science communicatin

Crowdfunding Science: A personal journey toward a public campaign

Crowdfunding Science: A personal journey toward a public campaign

Post by Jared van Rooyen, MSc candidate in Earth Science at Stellenbosch University, in South Africa.

Part one of three in a Crowdfunding Science series by Jared.


When my supervisor, Dr Jodie Miller, suggested to me last year that we should look at crowdfunding as a way to potentially to fund my master’s project, I had no idea of what I was about to get myself into. All through my honours year I was not really interested in doing further postgraduate study. She kept warning me that I might change my mind and that I should apply for funding “just in case”. But I was sure of my position.  And then, as I started the final five weeks of my honours year, I finally got to focus 100% on my research project. Suddenly, as I focused in on my data, all the possibilities started to leap out at me. I went from a BSc (Hons) student, who was not considering continuing my postgraduate studies at all, to someone who is passionate about water resource research and continuing my postgraduate career. This is apparently common amongst postgraduate students in science, who become exponentially more immersed in their field of study as they realise that their work isn’t just numbers and experiments, but has significant real world applications.

Once I had committed – there was no turning back. The learning curve for mounting a successful crowdfunding campaign is steep and slippery. As much as it is hard, stressful work it is also fulfilling, fun, and full of surprises. The biggest obstacle is one that most modern day scientists are confronted with already: How do I make my research attractive to people who don’t have years of passion invested in my work?

Well, the answer is not simple.

I have completed a wide variety of modules in my tertiary studies but none in any forms of multi-media marketing skills. So naturally, when I had this crowdfunding campaign in front of me, I was so far out of my comfort zone that I felt like a geologist at a slam poetry evening. After numerous conversations with my peers who had experiences in marketing and graphic design, I had gathered a basic understanding of the inner workings of the unfathomably enormous media machine.

From the very first day I arrived back at the University in Stellenbosch I was drowning in ideas and administration. Setting up the social media accounts alone was a mission. Little did I know that running a social media campaign takes days and even weeks of preparation and planning each public post, including the post’s time, target market, outcome goals, and context. Each post on each platform had to be vetted and boosted appropriately. I was genuinely missing the late nights combing through complicated scientific articles and pounding through textbooks.

Making the campaign video was by far the hardest but definitely the most fun part of the process. The hours and hours of footage I have of retakes and drone videos culminated in, what I believe, is the pinnacle of my creative career (which is minuscule).

About a week before the initial launch date, we ran into some red tape within the University. Naturally, as someone who has never done anything more than post a couple photos of rocks on Instagram, I had no idea that a project like this needed to go through a number of stages before being approved by the university (which included: legal, ethics, corporate, marketing, and the faculty itself). A couple of panic-ridden meetings and documents later, we were ready for lift off, although a week later than originally planned.

As a geologist, I am not afraid of hard work, so engulfing myself in learning as much as I could in the little time I had came more naturally. What was most intimidating though, was the thought of putting myself and what I am passionate about out there. Publicly declaring the fact that what I wanted to achieve was not funded was daunting at first, but in time became a revelation in self-awareness and that asking for help is more constructive than admitting defeat.

I believe that postgraduate crowdfunding may prove to be invaluable in the future of students that have all the potential but their projects remain unfunded. Not only does it allow for the financial security of your project, but it attracts people that are interested in your field to you and to your work. The most significant consequence of this crowdfunding approach is that when you graduate, you already have a network of people in the industry that know who you are and know of your potential.

The crowdfunding campaign was completed in early April of 2017. In the next blog I will talk about what worked and what didn’t work, who pledged funding and how did we reach them.


Jared van Rooyen is an MSc student at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. His primary field of interest is in isotope hydrology with major applications in groundwater vulnerability and sustainability. Other research interests include postgraduate research funding solutions and outreach as well as scientific engagement with the use of modern media techniques.


Check out Jared’s (and research group’s) thundafund  page here.

Good groundwater management makes for good neighbors

Good groundwater management makes for good neighbors

Post by Samuel Zipper, postdoctoral fellow at both McGill University and the University of Victoria, in Canada. You can follow Sam on Twitter at @ZipperSam.


Dedicated Water Underground readers know that this blog is not just about water science, but also some of the more cultural impacts of groundwater. Keeping in that tradition, today’s post begins with a joke*:

Knock, knock!

