Chalk One Up For Groundwater

In 2008 when Iowa geologists were examining drill cuttings from a water well near Decorah, Iowa, they found a shale layer that shouldn't have been there, and didn't exist anywhere else in the region.  When the Iowa Geological Survey looked at the area closer, they discovered the shale deposit was not extensive - only a couple of miles wide - and, that it was nearly perfectly circular.  This was so intriguing that they brought in a geologist from the National Museum of Natural History to take a look.  He found definite signs of shocked quartz in the rocks just below the shale layer.  All these signs are indicative of an impact crater, and one that was previously unknown.

This all lead to a more recent examination of the area, and the crater possibility, by scientists from the USGS and the Iowa and Minnesota Geological Surveys.  They did a high-resolution geophysical survey and additional borehole investigations of the area specifically for the groundwater and mineral resources that might be available.  Their results showed a definite difference in rock density and more clearly revealed the circular nature of the geologic anomaly.     

Well, long story short, turns out there is a 470 million year old impact crater lying under Decorah, Iowa - confirmed now by three data sets that correlate extremely well.  All because someone wanted to assess the groundwater availability of the area by looking at drill cuttings from their water well.

And the shale layer that isn't supposed to exist but which started the whole inquiry?  Turns out the entire region had been covered by shale deposited by the intrusion of an inland sea after the impact event but has since been eroded away.  This shale just happened to get preserved inside the crater.

Next step is to assess if this crater is a unique event or might be related to three other known midwestern impact craters - in Ames, Oklahoma., Rock Elm, Wisconsin and the Slate Islands of Lake Superior in Ontario, Canada.  All four have been dated to roughly the same time period.

 

Just goes to show you - you never know what's beneath your feet until you look closely. 

A Short Look at the Guarani Aquifer

In our part of the world the Ogallala Aquifer is really important, and has been written about extensively.  It is often touted (sometimes accurately and sometimes not) as the largest, the most heavily developed and/or the most stressed aquifer - in the northern hemisphere, the US and/or the world.

However, when it comes to size and volume of water, it's the Guarani Aquifer that clearly sets the bar.  This expansive aquifer is said to cover 1.2 million square kilometers, but quite a bit of its extent has yet to be verified - it might be even bigger.  It underlies parts of Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina in South America, with Brazil having the lion's share (61.6%) of it.  Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have 21%, 8% and 3.3% respectively.  According to one published synopsis (Cassuto and Sampaio) at the rate current usage the aquifer will last for another 2,000 years.  Wikipedia is a bit more generous, claiming that at the worlds current population (6.9 billion) the Guarani could supply the worlds drinking water needs for 1,600 years. 


Well, what to do with the Guarani?  Not long ago the 4 countries claimed sovereign ownership of the aquifer and have been working together to develop a transboundary agreement.  The process is called GAS, for Guarani Aquifer System.  While all four countries have signed the GAS agreement, not all of the Countries have ratified it yet.  And not everyone is satisfied with the agreement, which according to some, is more fluff than substance and as such, will be an ineffective development and management directive.  I say not to worry, for if they screw this up, we've developed the LEMA process they can use to correct things later.  Anyway, now you know a bit about the Guarani Aquifer.  

50 Ways to Leave Your Groundwater (Safe)

I recently ran across a neat compilation of 50 ways farmers can protect their groundwater.  In fact that's the name of the publication - 50 Ways Farmers Can Protect Their Groundwater.  It's a bit dated (1993) but this University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service book has lots of good ideas.  It was written by Michael Hirschi, F. William Simmons, Doug Peterson and Ed Giles.

The 50 ways are each covered in a short (1 to 2 page) description.  There are also 10 featured farmers who share their stories and experience concerning a selection of these suggestions.  It's organized into sections dealing with the following issues:  Fertilizers; Scouting crops; Insecticides; Herbicides; Pesticides; Site conditions, wells and septic systems; Water testing and treatment; and Miscellaneous.

To be honest, it's almost exclusively aimed at groundwater quality, with only a precious few pieces on groundwater quantity, but, hey, quality is pretty important too.  I guess the biggest thing here is that groundwater is being recognized and thought of as important enough to do a compendium on.  I think so too, of course. 

In closing, it caught my eye because I'm a pretty big Paul Simon fan, and I thought I had run across an Extension publication on 50 ways to leave your lover.  Wouldn't that be a first!

Kansas' First LEMA Order Signed

LEMA Bill Signing - Colby, KS, 2012

The 2012 Legislature passed a new law authorizing the implementation of local enhanced management areas (LEMAs).  The accompanying picture is of the LEMA bill signing in Colby follwing the Governor's ceremonial signing.  Chief engineer David Barfield is addressing the crowd, while Governor Brownback looks on (in the blue shirt over the speaker's right shoulder).

Basically, if a groundwater management district (GMD) works with local stakeholders, they can submit an enhanced management plan to the chief engineer for consideration.  If the proposal meets certain basic criteria, the chief engineer can call for public hearings on the exclusively local proposal, with the hearing process focused ONLY on the local proposal.  Following the hearings, the chief engineer has only three basic options:  1)  Approve the proposal as submitted; 2) reject the proposal in its entirety; or 3) return it with suggestions that have come up in the hearing process and must have local approval to be included.  In other words, outside ideas can't find their way into the state's final implementation order without local approval.  As I've said before, the locals may not get what they want, but they are assured of not getting what they don't want once the process gets under way.

