Archive

Climate

Leadership Part 2

December 20, 2012
Climate, communciations, Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
1 Comment

Among the many things I do is work with college seniors as they get ready to graduate and hit the job market.  The changes you use in many of these students over that last year in school is often significant, and in some cases remarkable.  Different students grow differently and the potential starts to appear.  Some gain confidence in their skills and begin to grow into the profession.  Some of these students are likely to make good leaders in the field in the future.  But trying to guess which ones and why it is often a challenge.  However I want them all to have some concept of what leadership is all about.  For many of them, they will end up in the water/wastewater/stormwater field.  They are going to have to deal with tough issues like rebuilding deteriorating infrastructure, sea level rise, climate changes, stressed water supplies, energy demands and a more demanding electorate.  They will recommend increasing water and wastewater fees.  But will they have the skills to encourage decision-makers to move forward with the needs of the system.  You see, that’s where leadership comes into play.  Often it is little things that set things into motion.  Our engineers go into the world with a technical skills et, that ability to learn to solve problems with solutions.  We try to encourage them to be creative.  An assigned reading is “The Cult of the Mouse” by Henry Caroselli, who urges creativity above profits in the workplace.  Mr. Caroselli is right in that it is creativity that allows us to come up with innovative solutions, the ones that change how we live.  It is also where the patents and economic opportunities exist.  America rose to greatness in the 20th century in large part because of automobiles – we figured that out and it made some many things possible.  Computers became common place in the latter part of the century.  We use the technology for both in the water/wastewater/stormwater industry.  In fact they have made us so much more efficient that costs have not climbed as fast as they might have, which is why cable tv is normally more expensive than your water bill.  Which one do you need to live?  My hope is that today’s students figure out energy solutions that will carry us forward as a world leader in the 21st century.  Those alternative energy options, greater efficiency of current technology.  Each will allow the utility industry to improve it’s efficiency further.  The City of Dania Beach built the world’s first LEED Gold water plant.  That took a little vision on the part of the utility director Dominic Orlando.  And a cooperative team of consultants and students.  When we give these projects to young people we can be surprised because they often don’t know that “that’s not the way we do it.”  Well that’s exactly what Mr. Caroselli said.

So we look for leadership.  Creativity, innovation and the “Can-do” mentality are part of leadership, but not all.  There is that ability to set a vision, like Mr. Orlando did in Dania.  There is the ability to convince decision-makers of the wisdom of an idea, as opposed to doing like we always did to make the shareholder happy as Mr. Caroselli noted.   Selling innovation is often the hard part because that’s were the costs are.  But there is more.  Often the selling of a good idea is difficult.  You can be ridicules by the status quo.  Many ideas are just lost in the shuffle because they never receive a voice.

Leadership is often not understood at the time it is occurring.  Ok, maybe we figured this out when Lincoln was President, but if you read accounts of his Presidency, the early years are marked with indecision and backtracking before he got it right.  Most of that is forgotten in lieu of the ultimate results.  Many of the issues we face today need real leadership to create a long-term solution.  The “fiscal cliff” issue is a prime example, as it the long-term need for solutions for social security, Medicare and medical costs in general.  The need to fix the infrastructure that made our economy strong should be among those priorities also.  Remember, we don’t remember the councilman, mayor, legislator. manager, director or President who did not raise taxes or water bills.  They do remember those who solved problems

Planning or Just Shots in the dark…

October 31, 2012
Climate, communciations, Environment, infrastructure, Leadership, management, planning, sea level rise, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

I had an interesting email exchange with a guy in north Florida who was trying to educate the Legislature on why planners are always wrong with their projections and their studies should be ignored as a result.  His specific issue was water supply, but it could have been any number of issues.  His argument was that the projections for water use made in 1976 were incorrect and in fact total water demands in the State had been basically flat over that period.  He’d be unhappy to know that Florida mimics the rest of the country.

Ok, I admit that in addition to being an engineer, I have a minor in planning and a degree in public administration.  I attempted to communicate with him about the purpose of planning, not that it helped.  Planners outline projections of what things will likely be IF not changes are made.  The reason is to prompt policy or behavioral changes prior to reaching critical tipping points.  The argument in 1976 was that Florida would run out of cheap water if current trends continued.  In the intervening years, there have been major efforts toward water conservation, low flow bathroom fixture and major changes to irrigation practices.  All of which made the water picture far better than the 1976 projection.  See the planners were not wrong – the projections indicated the problem if nothing was done, and acted in part as a catalyst for change.  This is what planners dealing with water supply needs, sea level rise and a host of other planning issues are supposed to do.  If we understand what the potential problems are, maybe we can take action to avoid tipping points.  This is not to say all projections are perfect or even correct, but the idea is to avoid reaching a point of no return.  Isn’t that what smart people should do?  Apparently not to the guy on the other end of the email.  Happy Halloween.  Er, no this was just scary because it was real!!

