Try GSFLOW, actually I have never used before it but I think it integrates surface and subsurface flow models and it is available through USGS website.

Use SWS (schulumberger water service) Visual Modflow., if you have problems in using SWS Modflow and want to try and open source alternative, you could probably have a look at this link. PMWIN8 (processing Modflow for windows)

Dear Majid,

Coupling SWAP with MODFLOW is a rigorous way to simulate surface and subsurface water and solute interactions. Link below is a successful example.

http://geoweb1.tamu.edu/Faculty/Zhan/CV/reprint/2012-xu-huang-zhan-qu-huang-jh.pdf

sorry, this link PMWIN8

http://www.simcore.com/pm8

I would recommend using exploratory data analysis of a good, extensive set of data, rather than use any published model developed on other data sets. All models are dependent on the assumptions made in their development, and this is especially true of rainfall-runoff models. It is virtually impossible to find a model for an arbitrary catchment that you can use with confidence, that also has sufficient parsimony to give your results any power. Provided the watershed or catchment is of a size appropriate to the density of the rainfall records that you have available, the relationship between cumulative precipitation and cumulative outflow is quite sensitive to climate change, without requiring accurate modelling of the hydrograph. I have used this to examine the varying effect of groundwater extraction for cropping at a moderate sized catchment (the Burdekin) in Queensland Australia, where the "runoff coefficient" decreased from about 4% to 2% over a period of decades. The required data is not frequently routinely available, however.

Dear Engr. Taei

Hello

It is out of my specialty.

Best Wishes

Dear Majid,

MODFLOW is really a suitable modelling for surface and groundwater interaction. Moreover, if you only want to research with surface dynamics, then you can use HEC-HMS (rainfall-runoff model). This model is free and you can download from the website:

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/

DHI MIKE SHE couples groundwater-surface water interaction but MIKE SHE plug in for coupled model requires FEFLOW. Hence, availability is related to your project cost for both softwares. 

It is out of my specialty.

Best Wishes

PS. I would recomment an expert in thiws field whom I trust: Dr. Adreas kallioras    [email protected]

In reading all the above "answers" it appears to me that everyone is giving some good advice for coupled modeling of surface water/ground water.  There is no one right answer to your question.  What is missing from the discussion is the coupling of the surface water/ground water models to the climate change models.  So far as I am aware, no one is adequately pursuing this yet.  I encourage you to pursue it because it is extremely important to explore this area in a quantitative manner.  To date, climate change "experts" have been taking global, or regional, atmospheric climate models and projecting their results into statements about future water supply and water supply related impacts on flora and fauna.  Without coupling the atmospheric climate models with coupled surface water/ground water models, speculation about future water supply is no more than idle speculation.  The amount & timing of precipitation, temperatures, and the complete hydrology need to be carefully considered together to even begin to understand future water supply.  True, some areas of the world are modeled has having dramatically reduced precipitation and those area will clearly have reduced water supply.  Other areas are modeled as have roughly the same annual precipitation while the timing of those total amounts is likely to change significantly.  Likewise, changes in vegetative cover in response to climate change are going to impact interception, infiltration, evapo-transpiration, and runoff of the precipitation that does occur.  Likewise, zones of recharge and discharge are going to be altered.

The hydrologic cycle is one big system and we can't just ignore atmosphere, surface water, or ground water.

I will suggest you to focus on the details of what you would like to simulate using the model.

Using fully coupled groundwater and surface water models are the best practices so far and the only softwares available are Parflow and Hydrogeoshpere. NONE other than them can actually simulate the proper physical response. Read through the papers of Stefan Kollet(He is also from Germany) and E. Sudicky(Waterloo, Canada) to find out why the theories described by them make more sense than anyone else. Go through in detail which kind of surface water flow equation will make more sense to be used. The biggest challenge using these models is the long simulation times and high computational challenges required.

You could try GSFLOW.

I agree with the above comment from Ashutosh Sing. Hydrogeosphere (HGS) really is the way to go if you're looking at climate change. Depending on your objectives, and the data available, you may be able to go with something like MODHMS or GSFLOW (although I have never used this software). If you know that certain processes are not significant in your study region, MODHMS is great because it is modular, so you can simplify those processes (saving computational time). However, it also allows you to include the fully physical representation of the unsaturated zone like HGS. I would stay far away from MIKE SHE or other coupled codes if you want to physically represent water movement through the unsaturated zone...which if you're looking at changes due to climate change, is likely an important process.

I think it will be better to use MIKE SHE for couple modeling between surface water and groundwater

Actually few have been actually used for this successfully. MODFLOW-OWHM (One Water Hydrologic Model) is the fully integrated and coupled version of MODFLOW that will easily allow this type of simulation that includes analysis of conjunctive use. None of the others can do that.

I think you can try parflow or gsflow, it depends to details you want to consider, I mean study area, time, and ..., I think  Hydrogeosphere could not be a good choice