The special management area we call SD-6 has gone through this entire process and on December 31, 2012 the chief engineer signed the state's first LEMA Order - designating this 99 square-mile area as a LEMA.  The order ended up being issued under option 1) above - it was exactly as locally proposed.

There were some anxious moments in this process.  We weren't sure the proposal would be accepted from the start based on its 5-year life span.  There are those who argued that a sunsetted LEMA may not be worth the effort.  The locals argued that the review process was flexible enough to continue the proposal, but that a 5-year trial spin was all that could be locally acceptable.  Besides, 5 years of reduced water use is better than no conservation should the plan be rejected out of the gate.

We also had some opposition to the flexibility of moving water use around within the LEMA area.  Some felt that the unrestricted movement of water use across the 20 or so miles of this area could be problematic.  We argued that only judicious amounts of water are likely to be transferred around via the flexibility we've provided, so there will not be huge supply problems created.  Moreover, we agreed to look at this issue every year in the required annual LEMA review.  If any problems crop up, we've left a mechanism to address them.

The boundaries were also contentious.  Many expressed the feeling that the entire County, or the entire GMD should have been included.  The fact that the entire County and the entire GMD are not experiencing the same degree of problematic declines seemed to have prevailed. 

We're excited to try this out and see how effective it will be for the local water users.  The total 5-year pumping cap imposed will reduce historical pumpage by about 18-20% per year for 5 years.  This should help slow the groundwater decline rate and thus extend the economic life of this portion of the Ogallala Aquifer.

About the only trepidation we have now is the specter of a lawsuit, as not everyone was equally as enthused about the design of this LEMA.  Since it's new, I guess it's possible that the law is in fact unconstitutional, or that we've applied the process improperly.  But I have bigger concerns regarding a law suit.  This new authority was consistently hailed as being the most promising local approach to groundwater problem solving in Kansas in a long time.  If we locals can't make it work, I'm afraid that the very idea of "local control" in Kansas may become questioned by State pundits more seriously than many of us would be comfortable with.  The loss of local control and serious input into groundwater issues I think will be lamented very much.  'nuff said.
  

More On The Work of Groundwater

As I've blogged before, groundwater works a number of ways on and within the earth to change the landscape over time.  Stream bank erosion and possibly caves are the most visible and obvious examples.  But groundwater can work in other ways as well. 

Recently a group of geologists from Brigham Young University studied the dissolution of basalt by groundwater on the picturesque island of Oahu in the Hawaiian island chain.  Yes, you heard right - Oahu is dissolving due to the movement of groundwater through its rocks.  In fact, the dissolution rate via groundwater movement is reported to be faster than the erosional rate of surface materials being carried away by the streams and rivers.  The highest hills of the Koolau and Waianea Mountain ranges are projected to eventually become flat plains - comparable to the Pacific Island of Midway. 

The study says this isn't going to happen too soon, though, perhaps taking one and a half million years before the flattening effects start to happen noticeably.  So, you don't need to cancel your vacation reservations on account of this.  Besides, they also found that Oahu is at the same time being pushed upward ever so slowly by tectonic plate action, so things (elevations, anyway) may actually stay pretty much the same.  But it was interesting to find out that the basalt rock of the Hawaiian Islands will literally dissolve over time.  I didn't know that.

More On The Work of Groundwater

Jewell Cave, South Dakota

For us groundwater folks there is nothing more important than...groundwater.  After all, in sheer volume, our under-the-earth resource dwarfs the amount of fresh water in all the lakes, rivers, streams, swales, bayous, creeks and whatever else holds fresh water on top of the land.  It also does a yeoman's job of supplying fresh water for humanity - from drinking water to irrigation to industrial and every other use there is.

So what other work does groundwater do?  The extra job I'm going to talk about today is forming caves - not all of them, but groundwater plays an integral part in the formation and/or existence of many caves around the world.  One of the more interesting jobs in this line is the work groundwater did in the Jewell and Wind Caves in the Black Hills region of Southwest South Dakota around the town of Custer.

To make a very long story short (pardon the pun) the Black Hills uplift some 70-40 million years ago thrust the largely igneous basement rocks up through the overlying sedimentary rocks - including the two major regional formations known as the Madison Limestone (300-450 feet thick) and the Minnelusa Sandstone lying on top of the Madison.  The central dome has since been eroded away exposing the igneous and metamorphic rock which is completely ringed by the sedimentary formations that dip gently away in all directions.  It is in the Madison Limestone where these vast caves exist.  Jewel Cave is the second longest series of cave passages in the world - some 160 miles of currently mapped passageways.  There are undoubtedly more, but mapping this extremely complex labyrinth has not been completed. 

The real story of the role groundwater has played is also still undetermined for sure.  There are 4 theories as to how these were formed, and all of them involve groundwater, but no one knows for sure - yet.  They are:  (1) rising thermal waters through time; (2) confined groundwater moving down-dip to springs; (3) infiltration through the porous sandstone; and (4) relics of the 300-million-year-old paleokarst.

The fact that both caves exist in the middle area of the Madison is perplexing.  The passages don't extend down dip very far, they rarely reach up and connect with the overlying Minnelusa Sandstone, and they don't reach down to the base of the Madison limestone either.  In fact, in Jewell Cave, they don't even intersect the current groundwater table.  However, while the precise role groundwater has played is not known, few doubt that groundwater somehow did this over time.  For a much more technical rendering of these caves, click here.

I'd like to help map the rest of these caves, but I'm afraid my girth alone would prevent it in all but the largest passageways.  Besides, I don't like dinky dark dank dens - be they associated with groundwater or not.
 

Groundwater: Too Much or Too Little - Earthquake!

