LEMAs Getting Attention in Kansas and Elsewhere

During the recent April and May board meetings here in GMD 4 the issue of how to continue addressing the district’s enhanced management protocol was discussed.  Recall that the first foray into sub basin enhanced management started looking at six high priority areas (HPAs), with HPA SD-6 eventually becoming the state's first Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA).  The discussions were about what to do with the remaining five HPAs now that the first one (SD-6) has been completed.  

Long story short, the board is starting to generate the local interest in another HPA, but will hit it hard most likely this Fall - after farming season is completed.  Whether or not we undertake our second LEMA depends on the public response in the selected HPA.

In other LEMA efforts, the Western Kansas GMD 1 (Scott City) has also begun public discussions on the possibility of a LEMA in their GMD.  Thus far they have conducted five public meetings (1 per county) and are working through their second set.  They are considering the option of 1, district-wide LEMA (with and without regional variations), and are also discussing a formal voting procedure in the process.

The Southwest Kansas GMD 3 (Garden City) has also begun some preliminary public discussions on the potential use of LEMAs in their district, conducting several County meetings earlier this year.  At this time they are conducting several sub-group meetings within interested Counties who want to continue the dialog and are in the process of scheduling the remaining County meetings. 

By design, LEMAs were legislated initially only for the GMD areas because there was already a governance and funding mechanism in place, and a local groundwater management plan to build off of.  The state quickly recognized the potential of LEMAs (as did several non-GMD area leaders with water issues) and a bill was introduced in the 2013 session that would authorize "Agreed Local Management Areas" (ALMAs) - essentially identical to LEMAs, but putting the County Commissioners in the role of the GMDs in non-GMD areas.  This bill  did not get out of committee but will likely be discussed further. 

I expected a certain level of interest in Kansas, but I did not expect the coverage our Kansas LEMA has been getting elsewhere.  First it popped up on Twitter with a handful of water folks re-tweeting the SD-6 efforts.  Then the Circle of Blue (Pacific Institute) did a story on the effort that made some blogs and twitter again.  And finally, just two days ago I got a call from a Wisconsin irrigator who was interested in forming a local GMD in that state.  Who knows, maybe LEMAs are destined for broader areas than local enhanced management ones.

New Groundwater Management System - China Style

WaterWired (AKA Michael Campana) just did a blog article on a new groundwater management system instituted in Qinxu, a County in Shanxi Province in China - called the Qinxu Groundwater System.  His is a very good article, complete with a video spot from the Water Channel.  I recommend you take a look at these materials before reading the rest of this article, which will be a few comments on the new China approach.

Several things hit me as I was reading about the new management system.  First, as I've said since I became manager of GMD 4 in 1977 - Groundwater management is easy - just don't pump it.   If GMD 4 had full control of all the groundwater, we could have easily had a quota system set up many years ago. The sum of all quotas could have been set to achieve any outcome desired - all the way from restoring historic groundwater levels to increasing the current decline rates as much as we wanted to.  Our problem is that in Kansas, water rights are real property rights to the use of the State's water.  I can see where the government of China can at any time allot, reallocate or adjust any or all water, but not so in Kansas.  Of course, this doesn't make either system "right" or "wrong". 

Secondly, the story from Frank van Steenbergen (that was reported on by WaterWired) states the huge dependence China has on irrigation water currently being used - half the country's wheat and one third of its corn.  His conclusion is what a disaster it would be if this area of China were to run out of water and have to replace all that production on the world grain markets.  Well, if the new Qinxu quotas are correctly sized to achieve groundwater sustainability (so they never run out of water), some percentage of that production will be lost.  My point is that nowhere in the articles does anyone talk about the total quotas relative to the amount of water having been used before the new system.  This could be nothing more than a fancy accounting system to continue the current overdrafts.  I don't think it is, but then without this information, how can I agree that it is "the solution" they say it is?

Thirdly, the system clearly tries to use price to discourage overpumping ones quota, but it doesn't seem to prohibit over use.  As grain prices rise, the incentive to over use ones allocation (to increase production) goes up as well.  As more water is used, the quotas must be reduced further.  Yes, its the tragedy of the commons again.  I have no idea what .05 Euro per unit of water really means, and the fact that everyone's units can vary between 500 and 5000 liters per unit renders these values very hazy.  Of course, all these numbers and values can be adjusted to make them highly relevant - if there is the political will, or the outright power, to do so.  I should do the math to quantify the relevance of the price to the quotas - maybe tomorrow.

