
Melbourne, Australia.
Williams, R.M., 1997. The Cainozoic geology, hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of
the unconsolidated sediments associated with the Namoi River in the Lower
Namoi valley, NSW. CNR 97.093, Centre for Natural Resources.
Winter, T.C., 1999. Relation of streams, lakes, and wetlands to groundwater flow
systems. Hydrogeology Journal 7 (1), 28–45.
Winter, T.C., 2001. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 37 (2), 335–349.
Winter, T.C., 2007. Role of ground water in generating streamflow in headwater
areas and in maintaining base flow. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 43 (1), 15–25.
Winter, T.C., Judson, W.H., Franke, O.L., Alley, W.M., 1998. Ground water and surface
water a single resource. Circular 1139, US Geological Survey, Denver.
Woessner, W.W., 2000. Stream and fluvial plain groundwater interactions: rescaling
hydrogeological thought. Ground Water 38 (3), 423–429.