Groundwater hydrologists have known for a long time that injecting water into the subsurface can change the hydrology enough to trigger small earthquakes.  Just listen to all the current rhetoric regarding hydraulic fracturing and the increased incidents of small regional tremblors in oil and gas producing areas.  The injections not only pressure up the local systems, but also lubricate the faults that slip and slide - releasing the stored energy of a mobile, but temporarily stuck crust.

But a recent study of the May 5, 2011 earthquake in Lorca, Spain has concluded that groundwater pumping was a significant factor in that earthquake.  First, this was a very shallow quake - only .6 miles below the land surface.  Such a shallow earthquake is unusual.  In this immediate area the groundwater declines have been extreme - on the order of 800+ feet over the past 50 years.  In essence, the dewatering was bounded by a geologic fault (the Alhama de Murcia fault), and, according to the study, the weight of the removed water actually increased the stresses on the fault in those specific areas. The researchers used satellite imagery and GPS stations to come to these conclusions. 

It was a surprise to the study scientists that the relatively small stress changes due to dewatering could have had sufficient impact on such a large scale fault system.  In fact, the calculated stress increases due to the dewatering were not much more than normal atmospheric pressure changes.  The study concluded that the energy released by the 5.1 quake actually included not only the increased stress due to dewatering, but also several centuries of normal stress buildup due to the much more common regional deformation. Kind of like the dewatering was the straw that broke the camel's back.

On the surface of it all, it would seem now that we can neither take out, nor put in, water underground without fearing earthquakes - at least in certain circumstances.  And perhaps even more importantly, had this quake happened in Italy, would the hydrologists have been tried for culpability along with the risk assessment scientists?

The report findings are detailed in the October 21, 2012 issue of the journal of Nature Geosciences.

Egyptian Groundwater Dated

Carbon-14 has been the tool of choice when dating old things, but it's not without its limits.  For starters, it is considered accurate only out to 9 half-lives - or around 50,000 years.  That'll catch most age-related things we're interested in, but certainly not all. For example, groundwater dating has some utility in ascertaining recharge rates, but some groundwaters can be very old indeed.

This is where krypton comes into play.  81Kr is a radioactive isotope that occurs when cosmic rays slam through the earth's upper atmosphere wreaking havoc with various particles in the process.  These then fall to earth where they get stored in ice layers, oceans, groundwater and similar places.  The great thing about 81Kr is that it has a half-life of about 230,000 years - allowing age dating on the scale of up to 1 million years old.

The actual process measures the capture rate of 81Kr and a close control isotope of 83Kr or 85Kr.  The ratio of the 81Kr and the control isotope is then compared to an atmospheric sample of 81Kr which reveals the sample's age.

One problem has been capturing enough 81Kr.  There is apparently a fairly low amount of the stuff around, and it is pretty soluble in water.  Previous attempts using this method required huge amounts of sample material - like 16 tons of water to get enough Kr to date.  But a new instrument - the Atom Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA) has changed the logistics. It now only requires two tons of groundwater to extract the required 81Kr.

Anyway, all this to tell you that the latest groundwater dating study on a well in western Egypt using the new ATTA equipment has dated that groundwater at 500,000 years old.  That's pretty old water and indicative of zero recharge from the surface - at least in the last half a million years.

I might add that the Kansas Geological Survey has dated some of our groundwater (in southern Thomas County) and reports that it is relatively recent - from 3,900 to 4,700 years old.  The KGS used multiple age determination methods, basically including Carbon-14 and an isotope of Tritium (3H).  For a complete explanation of their age-dating process, see their 2012 annual index well report (Page 48 once you get there).   I helped collect the samples and we only gathered up about a total of maybe 5 pounds of water for each of the 4 wells sampled.  Had they used ATTA, I'd have given them one solid ATTA-BOY - but definitely would NOT have been involved in collecting the 8 tons of water required!  Sure glad our groundwater was young enough to use Carbon-14!

Nymphaion, Haeligewille and Holy Wells, Oh, My!

St. Mary of the Spring - Istanbul

"Holy Well" is a generic term used to describe the collection of literally thousands of ancient and old water sources around the globe that were important to mankind.  The reality of the matter is that most were, and actually are, springs - not wells at all.  Or at least what most of us consider today as being a "well".

Because holy wells exist in so many cultures, in so many religions, in so many locations and in so many time periods, most believe the concept is essentially intrinsic to man - more or less a fundamental human instinct to hold such sources of water reverent.  Being how water is right behind air in terms of human survival, is it any wonder?

Holy wells have been known for a long time, and people who study them claim their use and special care go all the way back to the Paleolithic era of very early man.  This post was just to introduce you to the term.  There is a more complete rendering on the topic here - at least as far as European holy wells go.  This link also has a number of sources where additional materials are listed.

Oh, and about Nympaions and Haeligewilles?  These are terms for the same thing in different languages/cultures.  You can find out more on this entire subject at the Wikipedia site linked above.  Enjoy.  It's 2012.  Do you know where your Holy Well is?

Great Man-Made River? I Suspect Groundwater!

The Great Man-Made River resides in Libya and is one of the late Muammar Gaddafi's pet projects.  It is an enormous network of wells, pipes, reservoirs and other infrastructure that supplies groundwater from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in SE Libya northward to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and other metropolitan areas, and to various irrigation projects along the way.  Some consider it the largest irrigation project in the world.  According to their website, it's a network of pipes and aqueducts over 1,600 miles long being fed by more than 1,300 deep wells in 6 wellfields.  This system is reported to withdraw and transport 1.921 million AF per year.   