Who’s there?

Your neighbor

Your neighbor who?

Your neighbor’s groundwater, here to provide water for your plants!

Figure 1. Typical reaction to joke written by the author.


Perhaps this joke needs a little explanation. As we’ve covered before, groundwater is important not just as a supply of water for humans, rivers, and lakes, but also because it can increase the water available to plants, making ecosystems more drought resistant and productive. However, we also know that groundwater moves from place to place beneath the surface. This means that human actions which affect groundwater in one location, like increasing the amount of paved surface, might have an unexpected impact on ecosystems in nearby areas which depend on that groundwater.

Imagine, for example, two neighboring farmers. Farmer A decides retire and sells his land to a developer to put in a new, concrete-rich shopping center. Farmer B continues farming her land next door. How will the changes next door affect the groundwater beneath Farmer B’s land, and will this help or hurt crop production on her farm?

In a new study, my colleagues and I explored these questions using a series of computer simulations. We converted different percentages of a watershed from corn to concrete to see what would happen. Our results showed that the response of crops to urbanization depended on where the land use change occurred.

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram showing how urbanization might impact crop yield elsewhere in a watershed. From Zipper et al. (2017).

In upland areas where the water table was deep, replacing crops with concrete caused a reduction in groundwater recharge, lowering the water table everywhere in the watershed – not just beneath the places where urbanization occurred. This meant that places where the ecosystems used to be reliant on groundwater could no longer tap into this resources, making them more vulnerable to drought. However, places where the water table used to be too shallow saw boosts in productivity, as the lower water table was closer to the optimum water table depth.

In contrast, urbanization happening in lowland areas had a much more localized effect, with changes to the water table and yield occurring primarily only in the location where land use changed, because the changes in groundwater recharge were accounted for by increased inflows from the stream into the groundwater system.

So, what does this mean for the neighboring farmers we met earlier?

For Farmer A, it means the neighborly thing to do is work with the developers to minimize the effects of the land use change on groundwater recharge. This can include green infrastructure practices such as rain gardens or permeable pavement to try and mimic predevelopment groundwater recharge.

For Farmer B, the impacts depend on the groundwater depth beneath her farm. If the groundwater beneath her farm is shallow enough that her crops tap into that water supply, she should expect changes in the productivity of her crops, especially during dry periods, and plan accordingly.

*Joke written by scientist, rather than actual comedian.


For More Information:

Zipper SC, ME Soylu, CJ Kucharik, SP Loheide II. Indirect groundwater-mediated effects of urbanization on agroecosystem productivity: Introducing MODFLOW-AgroIBIS (MAGI), a complete critical zone model. Ecological Modelling, 359: 201-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.06.002



Sam Zipper is an ecohydrologist. His main research focuses broadly on interactions between vegetation and the water cycle, with a particular interest in unintended or indirect impacts of land use change on ecosystems resulting from altered surface and subsurface hydrological flowpaths. You can find out more about Sam by going to his webpage at: samzipper.weebly.com.

Of Karst! – short episodes about karst

Of Karst! – short episodes about karst

Episode 2: Dissolving rock? (or, how karst evolves).

Post by Andreas Hartmann, Lecturer in Hydrology at the University of Freiburg (Universität Freiburg), in Germany. You can follow Andreas on twitter at @sub_heterogenty.

Didn’t get to read Episode 1? Click this link here to do so!


In the previous episode, I introduced karst by showing how it looks in different regions in the world. This episode will now deal with the processes that create such amazing surface and subsurface landforms. The widely used term “karstification” refers to the chemical weathering of easily soluble rock composed of carbonate rock or gypsum. Most typical is karstification of limestone (consisting of the mineral calcite, CaCO3) or dolostone (consisting of the mineral dolomite, CaMg(CO3)2). If exposed to CO2 rich water these rocks are dissolved to form aqueous calcium (Ca2+) or magnesium (Mg2+) and bicarbonate (HCO3 ) ions. For calcite, karstification is described by the following chemical equilibrium:

The dissolution of carbonate rock depends on various factors. Imagine a solid block of salt, which you pour water on. If completely solid, the water will flow down the salt surface slowly dissolving the block. If fractured, water will eventually enlarge the fractures in the salt block and dissolution will occur much faster. Now imagine smashing the salt block before pouring water on it. In such circumstances the salt will dissolve even faster as the surface area exposed to the water is much larger.

