WaterUnderground

student and young water leaders

Update on the groundwater situation in Cape Town

Update on the groundwater situation in Cape Town

Post by Jared van Rooyen, PhD student in Earth Science at Stellenbosch University, in South Africa.


When the Cape Town water crisis first emerged it took almost a year before active contingencies were put in place. Four major ideas were proposed: (1) Intense water restrictions for municipal water users, (2) greywater recycling facilities, (3) groundwater augmentation of water supplies, and (4) desalination.

Although not all the proposed ideas came to fruition, there was a significant increase in the installation of well points and boreholes for municipal and private use. The national and provincial governments began the investigation and development of three major aquifers in the Western Cape. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the initial estimates for extraction were never realized as a result of poor water quality in the Cape Flats aquifer, power struggles between government parties and typical delays in service delivery in South Africa. In contrast, private groundwater consultants are benefiting from the high demand for groundwater use by residents installing private wells to alleviate the pressures of stringent water restrictions.

There are now two plausible scenarios for the groundwater use situation in the Western Cape: either we have not yet begun to abstract any significant amounts of groundwater, or we lack the data to show if we have. It is difficult to provide empirical evidence on whether groundwater levels are indeed declining and if it is a result of the drought (or abstraction or both). The trouble is that, unlike surface water storage where we can see the direct evidence of the drought, how much water is in an aquifer cannot be directly observed and must be estimated via an indirect method.

Estimating changes in groundwater availability usually requires detailed baseline data to be available, meaning that the state of a resource is relative to the baseline data available and can be over/underestimated as a result. One example of this was the subject of a controversial string of news articles released in the first months of 2019.

The Department of Water Affairs (DWS) released an interactive map of monitoring boreholes across South Africa which includes a record of normalized water levels (0% being the lowest measured water level in meters above sea level (masl) and 100% the highest measured water level) averaged over a province (Figure 1) . The graph shows a decline in average water levels in the last three years, but the record only goes back to 2009 and it is difficult to say if this a drought signal, a result of abstraction, or simply a natural fluctuation over a longer timescale.

Figure 1: Plot showing the severity of groundwater levels in the Western Cape of South Africa, averaged groundwater levels are plotted as a normalized percentage of the lowest and highest recorded levels in the borehole history. Credit: NIWIS DWA South Africa

Respected researcher and geochemist Dr. Meris Mills investigated historical data from the national groundwater archive and found that much of the data before 2015 were too sparse to be considered representative of the groundwater level. Data density and availability still is a major limiting factor in groundwater studies in South Africa.

Dr. Mills found that 55% of boreholes show statistically significant declining water levels and 63% of boreholes recorded an all time low water level after 2015 to late 2018 (since 1978). She concluded that fractured rock aquifers were the least affected and that 37% of boreholes with falling water levels were, in fact, not related to the recent drought. The cause for these declines in water levels are still unknown.

It is still difficult to quantify how much groundwater contributed to the recovery of Cape Town’s dam levels, if at all, but the resultant interest in long term groundwater supply has sparked debate surrounding local groundwater resources.

It is also clear that the effects of the drought on groundwater resources remain to be fully realized, however our groundwater, in general, is more resilient to change than we may think. Depending on the angle you look at it, initial findings may either indicate that groundwater is potentially a lifeline to cities crippled by a water supply crisis, or a time bomb with a delayed fuse.

Dowsing for interesting water science – what’s exciting at EGU 2019?

Dowsing for interesting water science – what’s exciting at EGU 2019?

Joint post by Sam Zipper (an EGU first-timer) and Anne Van Loon (an EGU veteran).


Every April, the European Geophysical Union (EGU) holds an annual meeting in Vienna. With thousands of presentations spread out over a full week, it can feel like you’re surrounded by a deluge of water-related options – particularly since the conference center is on an island!  To help narrow down the schedule! Here, we present a few water-related sessions and events each day that caught our attention. Feel free to suggest more highlights on Twitter (using #EGU19) or in the comments section!


Monday 8 April

Using R in Hydrology (SC1.44)

  • Short course 16:15-18:00.
  • This short course will cover R packages and tools for hydrology with both newcomers and experienced users in mind.

Innovative sensing techniques for water monitoring, modelling, and management: Satellites, gauges, and citizens (HS3.3).

  • Posters 16:15-18:00.
  • Curious about new approaches to hydrological science? This session features citizen science, crowdsourcing, and other new data collection techniques.

Plastics in the Hydrosphere: An urgent problem requiring global action


Tuesday 9 April

Nature-based solutions for hydrological extremes and water-resources management (HS5.1.2)

  • Posters 08:30-10:15Orals 10:45-12:30
  • Nature-based solutions are meant to be ‘living’ approaches to address water management challenges – this session will explore how they are used in both urban and rural areas.