Efforts to find oil in southern Libya in the early 1950's led to the discovery of the groundwater being tapped. The project itself was originally proposed in the late 1960s - just before Gaddafi became the Ruler of Libya in 1969, but actual work didn't begin until 1984 with the construction of the first of five phases.  The total cost of the project is projected at more than $25 billion.

  

The groundwater supplying this system is from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System which accumulated during the last ice age and is not currently being replenished.  It is a hard sandstone aquifer covering parts of four African nations - Egypt, Libya, Chad and Sudan.  It ranges in thickness from 400-700 feet thick, but can reach 1500 feet thick in areas.  According to Wikipedia it contains fairly good quality water - from fresh to slightly brackish.

There is a bit of a disagreement on the longevity of the supply, however.  The project claims supplies will last 1,000 years at the 2007 withdrawal rates, while independent analysts project a more modest 60-100 year lifespan.  I wonder who is right?  And perhaps more importantly, I wonder who Egypt, Chad and Sudan are more prone to believe?

 

Early NW Kansas - May 27, 1886 - Life and Hope

I love the old writing style.  The following excerpts have been taken from a long article contained in the May 27, 1886 edition of the Thomas County Cat - Colby, Kansas' first newspaper - page 4.  (Hint:  Keep reading - the water stuff's at the end):

"Prentis on Thomas County.

The objective point of the expedition was Thomas county and the present port for Colby, is a station which formerly bore the name of Cleveland, but is now officially known as Oakley.  From this point a daily stage runs to Colby. If you wish to leave any property to your children, you will take this stage. If you are a reckless prodigal, bent on squandering your wealth as soon as possible ; if you wish to enable a bandit to fix up his cave with oriental splendor, you will patronize an Oakley livery stable keeper. The distance from Oakley to Colby is estimated at from twenty-two to twenty-eight miles, but as an Oakley livery team can make the distance in three hours and have strength enough left to return the next day, it is not much above the first figure.

The traveler who thinks that he realize the high vastness of the plains by looking from the car windows is mistaken.  That is like looking at the ocean from the shore, while he who journeys in a carriage or on horseback is like a voyager in the midst of the deep. Every time this great high country is visited the higher and wider it looks.  It never encourages that familiarty which breeds contempt.

Colby, a town which has attained the mature age of one year, was reached at sunset and was inspected by moonlight and by daylight. It has nothing to mark it as a frontier or even a new town. There is not a sod house or a shanty in the place, not a building of any magnitude that's not painted ; the sidewalks are better than the average Atchison article. The stores sell dry goods and groceries at Commercial street prices. Art, too, has obtained a foothold. The Martin drug store obtained the services of an eastern paper hanger, and now you see his work all over town. We had dreaded the frontier hotel, having experienced hunger and some bloodshed in the course of a day and night experience at such in the past, but we really met, as old Shenstone has it, 'Our warmest welcome at an inn." The Colby House supplied every want or the Champion's commissioners.

The first term of the district court was held by Judge Pratt two weeks ago. In these days when a lot of imported cranks and ruffians are declaring in favor of the abolition of God and the extinguishment of law, it is refreshing to see that the American citizen who deserves the name will not live without law. As soon as possible after a county has settlers, it insists on a district judge and a term of court. Thomas County, with the assistance of Sherman, attached for judicial purposes, mustered a docket of twenty-two cases including divorce cases. The local historian states that the county has had its first marriage, its first baby and its first divorce.

Four thousand people are gathered there [Thomas County] perfectly courageous and confident that they will succeed - if it rains. So far the rain has fallen. We saw the water in pools and there is an added greenness in the draws, the low "lagoons," as they are called, and the old buffalo wallows.

Under this country lies what seems a shallow subterranean lake, deeper in some places than in others. On the elevation of the surface depends the distance to this water varying from twelve feet to one hundred and fifty. The county is dependent for water on the rain and on the wells. The great railroad well at Oakley supplies water for farmers for miles around. How long a farmer will haul water depends on his enterprise. We saw a farmer at the well who did not come for water : he had just reached water on his claim at the depth of fifty-six feet. So the rain comes down and the wind mill pumps lift the water to the surface, and the sod is turned over at the rate of hundreds of acres every day, and men believe that agriculturally they are "all right" in a country without a river and without a tree, and may the Lord who raised up for our benefit Stowell, and Lessenger, and McGonigal and Worcester, and the rest of the good fellows at Colby, grant that there may be no disappointment."

Some things are very apparent:

1)  Prentis was obviously charged too much for his livery needs in Oakley! 
2)  He is enthralled by the vast, open plains and doesn't mind the newness of the area.
3)  He very much likes Colby and is a strong law and order person.
4)  He appreciates and understands the importance of water to the area - in any and all forms.

Thanks for reading.  BTW, also on page 4 is a letter to the editor by a local farmer who has come to town and was quite unimpressed with the meal he got from the local eatery.  Funny stuff as well.

Groundwater On Times Square

OK, so the Heads UP folks have conducted a visualization contest for groundwater decline issues - to be aired on world water day (March 22, 2012) in Times Square, NYC.  The call for entries asked that people take actual USGS groundwater data sets and render that data in visually striking and creative ways.  The winner is to have his or her creation splashed onto the Nasdaq and Rueters big screens in Times Square on world water day.  Is this all aimed at driving home the message of groundwater declines worldwide or to create interest/concern/fear/outrage and hence public reaction?