Karst and its evolution (educational video provided by Jennifer Calva on Youtube).

The same is true for karstification. If the carbonate rock is heavily fractured, it will dissolve faster than unfractured carbonate rock. Another factor is the availability of CO2, that depends on the relative amount of CO2 in the air, air temperature and soil microbiotic processes. Other factors are the purity of the carbonate rock, the availability of water, and the supply of CO2 from the surface. As soon as karstification takes place, more water will be able to pass the dissolution enlarged fractures providing more and more CO2, and creating a positive feedback between rock dissolution and water flow:

Positive feedback between carbonate rock dissolution and water flow (Hartmann et al., 2014, modified).

The hydrochemical processes described in this episode of the Of Karst! Series not only create beautiful karst landscapes but they also have a strong and particular impact on water flow paths in the subsurface, which will the topic of episode 4 that can be expected in early 2018. Before, I will present a special feature about karst in the movies as topic of episode 3 in autumn 2017.

Further reading

Hartmann, A., Goldscheider, N., Wagener, T., Lange, J. & Weiler, M. 2014. Karst water resources in a changing world: Review of hydrological modeling approaches. Reviews of Geophysics, 52, 218–242, doi: 10.1002/2013rg000443.

Ford, D.C. & Williams, P.W. 2013. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons, 576 pages.




Andreas Hartmann is a lecturer in Hydrology at the University of Freiburg. His primary field of interest is karst hydrology and hydrological modelling. Find out more at his personal webpage www.subsurface-heterogeneity.com.


Groundwater & Education – Part One

Groundwater & Education – Part One

Post by Viviana Re, postdoctoral researcher at the University of  Pavia (Università di Pavia), in Italy. You can follow Viviana on Twitter at @biralnas.

Part one of a two part series on groundwater and education by Viviana.


Education /ɛdjʊˈkeɪʃ(ə)n
The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.

  • from Latin educatio(n-), from the verb educare
  • Educare is a combination of the words e (out) and ducare (lead, drawing), or drawing out.

Based on this definition, I should change the title of this post to: Drawing out groundwater (from the well). This is actually the main occupation of groundwater scientists, isn’t it? Not only are we always withdrawing groundwater from a well or a borehole while sampling, but we also often have to “draw it out” when dealing with managers and policy makers, as sometimes they seem to forget about this hidden (but very important) component of the water cycle. Therefore, we are quite used to these forms of “drawing out” – but what about education? Are we really that effective in “drawing out” groundwater in explaining its peculiarities, issues, and connections within the whole water cycle and, more generally, with the environment?

Indeed, the effort of shedding light on something that is not so visible nor easily studied has the side effect of forcing us to focus solely on it, with a resulting tendency of developing sectorial approaches to water management.

In the preface of a UNESCO Technical paper, I found the following excerpt: “Water resources schemes are now increasingly considered as integrated systems and consequently, civil engineers, geologists, agricultural engineers and hydraulic engineers engaged in planning and design no longer work in isolation”. The document is dated 1974 but, still in 2017, we are somehow struggling to fitting groundwater into Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and to connecting mental and structural “silos”. Quoting Daly (2017), the latter is particularly relevant (especially when education is at stake): if on the one hand, specialization can be the driver for a sound knowledge; on the other hand, this can encourage people to get stuck in their own individual disciplines (or said in other words, their “silos”). Indeed, “silos” exist in their structures, but can also exist as a state of mind that can go hand in hand with tunnel vision (Tett, 2015).

Therefore, in my opinion, the new generation of groundwater scientists (and teachers) should have a new mission: to work (and therefore, to teach) coherently with the integrated and complex nature of the water cycle. In fact, the role of hydrogeologists and groundwater scientists in times of increasing freshwater demand, exacerbated by population growth and climate change effects, requires a serious shift towards a more holistic approach targeting sound groundwater assessment and long-term management.

Arguably, if we are still discussing possible ways of practically implementing this integration, we should definitely start asking ourselves if the the “business as usual” way of working and teaching is effective.  If it is not, we must begin investigating how we can go beyond classical approaches to draw groundwater out of the well.