Sea Level Rise? Or Rising?

October 23, 2012
Astronomical tides, Climate, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Tidal flooding, water sewer management, water supplies
3 Comments

October is the month that brings us the astronomical tides, or locally to the coasts, the annual high, high tide.  The position of the moon relative the Earth creates a slight alteration in the gravitational pull of the moon on the oceans so high tide, is, well high!  If you lived in a coastal areas, what did you see?  Or experience?  Southeast Florida was rife with email chatter and photographs of flooded streets, yards, and canals.  The City of Fort Lauderdale sent notices to residents warning them about the tides.  We had no rain, just the tide coming in.  These are low lying areas that 20 years ago did not flood except during storms.  This is just a phenomenon that has been monitored in coastal areas over the past 5-10 years, depending on the complaints that have come into local officials.

One of the more interesting complaints I received in my career was in Hollywood Florida where a resident complained about the “fish in the street.”  Sure enough, the storm drain in front of his house was connected directly to the Intracoastal waterway and the October tides had pushed the saltwater up through the catch basin into the street.  Now these weren’t snook or redfish, they were little fish escaping the snook and redfish, about 3-5 inches long.  Pretty funny stuff if you think about it.  Realizing the problem, I called him 3 hours later and asked if the problem had been solved.  He said told me I was a genius to fix that so fast.  My boss told me to take advantage of luck and drop the explanation, but to design a solution (which we did).  My boss was right, but the call made me more cognizant of the issue.

15 years later, I have a student developing models of what happens during the annual high and average tides, especially with respect to the potential for flooding in low lying areas where groundwater is just below the surface.  His work is impressive.  A lot more land, especially inland, may flood as a result of the annual tides, which are a precursor to the long term trend of rising seas.  See the groundwater has a slight upward gradient as you move inland.  As a result, you cannot use the tide levels to predict inland flooding, you need to add the tides on top of historical groundwater levels.  Of course the wet season is the summer in Florida, so the October tides come just at the time groundwater levels are highest.  But at least we can determine where the stormwater pumping improvements need to go.

Determining where stormwater pumping is needed is only part of the problem.  As sea levels rise, more stormwater management will be needed and a place to put the water will become a problem.  Discharging nutrient laden stormwater to tide is not a good answer when you have fragile reefs offshore.  NOAA’s Florida Area Coastal Environment  (FACE) Initiative outline this (see intensives study – http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/themes/CoastalRegional/projects/FACE/Publications.htm).  Instead, perhaps at some point we may develop infiltration systems to capture this high water table “problem” and convert it to water supplies, solving two issues for southeast Florida.  Might be 2030, but we probably should be doing some planning….

 

What is the Risk of Expanding Groundwater Irrigation?

September 26, 2012
Climate, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water supplies
Leave a comment

The demand for more food crops to feed a hungry world has expanded the need for irrigable lands.  Few want to risk the 1930s dust bowl or the droughts of the 1950s, especially with ongoing recurrent drought periods across much of North America on a regular basis.  The access to electricity and modern submersible pumps over the past 80 years has permitted a huge expansion in the amount of irrigation performed with groundwater.  Fly over the western United States and look for “crop-circles” where center wells act as the spoke for rotating irrigation systems.  They are obvious.  But virtually all of them are located in areas where surface water is not available and groundwater is the only source of water available for irrigation.  This might work where the groundwater is surficial, but if the groundwater were surficial and found in large quantities, wouldn’t there be surface waters that intercept the groundwater?  The groundwater would feed rivers, lakes and streams.  But in most places with center pivot irrigation, the groundwater is located well below the surface, and low rainfall means that recharge to these deeper aquifer systems is limited.