HS Division meeting: If you want to know more about the organisation of the Hydrological Sciences Division of EGU (and you like free lunch) check this out!

Plinius Medal Lecture by Philip J. Ward: Global water risk dynamics


Wednesday 10 April

Large-sample hydrology: characterising and understanding hydrological diversity (HS2.5.2)

Sustainability and adaptive management of groundwater resources in a changing environment (HS8.2.1)

  • Posters 10:45-12:30, Orals 16:15-18:00.
  • This session features examples of groundwater sustainability (and challenges) all over the world, with a particular focus on Integrated Water Resources Management.

HS Division Outstanding ECS Lecture by Serena Ceola: Human-impacted rivers: new perspectives from global high-resolution monitoring

Geoscience Game Night (SCA1)


Thursday 11 April

How can Earth, Planetary, and Space scientists contribute to the UN SDGs? (ITS3.5)

  • PICOs 16:15-18:00.
  • Check out the fun PICO format – a combination of posters and talks – and help figure out what the role of earth science is in meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Urban groundwater: A strategic resource (HS8.2.7)

  • PICOs 10:45-12:30.
  • Urban groundwater is understudied relative to groundwater in agricultural areas – what do we know about urban groundwater, and what remains to be learned?

Henry Darcy Medal Lecture by Petra Döll: Understanding and communicating the global freshwater system


Friday 12 April

Innovative methods to facilitate open science and data analysis in hydrology (HS1.2.7)

  • PICOs 08:30-12:30
  • Learn about how you can make your science more open, whether you are an open science beginner or a long-time data sharer!

History of Hydrology (HS1.2.3)

Social Science methods for natural scientists (SC1.48)

  • Short course 14:00–15:45
  • This short course is for everyone who has some dealings with people in their research, such as stakeholders, citizen science, The aim of the session is to demystify Social Science and give practical tips & tricks.

Other Resources

Several other groups and blogs have also compiled water-relevant sessions. Make sure to check out their recommendations, as well!


Cover image source: https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2015/09/09/21/33/vienna-933500_960_720.jpg

 

Crowdfunding Science: What worked and what didn’t, who pledged and how did we reach them?

Crowdfunding Science: What worked and what didn’t, who pledged and how did we reach them?

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

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

___________________________________________________________

During March of 2017, myself and a group of students supervised by Dr. Jodie Miller of Stellenbosch University’s Earth Science department (South Africa) completed a 5-week long crowdfunding campaign. The Campaign raised R149 899.00 (€9800) from 120 backers that were both local and international. The campaign used several different mediums to attract potential backers. In this blog I will summarize what engagement methods we used and which ones worked the best.

Before I do this, I have also partitioned backers into three categories that describe to what degree they are separated from myself and the campaign team. Category 1 includes members of family, colleagues and close friends, that would likely contribute to your fundraising campaign regardless of how you marketed it or if they were confident you would succeed. Category 2 included people that myself or the campaign team either are acquainted with, have met before or have been suggested to us by a member of category 1. Category 3 backers are those that myself or my research team have no prior connection to and have been made aware of the campaign through 3rd party methods.

Half of backers fell into category 2 with the other half almost evenly distributed between categories 1 and 3. The distribution of funding received showed a similar distribution with a slightly skewed distribution toward category 3 backers contributing on average more than category 1 backers.

Engagement methods showed some interesting outcomes with direct contact contributing half of the backers as well as half of the funds raised, social media methods, which included Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, contributed the next largest portion of backers (a quarter) but was trumped by word of mouth backer’s average contribution amount. The remaining contributors were those who found out about the campaign through radio/newspaper interviews/articles, internet news and anonymous contributors for whom I have no data (Unknown).

Upon the completion of the campaign, backers were contacted to give feedback on what they believed was effective in the marketing strategy of the campaign. Although radio interviews did not produce a large amount of backers and funds, they produced the largest proportion of category 3 backers.

The data presented above only mentions the successful methods of engagement. In addition, there were several other attempts at fund raising that were somewhat less effective. These included: handing out flyers and putting up posters on campus and surround areas, approaching funding institutions as well as water related government and private entities for support and using mailing robots to send generic emails to large mailing lists.

Before the campaign had ended myself and two honours students had already left on our field sampling trip. In the final part of this blog series, I will break down, what we raised the funds for, what the groundwater sustainability project is trying to accomplish, and what has culminated as a direct result of postgraduate science crowdfunding.

___________________________________________________________

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.