Playing with kids while sampling … can we call it capacity building?!


To be continued …

[Read More]

What is the difference between ‘water withdrawal’ and ‘water consumption’, and why do we need to know?

What is the difference between ‘water withdrawal’ and ‘water consumption’, and why do we need to know?

Post by Inge de Graaf, University of Freiburg, Environmental Hydrological Systems group


Last week I had to teach my first class in global hydrology. When I showed the global trend on increasing demands and withdrawals (see Figure) I needed to explain the different terms as sometimes the term “water use” gets, well, misused.

The term “water use” often fails to adequately describe what happens to the water. So I told the students; if you see or hear to term ‘water use’ always ask yourself what’s actually being said. The term is often used for water withdrawals or water consumption, and it’s important to understand the difference.

Water withdrawal describes the total amount of water withdrawn from a surface water or groundwater source. Measurements of this withdrawn water help evaluate demands from domestic, industrial and agricultural users.

Water consumption is the portion of the withdrawn water permanently lost from its source. This water is no longer available because it evaporated, got transpired or used by plants, or was consumed by people or livestock. Irrigation is by far the largest water consumer. Globally irrigated agriculture accounts for 70% of the total water used and almost 50% is lost either by evaporation or transpiration.

Understanding both water withdrawal and consumption is critical to properly evaluate water stress. Measurements of water withdrawal indicate the level of competition and dependence on water resources. Water consumption estimates help to quantify the impact of water withdrawals on downstream availabilities and are essential to evaluate water shortage and scarcity. For example, most water used by households is not consumed and flows back as return flow and can be reused further downstream. However, water is rarely returned to watershed after being used by households or industry without changing the water quality, increasing water stress levels.

Already more than 1.4 billion people live in areas where the withdrawal of water exceeds recharge rates. In the coming decades global population is expected to increase from 7.3 billion now, to 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN estimate). This growth, along with rising incomes in developing countries, is driving up global food demands. With food production estimated to increase by at least 60% (FAO estimate), predicting water withdrawal and consumption is critically important for identifying areas that are at risk of water scarcity and where water use is unsustainable and competition amongst users exist.

Global trend I showed in my class, published in Wada et al (2016).


Wada, Y., I. E. M. de Graaf, and L. P. H. van Beek (2016), High-resolution modeling of human and climate impacts on global water resources, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 8, 735–763, doi:10.1002/2015MS000618.


FloPy: A Python interface for MODFLOW that kicks tail!

FloPy: A Python interface for MODFLOW that kicks tail!

Authored by: Kevin Befus – Assistant professor, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering at the University of Wyoming

Groundwater modeling is getting better. Models are becoming more sophisticated with simpler interfaces to add, extract, and process the data. So, at first appearances, the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) recent release of a Python module named FloPy for preparing, running, and managing MODFLOW groundwater models seems to be a step backwards.

Oh, but it isn’t.


First, a couple disclaimers. Yes, at the time of writing this I work for the USGS and use this new Python module for my research. Did I have to use FloPy? No. Am I glad I did? YES! Before using FloPy, I dabbled in the various non-commercial MODFLOW interfaces but got bogged down on how many drop down menus, pop-up menus, wizards, and separate plotting programs with their own menus were needed to make a meaningful groundwater model on top of a new lexicon of variable names (IUPWCB must mean “internally unknown parameter with concentrated bacon”, right?).

FloPy made its official debut in February 2016 with a Groundwater methods report 1. Bakker et al. do an excellent job telling us why we should use FloPy. I’ll leave that to you and tell you what I think.

Here’s what is great about FloPy:

  1. FloPy is 100% MODFLOW. No tweaks to anything. You choose the executable file you want it to use or compile it yourself, and you’re off!
  2. You have the near-infinite data management, manipulation, and plotting capabilities of Python at your fingertips. Python has a lot of packages. It can be overwhelming. You can rely commercial packages like ESRI’s arcpy if you want, but there’s a list of free libraries that give you even more freedom to get the input data just right. Since I mentioned freedom, here’s the list of free libraries I find useful but it is in no way an endorsement nor exhaustive: scipy, numpy, gdal, osgeo, fiona, shapely, cartopy, pyshp, pandas, matplotlib, and let’s not forget…flopy!
  3. It’s easy to duplicate and alter an existing model. Once you have your script perfect for running a particular groundwater model, you can take pieces of it to make a slightly altered version, or you can pop it in a loop that runs through your uncertain inputs for sensitivity testing. Change your grid with the flip of a variable, and make sure that mesh converges!
  4. Loading other MODFLOW models works great. Say you want to run someone else’s model with slightly different recharge, but their recharge is variable in space. Since FloPy incorporates numpy’s grid/matrix handling capabilities, you can change individual entries with row-column selections or change the whole recharge grid by multiplying it by either a single number or say a random matrix with a normal distribution and some added noise. If you just want to use their recharge data to run your own model, you can save the position coordinates (they have hopefully provided you with their coordinate system and model transformations) and recharge arrays to your very favorite format (csv, nc, mat, tif) and load it later as a matrix to add to your model, all in a single Python script.
  5. Building off of the ability to load or create MODFLOW models, FloPy has functions for plotting 2D map or cross-section views of the model discretization, boundary conditions, and results. Shapefiles can be included in these plots if they are in the same coordinate system as the model or extracted from the model (ever want a polygon feature of every model cell with attributes for every property of that cell?). I do my own shapefile manipulations in Python, but FloPy has some great plotting tools built in.
  6. You already have the data in Python. See what adding a low permeability layer does to spring discharge. Then, with the model made, you have to make sense of it. Maybe develop some interesting spatial or time series analyses. Enter Python. Plotting with matplotlib also makes beautiful, journal article-worthy figures…with enough sweat and tears from your end (not as many as you may think). Yes, this is a repeat of 2), but, seriously, it’s in PYTHON!
  7. FloPy is totally free. Python is free. Tons of science-oriented libraries in Python are free.


Here’s a flashy example.  It is straightforward and only takes one script to create a SEAWAT model from scratch and plot the 2D steady state salinity distribution and flow vectors for a simple Henry 2 problem based on a slightly edited FloPy example script.  There are more than a dozen example scripts available on the FloPy site as well as a very cool capture ratio script provided in the methods report 1.

For the groundwater educators out there, a FloPy groundwater model script can be paired with homework questions that get students testing how changing hydraulic conductivity in certain parts of the model changes the water table configuration. Or maybe a new well needs to be drilled on a plot of land near a spring… The scenarios are endless. Students can develop a fundamental understanding of groundwater flow while getting experience with both groundwater modeling and computer programming. Win, win, and win.

Essentially all of the standard MODFLOW packages are operational in FloPy, and there are varying levels of support for some of the specialized MODFLOW compilations and processing tools (e.g., MODFLOW-USG, MODFLOW-NWT, MT3DMS, SEAWAT, PEST, and MODPATH). PEST and MODPATH are currently not executable with FloPy, but these features will probably be added in a future release (I have made my own klugy modules for running ZoneBudget and MODPATH that interface reasonably well with the rest of FloPy).

Get on your way and give FloPy a try today!


The Python package is available online at https://github.com/modflowpy/flopy.

The documentation is available online at http://modflowpy.github.io/flopydoc/index.html.

The USGS FloPy page is http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/flopy/.


Bakker, M., V. Post, C. D. Langevin, J. D. Hughes, J. T. White, J. J. Starn, and M. N. Fienen (2016), Scripting MODFLOW Model Development Using Python and FloPy, Groundwater, doi:10.1111/gwat.12413.

Henry, H.R., 1964. Effects of dispersion on salt encroachment in coastal aquifers. In: Cooper, H.H. (Ed.), Sea Water in Coastal Aquifers: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 1613-C p. C71–C84.

About the author:

Kevin Befus is a groundwater hydrologist with geology and geophysics experience — examining geological, biological, and chemical processes, especially considering their connections to water across scales.


One hell of a great groundwater textbook now available free

One hell of a great groundwater textbook now available free

‘Groundwater’ the seminar text book from Freeze and Cheery (1979) is free in pdf now…just follow the links here. This text book is almost as old as I am and important parts of modern hydrogeology are rusty or non-existent (like hydroecology amongst other topics) but it is still lucidly written and useful.  I routinely send students to read chapters so I am happy that it is now available free.

Kudos to Pearson Publishing, Alan Freeze and John Cherry and Hydrogeologists without Borders! I look forward to Groundwater2.0 which is in the works!