The winner was announced on December 7 and he is Richard Vijgen, an information designer from the Netherlands.  His renderings are definitely cool (you can see them here) but just how practical they will be and how well they will express the world's groundwater conditions remains to be seen.  They are 30 seconds each in length, to cover what appears to be a tremendous amount of data.  They go by so fast I can't glean anything more than since 1911 the groundwater in many parts of the world has declined to some degree or another.  I do get a sense of an accelerated decline rate in some places, but it doesn't really sink in because I can't relate the various bars to any specific world location.  You just can't see the lables used on the video.  Now maybe if I was in Times Square... (hint, hint)

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather just see the data presented as a simple line graph over time by location.  I know, BORING!!!  But I do think a message will be sent that may translate into at least increased public awareness.  But everyone should know, there are entities - like my very small groundwater management district - that are working on these problems every day of the year.  Had we been provided part of the money used to conduct this contest I guarantee you our problem would be a little less onerous than yesterday.

Nitrate Management That Works

Nebraska farmers like to grow corn - period.  They like it so much they were not adverse to applying upwards of 200 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer or more per acre on a routine basis in the 1960's and 1970's.  As you might expect, in the sandier soils or where groundwater levels were fairly shallow a nitrogen buildup began to occur.  Nowhere was this more advanced than in the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD).  In several areas of this NRD nitrate-nitrogen levels in the groundwater were increasing on the order of .5 ppm per year, and were in excess of 25 ppm.  Recall that the federal standard is 10 ppm.

The CPNRD chose to act in the mid 1980's with the regulations for a sophisticated nitrate-nitorgen management plan in any NRD area that exceeded their trigger criteria.  The program actually uses three phases based on ambient nitrate-nitrogen levles with each successive phase having stricter requirements.  The overall plan called for reductions in fertilizer applications by several methods - monitoring groundwater levels and subtracting this source of nitrogen from application rates, education on more optimum nitrogen applicaton rates, restricted application times and the power of positive reinforcement - if the area's nitrate rates start falling, additional monitoring can be averted.

Bottom line, most of the areas are seeing a reversal of trends.  On average, the NRD pre-program rate of change was an increase of nitrate-nitrogen of about .5 ppm per year.  Today, most areas are seeing a trend of a .25 ppm decrease per year.  On the broader scale, the once average concentration of 19+ ppm is now about 14.5 ppm.  And it was all done without sacrificing production levels and farm income.  I guess you could argue that after 20 years or so the groundwater is still above the federal level, but in my opinion that'd be missing the larger point.  I have to congratulate the CPNRD on a program well done.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that this effort is now being done without the data support FSA used to provide - on crop types and acreages and landowner and farm operator information.  The elimination of this data support has caused the NRD significant added expense to keep this program running.  I have blogged on this before here.  It seems a shame to me that the federal government will not help state and local governments with this data support.  'Nuf said.

Norovirus In Groundwater

All over the news of late is research from Emery University that is declaring the longevity of the norovirus in groundwater.  This virus is responsible for gastroenteritis in humans which is not a pleasant condition by any means.  They actually human tested it up to 61 days finding that it was still fully infectious.  The report says they also kept it at room temperature in the dark and after 622 days there was enough viral RNA present to conclude that it was still fully infectious after that long.  Even after 1,266 days it was barely diminished.  They conclude this is proof of the need to further treat groundwater from wells that could be affected by leaking or faulty sewer lines or septic systems.

But wait a minute, in digging deeper, the report divulges that the norovirus in this study was put into groundwater taken from the well and kept in the lab for the entire study. This is a far cry from placing the norovirus in the groundwater and letting it transmit through the aquifer to be withdrawn from a well and then consumed.  Keep in mind, that groundwater is largely an anaerobic environment at a constant temperature usually somewhere between 50 and 60 degrees F.  This is a much different environment than water sitting in a lab at room temperature.  And also groundwater quality, depth of occurrence and virtually every other condition you can think of is so varied from place to place that these results can't possibly be transferable.

I don't doubt that the norovirus may last a longer time in the groundwater than we may have suspected to date, but shouldn't we demand a real experiment to test its longevity?  Come on Emery.  And don't forget this is Georgia groundwater to boot!  Now in the Ogallala, I doubt the nasty norovirus could even last three hours.  I've never seen any.

The Qanat - Persian Water Systems of Old

The qanat is basically a groundwater collection and distribution system all in one.  Attributed originally to the Persians, the technology was heavily used in the middle east (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.) and ended up being used in many other parts of the world including India, northern Africa, China, Indonesia, Peru, northern Chile and even Mexico.  The picture at right is the basic layout, but as you can imagine, the actual look of each qanat will vary according to the geology and hydrology present.  In one respect, these were the first horizontally drilled wells in the world.

Construction was basically by hand with a few basic tools - plumb bobs, leather buckets, shovels, hatchets, ropes, reels and lights.  The first step was to find the water source - usually associated with (upgradient from) an alluvial fan meeting the mountain or foothill.  A test well was dug, which if successful, became the mother well.  This information on water supply elevation, yield and quality were needed to design the rest of the system.  The main channel could not be too flat (reduced yield) or too steep (erosional problems).  A typical gradient would be 1 foot in 1000 feet of distance, but the longer qanats would require less gradient than that.  In some cases original qanats were expanded with side channels. They were at times re-routed to provide cooling for ice houses and residences.  Even retrofitted with power devices.  They were community systems in every respect of the word.

