← All summaries · 07 Parameters
Figure 1. Monitoring methods plotted by spatial coverage (horizontal, log scale) versus vertical precision (vertical, log scale — lower is better). No method occupies the ideal lower-right corner of "basin-wide and millimeter-precise at depth," which is why programs combine methods. Borehole extensometers are the most precise and the only ones resolving compaction by depth interval, but cover a single point; InSAR is basin-wide but surface-only. Values are representative orders of magnitude, not specifications.
The toolbox
Ground truth

Borehole extensometer

A pipe anchored at depth measures the change in distance to the surface — i.e., compaction of the sediment column above the anchor. Sub-millimeter precision, continuous. Nested extensometers resolve which depth intervals are compacting. The only direct measure of the mechanism (Riley 1969).

Best for: mechanism, parameter estimation (page 07), calibration.

Wall to wall

InSAR

Interferometric synthetic aperture radar differences satellite radar phase over time to map surface deformation across whole basins at ~tens-of-meters pixels and cm-to-mm precision. Revolutionized subsidence mapping (Galloway et al. 1998); the backbone of California's statewide SGMA monitoring.

Best for: spatial extent, change detection, fissure-risk screening.

Datum

Continuous GPS / GNSS

Permanent stations give continuous, absolute vertical position at a point to better than a centimeter. Anchors InSAR to a reference frame and validates it. CGPS networks (e.g., PBO/Network of the Americas) provide free regional control.

Best for: absolute reference, InSAR calibration, trends.

Classic

Spirit & GPS leveling

Repeated precise leveling of benchmark networks is the historical record (Poland's San Joaquin lines) and still defines long baselines. Labor-intensive and episodic, but unmatched for multi-decade continuity.

Companion

Compaction recorders & piezometers

Paired with extensometers, multiple-depth piezometers give the head record at the same place compaction is measured — exactly the pairing Riley's stress–strain analysis needs (page 07).

Emerging

Persistent-scatterer & fiber sensing

Persistent-scatterer InSAR sharpens precision over stable reflectors (urban areas, infrastructure); distributed fiber-optic strain sensing in boreholes is an emerging depth-resolved complement to extensometers.

At a glance
MethodWhat it measuresCoverageVertical precisionDepth-resolved?Temporal
Borehole extensometerCompaction of column above anchorPoint~0.1 mmYes (if nested)Continuous
InSARSurface deformationBasin-wide~5–10 mmNo (surface)Days–weeks (revisit)
Continuous GPSAbsolute 3-D positionPoint~3–10 mmNo (surface)Continuous
Spirit/GPS levelingBenchmark elevation changeLines/network~1–5 mmNo (surface)Episodic (years)
Multi-depth piezometersHead (→ effective stress)Pointn/a (head)YesContinuous

The combination is the method

InSAR finds where subsidence is happening and how fast. Extensometers and nested piezometers explain why at key sites and supply the parameters (page 07). GPS and leveling tie everything to an absolute vertical datum. Together they let a GSA map the indicator, attribute it to specific aquifers, and calibrate a predictive model.

For SGMA monitoring networks

  • Use statewide InSAR (DWR/TRE Altamira) as the screening layer.
  • Site extensometer–piezometer pairs where InSAR shows active, managed-aquifer compaction.
  • Co-locate a CGPS station or tie to one nearby for datum control.
  • Maintain at least one long leveling/benchmark tie for continuity with historical records.

Key references

  1. Riley, F.S. (1969). Analysis of borehole extensometer data from central California. In Land Subsidence, IAHS Publication 89, Vol. 2, p. 423–431.
  2. Poland, J.F. (ed.) (1984). Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40.
  3. Galloway, D.L., Hudnut, K.W., Ingebritsen, S.E. et al. (1998). Detection of aquifer-system compaction and land subsidence using interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, California. Water Resources Research 34(10): 2573–2585.
  4. Sneed, M. & Galloway, D.L. (2000). Aquifer-system compaction and land subsidence — the Holly site, Edwards AFB, Antelope Valley, California. USGS WRIR 00-4015.
  5. Sneed, M. & Brandt, J.T. (2013, 2018). Land subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct, San Joaquin Valley, California. USGS SIR 2013-5142; SIR 2018-5144. (InSAR + GPS + extensometer integration.)
  6. Galloway, D.L. & Burbey, T.J. (2011). Review: Regional land subsidence accompanying groundwater extraction. Hydrogeology Journal 19(8): 1459–1486.