The new and exciting face of waterunderground.org

The new and exciting face of waterunderground.org

by Tom Gleeson

I started waterunderground.org a few years ago as my personal groundwater nerd blog with the odd guest post written by others. Since I love working with others, I thought it would be more fun, and more interesting for readers, to expand the number of voices regularly posting. So here is the new face of the blog…


a kind of weird image of collective action

What is the new blog all about?

Written by a global collective of hydrogeologic researchers for water resource professionals, academics and anyone interested in groundwater, research, teaching and supervision. We share the following aspirations:

  • approachable groundwater science at the interface of other earth and human systems
  • encourage sustainable use of groundwater that reduces poverty, social injustice and food security while maintaining the highest environmental standards
  • compassionate, effective supervision
  • innovative, effective teaching
  • transparency of scientific methods, assumptions and data

Check out more details and how to be part of the blog on about.

Frequent contributors include:

  • Andy Baker (University of New South Wales, Australia) – caves and karst (I actually visit the water underground!), climate and past climate
  • Kevin Befus (University of Wyoming, United States) – groundwater-surface interactions, coastal groundwater, groundwater age
  • Mark Cuthbert (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom) – groundwater recharge & discharge processes, paleo-hydrogeology, dryland hydro(geo)logy, climate-groundwater interactions
  • Matt Currell (RMIT University, Australia) – isotope hydrology; groundwater quality; transient responses in aquifer systems
  • Inge de Graaf (Colorado School of Mines, United States) – global groundwater withdrawal, flow and sustainability
  • Grant Ferguson (University of Saskatchewan, Canada) – groundwater & energy, regional groundwater flow, sustainability
  • Tom Gleeson (University of Victoria, Canada) – mega-scale groundwater systems and sustainability
  • Scott Jasechko (University of Calgary, Canada) – global isotope hydrology; groundwater, precipitation, evapotranspiration
  • Elco Luijendijk (University of Gottingen, Germany) – paleo-hydrogeology,deep groundwater flow,large scale groundwater systems
  • Sam Zipper (University of Wisconsin – Madison, United States) – ecohydrology, agriculture, urbanization, land use change

Can we use an infrared camera to tell us how much groundwater is coming out of the side of a cliff?

Can we use an infrared camera to tell us how much groundwater is coming out of the side of a cliff?

By Erin Mundy – a plain language summary of part of her Masters thesis

Groundwater is an important resource, with approximately 2 billion people around the world using groundwater everyday. Although most groundwater is beneath our feet, sometimes groundwater leaks out of stream-banks, hill sides and cliff faces – this is called groundwater seepage. Current scientific methods are not able to measure the amount of groundwater that leaks out of these landscapes. Scientists have used infrared cameras (cameras that show the heat of an objects) to identify groundwater seepage on hill-slopes and stream banks (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Digital image (a) and temperature image (b) of a seep in the summer and a digital image (c) and temperature image (d) of the same seep in the winter

This is because groundwater has an distinct heat signal, having a relatively constant temperature throughout the year (~10 degrees Celsius). Building on these studies, we hoped to find out the possibilities and limitations of using infrared cameras to measure the amount of groundwater that leaks out of the side of a cliff. We wanted to test if groundwater was flowing out of a cliff face slowly in the summer would warm up as it traveled down the rock, so the heat signature of the groundwater would go from cool water (that comes out of the rock, ~10 °C) to warmer water (warmed due to the sun and air temperature). On the other hand, we wondered if groundwater was flowing fast out of the cliff-face, it would not have time to warm, because the cool groundwater would be consistently running over it. In the winter, we believed the opposite would happen, that the groundwater would be warmer, relative to the surroundings, and show a cooling trend as the water traveled down the rock.


We found an unused mining pit in Saint Dominique, Quebec, that had lots of groundwater seeps coming out of the exposed rock, and used this as our test location. The mining pit had 3 different levels, as shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2: an aerial shot of the quarry with the seeps labeled.