An alternate career path for Groundwater Science-Engineering PhDs

An alternate career path for Groundwater Science-Engineering PhDs

Post by Jim Roy, Research Scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

_______________________________________________

A recent editorial in Nature highlighted the relative scarcity of academic positions available to graduating PhD students (Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects; 25 October, 2017). It notes that “it has been evident for years that international science is training many more PhD students than the academic system can support”. Firm figures aren’t available, but the article suggests maybe < 5 % will land a full-time academic job. That number may be somewhat higher for Groundwater-related disciplines, but the point remains that many should “make plans for a life outside academic science.”

However, it’s not all doom and gloom; indeed the article goes on to state that “it is good for PhD students and postdocs to pursue careers outside academia. Many will find similar challenges and rewards in industry.” There are a lot of options for Groundwater PhDs in industry and the plethora of supporting consulting firms: in mining, oil and gas, tunnel and dam engineering, municipal water supply, and contaminated site remediation, to list a few. However, there is an additional career path to consider, especially if you want to continue doing research – the government scientist, like me.

According to Wikipedea: A government scientist is a “scientist employed by a country’s government, either in a research-driven job (for example J. Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project), or for another role that requires scientific training and methods.” I’ll be focusing on those that do research (encompassing science and engineering), at least for much of their work.  And in this blog, I’ll be comparing their job duties and conditions to that of the professor, the research job with which the majority of students and post-docs are most familiar and traditionally aiming for.  It’s what I thought I would be too, coming out of grad school. Now it’s been 10 years since I took up my position as a Research Scientist focusing on groundwater contamination/quality with Environment Canada (now Environment and Climate Change Canada) – enough time to have experienced the ups and downs of the Canadian economy and the changing of the governing party, with repercussions of both for federal science priorities and budgets. The discussion below is based largely on my own experience, with insight gleaned from talking with colleagues in other government agenciesa over the years. It’s also highly generalized; the exact situations will vary by country, agency, and even by individual scientist, and may change over time. But hopefully it’s good enough for a light-hearted introduction to this alternate career area.

So here goes – my Top 10 list of how a government scientist job is different than academia:

  1. Freedom

                All scientists want to do work that is meaningful, but not all scientists get to choose on what topic that work will focus. In general, government scientists undertake research on issues of government priority that will advise on federal policy, regulations, and management activities, or that will provide service to important national industries or the public. So their work should have a meaningful impact on their country, if not more broadly; they just don’t get to decide on the priority topics (with exceptions for certain agencies or programs). However, often these priority topics are general enough that there is some range of projects that can fit within them, giving the scientist some flexibility on their research focus. Also, by advising their management and government representatives of important topics, government scientists may influence the direction of government priorities. Also, a government scientist may be afforded some leeway to work on additional topics outside these priority areas with a small fraction of their time. Government research usually targets short- to intermediate-term achievements, as fits the common government election cycle. However, some priority topics may last for decades – see North American Great Lakes eutrophication and algal blooms – waxing and waning in importance with the severity of the problem (costs!) in relation to the other pressures on the government (the economy!). For those who choose this career path – beware, though, when government priorities change, your research area may have to change too.

                For academics, their options are typically much broader, encompassing everything between applied research with immediate implications to research so basic that nobody can predict what may eventually come of it. The caveat to this is that an academic’s research topic often has to be deemed important enough and applied enough for “someone” to fund it. Industry funding is usually quite applied. But even government funding agencies, which are usually the primary support for more basic academic research, are increasingly imposing greater direction over the acceptable topics of proposed research. So perhaps this extra freedom isn’t so vast in practice.

  1. Trading places?

                Many government scientists are appointed to one or more adjunct professor positions at universities where their academic collaborators reside. These could be at nearby universities or those across the globe, and these locations may change over a career. It isn’t a paid position, but allows for closer research ties, including the (co-)supervision of undergraduate and graduate students, which benefits both the university and the government agency. Such positions may also afford access to laboratory space on campus or to additional research funding (held at the university, but directed by the adjunct professor).

                I haven’t heard of a case of the opposite arrangement – adjunct government scientist – but it might exist. Academics may pop in and be given some office space and support during a sabbatical while collaborating with a government scientist, but they’re really just temporary squatters.  If anyone out there knows of such a situation, feel free to post below.

  1. No teaching ( 🙂 or  🙁 )

                An obvious difference, this can be viewed as good or bad news depending on how much you like it.  I enjoyed teaching while I was a grad student. Many scientists give guest lectures or even short-courses at local universities. I taught an entire hydrogeology course for a university colleague during his sabbatical – so this can be an option for some in government who have an interest. Not having required teaching does provide greater flexibility in scheduling your work (especially field trips) and leaves more time for research and/or other important activities, like playing hockey or “family life”.