The vertical shafts were multipurposed.  They provided air, a transport avenue for the cuttings and maintenance access over time.  They were typically spaced every 100 feet or so, but this distance would vary depending on the depth of the main channel and the material being excavated.  Typically work began at the bottom (where the water was to be delivered) and worked back to the mother well, but in the longer systems, work could be started from both ends toward the middle.  One needed very accurate plumb bobs in these cases.

The typical qanat would be on the order of two miles or so in length, but some have been measured to be 35 miles long.  The shafts would range from 50 feet to in some cases 600 feet deep.  Quite a construction job in that day and time.  In fact, typically making 100 to 150 feet per day on the main channel, many qanats took years to build.

In antiquity, the job was hired out to specialized workers called muqannis, who not only built the systems, but maintained them too. These were important jobs - usually handed down from father to son - which paid reasonably well.  It was also a dangerous job.  Air quality and cave-ins were the main hazards.  The entire community was responsible for the qanat's O&M - whether that be a do-it-yourself job or hire the muqannis.

How many qanats are there?  It's hard to say, but it is estimated that as many as 50,000 were at one time in use in Iran alone.  Today, only half of those are still in use.  UNESCO reports 3,000 currently in use in Oman.  One of the oldest and largest qanats is in the Iranian city of Gonabad.  It is 2,700 years old and still provides water to 40,000 people - both domestic and limited irrigation.  It's about 25 miles long, and the mother well at the end is just over 1,100 feet deep.

There is no question as to the importance of these early watering systems.  I'm amazed at how many there were, how big they can be, how sophisticated they are and how long they have been in use. This had to be difficult work, but as has been said many times before, there is no substitute for water.

Yet More on Water For Oil & Gas Drilling

I just had a question from a landowner about water rights on their land - anticipating the time when a landman would knock on their door to secure an oil & gas lease.  In this case, there is only a domestic well supplying the house and yard, and they had no idea what legal rights or obligations they had in this regard.

In Kansas every non-domestic use of water requires a water right - regardless of the quantity of water needed.  There is no argument that oil well drilling is NOT a domestic use, so there is no question that such a use needs a water right.  There is also no question that the only water right these folks have is a domestic right for their household and landscape needs, so there is no argument that additional water rights need to be obtained. 

Well, there are several options in this case.

1)  Either the oil & gas company, drilling company or the landowner could obtain a temporary water right for drilling an oil & gas well.  Once the temporary permit is obtained the water could be withdrawn from any specified water source, be it an existing well, a new well, a surface water supply as specified in the permit.  NOTES:  1) The temporary water right is NOT a permanent right and is active for only 6 months, so this process would have to be done each time a new supply of water is needed;  2) If a new well is drilled, the disposition of that well when the permit runs out needs to be pre-determined. If the landowner is going to take it over, they then assume all ownership and responsibility for the well and its plugging when no longer useful.  It's a good idea to cover this issue in the lease up front if not already covered.

2)  The landowner could file for a new water right for industrial use (oil & gas recovery) on their land provided water is available for appropriation.  They can do this from any source of water, again, on an existing well or a new well or a stream channel or surface pond.  This results in a permanent water right for that use.  Notes:  1)  New water may not be available to appropriate.

3)  If the landowner has a non-domestic water right on the land (most typically in our area this would be an irrigation water right) they can convert a portion of the non-domestic water use to "industrial" use.  This would be a permanent change and would allow water to be provided for oil & gas purposes up to the extent of the change approved.  NOTES:  1) This is a permanent change that will reduce the former right by the quantity changed to industrial use; 2) It provides for a dependable water supply to the oil & gas industry for any wells within about a 10 mile radius.

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, but one of these three options must be taken to stay within the law.  When sales of water are made informally and without a water right it really upsets those who have formally converted part of their existing water rights to service this demand, or have bothered to otherwise arrange to provide this water to the industry legally.

Haven't Been Fracked Yet But Are Concerned?

The question was posed to the SW Kansas GMD 3 as follows:  "If I were a concerned domestic well owner in an area where hydraulic fracking operations were to begin, what should my initial, pre-fracking, water quality sampling protocol include?" 

This is actually a very astute question and one that many folks may want to think about as the oil and gas industry ramps up and dives deeper and deeper for extra hydrocarbons.  A baseline, pre-oil activity, water sample (or set of samples) seems like a very smart idea that is more likely to give you a starting point should groundwater quality problems crop up after these areas become active.  Turns out GMD 3 contacted the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) and asked their opinion, which is recounted here in this blog.  Thanks, Mark!  Click this link to the KGS if you want to review their website.

The KGS approached the question in an interesting way, beginning with "If someone wishes to at least have some basic, affordable, analysis made of his/her ground water, I would suggest...".  How thoughtful and actually dead on this approach was.  Anyway, they go on to suggest some basic inorganic tests including:  pH, specific conductance, calcium, magnesium, sodium, alkalinity or bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations.  They like this suite of tests in that it will provide a background quality that will be helpful in distinguishing the pre-activity water quality from any post-activity quality should there be the more common problems of:  oil or gas brine leaking from waste at the surface; or through a faulty production or injection well; or through a poorly plugged (old) oil or gas well nearby that may have been affected by the fracking process.

They continue on to say that the other fracking chemicals are organic and will be much more expensive to include in a testing protocol - but none-the-less are as important.  While many of the organic constituents of fracking activities are none that landowners or farmers would be normally using, there are some that are - like ethylene glycol (antifreeze), methanol (antifreeze, windshield fluid and denatured ethanol) and isopropanol (glass cleaners and fuel additives).  Unfortunately, these are the same 3 organics they recommend being tested for because they are also the most commonly used in the fracking process.  If they show up in the post-activity testing, be prepared to prove that they're not yours!  If they show up before oil operations and you've been using these products, perhaps you have a leak in your septic system or have had poor storage and disposal practices on the farm already.