We took infrared and optical photographs of the seeps during seven visits that spanned from January 2013 – October 2014. Three visits took place during the winter (January – February 2013), coinciding with periods of below freezing so that the effect of extreme cold on seeps could be analyzed. Four visits took place during the summer/fall (June – October 2014), coinciding with sunny and hot conditions, and cloudy and warm conditions in order to determine the effect warmer temperatures have on seepage. In addition to these visits, we also completed a 24-hour experiment, where we took infrared pictures of two seeps every half hour for 24-hours, to determine the effect of sunlight and changing air temperature on the seep temperature signature. We also created an “artificial seep” experiment, where we released water from two large tubs over the cliff at the pit for 8 hours; one tub had water released at a slow rate, while the other at a faster rate, to see if we could replicate the heat signals from the real seeps. We took pictures with the infrared camera every half hour for eight hours for that experiment. We analyzed the infrared photos from each visit using a computer software that allowed us to determine the temperature along the seep.

In the winter, groundwater flows out the rock at warmer temperatures than it’s surroundings, making it easily distinguishable. We found that there was a clear relationship between seeps with active groundwater flow and areas of ice growth on the following visit. So, in the winter, if you use an infrared camera to locate where groundwater is flowing on the side of a cliff, you can assume there is a good chance that ice will eventually form at these spots. However, the groundwater did not cool along the rock face, as we had expected it would. This suggests frozen seeps are complex and it is unlikely that temperature pictures can determine the rate of flow of groundwater seeps in the winter.

In the summer, we found that lower flowing seeps did warm up as the water traveled down the rock face, as compared to faster flowing seeps, which did not show as much warming. However, in the 24-hour experiment (where we took infrared pictures every half hour for 24 hours of two seeps), we found that the temperature signature of the seeps changed throughout the day. During the day, there was much more warming of the groundwater as it traveled down the cliff, whereas at night it did not warm as much. This is most likely due to the presence of sunlight and warmer air temperature during the day, which warms the water more as it is traveling down the rock.

In the “artificial seep” experiment, we found that the “seeps” showed more warming than the real seeps. This is probably because we only ran the experiment for 8 hours, so it did not have time to mimic the conditions of real seeps. Also, we noticed that instead of flowing down the rock face, some of the water was actually seeping into the rock, along the breaks in the rock. This may be another reason why the seeps showed more warming, as not enough water was flowing down the rock (instead it was flowing into it).

After completing these experiments, we have concluded several possibilities and limitations for infrared pictures of groundwater seeps.


  • Locate groundwater seeps in all seasons
  • Locate groundwater seeps in winter and from this, areas of ice growth can be predicted
  • Distinguish between lower flowing seeps and higher flowing seeps in summer (lower flowing seeps have more warming as the water travels down the rock face, higher flowing seeps do not have as much warming)


  • Need to have a large difference in temperature between the air and groundwater to notice seeps. During the third winter visit, only one seep was identified to be flowing by the infrared camera. However, visual observations showed that eight seeps had groundwater flowing. This is because the temperature of the groundwater was too similar to the temperature of the air, making it not possible to detect the groundwater flow.
  • Groundwater seeps in the winter are complex and do not show a cooling trend, therefore it is unlikely that temperature pictures can determine the rate of flow of groundwater seeps in the winter
  • Breaks in the rock affect the flow of seeps, redirecting the flow, making it hard for temperature pictures to accurately determine flow
  • Sunlight and air temperature affect the “warming” and “cooling” of the groundwater flow, with more warming present during the day and less at night. Focus needs to be on determining the optimal time to use infrared pictures to show the “warming” (or “cooling”) trend.
  • The infrared camera itself has limitations. To use some functions of the camera, you have to correct your data for certain factors (like angle of the camera, humidity, etc.). If you don’t, you won’t be showing accurate data. This limits the amount of things you can do with the infrared camera and must be taken into account in order to ensure the pictures you captured are correct.


Despite the large number of limitations, infrared pictures is effective at locating groundwater seeps in all seasons, and able to distinguish between lower flowing seeps and higher flowing seeps (in the summer), which makes this technique a valuable, non-invasive way to study groundwater seepage. Future work should look at determining the optimal time to capture infrared pictures of seeps to determine a relationship between groundwater flow and temperature signatures.



