Implications of the Melamchi water supply project for the Kathmandu Valley groundwater system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To meet the demand deficit in Kathmandu Valley, the Government of Nepal has planned to supply an additional 510 million liters per day (mld) of water by implementing the Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) in the near future. In this study, we aim to assess the spatial distribution of groundwater availability and pumping under five scenarios for before and after the implementation of the MWSP using a numerical groundwater flow model. The data on water demand, supply infrastructure, changes in hydraulic head, groundwater pumping rates, and aquifer characteristics were analyzed. Results showed that groundwater pumping from individual wells ranges from 0.0018 to 2.8 mld and the average hydraulic head declined from 2.57 m below ground level (bgl) (0.23 m/year) to 21.58 m bgl (1.96 m/year). Model simulations showed that changes in average hydraulic head ranged from +2.83 m to +5.48 m at various stages of the MWSP implementation, and −2.97 m for increased pumping rates with no implementation of the MWSP. Regulation in pumping such as monetary instruments (groundwater pricing) on the use of groundwater along with appropriate metering and monitoring of pumping amounts depending on the availability of new and existing public water supply could be interventions in the near future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".