In any case, KGS recommends you contact a company certified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for whatever testing you decide on.  This link or This link can be used to find a KDHE qualified lab.

They also indicate that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) are working with the industry to obtain samples of actual fracking fluid being used in Kansas horizontal wells, but I have not confirmed this.  Presumably this would yield a fairly accurate fingerprint of these water qualities for future reference and comparisons.  There is also an understanding that other fracking operations in different formations in Kansas will require a different fracking brew, so this may be a long and involved process.

I have to reference the industry FracFocus website at this time as well.  This is a voluntary site where drilling companies can choose to list the chemical constituents of their fracking formulas along with a lot of other information on the listed well.  A breeze through this site for fracking wells close to your area could give you far more specific information about what is most likely being used.  You could then choose to test accordingly.  Some companies use this site more than others, and some states have required its use, like Texas.  Kansas has not.  Might be something to talk to your legislators about...

Anyway, I hope this gives some direction on how landowners can approach a water quality sampling effort that gives them some peace of mind yet doesn't require their entire life savings.

[Update: October 26, 2011]

KGS has offered an interesting alternative to those who have not yet leased land for oil and gas operations that makes sense to me.  Thanks, guys.  In their own words:

"Dave Newell at the KGS had an excellent suggestion concerning negotiating an analysis for a new lease and I have added some procedure to it that you might consider adding to your blog:

If a land owner is being approached to lease their land, a baseline laboratory analysis paid by the oil/gas company could be negotiated as part of the leasing agreement. This is not costly compared to the total leasing agreement and drilling, and in some ways, it could protect both the property owner and the company. In this case, a third party could collect and submit a water sample to an independent certified laboratory and both the oil/gas company and landowner should receive the results."

All-In Auction for SD-6?

I've been working some on the design of an all-in auction (AiA - click here for a rudimentary rundown) - as a different way of reallocating a reduced water supply for any particular area, but clearly looking toward consideration by the SD-6 High Priority Area where we need to take some 28,000 AF down to 22,000 AF to meet the locally stated goals.

The simple model I'm ginning up as a test (fake auction) is:  19 water right owners, in priority, owning between 3 and 15 units of water each (1 unit equaling 20 AF).  Total pre-auction units total 150 (3000 AF) and the goal is to auction off a reduced 112 units (2240 AF).  My model is an annual auction format, which would allow a new restricted amount in any (or every) year.

Basically everyone places their units into the auction (thus the name "all-in") and proceeds to bid at least once for every unit they've put in. They can bid as many times as they like and at any dollar value.  Ideally they would value each unit of water within their operation and bid that value or somewhere close to it.  Once all the bids are placed (my scaled down model found the 19 owners of 150 units making just over 220 bids) the awarding process begins.

The bids are sorted from highest to lowest.  The 112 highest bids are awarded and these successful bidders get to use the 112 units next year. Depending on how all the bids go down, some may get more units than placed in, some may get less, some will get the same number and some may not get any at all.  The idea is that those who value the water the highest and can translate their water use into production valued higher than others, will get the water.  In this scheme, the reduced 112 units of water should end up producing more value than if the 112 units were divvied up any other way.  The final step is the accounting.

The unit price of water is fixed at the first, non-successful bid price, and everyone uses this price - be they seller, or buyer.  In my fake auction, the bids ranged from $36,000 to $200 per unit.  The 113th bid price was $11,201 per unit, so this became the unit price.  Those ending up with more units than they put into the auction, pay the auction $11,201 for every extra unit they came away with, while everyone ending up with fewer units received the same amount for each reduced unit.  In the end, the auction will always be revenue neutral.

If you've been reading anything at all about these kinds of auctions you may recognize this as the current work of David Zetland - from Wageningen University in the Netherlands and perhaps others.  (The link above actually takes you to Zetland's blog where he explains the ideas in a helpful video).  Since we must reduce water use in the SD-6 high priority area, I wanted to see if an AiA might be a workable methodology.

While my spreadsheet ran just fine, I have concerns - or perhaps second-level questions - about the concepts.  They are:

1)  I wonder how easy it will be to get 100% of the water right holders in an area to agree to such an auction. It's not that everyone won't be able to determine their unit values in preparation for the bidding, but I fear many will just not want to take the time and effort to do so, so will decide not to agree.

2)  Our wells and water rights in these special areas are pretty well physically maxed out.  I'm afraid most will not have the capability to pump the extra water they may be awarded, so the owners will not tend to bid beyond their own units.  Now, if the wells would go to the successful bidders, too....

3)  We'd likely have to develop special bidding protocols as our water rights are for maximum annual quantities, and would have to be annually restructured for some if not most of the net positive bidders.  We also have variations of annual water rights, like 5-year allocations and term and temporary permits, that would need special bidding rules.  These issues are not insurmountable, but would take extra attention.  A decision to run a 5-year auction time frame might help, but our 5-year allocations are not all the same 5-years.

4)  Seems to me in a groundwater only setting (like ours) the auction area should be small enough to prevent the possibility of an unusually large slug of buyers being able to grossly over pump a specific area. This could cause impairment problems as a result of the different withdrawal patterns.