  1. Professors have grad students; government scientists have technicians

                The model for academic research is based on students and post-docs (a team of them often) carrying out the primary duties of research under the supervision of their professor. Certainly there are exceptions where the professor carries out their own study, but generally they lack the time for this. However, professors may have technicians too. It’s common for some to hire current or past students as technicians for a few years after they graduate, while (senior) professors may have dedicated technicians.

                In contrast, the model for government scientists is to have one or more dedicated and highly-experienced technicians available to assist in their research. Separate analytical laboratory or field teams may also be available. Although, with tightening budgets this technical support seems to be dwindling. It’s also fairly common for post-doctoral fellows to be hired by government agencies to work with their scientists – I’ve worked closely with 2 post-docs over my 10 years at Environment and Climate Change Canada. And what’s more, through adjunct professor positions or just collaborations, government scientists may also work with and (co-)supervise students from a partner university, just not to the same extent as for the academics.

                Thus, there can be a fair bit of overlap between these two models, especially when collaborations extend between academics and government researchers; and this integration, I think, makes for better science all around.

  1. Both are sought out by regulators and policy-makers

                Government scientists might have the inside track to the ear of policy-makers, but advice from academics is often gathered via workshops and contracts for reviews and reports as well.  Sadly, in large departments especially, some bureaucrats may not realize they have internal expertise in an area like hydrogeology. Which leads us to the next point…

  1. Governments typically do a poorer job of selling/showcasing their scientists

                Academics have much more freedom to showcase themselves and their work to the public, the science community, and business/industry. This can be through personalized research web pages, starting a blog (like this one!), and greater freedom to speak to the media (depending on the presiding-government’s rules for their scientists).  They also tend to attend more scientific conferences, where they and their students can advertise their scientific wares to a range of audiences.

  1. No consulting on the side

                Not all professors consult, but many do, which can provide a boost in income and lead to funding or in-kind support opportunities for their research or to job opportunities for their students. I haven’t heard of any government agencies that allow their scientists to consult as a side profession. In part, they want all your time devoted to your job working for them; but it also runs into “conflict-of-interest” concerns.  Now that doesn’t mean you can’t have a side-job (e.g., selling pottery, repairing dishwashers, stand-up comedy, teaching Yoga), but it can’t relate to your science profession.

  1. Border-crossing restrictions

                Working on national (or state/provincial) priority research commonly means government scientists work predominantly on sites in their own country (region), unless inter-jurisdictional agreements are made to combine or share research expertise. In contrast, academics are able and encouraged to work at international sites, which can expand the range of research topics and potentially funding sources available to them.

  1. Less competition for funding (except when the coffers are bare)

                Much of my funding is internal, requiring much shorter (i.e., less onerous) proposals than is typical for my academic colleagues seeking funding through centralized national funding agencies (e.g., NSERC in Canada) or from industry partners. My proposals may still go through a competitive process, though, sometimes with external reviews.  How substantive this internal funding is compared to academic funding will depend on the agency, how science is viewed by the current government, the state of the economy, and the importance of the topic. When internal research budgets are tight, there may not be sufficient funding to go around, especially for those not working directly on key priorities. Of note, some government agencies allow their scientists who have adjunct status at a university to apply for the same set of grants as academics. Whether such proposals are frowned upon or judged differently by funding agencies is up for debate.

  1. Joy in their work

                Frustrations with too-much time devoted to administrative tasks and seeking funding are prevalent in both government and academic research areas. But still, the opportunity to do research on interesting, challenging, and important topics at the edge of our current scientific understanding brings enjoyment / fulfillment to both government scientists and academics. We all feel that slight quickening of the pulse when “the data is in” and we learn if the expected outcomes were realized or (better yet) something different (new!) might be going on.  It’s why we do what we do. In hydrogeology, there remains much to explore, especially at the inter-disciplinary mixing zones around the edges of our specialty. And we’ll need new concepts, new methods, and new connections to move our understanding forward. Scientists from academia and government and industry and other groups can all contribute to this quest. For graduating PhDs, hopefully this leaves you with multiple career path options for joining in the fun.

a In Canada, besides Environment and Climate Change Canada there are also PhD-holders doing groundwater-related research in Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the National Research Council. In the U.S., much great groundwater research is carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey, with research also carried out by other federal and state agencies. Many other countries have similar geological or environmental departments or agencies with PhDs doing some or much research.  You can look these up on the web, though often government scientist pages aren’t nearly as good as those for academia.

_______________________________________________

Jim Roy is a Research Scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada. His current research focuses on: groundwater contaminant impacts on surface waters and aquatic ecosystems, groundwater contributions of phosphorus to surface waters, potential leakage of Alberta oil sands tailings ponds to the Athabasca River, and groundwater and gas systems. Find out more about Jim by clicking on the links below.