Irrigation use accounts for 40% of total water use in the United States.  USGS reports that in Arkansas and Nebraska, 90% of irrigation is groundwater.  These states are two largest groundwater users in the country.  California and Texas are right behind them in total use, with groundwater accounting for 80% of irrigation use.  Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota and Washington are among the states with irrigation accounting for in excess of 90%+ of total groundwater use, although their total use is much less than that of the other four states.  The areas irrigating with groundwater in all of these states competes directly with rural potable users, both individual and small cities, and with ecosystems that may support tourism, fishing, hunting and other outdoor activities.  Unfortunately USGS also reports that in all of these states, there are areas with severe declines in aquifer levels.  For example in South Dakota, USGS estimates that 70% of the water has been withdrawn in 30 years.  So the answer in 20 years will be……  There is no answer at the moment.  Some think we should just drill deeper, but this normally comes with added costs, assuming aquifers actually exist at these deeper levels.  But agriculture can’t afford to pay for treatment, meaning they it will be difficult for them participate in a solution.  Too few people in cities means alternative supplies like reclaimed water are not available.

The irrigation from deeper aquifer that do not recharge readily is indicative of a resource management paradigm that suggests we manage water supplies for a certain period of time (usually our lifetime or work period).  The consequences beyond that timeline are not considered because it is “beyond our lifetime” or planning periods, or we assume “someone will come up with something…”  Non-surficial groundwater supplies throughout the United States and probably the world should be viewed like a scratch-off lottery card.  Once in a while you have a winner, but it’s never enough to sustain you for the long-term, let alone pass it to your kids. And once it is spent, it’s gone.  Likewise once deeper aquifers are drained….  Bryan Fagan suggests most civilizations ultimately failed as a result of water woes.   If we want our civilization to survive well beyond our time, perhaps we should revisit history.

The long-term civilization model suggests we should consider a paradigm shift with respect to non-surficial groundwater.   Non-surficial groundwater is a resource that is finite – water that is stored, but once depleted, cannot be readily replaced.  That is not a sustainable solution and suggests that these types of groundwater sources should not be looked at as primary water supplies for irrigation, or for power or urban or domestic use for that matter – they should be considered back-up sources to protect us from surficial droughts that occur periodically.  The dust bowl impacts would have been lessened if we had back-up irrigation supplies from wells.  But in the future, if the aquifers are dry, and surficial droughts occur, the impact directly affects our food supplies and our economy.  We are often caught in defining the “long-term” as 20 years, but the US is 235 years old, but still considered young.  Our perspective of 20 years as long-term is only a quarter of a lifetime, which clearly falls short of long-term from the perspective of civilization.   Something to think about….

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY THROUGHOUT TIME – BUT NOW WHAT?

September 6, 2012
Climate, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water supplies
Leave a comment

I was cruising through Glacier Bay National Park when I wrote this.  Just an inspirational moment.  If you have never seen it, you should, especially as a water professional.  The entire park is a testament to the power of water and the result of changes in climate cycles that affect the hydrologic cycle.  I will post video of the journey separately, but suffice it to say that the inherent beauty of the place is difficult to describe.  Needless to say with a large concentration of glaciers in the area (most retreating), there is copious amounts of water (for now).  The Pacific Glacier has retreated 65 miles, yes MILES, in 300 years in part because of changes in oceanic moisture and evaporation.  The native people, Tlingets, moved and survived based on glacier flows end ebbs.  But that’s not my point.  Seeing this much water leads to an entirely different perspective, one that is helped by Brian Fagan’s book, Elixir which outlines the history of civilizations as they were affected by harnessing of water, or the lack of ability to do so.  Same thing applies to the Tlingets here.

Historically the key was to rely on surface waters where they were consistent, to manage water locally and carefully for the benefit of all, and when surface waters were not consistent enough to be reliable year after year, quanats, shallow wells and other mechanisms were used to extract water from glacial till or adjacent to rivers (riverbank filtration or infiltration galleries in today’s vernacular).  Or people moved or died out. The ancient people did not have the ability to dig too deep, but were creative in means to manage available supplies.

Contrast this to today where over the last 50 years we have been able to extract water from ever expanding, generally deeper sources, but to what end?  Certainly we have “managed “ surface waters, by building dams, diversions and offstream reservoirs.  These supply half the potable water use in the United States and Canada as well as a lot of irrigation.  But groundwater has been an increasing component.  Fagan makes the point that deep groundwater sources are rarely sustainable for any period of time, and that many in the past have recognized this limitation.  But have we?

