Continental- to global-scale hydrologic and land surface models increasingly include representations of the groundwater system. Such large-scale models are essential for examining, communicating, and understanding the dynamic interactions between the Earth system above and below the land surface as well as the opportunities and limits of groundwater resources. We argue that both large-scale and regional-scale groundwater models have utility, strengths, and limitations, so continued modeling at both scales is essential and mutually beneficial. A crucial quest is how to evaluate the realism, capabilities, and performance of large-scale groundwater models given their modeling purpose of addressing large-scale science or sustainability questions as well as limitations in data availability and commensurability. Evaluation should identify if, when, or where large-scale models achieve their purpose or where opportunities for improvements exist so that such models better achieve their purpose. We suggest that reproducing the spatiotemporal details of regional-scale models and matching local data are not relevant goals. Instead, it is important to decide on reasonable model expectations regarding when a large-scale model is performing “well enough” in the context of its specific purpose. The decision of reasonable expectations is necessarily subjective even if the evaluation criteria are quantitative. Our objective is to provide recommendations for improving the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental- to global-scale models. We describe current modeling strategies and evaluation practices, and we subsequently discuss the value of three evaluation strategies: (1) comparing model outputs with available observations of groundwater levels or other state or flux variables (observation-based evaluation), (2) comparing several models with each other with or without reference to actual observations (model-based evaluation), and (3) comparing model behavior with expert expectations of hydrologic behaviors in particular regions or at particular times (expert-based evaluation). Based on evolving practices in model evaluation as well as innovations in observations, machine learning, and expert elicitation, we argue that combining observation-, model-, and expert-based model evaluation approaches, while accounting for commensurability issues, may significantly improve the realism of groundwater representation in large-scale models, thus advancing our ability for quantification, understanding, and prediction of crucial Earth science and sustainability problems. We encourage greater community-level communication and cooperation on this quest, including among global hydrology and land surface modelers, local to regional hydrogeologists, and hydrologists focused on model development and evaluation.

[1] The distribution of groundwater fluxes in aquifers is strongly influenced by topography, and organized between hillslope and regional scales. The objective of this study is to provide new insights regarding the compartmentalization of aquifers at the regional scale and the partitioning of recharge between shallow/local and deep/regional groundwater transfers. A finite-difference flow model was implemented, and the flow structure was analyzed as a function of recharge (from 20 to 500 mm/yr), at the regional-scale (1400 km²), in three dimensions, and accounting for variable groundwater discharge zones; aspects which are usually not considered simultaneously in previous studies. The model allows visualizing 3-D circulations, as those provided by Tothian models in 2-D, and shows local and regional transfers, with 3-D effects. The probability density function of transit times clearly shows two different parts, interpreted using a two-compartment model, and related to regional groundwater transfers and local groundwater transfers. The role of recharge on the size and nature of the flow regimes, including groundwater pathways, transit time distributions, and volumes associated to the two compartments, have been investigated. Results show that topography control on the water table and groundwater compartmentalization varies with the recharge rate applied. When recharge decreases, the absolute value of flow associated to the regional compartment decreases, whereas its relative value increases. The volume associated to the regional compartment is calculated from the exponential part of the two-compartment model, and is nearly insensitive to the total recharge fluctuations.

Numerous basin aquifers in arid and semi-arid regions of the world derive a significant portion of their recharge from adjacent mountains. Such recharge can effectively occur through either stream infiltration in the mountain-front zone (mountain-front recharge, MFR) or subsurface flow from the mountain (mountain-block recharge, MBR). While a thorough understanding of recharge mechanisms is critical for conceptualizing and managing groundwater systems, distinguishing between MFR and MBR is difficult. We present an approach that uses hydraulic head, chloride and electrical conductivity (EC) data to distinguish between MFR and MBR. These variables are inexpensive to measure, and may be readily available from hydrogeological databases in many cases. Hydraulic heads can provide information on groundwater flow directions and stream–aquifer interactions, while chloride concentrations and EC values can be used to distinguish between different water sources if these have a distinct signature. Such information can provide evidence for the occurrence or absence of MFR and MBR. This approach is tested through application to the Adelaide Plains basin, South Australia. The recharge mechanisms of this basin have long been debated, in part due to difficulties in understanding the hydraulic role of faults. Both hydraulic head and chloride (equivalently, EC) data consistently suggest that streams are gaining in the adjacent Mount Lofty Ranges and losing when entering the basin. Moreover, the data indicate that not only the Quaternary aquifers but also the deeper Tertiary aquifers are recharged through MFR and not MBR. It is expected that this finding will have a significant impact on the management of water resources in the region. This study demonstrates the relevance of using hydraulic head, chloride and EC data to distinguish between MFR and MBR.

Many physically based hydrological/hydrogeological models used for predicting groundwater seepage areas, including topography‐based index models such as TOPMODEL, rely on the Dupuit assumption. To ensure the sound use of these simplified models, knowledge of the conditions under which they provide a reasonable approximation is critical. In this study, a Dupuit solution for the seepage length in hillslope cross sections is tested against a full‐depth solution of saturated groundwater flow. In homogeneous hillslopes with horizontal impervious base and constant‐slope topography, the comparison reveals that the validity of the Dupuit solution depends not only on the ratio of depth to hillslope length d/L (as might be expected), but also on the ratio of hydraulic conductivity to recharge K/R and on the topographic slope s. The validity of the Dupuit solution is shown to be in fact a unique function of another ratio, the ratio of depth to seepage length d/L_S. For d/L_S < 0.2, the relative difference between the two solutions is quite small ( 0.2, it increases dramatically. In practice, this criterion can be used to test the validity of Dupuit solutions. When d/L_S increases beyond that cutoff, the ratio of seepage length to hillslope length L_S/L given by the full‐depth solution tends toward a nonzero asymptotic value. This asymptotic value is shown to be controlled by (and in many cases equal to) the parameter R/(sK). Generalization of the findings to cases featuring heterogeneity, nonhorizontal impervious base and variable‐slope topography is discussed.