5)  Our model was restricted only to the current water right owners. This arrangement would be the most likely to be locally acceptable, but I wonder if a better model would be to open up the auction completely.  Maybe the Kansas Wildlife agency would want to bid in order to supply water to enhance stream baseflows or wildlife habitat.  The outside uses of water are potentially endless - but the local users may deeply resent their participation.  (Update (October 17, 2011):  David Zetland recommended initially limiting participation to only the original unit holders, but , suggested that outside participation could be allowed if desired.  It could also be controlled by being limited to a specified percentage of the total auction units. Both good suggestions.) 

6)  Also, not knowing what the unit price is going to be until after the auction runs I think will confound those bidders who are interested in foregoing irrigation and taking the cash instead.  They're going to be very disappointed if the unit price ends up being half or less of what they valued their water at and would have bid if they wanted to retain their own units.  Eventually the market will settle on some fairly narrow values and more people will have a better idea of what to expect, but initially this could be an issue.  Also, I guess it'd be possible to have subsequent bidding rounds to fine tune this situation, but I'm not sure most folks will stay with the process that long.

7)  With water rights in Kansas being property rights to the use of the state's water that can always be bought, sold, leased, traded or whatever, it may be easier for water users in Kansas, once they are required to reduce pumpage, to lease or trade their water among themselves from year to year rather than subscribe to the formality of an AiA.  This arrangement won't necessarily address the production efficiency issues that the AiA does, but it'd be far more familiar to the users.

I do like some elements of this approach, however, like addressing the production efficiencies and the flexibility of changing the goals from timestep to timestep and even the timesteps.  All in all, our planned SD-6 approach of a regulated allocation system (reducing everyone to 55 acreinches per acre over a 5-year period) gets to the same goal with more of a "sharing the pain" flavor than would a fiscally competitive AiA.  There are some operators that simply seem to have more money than others, and I fear will be perceived as having a leg up in an auction setting.  

I think the AiA concept is interesting enough that it should be at least looked at as an alternative reduced water use, enhanced management plan for any area seeking to, or having to reduce water use.

FY 2012 WTAP Signup Open Now

Konza Prairie

The Kansas Water Transition and Assistance Program (WTAP) has just opened another year by announcing the FY 2012 signup period of October 1 - November 15, 2011.  This program is for persons in specified areas of the state (including the six, GMD 4 high priority areas) who are looking into retiring their water rights for a payment.

This program is based on past usage, so one's historical reported water use is important in determining the eligible acres that can receive payments under the program.  The historical reported water use is the reported AF of water diverted under the water right during the years 2005-2010 (inclusive) - eliminating the high and low year and averaging the remaining 4 years.  These are the AF that will have a retirement bid placed on them - not exceeding $2000.00 per AF.  The applicants are ranked by bid price and acccepted as long as the funding holds out.  This year, the program has about $820,000.00 available.

WTAP can be used even with an EQIP or AWEP contract from NRCS.  In fact, either of these two federal programs should allow a person to reduce his or her bid for WTAP and thus compete better for the limited WTAP funds.  If you are in a GMD 4 HPA, or Prairie Dog Creek, or Rattlesnake Creek and are interested in this program, contact the Division of Conservation in Topeka, or your appropriate GMD office to work up the numbers - you may want to take a look at them in order to finally decide.  There is actually much more to this program, but all the details can't be covered in this short post.

BTW, WTAP is a pilot program and if not retained by the 2012 Legislature, it will sunset after this final year.  The best way to keep it active is to use it.  Questions?  Let me know.

Transboundary Groundwater?

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken on the lawsuit Mississippi filed first against Memphis Light, Gas and Water, and later the state of Tennessee, over Memphis' pumping of groundwater from the Sparta Aquifer - a very prolific fresh water aquifer underlying both states.  Some are calling this the first transboundary groundwater case in the US.  Anyway, Mississippipi is claiming that as much as 30% of the water Memphis has been pumping for many years has been coming from under Mississippi, and that use of Mississippi groundwater is causing the state economic harm.  GMDA has covered this story and even captured some other coverages as well.  This will be an interesting court case, because as Michael Campana and others have already said, this will not be a small ruling - Mississippi is seeking a very large penalty.

Oops.  Did I miss this one!  My apologies.  All the above was true at one time, but as Jesse Richardson pointed out in a comment, I was in fact confused.  However, while the Supreme Court did effectively close Mississippi’s current claims over withdrawals from the aquifer back in 2010, they did so without prejudice, so Mississippi is still free to file an original action with the Supreme Court whenever they think they can sufficiently demonstrate injury.  The legal pundits are guessng that the two states will work out something by mutual agreement.  I'm betting this won't happen as amicably as the pundits are thinking it will.

Anyway, it still gets one to thinking about the nature and extent of transboundary groundwater, and whether or not the Ogallala might become the poster child for such legal actions.    I recall a Kansas Geological Survey study done a while back that quantified the impacts of northeast Colorado well production on the groundwater underflows crossing the state line into northwest Kansas.  Due to groundwater declines upgradient in Colorado caused by their pumping, the natural groundwater underflow into Kansas has been reduced.  Does this qualify for a lawsuit?   

There have to be scores of major and minor transboundary aquifers in the US, assuming an aquifer underlying two or more states qualifies as such.  Be advised that in the international community, a transboundary aquifer is only one that underlies two or more countries.  In their listing of the 274 known transboundary aquifers of the world, the Ogallala doesn't even show up.  In any case, another issue has to be the very wide range of influences caused by pumping centers likely to be present in any or all the states claiming damages.  This'll become a prior appropriation impairment call on steroids I'm afraid.  Oh well, it's a new day every day in groundwater - and thank you Jesse for such a diplomatic correction.