Comparing Recharge Systems
Tile Recharge Systems will not work in all locations and may not be the best recharge option
Advantages
Keep land productive, e.g. farm, park, golf course
Recharge year–round, if water is available
No evaporation losses
No leaching of surface fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater
Installation cost less than recharge basin or Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Well
Affective way for individual farmers/landowner to earn water credits
Disadvantages
Best to install in empty field, i.e. install before planting field
Lifespan unknown, but could be 25 to 50 years
More expensive to install than simply flooding the field for recharge
| Tile Recharge |
Flood-MAR (flooding field) |
Recharge Basins |
ASR Wells and Vadose Zone Wells |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Keep land in Production |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Negative Impact on Cultural Practices |
No |
Yes1 |
No Crop |
No |
|
Potential damage to crop or cause erosion |
No |
Possible1 |
No Crop |
No |
|
Cost |
$$ |
$ |
$$$$ |
$$$$ |
|
Recharge Year Round (if water is available) |
Yes |
No1 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Evaporation Losses |
None |
some |
Most |
None |
|
Flood Water |
Yes2 |
Yes2 |
Yes2 |
May need extra filtration2 |
|
Leach surface nutrients, fertilizers, salts, and pesticides into subsurface impacting cultural practices and groundwater quality |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Install in Planted Field |
Possible3 |
Yes |
No |
Yes |