Mitigating Non-Point Source Pollution with

Constructed Wetlands
Toby OGeen and Randy Dahlgren
Dept. of Land Air and Water Resources UC Davis

Irrigated Agriculture in the

Central Valley

Irrigationditch
Agricultural
Field

Irrigationreturnflows
Tailwatersrichin
sedimentand
nutrientsflow
directlyintothe
river.

SanJoaquin
River
Constructed
Wetland

Objectives
- Monitor water quality at input and output locations of four
constructed wetlands
- Investigate the role of wetland characteristics (design, size,
depth, volume & shape) on contaminant removal.
- Identify the potential for adverse impacts of CWs on water
quality of the San Joaquin River and find ways to fix them.

Summary of wetland characteristics

Wetland
Id.

Hydraulic
residence
time (days)

Area
(ha)

Design

Contributing
farmland
(acres)

W-1
W-2
W-3
W-4

2.5
0.9
1.6
11.6

7.3
2.3
2.5
~150

open water
dendritic,
dendritic,
open water

~4,000
~800
~800
> 4,000

Inlets/outlets

Weekly grab samples are collected during the irrigation

season. Auto-samplers used to capture weekly variability.
Weirs and area velocity meters installed to measure flow.

Total suspended sediment removal efficiency

100

TSS Removal efficiency (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

Nitrate-N removal efficiency

100
NO3-N Removal efficiency (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

Fate of Nitrate-N in water lost as

deep percolation
20
W ater C o l.
1 0 cm
5 0 cm
1 0 0 cm

-1
NO3 (mg L )

15

10

0
F lo w p ath

F in g er

U p lan d

Denitrification is the main mechanism for nitrate removal; occurs in

soils where oxygen content is low (low redox potentials).

Nitrate mass balance for a constructed wetland

3,720 kg NO3N removed by
denitrification
and plant
uptake

565 kg
NO3-N
exported

580 kg NO3-N
seepage beyond
100cm
5,050 kg NO3-N input
from tailwater

Total P removal efficiency

100
Total P Removal efficiency (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

Temporal trends
in E.coli
concentration at
W2 and W4 in
2007

900
800

CW-4-INPUT
CW-4-OUTPUT

E.coli ufc/100ml

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Apr

May

Jun

Jun

Jul

Jul

Aug

800
700

CW-2-INPUT
CW-2-OUTPUT

E.coli ufc/100ml

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Apr

May

Jun

Jun

Jul

Jul

Aug

Maximum E. coli
concentration
for water quality
regs. in CA.

Pyrethroid removal efficiencies at CW-2

Concentration in water
(ng l-1)

Compound

Inlet

Outlet

Bifenthrin
Cyhalothrin
Cypermethrin
Esfenvalerate
Permethrin
Chlorpyrifos
Diazinon

2.60
3.26
20.5
0.89
77
3.03
19.45

0.21
0.17
3.61
0.03
5.82
1.62
3.65

Removal
%
84
90
64
77
94
52
82

12.0

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L)

Input
10.0

CW-4 (150 ha)

output

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
4/12/2007

5/2/2007

5/22/2007

6/11/2007

7/1/2007

7/21/2007

8/10/2007

8/30/2007

12.0

10.0
Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L)

Dissolved organic
carbon

Input
output

CW-2 (2.3 ha)

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
4/8/07

4/28/07

5/18/07

6/7/07

6/27/07

7/17/07

8/6/07

8/26/07

Large wetlands with long

residence times are sources
of DOC. Small wetlands with
short residence times are not,
but are less efficient at
contaminant removal.

3.50

3.00

CW-4

Input
output

Electrical
Conductivity

EC (ms/cm)

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
4/12/2007

5/2/2007

5/22/2007

6/11/2007

7/1/2007

7/21/2007

8/10/2007

8/30/2007

2.5

Input

CW-2

output

EC (ms/cm)

1.5

0.5

0
4/8/07

4/28/07

5/18/07

6/7/07

6/27/07

7/17/07

8/6/07

8/26/07

Similar tradeoffs should be

considered when source
water is saline. Long
residence times increase
salinity in output water.

Average chlorophyll-a concentration

and removal efficiency CW-1
150
Input [ ]
Output [ ]

100

removal (%)

50

50

-50

-100

W1

W2

W3

W4

W1b

Removal(%)

(ppb)

100

Changes in plant canopy through time

June

May

July

Carbon Sequestration
Sediment Accumulation (kg m-2)

Soil Carbon Accumulation (g m-2)

2005

2004

Sediment Load

2005

2004

Sediment
Carbon Load

Biomass
Carbon Load

Total Carbon
Load

------------------------------------kg yr-1----------------------------------

2004

423,952

21,178

17,288

38,433

2005

871,595

21,480

21,480

Project funded by State Water Resources Control Board

(agreement no. 05-055-555-0), UC Center for Water
Resources, and Kearney Foundation of Soil Science

Thank you
Jiayou Deng, Neil Brauer, Jon Maynard, James Chang, Jeannie Evatt, & Tony
Orozco