Twitter Page | Research Profile

Western water wells are going dry

Western water wells are going dry

Post by Scott Jasechko, Assistant Professor of Water Resources at the University of Calgary, in Canada, and by Debra PerronePostdoctoral Research Scholar at Stanford University, in the United States of America.

__________________________________________________

Wells are excavated structures, dug, drilled or driven into the ground to access groundwater for drinking, cleaning, irrigating, and cooling. We recently mapped groundwater wells across the 17 western states [1], where half of US groundwater pumping takes place. The western states contain aquifers key to United States food production, including the Central Valley of California and the central High Plains.

Millions of water wells exist in the western US, alone. About three-quarters of these wells have been constructed to supply water for household uses. Nearly one-quarter are used to irrigate crops or support livestock. A smaller fraction (<5 %) supports industry [1].

Western US water well depths vary widely (Fig. 1). The great majority (90%) of western US well depths range between 12m and 186m. The median western US well depth is 55m. Wells with depths exceeding 200m tap deep aquifers bearing fresh groundwater, such as the basal formations in the Denver Basin aquifer system, and the deeper alluvium in the California Central Valley. Shallow wells are common along perennial rivers, such as the Yellowstone, Platte, and Willamette Rivers.

Fig. 1. Western USA wells depths. Each point represents the location of a domestic, industrial or agricultural well. Blue colors indicate well depths of less than the median (55m), and red-black colors indicate well depths exceeding the median.

The wide variability of well depths across the west (Fig. 1) emphasizes the value of incorporating well depth data when assessing the likelihood that a groundwater well may go dry.

We know wells are going dry in the western US: journalists have identified numerous communities whose well-water supplies have been impacted by declining water tables [2-4]. While several studies have assessed adverse impacts of groundwater storage declines—such as streamflow depletion [5], coastal aquifer salinization [6], eustatic sea level rise [7], land subsidence [8]—few studies address the question: where have wells have gone dry?

Here we put forth a first estimate of the number of western US wells that have dried up (Fig. 2). We compared well depths to nearby well water level measurements made in recent years (2013-2015). We define wells that have likely gone dry as those with depths shallower than nearby measured well water levels (i.e., our estimate of the depth to groundwater).

Fig. 2. Schematic of a well that has gone dry (left) and a well with a bottom beneath the water table (blue) that may still produce groundwater (right). Even wells with submerged bottoms may be impacted by declines in groundwater storage because (i) pumps are situated above the well bottom, (ii) pumping induces a localized drawdown of the water table in unconfined portions of aquifer systems, (iii) well yields may decline if the hydrostatic pressure above the well base declines.

We estimate that between 0.5% and 6 % of western US wells have gone dry [1]. Dry wells are common in some areas where groundwater storage has declined, such as the California Central Valley [9] and parts of the central and southern High Plains aquifer [10,11]. We also identify lesser-studied regions where dry wells are abundant, such as regions surrounding the towns of Moriarty and Portales in central and eastern New Mexico.

Dry wells threaten the convenience of western US drinking water supplies and irrigated agriculture. Our findings emphasize that dry wells constitute yet another adverse impact of groundwater storage losses, in addition to streamflow depletion [5], seawater intrusion [6], sea level rise [7], and land subsidence [8].

Some wells are more resilient to drying (i.e., deeper) and others more vulnerable (i.e., shallower). We show that typical agricultural wells are deeper than typical domestic water wells in California’s Central Valley and Kansas’ west-central High Plains [1]. Our finding implies that reductions to groundwater storage will disproportionately dry domestic water wells compared to agricultural water wells, because domestic wells tend to be shallower in these areas. However, in other areas, such as the Denver Basin, typical domestic wells are deeper than typical agricultural wells. This comparison of different groundwater users’ well depths may help to identify water wells most vulnerable to groundwater depletion, should it occur.

So, what option does one have when a well goes dry?

Groundwater users whose wells have gone dry may consider a number of potential, short-term remedies, some of which may include (i) drilling a new well or deepening an existing well, (ii) connecting to alternative water sources (e.g., water conveyed by centralized infrastructure; water flowing in nearby streams), or (iii) receiving water delivered by truck.

Drilling new wells, deepening existing wells or connecting to alternate water supplies is often costly or unavailable, raising issues of inequality [12]. Receiving water deliveries via truck [13] is but a stopgap, one that may exist in parts of the western United States but not elsewhere, especially if high-use activities (e.g., irrigated agriculture) are intended [14]. In places where water table declines are caused primarily by unsustainable groundwater use, a long-term solution to drying wells may be managing groundwater to stabilize storage or create storage surpluses.