Maybe not so much.  A couple years ago I was at a conference out west.  The session I was speaking at involved sustainable groundwater, a major issue for AWWA, ASCE, NGWA and the utilities and agricultural folks around the world.  One of the speakers was a geologist with the State of Utah.  Her paper concerned the issues with decreasing groundwater levels in the St. George and Cedar City, areas in southwestern Utah, where population growth is a major issue.  Her point was that despite the State efforts, they had significant drawdowns across the area.  Keep in mind that the USGS (Reilly, et al, 2009) had identified southwestern Utah as one of many areas across the US where long term decreasing groundwater levels.  My paper was a similar issue for Florida, so I stopped partway into my paper and asked her a question:  has any hydrogeologist or engineer trying to permit water in the area ever said the water supply was not sustainable?”  The room got really quiet.  She looked at me and said, “well, no.”  In fact the audience chimed in that they had never heard this from their consultants either.  The discussion was informative and interesting.  Not sure I really finished my presentation because of the discussion.

To be fair, consultants are paid to solve problems, and for water supplies, this means finding groundwater and surface water limited areas like Utah when their clients request it.  So you don’t expect to pay your consultant to find “no water.”  But where does that lead us?  The concept of sustainable yield from confined aquifer systems is based on step drawdown tests.  Ignoring the details, what this constitutes is a series of short term tests of the amount of drawdown that occurs at different pumping levels. AWWA’s manual on Groundwater can give you the details, but the results are short-term and modeling long-term results requires a series of assumptions based on the step drawdown test.  This is that had been submitted in support of permits in Utah (and many other places).  As discussed in the conference session, clearly there is something wrong with this method of modeling and calculation because, well, the results did not match the reality.  The drawdowns increased despite modeling and step drawdown tests showing the demands were sustainable.  Clearly wrong.  Competing interests, the need to cast a wider net, and many other issues are often not considered.  The results play out throughout the world.  Confined aquifers are often not sustainable, a potential problem for much of agriculture in the farm belt of the US.  Are we headed the same direction as ancient people?

The good news is that these same hydrogeologists and engineers have the ability to help solve the sustainability problem.  We need a new definition for “safe yield.”  We need a better means to estimate leakance in aquifers.  A project I did with injection wells indicated that leakance was overestimated by a factor of 1000 to 10,000, which would drastically alter the results of any model.  More work needs to be undertaken here.  The overdraw of confined groundwater is a potential long-term catastrophe waiting to happen.  And the consequences are significant.  The question is can we adapt?

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE. GAS TOO. WHAT TO DO?

August 13, 2012
Climate, Environment, groundwater, sustainability
Leave a comment

 

I recently spent time in Denali National Park and surrounding area.  60 in the day, 45 at night, and this time of year, rain.  Lots of rain.  Denali creates its own weather, so precipitation and clouds are common for much of the year.  But it was not all the water in the Denali area that interested me as much as some local discussions about methane release from the permafrost.  I was told that many of the native populations rely on storage below ground in the permafrost to freeze winter provisions.  But a curious thing has occurred in recent years – some of the provisions spoiled.  It seems the permafrost relied upon for generations as a natural freezer is no longer permanent in some areas and the soil, frozen for generations, is now suddenly soggy.  Once unfrozen, the soil appears to release copious amounts of methane that has been trapped for years (no smoking on the tunda!).  The issue is further complicated by the fact that some of the methane could potentially get into surface water supplies and without power, and with limited funds, the treatment becomes far more difficult.

Interesting…for those of you who are interested in climate change, either side, read this

August 2, 2012
Climate, Environment, management, sustainability
Leave a comment

2012-07-28 conversion-of-climate-change-skeptic  from the New York Times

July 28, 2012
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Berkeley, Calif.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the
very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost
entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two
and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the
scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before
1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which
allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from
urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor
ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we
demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the
particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small,
rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening”
of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but
systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar
activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of
sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
“Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite
measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude
is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and
they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least
as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our
analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden
assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed
temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative,
exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down,
not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by
2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or
“Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent
warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is
weaker than tenuous.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of
temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that
matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with
the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart
of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to
proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China
continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds
one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions
that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global
warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and
should be done.
Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the
author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

Our Disappearing Groundwater

July 21, 2012
Climate, Environment, finance, funding, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

The need for more water for urban and agricultural uses has drive even more competition for limited supplies in stressed basins.  The effects of urbanization and agriculture on surface water supplies are obvious to most people.  We have also seemed the ecosystem impacts from surface water diversions and pollution.  As a result, many areas have pursued groundwater, the unseen resource.