Fourthly, the marketability of the units is a great feature, but it'd be even more relevant if there was a prohibition to exceeding ones' quota. Also, with groundwater, I'm thinking that trades need to be spatially restricted to some degree.  Otherwise an inappropriate amount of groundwater could be used in too small an area - causing excessive declines or impairments.  Maybe this system addresses this, but it wasn't stated.    

Fifthly, there is mention of 60 telemetry observation wells that track groundwater levels, but no mention of how these are used.  Presumably the quotas would be adjusted periodically to reflect the water table responses shown by these 60 wells to the previous years pumpage??  It is awfully hard to efficiently operate production agriculture without knowing what all your inputs are.  Here in NW Kansas cropping rotations are often used to take advantage of nutrient inputs, fallowing periods and marketing plans, and they plan 3 to 5 years out.  Water quotas that might change within this time period would reduce the overall efficiency of these operations.  Of course, the quota system could be designed over longer periods to accommodate these needs - it's just not covered.

In conclusion, it might sound like I'm being critical of the new system, but I'm really not.  It could work, but it could easily fail as well.  As usual, the devil, and the real impacts, are always in the details.  The bottom line is that to slow the decline rates, consumptive water use must be reduced, and that reduction will mean less economic opportunity - always a touchy issue to attempt.  Comments?

Update (November 12, 2012):  I did the math on the prices and they are:  at .44 Yuan (the base rate per unit (.05 Euro / .06 $US) and the largest unit at 5000 liters, an AF of water will cost the user $14.81.  For the highest rate of .55 Yuan (assessed for those exceeding a quota) that same AF will cost $22.14.  Has price been appropriately applied in this system?

P.S.  If anyone would like to double check my prices math, please let me know if you find a different answer.  

Managing a Common Pool Resource

I attended this past week the Governor's Conference on the Future of Water in Kansas that was held in Manhattan, Kansas.  This event, billed as the Governor's first Conference on Water, was actually combined with the former Kansas State University Water and the Future of Kansas Conference which has been conducted every year for the past 28 years.  This event was renamed and reformatted a bit.  Nevertheless, just a tad over 500 other people attended as well.

The Governor's comments were heartening although daunting.  He said he wants to reduce water use in Kansas from the Ogallala Aquifer so as to extend its economic life, while also maintaining or even increasing the economic productivity of the lesser water used.  Much of the conference the first day was aimed at how should we be trying to get this done.

One of the talks was by Dr. Bill Blomquist from Indiana University on managing a common pool resource.  He said there are 8 more-or-less common, or universal elements to any successful, long-lived approach to managing common pool resources - be they fisheries, forests, fields or WATER. They are:

1.  Clearly defined boundaries.  Boundaries can be simple, or multi-layered and sophisticated, but they must be clear;

2.  Shared information.  All the participants must be able to understand, transfer and communicate data, goals, interests, current use levels and all the other parameters needed for understanding the situation.

3.  Leadership.  A consistent level of stakeholder group direction that is knowledgeable and has a commensurate level of expertise - both social and technical - is necessary.  This leadership must allow the group to realize the problem, dedicate to its solution, find and secure necessary resources and then address it.

4.   Development and articulation of rules.  Who can participate; Who sits at the table and who doesn't; how do decisions get made; all have to be defined and understood.

5.  Monitoring and enforcement processes.  Everyone must know the rules and know the consequences.

6.  Graduated penalties.  Arrangements must be made for conflict resolution and opportunities must be provided to complain, communicate and vent.  The penalties need to be fair, and graduated such that initial errors are not akin to taking one's firstborn.

7.  Nested institutions and creating an enabling work environment.  Local, regional and state entities should have a role and play a part in the solutions, but the locals need to play the most significant part as they are the affected ones.

8.  How do we know if it works?  Any effort should plan on getting evaluated and should retain sufficient flexibility.  Creating a process that can accept new data and knowledge and adjust, is important.