Realizing such sustainable groundwater futures where wells are drying up is a critical challenge. Doing so will be key to meeting household water needs and conserving irrigated agriculture practices for future generations [15]. We conclude that groundwater wells are going dry, highlighting that declining groundwater resources are impacting the usefulness of existing groundwater infrastructure (i.e., wells). The drying of groundwater wells could be considered more frequently when measuring the impacts of groundwater storage declines.

__________________________________________________

Scott Jasechko is an assistant professor of water resources at the University of Calgary. In November 2017, Scott joins the faculty of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Find out more about Scott’s research at : http://www.isohydro.ca

 

 

 

Debra Perrone is a postdoctoral research scholar at Stanford University with a duel appointment in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Woods Institute for the Environment. In November 2017, Debra will join the Environmental Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara as an assistant professor.

Find out more about Debra at: http://debraperrone.weebly.com

 

__________________________________________________

References

[1] Perrone D and Jasechko S 2017 Dry groundwater wells in the western United States. Environmental Research Letters 12, 104002 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8ac0. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8ac0

[2] James I, Elfers S, Reilly S et al 2015 The global crisis of vanishing groundwaters. in: USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/groundwater/

[3] Walton B 2015 In California’s Central Valley, Dry wells multiply in the summer heat. in: Circle of Blue http://www.circleofblue.org/2015/world/in-californias-central-valley-dry-wells-multiply-in-the-summer-heat/

[4] Fleck J 2013 When the well runs dry. in: Albuquerque Journal https://www.abqjournal.com/216274/when-the-well-runs-dry.html

[5] Barlow P M and Leake S A 2012 Streamflow depletion by wells—understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow. US Geological Survey Circular 1376 (Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey)

[6] Barlow P M, Reichard E G 2010 Saltwater intrusion in coastal regions of North America. Hydrogeol. J. 18 247-260.

[7] Konikow L F 2011 Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 L17401

[8] Galloway D, Jones D R and Ingebritsen S E 1999 Land subsidence in the United States. US Geological Survey Circular 1182 (Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey)

[9] Famiglietti J S, Lo M, Ho S L, Bethune J, Anderson K J, Syed T H, Swenson S C, Linage C R D and Rodell M 2011 Satellites measure recent rates of groundwater depletion in California’s Central Valley. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 L03403

[10] McGuire V L 2014 Water-level Changes and Change in Water in Storage in the High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 2013 and 2011–13  (Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey)

[11] Scanlon B R, Faunt C C, Longuevergne L, Reedy R C, Alley W M, Mcguire V L and McMahon P B 2012 Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109 9320–5

[12] Famiglietti J S 2014 The global groundwater crisis. Nature Climate Change 4 945-948.

[13] The Times Editorial Board 2016 When it comes to water, do not keep on trucking. in: LA Times http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-hauling-20160729-snap-story.html

[14] James I 2015 Dry springs and dead orchards. in: Desert Sun http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2015/12/10/morocco-groundwater-depletion-africa/76788024/

[15] Bedford L 2017 Irrigation, innovation saving water in Kansas. in: agriculture.com http://www.agriculture.com/machinery/irrigation-equipment/irrigation-innovation-saving-water-in-kansas

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.

What is the volume (in kegs) of groundwater is stored on earth?

What is the volume (in kegs) of groundwater is stored on earth?

Last week I gave a ‘blue drinks’  presentation for a networking evening for the Victoria chapter of the Canadian Water Resources Association entitled “How much groundwater is on earth?” based on our paper from Nature Geoscience last year. Since the night was hosted at Philips Brewery, an awesome local brewery (who makes Blue Buck, the perfect blue drink, and lots of other great beer), I decided to calculate how many kegs of groundwater we have on earth or said another way “what is the volume (in kegs) of groundwater is stored on earth?

So this blog post is a skill-testing question for all the nerds out there – answer below in the comments knowing:
a keg is 58.7 liters = 5.87e-11 km3 so there are 1.7 e+10 kegs in a km3.

Hint it is more than 1.7 e+10 kegs…. and one person during the evening got it almost correct.

Research mini-conference in fourth year groundwater class

Research mini-conference in fourth year groundwater class

Fourth year and graduate students led a fun mini-conference during class in Groundwater Hydrology (CIVE 445, Civil Engineering at University of Victoria) yesterday. Local consulting and government hydrogeologists joined, making the students both nervous and excited to be presenting to professionals with up to forty years of groundwater experience. The presentations were the culmination of a term-long independent group research project – they also write a research paper (which is peer-reviewed by their classmates). And the mini-conference culminated in beers at the grad club, unfortunately drinking beer brewed with surface water.