I have been touting a USGS report (#1323 by Reilly, et al, 2009) to many in the water industry.  It is an important report that gives us a little insight on state of groundwater supplies in the US.  As we have developed arid regions and developed better pumps to irrigate in dry places, groundwater has been the obvious choice.  And it is not regulated in some states.  However the extensive and in many cases excessive use of groundwater creates the long-term potential for loss of water supplies in many jurisdictions.  Determining groundwater availability involves more than calculating the volume of groundwater within any given aquifer:  it requires a consideration of recharge, water quality, the economics of recovery or of poor quality, interconnectedness with the hydrologic system and ecosystem/user demands.  Rarely is a consultant paid to determine that sustainable water supplies are not available.  The result is the potential for aquifer drawdown that are accompanied by aquifer mining and land subsidence.  The result is declining water levels in aquifers.

Confounding the situation are confined aquifers that are disconnected for localized recharge and often have overestimated recharge.  The common practice to evaluate aquifer productivity is pump wells that have a significant drawdown for only a few hours each day, allowing an extended period for the aquifer to recover.  Reilly et al, 2009 estimates that the pumpage of fresh ground water in the United States is approximately 83 billion gallons per day (Hutson et al, 2004), which is about 8 percent of the estimated 1 trillion gallons per day of natural recharge to the Nation’s ground-water systems (Nace, 1960), which sounds like it is not a serious issue.  However, Reilly et al, 2009 found that the loss of groundwater supplies in many areas will be catastrophic, affecting economic viability of communities and potentially disrupting lives and ecological viability.

Drilling deeper is not a solution.  Deeper waters tend to have poorer water quality as a result of having been in contact with the rock formation longer and dissolving the minerals in the rock into the water. Additional power will be required to further treat limited, lower quality supplies.  Therefore, while some deep aquifers may be prolific, the quality of water obtained from a well may not be desirable or even usable for drinking water without substantial amounts of treatment.  In addition, most deeper aquifers are confined and therefore do not recharge significantly locally.  The withdrawal of water may appear to be a permanent loss of the resource in the long-term. For example, portions of the aquifer in eastern North and South Carolina were virtually denuded in due to pumpage because there is no local recharge.  As a result the aquifer was mined, exceeding its safe yield, and the large utilities converted to surface water. Likewise, most of the aquifer use in the western states of the U.S. are poised similarly since they have minimal potential for recharge.  In parts of the western plains state and Great Basin, the aquifers have dropped hundreds of feet, but with an average of 13-18 inches per year of rainfall, and high evaporation rates throughout the summer, little of this water has potential to recharge the aquifer (Bloetscher and Muniz, 2008).

 

Rarely will permit writers or consultants tell you there is no more water available, but if groundwater levels keep declining, clearly the groundwater is over allocated.  It also appears that we have misjudged recharge to most confined aquifers.  They simply do not recharge at the rates estimated creating a long-term decline.  In some cases, maybe many cases, recapturing the water needed to recharge the aquifer will not happen in our lifetimes without specific capital to do otherwise.  Nature just doesn’t recharge confined aquifers quickly.  One reason we like them for water supply.
So the questions are these:

Are many confined aquifers better suited to be drought protection, backup supplies to surface supplies, as opposed to primary water supplies?

  • What is the solution for agricultural operations and utilities where groundwater is quickly diminishing?
  • When can we start the dialogue to manage groundwater resources better in the US without all the legal and political constraints that currently work against protecting our nation’s groundwater supplies?

Clearly we won’t make everyone happy, and may make a lot of people very unhappy.  But better to make those decisions now, than in 20 or 30 years when the groundwater runs out?

What About Climate Change?

July 5, 2012
Climate, Environment, infrastructure, management, water sewer management
Leave a comment

There may be few topics that raise more discussion in the US than climate change. Whether arguing it is catastrophic to the other end of the spectrum that is it all nonsense, the discourse masks the real question:  Is there a concern for the utility industry?  Interesting the answer seems to depend on where you are.  The focus here is to discuss why and where it matters, and why for many of us, it may not.