For those of us having gone through the SD-6 Enhanced Management Process (a mini common pool groundwater resource) it was like a very bright light bulb getting turned on in the night.  This was exactly how we approached the SD-6 effort.  Kind of makes one feel like we now have a chance at a successful, long-lived process.  We'll have to wait and see.

Probably the best informed readers will recognize this as primarily the work of Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel prize winning economist (shared with Oliver Williamson) most recently at Indiana University (Dr. Blomquist so credited his remarks).  As it turns out, Mrs. Ostrom was originally contacted  by the Kansas Water Office to make this presentation, but had to decline due to a conflict in the dates.  Sadly, Elinor Ostrom passed away soon thereafter, on June 12, 2012.

State's First LEMA Hearing Set

Local Interest in Sheridan and Thomas Counties

TOPEKA – The Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources has scheduled an initial hearing to consider a proposal that would establish a new water conservation plan in portions of Sheridan and Thomas counties.

The 2012 Kansas Legislature, through Senate Bill 310, gave Groundwater Management Districts, or GMDs, the authority to initiate a public hearing process to consider specific water conservation plans that would meet local goals. The plans are known as Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs).

The Sheridan 6 application, which was developed in GMD 4 high-priority area number 6 in Sheridan and Thomas counties, is the first LEMA plan received by the division. GMD 4 recommended approval of the Sheridan 6 LEMA plan and the DWR chief engineer found the plan acceptable for consideration. This initial formal public hearing is the next step in the process.

The hearing will take place at 10:30 a.m. on Sept. 13, 2012, at the Sheridan County Courthouse, 925 9^th Street, in Hoxie.

The initial hearing will consider whether the local area is experiencing water management concerns requiring enhanced management allowed under statute. If the initial hearing determines a management area is needed, a second hearing will be held to determine if the plan should be adopted as proposed.

The public is welcome to submit written or oral statements to be included in the hearing record. Oral statements will only be accepted at the initial hearing, but written statements may be submitted at the initial hearing or may be sent to the Sheridan 6 LEMA Hearing Officer, c/o Leslie Garner, 109 SW 9^th St, 4^th Floor, Topeka, KS 66612. Statements can also be faxed to (785) 368-6668. Written statements must be postmarked on or before Sept. 17, 2012.

For copies of the LEMA proposal and notice of hearing, click here.

Ogallala Aquifer Advisory Committee Meeting 2

I attended the OAAC second meeting on August 23 in Scott City, Kansas.  Another good turnout of committee members and state and local agency folks.  Also had at least two members of the press in attendance as well - representing the Hays Daily News and Kansas Public Radio.  The major focus of this meeting was slated to be 2012 Farm Bill discussions - How does the current Farm Bill affect water use and how can the next Farm Bill promote water conservation?  But first, status reports on the two action issues out of the first meeting were requested:  the water right abandonment situation, and a proposed new, local IGUCA.

KDA reported on two draft versions of the abandonment statute amendments.  One version was simple and proposed to strike the language of the current bill that required water right owners to maintain their wells in order that their non use would be considered "due and sufficient cause".  The second version also included language that would allow the local GMDs to effect abandonments if they chose to.  Recall that the discussion last meeting was to consider allowing the GMDs to develop regulations that would direct the chief engineer's abandonment efforts locally. No decision was made.

KDA also reported on a draft statute and regulation that would support the local IGUCA discussed and approved on August 9.  The effort was a new statute authorizing a new process for a Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA).  Both DWR and GMD4 indicated that discussions have identified 6-8 changes that were being further contemplated.  Moreover, the Revisor's Office has not yet completed their draft work, but it should be available soon.

The committee decided to hold up the next meeting until the IGUCA statute draft language was completed.  They indicated they wanted to consider the actual draft language rather than simply support the concept.  More later.   

Governor's Water Summit

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback will convene a Water Summit with support from Ag Secretary Dale Rodman and the Kansas Water Office in Colby - Thursday, July 21, 2011. The venue will be:  Cultural Arts
Center, Colby Community College, starting at 10:00 A.M. (Registration begins at 9:30 A.M.) The public is invited, but you need to pre-register with the KS Water Office by July 15 if you intend to eat lunch (sponsored) with the group.  Call the KWO at 785-296-3185 or go to their web site (http://www.kwo.org/) to pre-register. The full agenda is also available from the website.  The session will end at 3:30 P.M.