It seemed like a win-win-win for everyone. The students loved meeting and presenting to, and being grilled by, the people who had mapped the aquifer they were modeling or asked if their model is based on any real data. The practitioners loved seeing the new ideas and enthusiasm of the students. And I loved seeing the interaction and learning.

For any prof reading this, here is a description of the Group Research Project and the conference poster:

 

 

 

 

 

Crop kites

Crop kites

Post by WaterUnderground contributor Mikhail Smilovic. Mikhail is a PhD  candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering at McGill University, in Quebec.

Crops use water for photosynthesis, absorbing nutrients, and transpiration, or the plant-equivalent of sweating. A crop may experience water-stress if the soil surrounding the roots is not adequately wet, and this stress will affect the crop differently depending on the crop’s stage of growth. Irrigation is the watering of plants to ultimately avoid such water-stress.

Non-irrigated crops are more vulnerable to intervals of dry and hot weather, and the increasing unpredictability of a changing climate will further complicate other crop management tools, such as choosing different cultivars (the particular variety of crop, some which may deal with certain stresses in an improved way) or changing planting dates.

Irrigated crops do not experience water stress (they may in fact experience water stress under a non-perfect irrigation system, but forgive this for now), but the water is necessarily derived from somewhere else. This somewhere else may also experience water withdrawals from municipalities, industry, and other agriculture. The source of water may be underground, or water from a river, lake, or spring, but a connection between both underground and surface waters shares with us that water removed from a system somewhere will have a response somewhere. This somewhere may very well be an ecosystem. Irrigation may also be costly related to the abstraction, transportation, and on-farm distribution.

Between non-irrigated and irrigated is a curious place where we can increase the resiliency of our agricultural systems to periods of drought and heat with limited irrigation, while allowing crops to experience well-timed water stress. Agricultural productivity or yield is determined as the amount of crop produced per area of land, say 3 tons/hectare for wheat. When water is a limiting factor, we would be sensible to also consider water productivity, that is the ratio of crop yield and water use, or, the amount of crop produced per drop of water. The practices of limited irrigation, also known as supplemental or deficit irrigation, makes an effort to increase this water productivity.

This space in-between non-irrigated and irrigated, however, has been often poorly explored or simplified. Crop kites is a novel tool to determine and quantify the potential agricultural and water productivity associated with different irrigation practices. This is important for regions interested in shifting investments into or away from irrigation, as well as for researchers interested in evaluating limited irrigation practices as initiatives to establish food and water security, both currently and with changing climates.

A first thought might be, if a crop uses three quarters of the water than it would under ideal conditions, does the crop produce three quarters as much as the crop under ideal conditions? In fact, the answer depends very much on when this water is used.

Let us take the example of winter wheat in northern Africa. Winter wheat can be broadly characterized into five different growth stages. We can illustrate water use throughout the season with the following figure:

Water use is represented by the bottom blue colour, and the associated deficit is represented with the upper orange colour – the top line of the shape is the amount of water the crop would use under ideal conditions on the associated day. This example shows a 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40% deficit occurring in stages 1 to 5 respectively, representing a 78% water use across the entire growing season as compared to ideal conditions. Understanding both the amount of water used and when the water was used, we are able to determine the associated yield, for this example, we reach 68% of potential yield.

Now, what if we were to simulate the yield using all reasonable water uses and all reasonable distributions of the timing of this water use? The resulting shape is our crop kite, with each point associated with a water use distributed throughout the growing season in a particular way:

 

This shape illustrates the incredible range of yields associated with each water use; for example, 80% of potential water use relates to between ~20 and 90% of potential crop yield.

Water distributed through canals are often delivered according to a schedule, and not necessarily related to growth-stage sensitivities or actual weather. From the crop kite we can derive estimates on how the crop yield will be affected by adopting certain irrigation schedules. We elaborate on this with three examples: S1) water use is distributed to optimize yield, S2) the deficit is distributed evenly across all growth stages, S3) water is used preferentially for the earlier growth stages. The resulting crop-water production functions are illustrated in the following figure:

 

Although the first schedule optimizing for crop yield may be in line with the motivations of the irrigating farmer, it is often an unreasonable assumption for farmers delivered water according to predetermined schedules, but may be appropriate for farmers irrigating with a privately owned well. Evaluating the potential of supplemental irrigation necessitates estimating the ability of farmers to manage both the amount and timing of irrigation applications. Otherwise, non-reasonable assumptions may be used to evaluate and over promise estimates for agricultural production, with the fault not in the practice of limited irrigation, but in the criteria used to evaluate the system.

Crop kites demonstrate the wide range of water use-crop yield relationships, and can be used to evaluate the potential of limited irrigation to shift both food and water security.

