OK, The Poll Had To Go

Sorry about the poll.  I should have known it was a bad idea.

After 8 days I had 4 votes cast.  Over that same time I had 558 page views.  So, it appears virtually no one cares to take the time to participate in blog polls - not mine, anyway.  Of course, it's also possible everyone participates in blog polls and these 4 visitors have stopped by 137 times each... Isn't it?

The good news is 100% voted that my blog was good just the way is is.  No need to broaden its scope, or focus more, or turn it over to a better writer, or give it up.  Well, if you voted, thanks.  If you didn't, well, you've shaken my confidence to its very core.  Anyway you look at it, you won't have to worry about any more polls on this blog.  Now, back to the business of water.

Predicting Full Aquifer Recovery

Trying to understand the aquifer recovery process following a pumping season for irrigation has led to some interesting things.  First, the rate of recovery is not constant, but increases as time goes by - at least in the unconfined aquifer conditions we have here.  Secondly, there are 2 distinct stages of aquifer recovery - the first being the initial 1000 hours (41 days) and the second being everything afterwards.  Thirdly, our aquifer never recovers fully before the following year's pumpage begins to drop it again.

With data loggers in a dedicated index well taking water level measurements every 2 hours since the Summer of 2007, we have data on four full recovery stages and three full pumping stages.  (See data and graphical results here)  The data has been plotted both as a semi-log recovery curve and as a Horner recovery curve - for each recovery year.  All the plots show a distinct, 2-stage recovery process.  Here is a Powerpoint update with many of the graphs and data sets.

What is so amazing is that the theoretical full recovery (as predicted by the Horner plots) will take a full year or more to happen.  This finding has implications on the true accuracy of the annual well measurements Kansas has been collecting since the mid-1940s.  This was a surprising find.

The graph included (click to enlarge) shows the projected full recovery levels for each of the three captured recovery periods as red dots.  For ease of understanding they have been assigned to the same dates as the highest physical recovery even though these recovery levels would not be achieved for another 6 months to a year. The yellow dots are the annually measured (official water levels) for this well for all four years.  Using the annual measurements, we think this well's 2010 water level was at 2974.5'.  Using the 2010 theoretical recovery level (following the 2009 pumping season) the water level would be 2978.9' - a difference of 4.4 feet.

Discerning what the water level is for any data point is simply not all that easy and straightforward.

But what is straight forward is voting on my poll.  So go ahead, do it!

They Call Me "Institutional Memory" Now

Had to chuckle today when I got a call from my colleague in SW Kansas asking to access my institutional memory reserves.  Seems he has a case where an Oklahoma irrigator has filed for a new water right in Oklahoma just up against the Oklahoma / Kansas border.  The problem is that there is a municipal well and water right just a couple of hundred feet away in Kansas.  He wanted to know if I had ever run into this situation since our GMD extends to the Kansas / Colorado border (and of course since I've been doing this for 34 years now).

I pondered.  And I responded:  Back in about 1980 I suggested to the KS chief engineer that Kansas and Colorado and NW Kansas GMD 4 and Colorado Plains GMD work on a mutual well spacing agreement specifically to avert this kind of situation.  It didn't have to be anything hoity-toity - just a signed, 1-page agreement saying that each state would honor some well spacing distance from each others wells along the border.

WOW!  Word came back that such an agreement would be unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 10:  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ..., enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State).  No, we weren't going there.

A few weeks later the Plains GMD and our GMD plotted all our wells within 2 miles of the state line and traded this information.  Upon a handshake we agreed to take into consideration each others' wells when processing new applications in each of our districts.  Turns out neither one of us ever had a new water right application close enough to the line to invoke our mutual (common sense) understanding, but I certainly was sincere about it.

But that story didn't help my Kansas friend at this point in time.  For his case, I suggested he contact the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and express as much concern as possible, as I was aware of no Kansas law that offers this kind of protection.  Turns out this was the exact advice he received from the Kansas Division of Water Resources.  Too bad states don't have a little latitude in cases like these - short of an interstate compact, that is.  And yes, I'm still chuckling as I hadn't thought of that escapade in many years.  Don't even know if today I could find the mapped wells they provided me so long ago.  Institutional memory my butt!

BTW - don't forget to join the 4 intrepid folks who have voted in my poll thus far.  I will remember these votes for at least several weeks!  Thanks.
 

TransCanada and the Keystone XL Pipeline

TransCanada has filed for a US permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline to move crude oil from the oil sands of northern Alberta, Canada to Cushing, OK and then on to US Gulf Coast.  The pipeline capacity will start at 591,000 barrels per day (bpd), is proposed at 700,000 bpd, and will increase to 900,000 to 1.1 million bpd - depending on the source.  The pipeline route is shown on the map here. (click to enlarge).

The issues are many.  Some of the hottest are:

1.  The product is dirty and continues to promote reliance on fossil fuels;
2.  The steel being used is from China and is weaker than US steel;
3.  It will cross the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska posing an environmental risk;
4.  It will create 13,000 jobs and reduce US reliance on Middle East oil;
5.  Pipelines are [most dangerous / safest]  way to transport crude;
6.  Tar sands crude is more caustic than regular crude;
7.  There is no real need for this much extra transmission capacity;
8.  The extra transmission capacity will provide important transmission redundancy;
9.  The monitoring is insufficient;
10.  TransCanada has no effective spill response plan;
11.  And the list goes on and on!