Discussion issues are expected to include:  water conservation;  perceptions of the state’s “use it or lose it” policy;  how do water users generate more economy while reducing (conserving) water use;  and making the IGUCA statutes more effective.  After two framing talks, small discussion groups will be formed and will work until lunch.  The Round Table discussion will then ensue, followed by a Summary and Action Planning session.  This will be a good chance to tell the state (actually, the Governor of the state) what you think about groundwater issues near and dear to your heart.  This district hopes that local control is one of your concerns and that you get a chance to express this.

The results of the discussions and ideas generated will be handed off to a new, ad hoc committee just forming under the Kansas Water Authority.  They are to distill all the discussion and recommend a new roadmap for the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas - what new Legislation may be necessary; funding recommendations; etc., etc.  This could be a good thing for the fully engaged, local GMDs, or...

And the jury is still out on whether or not this summit is a true "fact-finding" and "issue-recognition" session, or, if the Governor has an agenda he is really interested in and just has to hear the public comment before beginning.  I'm not in either camp yet, but sure would like to believe the former - at least the majority of my discussions with organizers and those more closely involved seem to be convinced that way.  Regardless, I'm confident that the really good ideas will survive either approach.  We're appreciative of the Governor's interest in western Kansas water and the time and effort he has put into coming out for the day to talk about what's extremely important to us.

GMDA Was A Good Conference

Stanley Hotel

The Groundwater Management District Association (GMDA) has two conferences per year - a Summer session and the Winter Conference. The Summer event is smaller, and usually focuses on technical issues or specific programs or projects being undertaken by member districts.  The Winter Conference usually includes more policy issues and updates from state and federal water entities.  This year's Summer meeting just concluded in Estes Park, Colorado - at the Stanley Hotel.

I particularly enjoyed the talk by Dean Pennington of the Yazoo Mississippi Delta Joint Water Management District on the Mississippi River flooding adjacent to the West boundary of his GMD.  His staff has been assisting the Corps of Engineers in locating and marking levee leaks (called "boils") for monitoring and future repair if needed.  There are thousands of these leaks ranging from saucer-sized to 20 feet in diameter.  The more problematic ones are ringed with sand bags, or concrete, or whatever you can find, to raise the hydraulic head over them 2-4 feet - just enough to stop them from boiling water up through them.  Too many leaking leaks is not good for a levee system, it appears.

If you're interested in groundwater management, you may want to consider joining GMDA and participating in future conferences.  Let me know - I know those folks pretty well.

Wells In India - Whew!

I once had the priviledge of meeting and talking to Dr. Tushaar Shah of the International Water Management Institute, Anand, India Regional Office while he visited Kansas on issues of groundwater management.  He was invited to Kansas by KU Law Professor John Peck after having made the statement that institutional groundwater management had not been successful anywhere in the world.  Professor Peck invited him, and asked several of the Kansas groundwater management districts to present a response to his sweeping statement.  Of course, Professor Peck believed that local GMDs in Kansas were far more successful than Dr. Shah's statment would lead everyone to believe.  We presented, and basically concluded that we were mostly successful, but had more work to do - blah, blah, blah. 

But it was during our lunch discussion that I was blown away.  Dr. Shah had told me that India has at least 20 million groundwater wells in the country, but no one really knew how many more there might be, and that with their governmental and water management structures, there was no control over existing wells and little end in sight to new wells coming on line.  Twenty million plus wells and growing. 

Our GMD is fairly well developed (a bit over-developed, in fact) with 3,552 wells, but we're considerably smaller.  Our 4,845 square mile area, by the numbers then, contains about .75 wells per square mile.  India's area is 1,269,219 square miles - meaning they have some 17 wells per square mile - for every square mile in the country.  How'd you like to manage that? Dr. Shah quietly asked me. 

Kansas Governor To Conduct Water Summit

It's now official.  Governor Brownback with support from Agriculture Secretary Rodman and the Kansas Water Office are co-sponsoring a Water Summit here in Colby, KS on July 21, 2011.  The venue will be the Colby Community College Cultural Arts Center.  The focus will be groundwater in the High Plains Aquifer (Ogallala) - with forays into at least conservation, use-it-or-lose-it, and economic advances in water use.  The final issue agenda has not been set yet, so other topics are likely to be served up as well.  Stay tuned.

The summit will start at 9:30 10:00 A.M. and will conclude at 12 noon 3:30 P.M. with a lunch being provided.  The session will be looking for all ideas regarding the advancement of conservation and economic growth from water uses - hopefully simultaneously.  I am pleased to report that the summit organizers appear to be genuinely seeking ideas, and not just using this venue to showcase their ideas of where the state should be heading.

I'll pick up this topic again following the summit with all the closing remarks I feel need to be expressed.  Perhaps we can continue the dialog a bit right here for those interested.

(Summit times were updated June 14, 2011 at 7:08 P.M. - WAB)

The High Plains Water District in Lubbock, TX is proposing some new rule changes in order to meet their new, "50/50" management goal - having 50% of their 2010 saturated thickness available for use in 2060.  And this goal comes from the much heralded Regional Water Planning Group process on-going all over Texas for the past 6 years or so. 

The district is proposing:  a 15 inch per acre allocation for all irrigation wells; designating areas declining faster than 4 feet in the last 5 years as high decline areas - with these areas being reduced an additional 5% in every year the water table declines exceed the allowable rate; mandatory metering; and a new, non-exempt well moratorium in high decline areas declining 4 feet per year or more.

Sound familiar?  This is eerily similar to what we have been working on in the SD-6 High Priority Area for the past several years, although the numbers and triggers are quite different.  I was hit also by the public comments provided by the Texas producers.  Quite frankly, sounds to me like the SD-6 folks were in attendance.  Some of the Texas comments (from the April, 2011 Cross Section) were:

“You got our attention…now step back and be reasonable.”


“I think the district should slow down and develop good rules, and consider the intended and unintended consequences. Allow us to learn how to apply the requirements before regulation.”


“We can pay now or pay later—but we are going to have to start paying toward water conservation if we’re
to pass anything on to the future... We’ve got to start controlling abuse of the natural resource.”


“Water banking is a good idea. If we put on 15 inches in a season and need two more inches to finish
a good crop but can’t because of restrictions and then lose the crop, that’s not efficient water use at all.”

“Treat everyone equally. Don’t punish the high decline areas when everyone in the district should conserve water as well!”

"The High Plains Water District plays an important role in water policy for this region. And while you may not agree with what is being presented here today, it is probably best to have local control rather than state or federal control of groundwater,”

“Farming is a free-enterprise, private property right. We bought the land, we know the risks, and should be allowed to pump as much water as we want. Otherwise, these rules amount to condemnation without compensation.”

"Consider a CRP program for water and pay producers not to pump for 50 years. Water is a commodity just like all the others.”

“I hate that the water situation has come to this point. I hope and pray that we can work something out that

will benefit all.”

Yep, we've heard these same comments (and more) in our SD-6 deliberations.  Generally, I think the SD-6 program is triggered earlier and is more restrictive, but it affects smaller areas of the district than does the Texas approach.  One of the take-aways of this process by the water district is the realization that the regulated public is not familiar enough with the rule making process - and this has been an issue.  Now that I think about it, this has been the case in our area as well.  I don't know what the High Plains District did in the way of PR in advance of their efforts, but I am positive our approach has been exceedingly open and well publicized.  I'll be watching their process closely.

Dewponds, Of All Things

Sussex Dewpond

If you've been to our webpage you likely know I collect water quotes, poetic verses and other sayings about water - be they rivers, groundwater, lakes, rain, oceans, etc. (GMD4 Quotes Link).  I was playing a Twitter-based word game the other day and one of the players used a quote from the Rudyard Kipling poem "Sussex" that caught my attention.  I discussed this verse with him a bit and ended up reading the full poem just to place his quote in context.  Lo and behold I found a water verse that spoke "groundwater" to me.  It is:

"We have no waters to delight
Our broad and brookless vales—
Only the dewpond on the height
Unfed, that never fails—"

My Twitter game friend, who lives in Gothenburg, Sweden, is actually English and as a boy lived in Sussex.  When I told him of my find and that I had posted it on my website, he kindly offered up more information.  He wrote me:

"Sussex is crossed east to west by a chain of chalk hills, the South Downs. The chalk was laid down at the bottom of an ancient sea and the lines of the Downs roll just like a frozen seaswell, which gives us our "broad ... vales". (Also "Our blunt, bow-headed, whale backed Downs".) When it rains, of course, the rainwater soaks straight into the chalk, hence "no waters to delight Our ... brookless vales". There are, though, plenty of springs and streams around the edges of the Downs where the rainwater absorbed by the chalk meets the underlying impermeable clay and emerges to water the Weald (which is the big valley north of the South Downs), and Sussex itself is crossed by a number of rivers that have cut through the chalk.


However, here and there on the Downs you find mysterious ponds. High up in the hills, well above the margin where the Wealden springs emerge, but always in grassy dells, they are not obviously fed either by streams, springs or even rainfall, so local tradition decided they must be places where dew collected - hence "dewponds".  When Kipling writes "the dewpond ... that never fails" he's repeating the tradition but in fact they do fail - in the sense dry out from time to time - though magically reappearing again in the same spot.  


At school I was taught that, in these spots, a dip in the chalk matched an irregularity in the underlying clay so that the chalk dipped below the top of the watertable. The dewponds grew or shrank and disappeared depending on the quantity of water in the watertable.  I was never entirely satisfied with that explanation because there are also plenty of places in the Downs (locally called Dykes or Ghylls) where the chalk dips much further down, but where no dewponds form. And now I find (thank you, Wikipedia!) dewponds are actually man-made, specifically to hold water for farm animals. They can be ancient, though, and there doesn't seem any consensus on where the water comes from that fills them, or why it doesn't evaporate as quickly as conventional wisdom says it should. Perhaps there's something magic about the dewponds after all."

On further investigation, I find also that the dewponds are in fact man-made, and the source of water is NOT groundwater, (as John so observantly questioned) but surface drainage water.  One trick to placement of these ponds is a very subtle (gradual) drainage area of just the right size. In the "old days" a team of oxen pulling a broad-wheeled cart would begin circling the perimeter of the future pond, crushing the chalk which was wet down.  After nearly a day of circling, there was enough chalk dust and moisture in the depression (the consistency of thick paste) to trowel out like concrete.  When dried out, it would hold water as well as the Clampett's "cement pond" - normally for cattle or sheep.

Just goes to show you - you learn something every day!  And a huge "Thank You" to John from Sweden.

Thomas County Kansas - March 12, 1885

A bit more NW Kansas history.  I ran across a copy of the March 12, 1885 edition of the Thomas County Cat - the first newspaper in the County, and incidentally, the first edition of the paper.  The County was created in 1873, but did not petition for County status until the Summer of 1885 when the population began to expand.  The January, 1885 population was 161 hearty folks. By October of the same year, the population was declared to be 1,900.  Based on this growth and positive future, the residents petitioned for a separate County organization and on October 8, 1885 Kansas Governor Martin proclaimed it official, Thomas County was established.  Back to the Cat.

The first edition of the Cat was published before it was an official County.  It reports that a townsite (that would likely become the County seat) was under planning near the center of the area and would be named Colby.  Oddly, this site was some 20 miles North of the established railroad at that time in Monument, Kansas.  In reading the paper, I was struck as to how many references there were to water, creeks and wells - at least 20 on the first page alone.  These words go to great length to describe every creek in the County, and most of the wells that already existed - by owner and depth to water.  In describing the future town site, it says:

...a townsite has been located 2 1/2 miles north of the Colby postoffice, on the Priaire Dog, and the name proposed for the new town is Colby. Water can be obtained on the new town site at a depth of 50 feet.

In reading the front page I also learn that M. Woodcock and his son-in-law are engaged in boring wells; the postmaster at Streator grows corn and has a fine well 80 feet deep; Charles Cooper and Almond Vincent are engaged in boring wells and are setting up to market windmills; Martin Williams' well is only 17 feet deep; William Reed's well is 110 feet deep; Charlie Coover's well is 66 feet deep; Henry Kneudsen raised 120 bushels of onions and 200 bushels of potatoes and only irrigated his garden twice from his windmill; The Bohemian John (can't read last name) has a well 66 feet deep; plenty of good water is available by digging from 40 to 140 feet deep; and stock of all kinds do fine, but have to be watered at a well.

Fair to say that water has always been pretty important in Thomas County, Kansas.  Oh, and if you're curious, a well today in Colby would find the water table somewhere near 140 feet deep.

Reduce...Reduce...Reduce!

I can't tell you how many times I've heard it said, or seen it in writing:  "That area should quit overpumping the groundwater" or something very similar. I'm sure you've heard it too.  Well, any area that has aquifer declines large enough to be that obvious is well beyond sustainable yield.  That's because the well development generally took place decades ago - before groundwater modeling that could predict these impacts became widely used.  In reality the true impacts of well development and groundwater pumping is initially masked and not at all obvious.  Due to the groundwater lag effect, it can take decades before the development starts to affect stream baseflows, which is one way the declines become noticed as serious.  I'd hazzard a guess that in most groundwater overdevelopment cases that are considered serious enough to address, it'd take a minimum of 40% less pumping to even make a dent - and remember, that's once the declines are discovered, quantified, and the permitting of new wells gets properly addressed - if it ever does.

If this is the case, you can see how difficult such a decision would be to any such area. If you can imagine the impact a 40, 50 or 60% reduction in water use within your City or County might have, then maybe you can be a bit more compassionate.  And if you can't imagine such an impact, then you have no business partaking in the discussions.  I can promise you, if it was that easy to do it'd have already been done.  It simply doesn't help to stand out there offering disparaging comments and acting judgmental and disappointed.

We're working on it.  I'd appreciate some honest, well intentioned help, or your quiet understanding.  My phone number is 785-462-3915.  Talk to me!

The Kansas Observation Well Network

Most don't know it but the Kansas Observation Well Network was redesigned in 1984 based on some pretty sophisticated statistical foundations.  The former network consisted of 1749 wells measured at least every Winter - with some being measured quarterly and a few being automatically recorded.  These 1749 wells had more or less been haphazardly added over time since the early 1940s - being added where there were holes in the network, but to no specific pattern.

Turns out, the pattern of well locations does impact the data to some degree, and haphazard is not good.  The original network of 1749 wells statistically gave us a standard average error of about 12 feet.  This was from the beginning considered good enough to at least spot trends in water table attitudes in decadal time frames. 

Kansas found that converting the haphazard pattern to a a hexagonal stratified pattern, the state could achieve the same standard average error with 1135 wells measured annually.  This allowed the state to choose between either operating the network at a reduced cost without sacrificing accuracy, or, improving the network accuracy considerably for the same cost.  Turns out they did both when they added wells very selectively (in previously scarce areas) and reduced the total measured wells.

This is not the whole story though. The size of the hexagonal cells is critical and dependent on the variability of the bedrock and water table data.  The more variable the data, the smaller the hex cells must be to achieve any desired accuracy.  In Kansas the bedrock is far more variable than the water table, so each had its own semivariogram generated.  The final cell size was a 16 square-mile hexagon.

Of course, today's debate is whether the 12 feet of standard average error is sufficient to describe our smaller enhanced management areas in shorter than decadal time frames. Of course it isn't, so we may soon be going back to the drawing board in places.  But it's nice to know we can design exactly what we need in terms of accuracy and be assured that it costs as little as possible.

An 1896 Editorial on Wisconsin Groundwater for Schools

Also in my home library is a bound set of The Outlook magazines from December, 1895 through November, 1896.  Chock full of interesting articles, advertisements and much, much more.  I ran across the following article in the Home Club section of the August, 29, 1896 edition (no author cited):

"Water-Supply to Schools

Investigation into the conditions of the water-supply of the country schools in Wisconsin revealed five wells out of one hundred as yielding pure water.  It is true that God made the country and man made the town, but it is equally true that man has done his best by greed and ignorance to spoil what God has made.  Imagine the effect on some school committeemen of demanding an investigation into the condition of the school supply of water !  Imagine the presentation of a bill before the town authorities for the scientific care of the supply and waste of water at the school-house !  It takes brains to see the relation between the loss through sickness and death and the sanitary conditions surrounding the school-house."

I guess you can't argue with the author's logic - especially since no author is listed.  Anyway, I hope things have improved in Wisconsin since then.

And Speaking of Google..

And speaking of Google Wave, I have created a set of linked Waves intended to elicit discourse, comments or questions regarding anything groundwater management.  My hope is that all the groundwater management types will join in and participate.  Google Wave, if you're unfamiliar with it, is a vehicle to discuss and collaborate on documents, ideas, thoughts, proposals and who knows what else.  It's like a wiki in this regard - an open architecture format that allows anyone to create a document, idea, or discussion point and anyone else to respond with edits, supporting material, a refute or whatever else they want to say about the issue at hand.  The operating system is like IM'ing, but more real time - you actually see what others are typing as they make their inputs.

The site I made is called:  All Things Groundwater Management.   You'll have to create an account in Google Wave and once you do you can find the GMDA Wave by searching on "with:public Tag:groundwater".  (Once you find it, you'll want to add it to your Inbox to keep track of it)  The main Wave is the intro and currently has 3 linked Waves - 1) Issue Discussions (w/ 5 starter discussion topics); 2) a GMDA meetings Wave; and 3) a GMDA Board Meeting Wave.  The discussion waves currently are completely open, but may change to "access by request only" if we all feel a need to restrict it.  In fact, I'm taking a poll inside this wave on the "open issue" right now (Discussion Topic # 4) so feel free to chime in.  The Board Meeting Wave is by request only and is being reserved for GMDA board member participation only.  You can see it, but cannot comment or edit any of the material therein.

I have to admit that the learning curve is a bit higher than normal, but the utility of Wave to conduct open (or controlled) discussions and collaborative development is very promising.  For starters, most versions of IE don't even support the newer format, so you'll have to download and install a Google Chrome Frame, or, just use a compatible browser like Safari, Firefox or Chrome.  On the plus side, I'll wager the polling widgets alone would keep Zetland busy for at least a year!  

Anyway, come by for a visit if you can and help build the groundwater management community Wave. 

Pay Attention All Golf Nuts!

I ended up today with 2 all-access Patron Passes AND 2 single-day practice round tickets for the Memorial Golf Tournament at Muirfield Country Club in Dublin, Ohio in early June. Yes, Tiger Woods and all the usual suspects will be there.  Since I can't use these tickets, I posted them on eBay this afternoon.  If you're a golf fan I'd encourage you to bid on these splendid tickets - if not for you and your wife (or golfing buddy) then for me!

It's my first foray into selling anything on eBay, so I'll probably get taken to the woodshed over the deal, but one guy's loss is another's gain I suppose. Yeah, I just checked and there have been no bids yet - but there are still 4 days and 18 hours left!

My plan "B" if they don't sell is to convince the groundwater district board that the groundwater conditions in Dublin, Ohio must be checked out to insure their sustainability.  Yeah, that should work!

What Are They Thinking?

Just ran across a story from Helena, Montana this morning where a judge has ruled that pumping groundwater, in the recovery process of coalbed methane, just to put it into surface pits and evaporate it is a waste of water and in Montana is unconstitutional.  This makes sense to me.

However, a state administrator says the ruling only deals with the mechanical means to speed up the natural evaporative process, and not the pits themselves.  As such, if anyone chooses to water cattle or horses out of such a pond, the water would be "beneficially used" and the pit and practice would be OK.

I must ask:  How much water will cattle and horses drink from a 50 acre-feet sized pit?  If they drink it all, I'd agree, but really...  Later in the article a 2003 study is quoted as saying some 58 billion cubic yards of groundwater would need to be pumped to develop the methane from just one region of the state.  Wow, that's a lot of cattle and horses!

I can't imagine the judge was referring to just the sprayers that accelerate the evaporation.  If he did, shame on him.  If the administrator is mis-reading the ruling, shame on him.  Evaporation is a consumptive water use and needs to be recognized as such. 

Finally, the article didn't discuss the quality of the water too much, but did say it would be likely to increase salts in the rivers if discharged directly there.  Regardless of its quality, this volume of water will eventually be desired and made usable - I guarantee it.