 

Mikhail Smilovic is a PhD candidate at McGill University and the University of Victoria . Mikhail’s work investigates the interplay between foot security, water resources, and energy, and evaluating and integrating initiatives that increase agricultural production while reducing demands on water resources.

Just in case you weren’t sure…groundwater flow around a fault zone is complex!

Just in case you weren’t sure…groundwater flow around a fault zone is complex!

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

Groundwater is the water that collects underground in pores and cracks in the rock. Understanding, protecting and sustaining groundwater flow is critical because over two billion people drink groundwater every day. The flow of groundwater can be impacted by geologic structures, such as fractures and faults. A fracture is a break in the rock; a fault is a break in the rock where the rocks move relative to each other (ie. one rock will move up, one rock will move down, as seen in Figure 1).

CTF1

Figure 1. Diagram of a thrust fault

Faults can act as barriers slowing down groundwater flow, they can be a conduit speeding up groundwater flow, or amazingly they can act both slow it down and speed it up!

How groundwater moves through these rock structures is difficult to directly observe because it all happens underground and rarely exposed on the surface. The Champlain thrust fault at Lone Rock Point in Burlington, Vermont, provides a unique opportunity to study groundwater flow around a fault because approximately 1 km of the fault is exposed along the edge of Lake Champlain (Figure 2). Here, an older rock

CTF2

Figure 2: Photograph of the Champlain Thrust fault at Lone Rock Point, Burlington, Vermont. Note the person at the bottom right for scale

(yellow) is thrust over a younger rock (black). No one has studied groundwater flow around this fault in detail, so we hoped to find out a basic understanding of the relationship between the fault and groundwater flow at this location.

To understand groundwater flow around this fault, we did three things: 1) we walked along the fault and made note of changes in the fault (ie. the width of the fault, the angle of the fault, the shape of the fault, etc.); (2) we looked for areas where groundwater was leaking from the rock surface (this is known as groundwater seepage – we wanted to see if there was a relationship between where groundwater was leaking out and the changes in the angle/width of the fault); and (3) we drilled three wells and then pumped water out of these wells. We pumped water out of one well and measured the water level in the other wells – this gives you an idea of how the groundwater moves. For example, if you pump water out of one well and the water level in a nearby well declines drastically, this suggests that the water is easily moving through the rock. So if you’re pumping water from the fault and that happens, then the fault is most likely channeling water along the fault. If the opposite happens, then the fault may be acting as a barrier to groundwater flow.

We found four main geologic structures at the Champlain thrust fault: (1) the main fault, (2) an area where the fault splayed into many smaller faults, (3) areas where the fault thickness increased to 3 m, and (4) areas where there are traces of older, cemented fault rock (Fig. 3).

CTF3

Figure 3. Most important structures we observed at the Champlain thrust fault. the thin dashed white line follows the main fault, thicker black dashed line follows the main structural features. Hanging wall is the older rock; footwall is the younger rock. a) main fault; b) fault splay; c) increased fault thickness; and d) older abandoned fault rock

We found 19 areas along the rock where groundwater was leaking out of the cliff (Note: This was done in the winter so the groundwater was frozen into ice). We found that most of the groundwater seepage occurred in the younger (black) rock, with a few at the fault and where the fault splays out into smaller faults (Figure 4).

CTF4

Figure 4. Seeps located a) at the intersection of a multi-stranded fault structure and b) at the fault core. Note measuring tape for scale (1 foot)

While drilling the two wells at the site, we had two unexpected problems. One, there was a large difference between the depth of the fault in the two wells. The fault depth in one well was 27.4m, while in the other well (which was 10 m away), the fault depth was 70 m. This suggests that there must be another fault in between these two wells that offsets the fault depth. The other unexpected complication was that we drilled into 1.8 m and 2.1 m caves beneath the ground. Caves are common features in limestone, but the rock at our site is a dolostone, which is usually more resistant, so caves are an interesting find! The pumping test revealed a complex system. Further testing is needed to better refine these results.

Combining the data from the surface and subsurface observations, we created a preliminary three-dimensional model of the Champlain thrust fault (Figure 5). Where the rock is exposed at the edge of Lake Champlain, the fault thickness varies, splaying out into smaller faults and showing traces of older fault rock. Groundwater is leaking out of the younger rock (footwall) and along the fault. At the well-site, the fault is offset by another fault and caves are present. The three approaches we used (geology, seepage, pumping tests) all revealed different aspects of the Champlain Thrust fault, and exposed the complexity of groundwater flow around faults.

 

CTF5

Figure 5. Three-dimensional conceptual model of the Champlain thrust fault.