Potential for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) in South Bihar, India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In reviewed manuscript the Authors highlighted a very important problem of water deficit in one of the most populous and agricultural states of India, proposing a solution to use MAR and ASR techniques to replenish groundwater resources. Although the manuscript is not a typical article but has a character of communication, its structure requires significant correction. There should be clearly separated parts (chapters) of the work as introduction, short study area description, materials and methods, results with discussion. At the end should be written the short summary. The paper is rather descriptive, without in-depth analysis. On page 5 the Authors mentioned about some monitoring works in two villages during 2019-20, but no results were presented. The analysis of groundwater table fluctuations would enrich the content of the study.
Other remarks:
- Some figures require more explanation and should be correct.
- What do the authors understand by waterbodies? Whether they are surface waters (rivers?) or hydrogeological structures (aquifers)? Waterbodies are poorly visible on map.
- The method of estimating the annual (is word climate necessary?) water deficit also requires clarification. Were water balances used for the calculation of this indicator?
- I can not find the citation of refernces No 34.
Author Response
The responses are attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article promotes the idea that successful spread of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) in South Bihar can augment usable water resources for agriculture during the winter cropping season. You defend that ASR can adapt to local circumstances and challenges under changing climatic conditions. I agree with the overall idea and its clear potential benefit, both for the people and local economy. However, little information is provided about the methodologies and plan details to be applied in the region, being difficult to judge the adequacy of methods. So, please provide more details and compare your ideas with other similar case-studies.
Please also give some insights about possible long-term negative consequences that can arise from the increase number of crops, as well as from their intensity, to the sustainability of soils and water quality.
Some other suggestions:
Line 47: "prices" should be "values"
Line 95: "underground" should be removed.
Line 116 to 119: the sentence seams incomplete.
Line 130: "revealed" should be "revealing"
Line 136 to 152: in my view, this two paragraphs should be already in the following section “Potential for scaling up ASR in South Bihar”. The decision is up to the authors.
Author Response
The responses are attached for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The potential of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is considered mainly from an economic and social points of view which is essential for local agriculture water supply needs of small farmers. However, the possibility of local ASR for solving the problems of the region's water deficit should be proved not only by economic benefits, but also by analyzing the effectiveness of such groundwater supply recovery according to the experimental observed data, which are not presented in the manuscript. Therefore, it seems to me that in this form the article is not ready for publication, since it does not take into account the following:
- actual data of ASR at test sites;
- volumes of possible aquifer recovery and their sufficiency to reduce water deficit;
- recharge well necessary design;
- data confirming sufficient water purification in the recharge pit;
- the possibility of using ASR in various natural and hydrogeological conditions of the region
- problems of reducing the efficiency of ASR due to recharge well clogging.
Also, in the introduction, it is necessary to analyze in more detail the published experience of using ASR in other regions, as well as the main problems of using injection wells for recharge.
Minor remarks
Lines 55-56, Figure 2: What is the climate water deficit and how it was calculated?
Line 59: What means the reference to Fig 3 in this context?
Figure 4: «Control value» should be changed to “control valve”
It is necessary to show the recharge well design and describe it in the text
Lines 99-101: The main results of using the ASR at pilot sites should be described, because the referenced paper [13] is under review
Author Response
The responses are attached for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanking the authors for responding to my comments, I would like to inform that I accept the article after the correction.
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank you for the improvements in the manuscript. The whole idea is now much more clear to the reader.
Two short spelling notes:
line 35: "groudwater" should be "groundwater"
line 105: "structures" should be "structure"
Author Response
Comment: I thank you for the improvements in the manuscript. The whole idea is now much more clear to the reader.
Response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for reading the revised paper and providing the valuable feedback.
Comment: Two short spelling notes:
line 35: "groudwater" should be "groundwater"
Response: This has been corrected in the paper.
Comment: line 105: "structures" should be "structure"
Response: It has been implemented in the paper as well.
Reviewer 3 Report
I think that despite the “communication” type of the manuscript, the main hydrogeological and hydrological problems of ASR, as well as their expected solutions on the base of pilot sites investigations, should be considered in more detail.
Also I mentioned in the first review, that the main features of pilot sites should be described too, because the referenced paper [13] is under review and is unavailable. The authors added in lines 115-119: “The water availability, aquifer storage potential, and land suitability were assessed based on different variables, which was collected from secondary and primary sources. It was found that ASR may not work everywhere after meeting the scientific guidelines only but it should be socially acceptable and economically feasible”. However, there are no any specific information about pilot sites in this addition, besides new questions such as what are “different variables”, and what are the reasons for the conclusion, that “ASR may not work everywhere”?
I recommend that authors add specific quantitative information about the pilot sites and the planned future research on them, as well as their expected results, in the special section of the manuscript. Without this, it is difficult to assess the usefulness and prospects of suggested investigations to prove the potential of ASR .
Other remarks
- Figure 3. «Control value» should be changed to “control valve” inside the figure as well as (as I mentioned in the first review).
- I also mentioned that “it is necessary to show the recharge well design and describe it in the text”, but no corresponding corrections were made both in the text and in the Figure
- Lines 133-134. “…groundwater level is deepest in the month of October’ Why? Figure 4 shows, that the depth of groundwater level is minimal in this month.
Author Response
Included in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