 

The scientific literature provides strong evidence that global climate change is affecting the world’s water resources (Karl et al, 2009; UNEP, 2009; IPCC, 2007), including ocean acidification, global temperature rise (Figure 1), receding ice caps, melting glaciers, changing precipitation patterns, and sea level rise (IARU, 2009; Karl et al, 2009; USEPA, 2008; IPCC, 2007). These effects may result in more severe drought or flooding, varying stream flow patterns, rising sea levels along the coasts, and contamination of freshwater aquifers and coastal water bodies as a result (IPCC, 2007).  Eleven of the 12 years between 1995 and 2006 rank among the warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperature data (i.e., since 1850) (IPCC, 2007). The global average sea level has risen at 3.1 ± 0.70 mm/year since 1993 (Cazenave, 2008), which is more than the 2.1 mm/yr for most of the 20th century. The rise in atmospheric and water temperatures may result in greater uncertainty in the amount, intensity and timing of precipitation. Much of the precipitation effect across the United States will likely be manifested by changes in the magnitude of rainfall during existing seasons, such that most regions will likely see wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons (P. Gleick, 2008; Tebaldi et al, 2006; Groisman et al, 2005).

 

The reality is that if you have lived for 40 or more years, your perception that the summers seem less severe and the summers hotter, is a correct reality.  And most people perceive this.  So how does this affect utilities and should everyone be concerned?  Well it depends…..

 

The first utilities focusing on climate impacts on waters supplies were in the Pacific northwest.  Why?  Because many of these utilities rely on glaciers to store water for raw water supplies.  For years the glaciers have melted slowly after the winter, providing water supplies consistently throughout the summer months, only to be regenerated in the winter again.  But many of these utilities noted that the glaciers were getting smaller and projecting ahead, there might not be any glaciers in 50-100 years.  That’s like having your reservoir go dry and no precipitation to refill it.  This is a problem, and given the location, significant planning efforts are required to address the problem.

 

Utilities in the Rocky Mountain states noted that winters were warmer and often less snowy.  The current beetle problem is indicative of the loss of the weather-related stressors that controlled the beetles (cold and wet).  The mountains hold heavy snow for summer built environments, that are expanding rapidly.  Less snow to fill reservoirs is a similar concern to loss of glacial material.  Summer of dry right now in Colorado.

 

Along the eastern seaboard, planners have noted that sea level has risen 9 inches since the 1929 vertical datum survey.  The sea level rise appears to have accelerated recently.  Ocean temperatures area reported by NOAA to be higher, which means that sea level rise may be driven by thermal expansion f the ocean (basic heat equation form chemistry), and glacial melt is reported to be a contributing factor.  Sea level rise is troubling for coastal communities and may threaten local water supplies.

 

In southeast Florida, the geography is different – the land actually slopes downward as you go inland.  50+% of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, over 4 million people, live on land below 5 feet above the 1929 sea level.  The South Florida Water Management District reports that they have lost 15% of the drainage capacity of the canal system already and could lose 70% with another 9 inches of sea level rise.  Huge problem is you live at elevation 3.  Moving is an obvious, but unrealistic solution.  I mentioned over 4 million people.  How about over $3 trillion in property and $300 billion/yr in economic activity?  That would be a catastrophic disruption for the state.  Hence sea level rise is an action item for the area, but gains no traction state-wide.

 

In each of these areas, the focus has been strategies that utilities and planners should pursue for adaptation to se level rise.  Heimlich et al (2009) suggested a milestone approach – when you hit a certain milestone in the climate change scenario, you should have completed certain armoring activities and be poised for another set.  That relives local officials of the problem of not planning ahead, while preventing the premature expenditure of funds.  The key is adaptation solutions to protect the current conditions.  And most of the infrastructure needed is local, so expect local funding to be the impetus for local armoring, not federal or state funds.

 

But why isn’t everyone concerned and is this purely a political issue – “red” vs “blue” states?  In a recent paper I published (Bloetscher, 2012) I noted that much of the state of Florida is unconcerned with the issue, and while very much a “red” area, the issue may not be completely politically motivated.  The same is true of much of the heartland of the US.  Their impacts may be less rainfall that today, but given limited rainfall now, how much difference will that make?  It may be that in these areas, the heat, and power demands created by higher summer temperatures may be a far more critical factors, and one that only tangentially impacts the water industry as a result of competition for cooling water.

 

So is there a concern for the utility industry with respect to climate variation or change?  The answer is it depends on where you are, and where is matters, efforts should be ongoing to deal with the long term problem.  For the rest, maybe not so much.  Where we really may see a problem is with power demands and water, another subject for another day.