The public reaction is very divided.  The New York Times has opposed the permit based on environmental concerns.  The Washington Post has equally supported the project on jobs and reduced reliance on foreign oil.  Union labor supports it - environmental groups are generally opposed.  And the horror stories abound.  The Post cites a 800,000 barrel spill in Michigan last summer from a similar pipeline operated by a competitor of TransCanada.  Of course, according to TransCanada, this pipeline will be state of the art - bigger, faster, stronger.  And besides, the vast majority of pipeline leaks are small - most involving less than three barrels, 80% involving less than 50 barrels, and less than 0.5% involving more than 10,000 barrels. To move the same volume of oil into the U.S. by train would result in 50 railway accidents for every pipeline accident (according to Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration).  Here is a very recent list of myths and facts prepared by TransCanada  Who ya gonna believe?

The permit application has been promoted, supported, maligned, cussed and sued and yet it continues getting consideration and may eventually be approved - albeit with some strings attached - like enhanced monitoring, job concessions, whatever.  Kansans who are opposed are really down on the project - they believe state officials sold them out by offering the company multiple years of tax abatements - amounting to many, many dollars of lost state revenue.  It's not going to get political, is it?

All in all, I'd have to say that I oppose the pipeline.  As much as I appreciate the jobs and reduced oil reliance, I think continued reliance on fossil fuels is a mistake.  The same amount of money invested in wind or solar or other alternative energies would in the long run be the wiser choice. (Boy, am I glad I didn't write this two weeks ago and include nuclear).

There is a bunch of info out there if you're interested in more - just Google "TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline" and settle in for a long research session.

Local Control with State Oversight?

I have been asked before how Kansas manages local control provided by the Kansas Legislature.  The local Groundwater Management Districts were newcomers to the water scene in the state when authorized in 1976, which had been managed and regulated by the division of water resources under the state engineer.


It begins with the Legislative Declaration contained in the GMD Act, which says:  

It is the policy of this act to preserve basic water use doctrine and to establish the right of local water users to determine their destiny with respect to the use of the groundwater insofar as it does not conflict with the basic laws and policies of the state of Kansas. It is, therefore, declared that in the public interest it is necessary and advisable to permit the establishment of groundwater management districts.

The GMD Act also says:

Before undertaking active management of the district the board shall prepare a management program. Upon completion of the management program the board shall transmit a copy to the chief engineer with a request for his or her approval. 

This would appear that the Chief Engineer has significant control over the local management programs.  But, this section of the act goes on to say:

The chief engineer shall examine and study the management program and, if he or she finds that it is compatible with article 7 of chapter 82a of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto and any other state laws or policies, he or she shall approve it and notify the board of his or her action.

This added wording changes a lot in that the chief engineer's review of the local GMD's management plan is just to insure its consistency with the Kansas water appropriation act and other state laws.  Regardless of what the chief engineer feels about the plans of a GMD, as long as it's legal, he or she pretty much has to go along with it.


So, in a nutshell, this is how Kansas has structured its local control with state oversight - at least as far as the Management Plan goes.  As far as other influences the chief engineer can have over a GMD and its activities, I'd be lying if I said there were none.  The technical support the state can provide, or not provide, and many other subtle working items do factor in.  For these, it's the old fashioned "build a working relationship of trust and cooperation over years" and these will take care of themselves.

GMDA to Meet

The Groundwater Management District Association (GMDA) meets twice a year - a Winter meeting usually in the first half of January, and a Summer meeting usually in early June.  The Winter conference is the formal meeting where most of the business happens - like board elections, resolutions, and the like.  The Summer meeting is more of a technical session most heavy on the inner workings of local groundwater management.

June 1-3, 2011 GMDA will be meeting in Estes Park, CO at the Stanley Hotel (haunted, no less).  You are invited to attend if you have an interest in groundwater management, and invited to join if you are a groundwater management district person, an associated business or even an individual with an interest.  Contact me (Wayne Bossert, PO Box 905, Colby, KS 67701) for more information.

GMDA has two web sites:  Main webpage; and a History site to help you get acquainted.  There are some incredible local groundwater management people - both staff and board members - who will be in attendance.  Visit the main webpage for more details of the Estes Park Conference.

(Hey, don't forget to vote in the poll !!!!)  

Water Policy

I want to talk a bit about Water Policy. Now everyone’s got an opinion of what it is – at least to them and their interests – so I’m asking that you put your notions aside for now and consider what I think it isn’t, or shouldn’t be.

If you shuffle the letters around a bit the first thing you discover is “water policy” can be a “lawyer topic”. As you develop yours, make sure the attorneys help the local parties define and implement effective water policy rather than craft it for you solely in ways that can be easily defended legally. They work for you, you know.

Shuffle the letters again and “water policy” becomes just a “wiry ole pact” – developed in smoke-filled, back rooms no doubt. And maybe with no one but lawyers present. Such is not conducive to good water policy which needs wide, effective and informed public airing.

One more letter shuffle reveals the words often heard by most of the participants following new water policy implementation: “Lo, wet piracy”. How often is new water policy just a re-distribution of the already short supply – with a lot of losers and a few winners? The “wiry ole pact” approach will almost assure this response.

The last shuffle gives us the real essence of too many water policy developments today: “Try, wail, cope”. In the end, water is so important to every one and everything that simple solutions are rarely workable. But, does the complexity inherent in any good water policy mean that we are destined to try new stuff, wail about it at great length, and eventually resign ourselves to coping with the results? I hope not.

It is a shame there are no good, positive anagrams for “water policy”. I’ll have to think about what that might mean…