Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Artificial Recharge of Ground Water in Colorado <br />A Statewide Assessment <br /> <br />Table IV-I. Comparisons of Artificial Recbarge Technologies (Cont'd) <br /> <br /> Active <br /> Technology Description Colorado Advantages Limitations Aquifer Suitability <br /> Examnles <br />Direct Injection . Wark where vertical . Require pre-treatment to . Unconfined aquifers <br />(General comments apply permeability is limited drinking water standards with limited surface <br />to all technologies within . Occupy small surface . Require tight control exposure <br />this category) areas over source water quality . Confined aquifers <br /> . Can fit in with most . High capital costs, when . Deep alluvium <br /> land-use patterns existing infrastructure is . Sedimentary bedrock <br /> . Can utilize existing not available aquifers <br /> water supply . High energy <br /> infrastructure requirements, high 0 & <br /> M costs <br /> . Require frequent <br /> pumping to remove <br /> clogging <br /> . Contamination from <br /> recharge would be <br /> difficult to remediate <br />~ Injection Wells! ASR Wells that are either used Centennial . Can be used for deep . All of above <br /> Wells solely for injecting water Water District aqui fers . Abandoned mines <br /> (injection wells) or both . Low capital costs, when . Karst, ca vems <br /> injection and recovery (ASR existing infrastructure is <br /> wells) available <br />~ Radial Collection Large diameter collector None . High infiltration rates . High initial capital costs . Unconsolidated <br /> Wells (Raney Well) well with horizontal radial from a single point aquifers <br /> bores <br />~ Horizontal Wells Small diameter well that None . High infiltration rates . High initial capital costs . All of above <br /> deviates from vertical to from a single point . Un-proven technology <br /> horizontal with deoth <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />-------------------------- <br />