Baseflow, groundwater pumping, and river regulation in the Wisconsin Central Sands

Baseflow, groundwater pumping, and river regulation in the Wisconsin Central Sands

By Sam Zipper, postdoctoral fellow at Madison and author of tacosmog.com

We often think of groundwater as a nonrenewable reservoir, deep underground, and with good reason – less than ~6% of groundwater globally entered the ground within the past 50 years. However, where a river or stream intersects the water table, water is able to move from the aquifer to the stream (or vice versa). This supply of shallow groundwater to streams is called ‘baseflow’, and is an important supply of water for many streams worldwide, especially during dry seasons or periods of drought. Below, we can see that baseflow makes up more than 50% of total streamflow over most of the world:


Global estimates of baseflow index – the proportion of streamflow that comes from groundwater or other slowly varying sources, like upstream lakes and wetlands.

The ability of groundwater to contribute to streamflow depends on the water level of the aquifer in the area surrounding the stream. Therefore, human actions that lower groundwater levels (such as pumping for urban or agricultural use) can impair the ability of an aquifer to supply water to streams during dry periods, with potentially devastating consequences for streamflow.

One example close to my home is the Central Sands region of Wisconsin, which is a large region found (not surprisingly) in the center of the state with particularly sandy soils. The sandy soils are perfect for growing potatoes, and the Central Sands is primarily an agricultural region; however, because water drains quickly from sandy soils, irrigation has become an increasingly important part of the landscape:


In addition to agriculture, however, the Central Sands region is home to many rivers, lakes, and streams. Recently, one river in particular has become a microcosm of the debate surrounding the impacts and trade-offs of agricultural water use: the Little Plover River. While only 6 miles long, the Little Plover is a prized brook trout fishery and important ecosystem within the region. According to American Rivers, which listed the Little Plover as one of America’s 10 most endangered rivers in 2013, streamflow in the Little Plover has been decreasing since the 1970s and flows today are roughly half of the historical normal. The situation in the Little Plover came to a head in 2005, when several stretches of the Little Plover dried up, with predictably negative consequences for the fish.

Over the past decade, the Little Plover has been mired in legal controversy. In 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources established what they call a “Public Rights Flow”, or a required amount of streamflow that the public is entitled to flow through the river. The advocacy leading to the establishment of this Public Rights Flow was primarily by conservation groups like the River Alliance and Trout Unlimited, with the goal of protecting fish and the rest of the stream ecosystems. In order to set the threshold, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources first established a baseline level as the 7-day average low flow with a 10% probability of occurring in a given year, and then adjusted this value upwards based on estimates of the flow necessary for to provide fish habitat and recruit trout. Despite the positive step of establishing a Public Rights Flow, measurements during the 2012 drought were consistently below the thresholds set by the Department of Natural Resources, and the Little Plover even dropped below the thresholds in 2013 and 2014, both of which were relatively wet years for Wisconsin.


The Little Plover in 1997 and the first time in ran dry in 2005 (Friends of the Little Plover)

The current debate surrounding the Little Plover hinges on whether the Department of Natural Resources is legally allowed to consider cumulative impacts when permitting new high capacity wells in the region. Previously, the Department of Natural Resources was not considering cumulative impacts, which means that for every well application, they are only allowed to think about that well in isolation – and the effects of a single well are typically small enough that the Department of Natural Resources does not have sufficient grounds to deny a permit. However, the relatively small impacts of many individual wells can add up to cause a big overall effects on local groundwater resources. This changed in 2014, when a judge ruled that the Department of Natural Resources should be considering cumulative impacts. The effects of this ruling remain to be seen, but it improves the DNR’s ability to manage groundwater and surface water resources while considering the interactions between the two.

Thus, the Little Plover River provides a powerful example of a case where a little bit of groundwater drawdown can lead to big environmental, political, and economic issues. Currently, hydrogeologists at the Wisconsin Geological Natural History Survey and USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center are working on developing a groundwater flow model of the region to help understand the impacts of groundwater withdrawals on the aquifer, and what that means for local surface water features like streams and lakes. Because the waters of the Central Sands are valued for many different uses, including farming, urban supply, and outdoor recreation, the team building this model has been working closely with different groups of users to determine the priorities and needs of the various water users the region, and make sure that their scientific tool they develop is both useful to and trusted by the decision-makers in the region. As the future of the Little Plover and other rivers unfold under increasing human pressures and climate change, it is critical that water scientists work together with the public to conduct fair and unbiased science that provides timely and useful information for the decision-making process.


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: