Water Woes: Vast US Aquifer Is Being Tapped Out

[NickB79]

http://news.yahoo.com/water-woes-vast-us-aquifer-being-tapped-222610439.html

Nearly 70 percent of the groundwater stored in parts of the United States' High Plains Aquifer — a vast underground reservoir that stretches through eight states, from South Dakota to Texas, and supplies 30 percent of the nation's irrigated groundwater — could be used up within 50 years, unless current water use is reduced, a new study finds.

Researchers from Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan., conducted a four-year study of a portion of the High Plains Aquifer, called the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides the most agriculturally important irrigation in the state of Kansas, and is a key source of drinking water for the region.

If current irrigation trends continue unabated, 69 percent of the available groundwater will be drained in the next five decades, the researchers said in a study published online today (Aug. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

snip

Scanlon pointed out that the new study does not consider the impact of extreme weather, such as droughts or floods. In 2011, Texas experienced a devastating drought that cost the state some $8 billion in economic losses, according to a report by Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. NASA satellites that studied the parched land determined that the drought depleted the region's aquifers to low levels that had rarely been seen since this type of mapping began more than 60 years ago.

So, we have 50 years of water left, IF we assume no future mega-droughts wrought by climate change.

Safe assumption, right?

[mbperrin]

1. Desalinate the ocean and pipe it wherever we need it.

I'm always amazed that we do this for filthy crude oil, but for some reason, people there's a problem doing it for water.

70% of the planet's surface is water - the only shortage is because corporations box us in and create it.

[hunter]

2. Desaliniztion takes a lot of energy.

If we're using fossil fuels to generate that energy it's a really bad idea.

Solar or wind powered desalinization would be very expensive at this point, and moving water uphill is also very expensive.

What will happen is the farms and towns will dry up and the people will move away.

[hatrack]

5. Even setting aside desalinization, moving water is incredibly energy-intensive

A gallon of water weights about eight pounds, and when you're talking about (A) supplying cities or (B) supplying farming (which is far more water-intensive), it gets costly fast, especially if you're moving from ocean desalination on the GOM to west-central Kansas, say Hodgeman County, KS, which is about 2,300 feet above sea level. Not terribly high, but one hell of a long pipeline run of about 800 miles.

The Edmonston Pumping Plant in California is a good example. The facility lifts water nearly 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains from the Central Valley to Los Angeles, sending it uphill through ten miles of tunnels.

It takes 835 megawatts of electricity to run Edmonston, and if you're talking about rescuing High Plains farmers from bad habits like depleting Ice Age aquifers, you're talking about multiple Edmonstons to even begin get the job done.

[mbperrin]

13. So moving petroleum products is cheap, but somehow water is too expensive.

Hmm. Seems strange, doesn't it?

[hatrack]

21. No, it's a question of scale

We're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil in most pipelines vs. amounts of water perhaps an order of magnitude greater.

[mbperrin]

25. Not really ever worked in the industry, have you?

These are daily rates for many pipelines. 70% of all petroleum in the world moves by pipeline.

And then of course, it is impossible to build more to carry water, especially, ooh, that carefully calculated order of magnitude more.

Well, you've all convinced me. We're going to die. I'm going to go kill the kids now to save them the misery of the slow death coming. Thanks for opening my eyes!


Who's sorry now...

[hatrack]

32. Good, you can leave any time - knock yourself out.

.

[CreekDog]

34. good block

[XemaSab]

35. +1

[hatrack]

38. It's the blazing gratuitousness of it all . . .

Sometimes I just don't get it, but thanks, guys!

[CreekDog]

39. he wasn't just arguing some science with you, he was dismissing the severity of the issue

while proposing a project to address it beyond comprehension.

if you didn't think it was a big deal and impossible to address, why would you post a solution that is beyond the scope and magnitude of anything we've ever done?

when users do that, they are just trolling the topic, in my opinion.

either they are deliberately being obtuse to disrupt, or they are so afraid of admitting they are wrong about something that they instead make themselves look like fools to avoid backing down.

[kristopher]

40. I don't think so

I don't see the responses as "dismissing the severity" of the problem; I see them more as a rejection of the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" tone that permeates everything some posters on this forum write. It really does get old.

As for the reality of the proposal - yes it is huge, but actually not into the area of the absurd.

Presuming the 6.8T gal is correct:
1) that doesn't mean a water project to bring drinking water to the region would have to equal that amount. How much is now being wasted with "sprinkler" type irrigation? In-ground seep type irrigation is probably a couple of orders of magnitude more effective at delivering water to the roots of the crops. And if water is scarce, there will be investment by the farmers in that type of irrigation system.

2) NYC alone imports 1.5Billion gal of water daily. So status quo withdrawals from the aquafer are about 12X NYC's consumption. HOWEVER - NYC does deliver the water from the mountains using gravity for the energy. That means the energy requirements are every bit as significant as claimed.

3) The volume handled by NYC does show that the claims about the amount of pipeline infrastructure are grossly overstated. There is no way the statement that the pipelines would cover an area of land equal to the amount of farmland is anything but wild hyperbole.

4) The economics are such that this type of project almost certainly would never get built. GG's point on cost is spot on and, even though we currently think nothing of paying $6-8/gal for bottled water in convenience stores, the fact is that the cities in that region are not particularly large nor economically important like NYC. None of them could attract the political or economic capital that would be required for a project of that magnitude.

Finally, I don't think mbperrin's ideas had anything to do with the reaction to his/her posts. This board's nuclear clique makes it a habit to make things miserable for anyone that routinely speaks out against nuclear power. The reaction to mbperrin's posts are typical of that tactic.

[CreekDog]

42. First, I'm anti-nuclear, Second, your arguments have problems, but at least you're trying, he wasn't

mbperrin was just disrupting.

regarding your arguments:

projects to bring desalinated water on a mass scale for irrigation would likely prevent us from ever reducing our energy consumption. think about that. it would blow a giant hole in any plans one has to slow or even reduce energy use. desalination using water at sea level, to be used in an area that includes large swaths of area in excess of 1000, 2000 and even 3000 feet above sea level is a massive undertaking.

Presuming the 6.8T gal is correct:
1) that doesn't mean a water project to bring drinking water to the region would have to equal that amount. How much is now being wasted with "sprinkler" type irrigation? In-ground seep type irrigation is probably a couple of orders of magnitude more effective at delivering water to the roots of the crops. And if water is scarce, there will be investment by the farmers in that type of irrigation system.

2) NYC alone imports 1.5Billion gal of water daily. So status quo withdrawals from the aquafer are about 12X NYC's consumption. HOWEVER - NYC does deliver the water from the mountains using gravity for the energy. That means the energy requirements are every bit as significant as claimed.

3) The volume handled by NYC does show that the claims about the amount of pipeline infrastructure are grossly overstated. There is no way the statement that the pipelines would cover an area of land equal to the amount of farmland is anything but wild hyperbole.

4) The economics are such that this type of project almost certainly would never get built. GG's point on cost is spot on and, even though we currently think nothing of paying $6-8/gal for bottled water in convenience stores, the fact is that the cities in that region are not particularly large nor economically important like NYC. None of them could attract the political or economic capital that would be required for a project of that magnitude.

[GliderGuider]

31. Not strange when you consider it relative to the value of the product.

Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Water in California is currently valued at 0.3 cents per gallon or so ($1000 per acre-foot). Crude oil at $100 per barrel has a value of $2.38 per gallon - almost 3 orders of magnitude more. So yes, it's much cheaper relative to the value of the product to ship oil by pipeline than water.

There's nothing strange about that at all, IMO.

[mbperrin]

12. Why would wind and solar be very expensive?

Their fuel cost is zero.

You think giving up everything you own is cheap?

[NickB79]

3. As hunter pointed out, it's VERY energy intensive

Beyond that, the amount of water we use daily absolutely dwarfs how much oil we use daily.

Currently, the US consumes 800 million gallons of oil daily. That includes oil not pumped cross-country in pipelines, like the stuff imported on tankers from Saudi Arabia.

The average US citizen uses 100 gallons of water daily: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html

With 300 million citizens, this translates to 30 BILLION gallons of water used daily. I don't believe this even takes into account industrial or agricultural use, either.

If we pumped as much water daily as we currently pump oil, it would still be a drop in the bucket for our water consumption.

[mbperrin]

14. Yet the OP doesn't say the whole country needs it.

Just the one aquifer.

Plus, it's impossible to scale up? Seems strange.

[NickB79]

18. One MASSIVE aquifer that irrigates millions of acres of land

For example, 21 MILLION acre-feet of water were pumped from it in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer#Aquifer_water_balance

There are 325,000 gallons per acre-foot, according to Google.

That means we're pumping 6,800,000,000,000 gallons of water ANNUALLY from it!

Absolutely mind-boggling numbers.

[mbperrin]

23. Not really. Have you ever been through and seen the Tri-Matics run?

Giant lawn sprinklers, that's all.

We can get water just like we get oil, except the water is already on top and accessible by laying a suction hose on the edge or by taking the water off the top of the membrane, as opposed to the rather elaborate methods required to bring oil and gas to surface, an industry I worked in for a decade as a manager.

[NickB79]

28. Let me repeat: 6,800,000,000,000 gallons of water ANNUALLY

If you think that's doable in any way, you're insane. Sorry, but those are the hard facts of the matter.

It's not the science of the matter, it's the scale.

It's like saying that, since I built a 2-ft diameter Death Star out of Legos, it's no problem to build a 1:1 model Lego Death Star in orbit.

And yes, I have seen the irrigation systems at work on the Plains. Yes, they are giant lawn sprinklers. Sprinklers that consume TRILLIONS of gallons of water every year. Your point?

[hunter]

20. Nope, can't "scale up."

Mother Nature's thermodynamics hates us.

We've got highly efficient pumps, we've got highly efficient desalinization, and it's not enough.

[mbperrin]

24. So no amount of research will help.

Well, that's it, then, we're all doomed.

Nothing to be done. Pack it in. Might as well kill ourselves now and save the suffering.

Let's call in a nuclear strike on everyone, including ourselves, since we're all dead anyway. Might as well put those weapons of mass destruction to some good use, eh?

It's a damn shame we can go to the moon and back multiple times, but we can't pump water uphill, nor can we remove the salt from it. Damn shame.

Well, I'll be going now, since all is hopeless, and do myself in. I suggest you do the same, instead of pooping around on the Internets.

Gloom, despair and agony on me....

[hunter]

29. Mother Nature bats last.

"Mother nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That's all she is. You cannot sweet-talk her. You cannot spin her. You cannot tell her that the oil companies say climate change is a hoax. No, Mother Nature is going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate. Mother nature always bats last, and she always bats 1,000."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Watson

I've also kicked the can with Garrett Hardin. I was severely pissed off when he killed himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

My end-of-life plan is to go out Matt Damon Elysium style.

Or we can chose something better.

[oldhippie]

4. Wow.

I can't believe an educated person could post a comment like that on an E&E forum.

[mbperrin]

15. Well, I did, so you can believe your own eyes, or you can just go with your

preconceived ideas.

Right?

[mopinko]

6. if we put the money into it, it could be done efficiently.

there is not enough research going into this.

[oldhippie]

7. What is your basis for that syatement?

What should be researched to move water uphill with less energy?

Efficiency is not necessarily cheaper.

[mopinko]

9. there was a story on here just the other day about

desalinization using nano membranes. could make it much cheaper.
it a pressing need that some people are smart enough to be working on. when it becomes critical, we will get off our asses.

[mbperrin]

16. Yes, Tampa is already using this - wave action leaves the salt in the ocean and

fresh water on top of the membrane.

[hunter]

30. In a gentle world we could make this work.

We do not live in a gentle world,

[mbperrin]

17. So your argument is that less research will help.

And that inefficiency could be cheaper.

I'd like one example of that, please.

[oldhippie]

22. Nope. Made no such argument.

nt

[mbperrin]

26. Sure you did. But since you won't own it, I won't be seeing you anymore.

Bye.

[hatrack]

33. You are gone - we don't need the snark, the hostility and the legions of strawmen

nt

[NickB79]

19. I did the math in post #18

There isn't enough money in the world to replace the water we current extract with desalination and piping systems.

Even if we could, it would make most of the US look like this:

We'd lose half or arable farmland just building the damn pipes to support the other half.

[mbperrin]

27. Money is just pixels on a page. That's never an issue.

Transport it through the existing network of rivers and streams - it's not oil, doesn't need to be sequestered from people.

Otherwise, we might as well kill ourselves now since nothing at all can be done, no matter what.

[CreekDog]

36. if what you propose is as difficult as others say, then why not do something easier but possible

like reducing water usage.

reducing water usage saves energy, saves water and reduces the need for extraordinary measures like you're proposing, which of the scale you indicate is needed, and without consideration for cost or energy use, isn't even feasible.

but we've saved water before, we can conserve further.

[CreekDog]

41. transport it through existing rivers and streams? treat them like canals and conveyances?

1) what happens to those streams when you add a bunch of water to them?

2) after you've used tons of energy to purify this water, you'll need to treat it again for drinking and household use --that's crazy

3) what level of salinity would we be treating sea water to? if it's low enough for drinking, that may increase the salinity level of the rivers you are transporting it through and that may have dire effects on the environment.

[mopinko]

37. is this what it took to extract it?

how can it take more to replace it than it did to extract it?

[OnlinePoker]

8. I read this study about ground water extraction and sea level rise

This is from 3 years ago and they estimated that a quarter of the sea level rise can be directly attributed to water being extracted from acquifers for consumption and irrigation.

http://www.uu.nl/EN/Current/Pages/Wereldwijdonttrekkenvangrondwaterleidttotzeespiegelstijging.aspx

[mopinko]

10. thanks for answering a question that always comes up

when DH and i talk about these issues. pumping water back into dead aquifers might have an impact on sea level rise.
would the water be desalinated by its trip through the limestone, do you think?

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Study forecasts future water levels of crucial agricultural aquifer

http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/aug13/groundwater82613.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Study forecasts future water levels of crucial agricultural aquifer[/font]

Monday, Aug. 26. 2013

[font size=3]MANHATTAN -- If current irrigation trends continue, 69 percent of the groundwater stored in the High Plains Aquifer of Kansas will be depleted in 50 years. But immediately reducing water use could extend the aquifer's lifetime and increase net agricultural production through the year 2110.

Those findings are part of a recently published study by David Steward, professor of civil engineering, and colleagues at Kansas State University. The study investigates the future availability of groundwater in the High Plains Aquifer -- also called the Ogallala Aquifer -- and how reducing use would affect cattle and crops. The aquifer supplies 30 percent of the nation's irrigated groundwater and serves as the most agriculturally important irrigation in Kansas.

"Tapping unsustainable groundwater stores for agricultural production in the High Plains Aquifer of Kansas, projections to 2110" appears in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, or PNAS. The study took four years to complete and was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Kansas State University's Rural Transportation Institute.

"I think it's generally understood that the groundwater levels are going down and that at some point in the future groundwater pumping rates are going to have to decrease," Steward said. "However, there are lots of questions about how long the water will last, how long the aquifer will take to refill and what society can do."

…[/font][/font]